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

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Well...Jerry IS originally from ARKANSAS ! Maybe he visited the 'holes back when he lived there and woomby's Daddy / brother and Momma / SEEster were running their family bid'ness out of them !

WombRaider: The highlighted portion is completely hyperbolic bullshit.

First, in order to dismiss a fact base reasoned, logical argument as "hyperbolic bullshit," quotation marks used strongly, you have to advance a fact based, reasoned, logical counterargument proving it as such.

You've colossally failed to do so.

Second, I based my argument on an extensive study of Western civilization history, as well as the history that took place in the Middle East. This includes reading of the following text:

Murders on the Nile, The World Trade Center and Global Terror, by J. B. Bell
Holy War Incorporated: inside the Secret World of Osama Bin Laden, Peter Bergen
Unrestricted Warfare; China's Master Plan to Destroy America, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
Various readings of books, and articles, centering on the above topics.

Also, a viewing of countless videos, originating in the Middle East, of religious leaders proclaiming that Islam will ultimately rule the world.

Included in this extensive research and experiences are the first hand observations that I made during my combat deployment to Iraq.

Anybody that claims that the argument that I've presented based on this research and experience as "hyperbolic bullshit," is so full of shit that he has his head shoved so far up his ass that he needs a glass belly button to see.

I have accurately predicted, based on the above knowledge, the actions that these radicals would take. Back in 2004, I accurately predicted what the insurgency in Iraq would do over the course of the Iraq war. I was personally in Iraq to see the last part of my prediction come true.

I was able to do that, because, I argued from the facts.

Moving further back in time, back in the mid-1980s, I predicted that the Soviet Union would disintegrate. In the late 1980s, I predicted that we'd be fighting wars in Central America and in the Middle East. From the prediction of the war that we would be fighting in the Middle East, I accurately predicted the location.

I wrote that as a paper during my senior year in high school. When I subsequently visited the high school in the early 1990s, I ran into the teacher that I had submitted that paper to. She asked me if I still had that paper, she was impressed by how accurate my predictions were.

I make the predictions, that I've made on this thread, with the same or stronger confidence that I made the previous predictions. As always, I base that on the facts surrounding the situation.

When someone makes these predictions, based on the facts, anybody with honor and integrity would respect that. You, on the other hand, have none of that. You can't handle the fact that I destroyed you in argument, as well as destroyed those on your side of the argument in argument.

Understand that simply dismissing what I say as "hyperbolic bullshit,' does not constitute refutation. It constitutes you demonstrating an immature, childish, spoiled brat attitude. It speaks volumes when you speak to me that way. That tells me that no matter how much you want to think that you "won," I destroyed your argument, as well as that of your allies, in a way that forces you to see that your side and you are wrong.

Subconsciously, you're acting like you lost, and you know it.

WombRaider: Anytime you start saying it's either one thing or the other, you've fucking lost.

WRONG, as usual. How can you look at yourself in the mirror by embracing erroneous information and conclusions?

First, I've never lost an online debate. I've been debating retards like you since I came back from OIF I. Not a single one of you, who have tried to debate me, has come anywhere near to "defeating" me. Not even by a longshot.

The erroneous opinion that I have "lost," quotation marks used strongly, is laughable at best, and is subject to a headshake as well as a rightful suspicion of your judgement at worst.

Second, you win a debate via a fact based reasoned, logical argument. You've failed to do that in the face of my consistently doing that. Likewise, you lose a debate by failing to do such. Your criteria, for determining "defeat" does not meet the criteria for determining who wins and who loses an argument.

Your reply to me indicates that you lost, as it's an emotional attack on me instead of a factual, reasoned, logical response that would've effectively "proven" me "wrong." If you bothered digging for the facts, then presenting an argument, you'd be supporting me, as the facts dictate such.

You can't mount a fact based, reasoned, logical argument if you're clueless about the topic that you're trying to debate. I've found that on this thread, every single one of you, that is debating the argument that I'm countering, are clueless about current events surrounding the area that we are debating, world history pertaining to Western Civilization and Middle East Civilization, and other topic areas that are required before you could even jump in and debate this topic responsibly.

