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

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, I said you're a cunt

No, I said you're a cunt Originally Posted by WombRaider

speak up puss in boot. i can't hear you.

speak up puss in boot. i can't hear you.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Puss in boot? He lose a fucking boot?

Puss in boot? He lose a fucking boot? Originally Posted by WombRaider

did you say something puss in boots?

did you say something puss in boots?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

This is about your speed, you fucking retard. I thought IB was a fucking jizzmonkey.

This is about your speed, you fucking retard. I thought IB was a fucking jizzmonkey. Originally Posted by WombRaider

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You still talking? GTFO

You still talking? GTFO Originally Posted by WombRaider

did you say something puss in boots?

I see ECCIE's biggest windbag is Back... Winning arguments with verbosity again?

Still Blasting them Ozombies!

hahaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

don't feed tHe troll!

I see ECCIE's biggest windbag is Back... Winning arguments with verbosity again?

Still Blasting them Ozombies!

hahaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

don't feed tHe troll! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yep. Pretty sad when that's all you have left.

First, Asia was a political powder keg that was at risk of "blowing up". Our intervention in Southeast Asia had a "stabilizing" effect. Had the Democrats, in control of Congress, had the right mindset, we could have had a situation to where Vietnam was divided by a capitalist South and a communist North. Or, the entire country being capitalist if we were allowed to continue bombing the crap out of them. They would've been one of the Asian Tigers along with South Korea, Taiwan, and others.

This would have contributed to a more stable Asia than what we have right now.

Second, the Soviets and Chinese were indeed attempting to spread communism throughout all of Asia. Our intervention in Vietnam put a major halt to most of that initiative.

The military won the war in Vietnam, the Democrats lost it politically. You should direct your question to them. As for lives lost, you don't speak for them. The majority of the Vietnam veterans that I've met, including my dad, supported what they did as much as we Iraq war veterans supported what we did in Iraq.

Those guys that died, died believing that the United States can and would prevail. It was not their fault that the Democrats in Congress, and the antiwar people throughout the United States, worked against their achievements to reverse the victory gained in Vietnam. Likewise, it is not our (Iraq War Veterans) fault that there was a lack of will in Washington DC to capitalize preserve our victory.

What I said about Iraq is also applicable to Afghanistan. I explained in more detail, earlier in this thread, why we had to go into those countries. Again, it was up to Washington DC to capitalize on our success, and to capitalize on the results of our success, which included the rise of the Arab Spring.

What did we win in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only did we win the war with a straight cut victory, we bought Western civilization centuries more of existence as a Western culture/identity. What was required was for Washington DC to capitalize, in our favor, the Arab Spring. That would've been the meat and potatoes of this asymmetrical warfare from our standpoint.

It was the administration sitting in the White House since 2009 that fumbled this ball.

There was much more involved with the Grenada operation, then just the expeditionary deployment that took place. It was a simple matter of weakening/liquidating additional Soviet/Cuban influence in our own backyard. Together with Central America, US policy worked to rollback and eliminate Soviet/Cuban influence throughout our backyard.

We won a greater standing, relative to the Soviet Union, with our involvement in Grenada and in Central America.

This all falls under the greater topic of geopolitical and geostrategic issues. Humanity is consistently playing chess on a global scale. Our status as a superpower is not guaranteed, neither is our security or freedom from coercive influence from other countries.

Understand that when we combat deploy, we know the risks. We would not do so if we were not willing to die in the process. In fact, in those situations where not all units will go into conflict, but some, you would find their commanders in a heated debate with each other as to which one of them gets selected for the job for going in and pulling the trigger. We're talking about the adult version of people "jumping in front of each other" to be selected, by their mutual commander, as the unit that will be engaged in hot war. Meanwhile, the rank-and-file in their units are "praying" hard that they will be selected to do such instead of the other units.

Neither you, nor those on your side of the argument, has a leg to stand on when trying to pontificate about lost American lives. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Bullshit. Corporatist propaganda. You've drank too much Kool-Aid, HFC. And you have no way of knowing what legs I have to stand on when discussing the waste of American lives in pursuit of corporate profit. You'd best STFU on that point.

Bullshit. Corporatist propaganda. You've drank too much Kool-Aid, HFC. And you have no way of knowing what legs I have to stand on when discussing the waste of American lives in pursuit of corporate profit. You'd best STFU on that point. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Completely agree. What has it won us? Greater standing? Really? How do you quantify that? Quantify 'greater standing' for me. Of course the men and women who fought in these wars and conflicts are going to say they believed in it, but you leave something out, that being a military man, you should know. You fight for your buddies. You fight for your friends. That's what it comes down to. Regardless of how the war ended, they're never going to say that it was a waste, because then that means their sacrifice was in vain. We didn't gain anything from it. The region is still communist.

As usual, you're inferring from the post, that you're replying to, something that post is not communicating. This would not be a problem if you read my posts, as well as that made by the others arguing against you, with the intentions of understanding what you are reading. You asked a question. I turned around and answered your question. This argument isn't about what you subscribe to with regards to thinking.

My reply had everything to do with the question that you asked. It was a question that you asked intending to "weaken" his argument. I provided an answer amplifying the statement of the person that you replied to.

You need to read what that guy said, as well as my response, again. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Read the wrinkles on my nutsack. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I kicked your ass so hard in this debate, that you find solace with looking at your own nuts. I guess your trying to find messages on your nuts is easier than coming to terms with how my replies, to you, force you to see how wrong you are. Besides, since when do they let eunuchs keep their nutsacks? You've repeatedly demonstrated a lack of nuts when it comes to debating the topic instead of your chosen tactic of hiding behind inductive fallacy and your questions.

[STRAWMAN]

So you're ok with hypothetical bullshit? Bibi said Iran would have the bomb within 3-5 years. That was 23 fucking years ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...emy-No.-1-1992 Originally Posted by WombRaider

Once again, you inferred something from my post that I was