Third, I don't jump into a debate until a major requirement is met. I have to know for a fact that I know far more about the topic than the opposition does. This is gained via extensive research/study of the topic, as well as experience in many, or all, the aspects of the topic that I'm debating.

So, if you find yourself thinking that I'm "wrong," quotation marks used strongly and laughable, understand that I'm not the one that's "wrong." If you had any sense of academic responsibility and honesty, you would examine the merit my argument based on the facts. That examination would show you that I'm right, and that the assumption that you hold now is wrong.

That, in turn, would lead you into re-examining your original position with the view of holding on to the factual position. You'd save your credibility if you do that.

If you plow on and continue to argue with us, you lose more of what little credibility you have left. Every time you, or some other idiot tries to argue against something I said, I'm reminded of those idiot military imposters who try to argue against official records countering their phony claims.

You lost the debate the moment I replied to you earlier in this thread. You continued to lose with this reply. Your side lost the moment I replied to them.

WombRaider: You say they will never give up and then you say that we are in a position to win. It can't be both. If they are never going to give up, how do you achieve ultimate victory? [STRAWMAN]

Stay with me now, FOCUS! Pay attention to what you read, with the intentions of understanding what I said. That shouldn't be difficult given the fact that a 5th grader has actually read something I generated using similar structure, and a similar level of English, as the posts that I've generated here.

What I said:

"Only one outcome can happen at the end of the struggle that we are in. Either we succeed in the plans that we started the last decade, or the radical elements succeed in converting United States, and the rest of Western civilization and the world, into a series of radical Islamic caliphates/emirates." -- herfacechair

Now, time to put this in context with everything else I said in this thread:

"Our enemies understand that in order to defeat America, they had to erode the American electorate's will to fight." -- herfacechair regarding the Vietnam War

"Right now, they see weakness coming from us. They only understand strength. This is why Qaddafi came clean with his WMD, and started working with us when it came to stomping out terrorists. He saw what happened to Saddam, and knew that that could be him in the future." -- herfacechair

I also said this:

"Even the Iranians temporarily halted their nuclear/WMD program in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

"I guarantee you that if we were to deploy in mass against ISIS, and they were to taste their first full-scale battle against us, that their days would be numbered. It would not be long before we had them running, but not before we dropped thousands of their fighters as dead bodies.

"I know this for fact, because I get a good laugh at what they consider as "combat tactics," as seen in their videos.

"If they were to see their own mortality, while experiencing direct combat against US ground forces, they would run and their efforts will collapse." -- herfacechair

Again, FOCUS! Pay attention!

What do all those quotes talk about? Hint, what I said, which you also quoted in your reply:

It's similar to the philosophy that I'm using in debates like this. Where the opposition hopes for an end to the debate, I just see this from a cyclical standpoint. No endgame, just take the opposition apart every time they reply. Wait for the next series of replies, then take those replies apart, repeat cycle. - herfacechair

Every time I've applied this strategy, in a thread that ultimately didn't get locked before I could finish the debate, the opposition wisely gave up... after demonstrating an intent to keep arguing with the false hope that I'd "give up."

Now, go back and read all of these quotes 10 times, then go back and read them out another 5 times. Burn those statements into your head so that you could actually understand what I'm saying... hopefully.

There is a shelf life to their will to keep fighting us. They only understand strength, and they capitalize on demonstrations of weakness. If we do what you people argue we should do, they will sense weakness and will continue their fight. If we go in and crush ISIS, and actually support our allies in the region, we'd go a long way to destroying their momentum.

Had Odumba followed the military's advice, with regards to Iraq, ISIS would've never succeeded with their invasion of parts of Iraq. The Iraqi military would've crushed them, effectively fighting our war for us by proxy. Had Odumba did what a Republican would've done with regards to Syria, ISIS would've never gained traction to be a threat in the first place.

Yes, topple the regime, and back the elements there friendly to the west in order to get a democratic movement going on in Syria... what an outrageous concept!

If you're starting to get a headache, because your brain isn't used to thinking, take some Advil or something equivalent.

If you have two forces fighting each other with no intention of giving up, one of them will eventually give up, this is a fact that repeats itself throughout history.

LustyLad accurately identified what I was talking about with his mouse analogy. He knew what I was saying, you didn't. You subsequently failed to address what I was actually talking about.

We saw that in Iraq, we'd see it again. I know that for a fact. Only a braindead idiot, that can't understand English written so that even a 5th grader could understand what's being said, would miss that.

Obviously, the school system that pushed you up the grades to graduation failed you. Go back and sue them to get your local government its money back.

WombRaider: You're no different than anyone else on here, you just take a lot longer to say it.

Those on my side of the argument, on this thread, destroyed your argument as well as that of those on your side of the argument. So yes, in that sense, when it comes to destroying you guys in debate and when it comes to consistently winning, to you mindless drones losing, I'm no different from the others.

Except, I provide more facts and details in the process of doing it; hence, the longer replies.

WombRaider: That isn't what he said. You're stuck on stupid. And it's you who is constantly claiming an 'ass-handing'.

Wrong, that's what I was arguing. Your reply to me, above, reflected your failure to understand what I was arguing. Instead, you knit picked what I said, then you addressed something I wasn't arguing. In other words, like the WTF, you advanced a strawman argument by attacking a strawman of my argument, and not my actual argument.

The rat analogy comes closer to what I was talking about, and reflects the statement of someone that understood what I was arguing. Unlike you, lustylad read my posts with the intention of understanding what I was saying. There's an excellent chance that he saw the posts that I made, where I made the quotes, included on this post, that indicate where I was going with that statement.

It's like I said, they only understand strength. We go over there in mass and hammer them, force them to see their mortality, and not give up our objectives, they will run elsewhere. When I was there, in Iraq, the terrorists were running from the Iraqi military. Had Obama displayed proper leadership, and supported the US military and not have made it hard to obtain the SOFA needed for the US military to continue that momentum. By now, the Iraqi military could've been in condition to be fighting the war on terrorism for us by proxy. They would've done just that by repelling ISIS at their borders.

The next logical phase, after the winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan, is a phase involving the training of standing armies fighting terrorism in their own countries. This was to take place mainly in Africa, as well as in Asia. Had we capitalized on the Arab spring, this would've also been happening across the Middle East where demonstrations broke out before.

Historically, a standing army got stronger, militia units, like the terrorists, have received increasingly poor results in the battlefield. This is why George Bush said that this conflict was going to take generations. It would've taken time, but eventually we would've knocked the wind out of their sails.

But, as with the Democrat administrations we've had since Kennedy, the Democrats love to pull the victory out of the jaws of defeat.

Again, go back and reread what I said, where I told you to read what I said 10 times, followed by my telling you to re-write the same things.

WombRaider: That's budget. He said 'spending'. That's not the same thing. What about the shit that's off the books?

You don't have a clue about spending, don't you? When the military is budgeted a certain amount of money, that's all the money that the military has to spend during the fiscal year. If the military is allotted $600 billion dollars, for a fiscal year, that's all they're going to spend for the fiscal year.

That's what the budget is, what the military is able to spend during a fiscal year. Also, there is no "shit that's off the books." I was involved with finance earlier in my military career. All public funds, that the military spends, are recorded. They are recorded down to the penny. Even those miscellaneous funds are recorded down to the penny.

When we received additional public funding, we recorded it. We recorded what came in, and what was disbursed. To do otherwise would've been illegal. There is no "secret expenditure program" that allowed us to spend public money without putting these expenditures on the books.

Ran out of money? You're SOL. A whole bunch of training isn't going to happen until the new fiscal year.

Now, there have been irregularities where money was being spent "off the books." Those people got caught and ended up in jail. Gotta love the frequent audit program.

Auditors would come in, tape your safe combo over, then demand that you produce your last DD Form 2657, Disbursing Officer's Daily Statement of Accountability. The Deputy Disbursing Officers, the Disbursing Agents, etc., weren't off the hook either, as their safe's got tapped over as well, and they were required to provide their DD Form 2665.

So no, this, money spent "off the books" is nonsense, and even if it was happening, wouldn't account for much of the "secret deficit" that flghtr65 talked about.

WombRaider: I think you give them too much credit.

Wrong, he's being realistic. If a Swedish man could start something, related to nuclear technology, on his kitchen stove, only a fool would assume that a federal government, with more resources, would "not" be able to create and detonate an atomic/nuclear bomb using simpler technologies than what the United States, Russia, China, etc., are using.

When dealing with a hostile, always assume and prepare for the worst.

Smile, not only did I just hand you your arse, I forced it down your throat. How does your arse taste? Originally Posted by herfacechair

I don't know what you predicted in 2004 and don't much give a fuck. As for off the books spending, I'm referring to the black budget. These are not things people will request forms for. How did it go training the Iraqi army? Make them face their mortality? They want to fucking die. Dying for their religion is the highest way for them to go. You're simply making a lot of bullshit predictions and knitting together half a story with what little information you have. If you were an expert, you wouldn't be on a hooker board. Sell crazy somewhere else.

I don't know what you predicted in 2004 and don't much give a fuck. As for off the books spending, I'm referring to the black budget. These are not things people will request forms for. How did it go training the Iraqi army? Make them face their mortality? They want to fucking die. Dying for their religion is the highest way for them to go. You're simply making a lot of bullshit predictions and knitting together half a story with what little information you have. If you were an expert, you wouldn't be on a hooker board. Sell crazy somewhere else. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Bet he can't sell crazy ( and tu boca Y cola ! ) like you do down at the 'holes woomby ! Just LOOK at all those franchise locations your getting with your "community service " !!!

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

THAT is Fukin' funny!

Tragic, but none the less funny.

THAT is Fukin' funny!

Tragic, but none the less funny. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Jackie....folks wanted us to continue the Vietnam War...now we are trading partners with them. almost 60k troops killed ... yet we are trading partners now.

The folks that hate us in Iran are the Religious Nuts ... free trade with America will hurt their power.

The special interests groups that profit from war are the one's against this deal and have spent millions convincing the average American that it is bad. It is bad like ending the Vietnam War was bad.

Jackie....folks wanted us to continue the Vietnam War...now we are trading partners with them. almost 60k troops killed ... yet we are trading partners now.

The folks that hate us in Iran are the Religious Nuts ... free trade with America will hurt their power.

The special interests groups that profit from war are the one's against this deal and have spent millions convincing the average American that it is bad. It is bad like ending the Vietnam War was bad. Originally Posted by WTF

So what you are saying is we need to go to war with Iran in order to befriend them?

Sorry. I had a WTF moment.

So what you are saying is we need to go to war with Iran in order to befriend them?

Sorry. I had a WTF moment. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I think this proxy war was enough....the majority of folks in both countries do not benefit from war.

Only a select few. That is who is beating the drums for war on both sides.

Jackie....folks wanted us to continue the Vietnam War...now we are trading partners with them. almost 60k troops killed ... yet we are trading partners now.

The folks that hate us in Iran are the Religious Nuts ... free trade with America will hurt their power.

The special interests groups that profit from war are the one's against this deal and have spent millions convincing the average American that it is bad. It is bad like ending the Vietnam War was bad. Originally Posted by WTF

I hope you are right, that being, the majority of Iranians will in time reject the religious zealots, and adopt a more secular view of life, promoting individule thought and freedom and allowing individules to decide what they wish to believe in, or choose not too.

But when the alternative is,...."believe the way we say or die", the road can get a little bumpy on the way to entering the the 21st century.

I think this proxy war was enough....the majority of folks in both countries do not benefit from war.

Only a select few. That is who is beating the drums for war on both sides. Originally Posted by WTF

Make up your mind. The Vietnam War and the other war you progressivetards quote, the Japanese war, were direct and very bloody. Now you are backing off.

BTW, we've never been in a major war with China and are constantly threatening each other and they are our biggest trading partner.

Please think things thru before you post.

Gonad, you are one dumb motherfucker.

Of course we need to sacrifice thousands of our own people in order to succeed in global trade. (Scoffing at the dipshittery). Just think how much better shape we'll be in if we bomb Beijing.

Now that this is a done deal, and it is a done deal, what's your REAL objection? Fuck Obama? Fuck the Iranians? Fuck The Mexicans?

For a change you and your ilk are howling in your spare time.

I think this proxy war was enough....the majority of folks in both countries do not benefit from war.

Only a select few. That is who is beating the drums for war on both sides. Originally Posted by WTF

Amen - most wars are just a tragedy, dressed up as something else. In the end, lots of people die, and the same fuckers worm their way back in charge.

Since the American Revolution, no war has benefitted our country in the long run.

Make up your mind. The Vietnam War and the other war you progressivetards quote, the Japanese war, were direct and very bloody. Now you are backing off.

BTW, we've never been in a major war with China and are constantly threatening each other and they are our biggest trading partner.

Please think things thru before you post. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Is a fluid situation, you fucking moron. That's why you conservative shitheels are constantly wrong because you don't take on new information. He was merely giving you examples of countries we previously had bad relations with that we now are friendly with. Is that difficult to understand?

Is a fluid situation, you fucking moron. That's why you conservative shitheels are constantly wrong because you don't take on new information. He was merely giving you examples of countries we previously had bad relations with that we now are friendly with. Is that difficult to understand? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Turdy has never had the ability to think on his own.

He's now buzzin' around like a misguided Turdfly cuz' LLIdiot seems to have cut and run from this forum.

Earth to LLIdiot, please take your Smelly ol' Turdfly with you.

This Idiot is wandering around like a lost puppy dog!

As for off the books spending, I'm referring to the black budget. These are not things people will request forms for. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're an idiot and everyone knows it. Got a link to this "black budget"? If it's hidden and off the books, how are you privy to it? So you actually believe the Pentagon secretly spends over $400 billion a year extra with no oversight or accountability? Neither Congress nor the investigative media knows about it? That's equivalent to 2.4% of our GDP (and over 10% of the federal budget) and you think it can be hidden? And how is it financed? We know exactly how much debt the US Treasury has issued and outstanding. Or do you think the Treasury is cooking the books and borrowing over $400 billion a year extra (that's $4 trillion every decade) and it doesn't show up in the federal ledgers anywhere? I warned you not to double down on stupid. You're a bigger idiot than any of the tinfoil hat conspiracy mongers you like to ridicule here.

How did it go training the Iraqi army? Make them face their mortality? They want to fucking die. Dying for their religion is the highest way for them to go. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You can't stop babbling like a fool. You are confusing ISIS with the Iraqi army, you moron. We stopped training the Iraqi army because Odumbo pulled everyone out of Iraq (including our trainers) prematurely in 2011. This allowed al-Maliki to replace the top echelon professional commanders with his own hand-picked, unqualified and incompetent cronies. That's why Mosul fell to ISIS last year. The Iraqi army still had grunts willing to fight but they were abandoned by Maliki's hacks. And our intelligence guys were no longer there to warn them because Odumbo turned the lights off.

You're simply making a lot of bullshit predictions... Originally Posted by WombRaider

If you're so confident, why don't you make a prediction here? Can you go on record and predict Iran will not have a nuke within the next 10 years? If you can't, why should anyone support the agreement?

.

Lookee here, folks - it's filibuster time! The Dems are too cowardly to go on the record and cast their votes in support of the Iran agreement after telling us what a wonderful deal it is. They lack the courage of their so-called convictions. Do actions speak louder than words? Their eyes are glued to the polls, where only 21% of Americans (barely 1 in 5) support it. Another great selling job from the same folks who rammed Obamacare down our throats!


Is Iran Another ObamaCare?

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran could sink Democratic election campaigns—again.

By DANIEL HENNINGER
Sept. 9, 2015 7:13 p.m. ET

It is eerie how much the politics of the Iran nuclear deal resemble the politics of ObamaCare. Many Democrats running for election in 2014 rode ObamaCare to defeat. Barack Obama’s latest “legacy,” the Iran nuclear deal, is resurrecting more Democratic electoral vulnerability. Some legacy.

On Tuesday, four Democratic senators—including incumbents Ron Wyden of Oregon and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut—nodded their assent to the nuclear deal, giving Mr. Obama the 42 votes needed to block a Senate vote on the deal and sparing the president what the Washington Post called “drama and embarrassment.”

The Iran deal is going to “pass”—if that’s the word for it—with less than 50 votes in the Senate. Welcome to the progressives’ Constitution.

It’s all redolent of ObamaCare’s 2010 passage—with no GOP votes—atop the Cornhusker Kickback for Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and the Louisiana Purchase for Sen. Mary Landrieu. This time, though, the White House got Democrats’ assent in return for little more than liberal belief in the potential goodness of all mankind.

But vaporizing the arcane tradition of simple Senate majorities may be the high point of the Iran deal for the Democrats.

The depth of opposition to the nuclear deal is startling, deeper than the disaffection with ObamaCare.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll the deal’s total level of support is 25%. That’s a very low number in the polling business. Opposition to the deal among independent voters is 59%, with 52% of women opposed.

Asked if the deal would make the world safer or less safe, 56% said less safe, and that includes 54% of women and 49% of college graduates. Its support is below 30% in every age category. A plurality of black voters say it makes the world less safe.

Will these numbers improve? The Pew Poll just out has support at 21%, a 12-point drop since July.

It’s a long way to November 2016. Maybe by then Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will lie down with the lamb and Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani will order his Middle Eastern storm troopers back to their barracks. Of course they won’t, and so congressional Democrats could pay a high political price for their de facto alliance with Iran.

In 2014’s midterm elections, fealty to Mr. Obama’s health-care law contributed a lot to ending the political careers of Senators Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Udall in Colorado and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Republican Joni Ernst picked up Iowa’s open Senate seat running hard against ObamaCare.

In 2016, Democrats are thought to be defending only two competitive seats—Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado and Harry Reid’s vacated Nevada seat. But the Iran deal’s nonsupport and high potential for risk could put into play retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s open Maryland seat or Washington state 24-year incumbent Sen. Patty Murray, who won in 2010 with 52.3%.

Conventional wisdom holds that at least six GOP seats are vulnerable: Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Illinois’s Mark Kirk, Ohio’s Rob Portman, New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte and the Florida seat left open by Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential run.

But those calculations were made before the Iran nuclear deal started looking like the reincarnation of ObamaCare.

As with the health-care law, President Obama and this project’s edition of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of State John Kerry, have both oversold the agreement’s upside and misrepresented the downside. Always on hand to force buy-in from her colleagues, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi calls the deal a “diplomatic masterpiece.”

Connecticut’s Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, elected in 2010 with 55% of the vote, is a more suggestive straw in the wind. Describing his “support” for the Iran deal Tuesday, Sen. Blumenthal said, “This is not the agreement I would have accepted at the negotiating table.” More fantastic, Sen. Blumenthal said he and Maryland’s Sen. Ben Cardin will “begin the process of addressing (the deal’s) shortfalls, unwanted impacts and consequences.”

Sorry, senator. On the Obama nuclear deal with Iran, you’re in or you’re out. Unlike ObamaCare, there is no possibility of a legislative “fix.”

Mr. Obama has claimed that the nuclear deal and Iran’s terrorist adventures are separate issues. If you like your Iran nuclear deal, you can keep it. But no voter anywhere will distinguish between the “good” Iran and the Middle East’s bad boys.

In the week wide-eyed Senate Democrats piled onto Mr. Obama’s Iran bus, Hillary Clinton naturally gave a speech hedging her support: “It’s not enough to just say yes to this deal. We have to say, ‘Yes—and.’ ” She knows what the public’s word-cloud for the mullahs would be: untrustworthy, dishonest, dangerous.

Meanwhile, some House Republicans are threatening to take back ownership of the Iran deal’s political fate even before Democrats have to face voters next year. Anytime people want to run on something that has 21% support, only a fool would try to stop them.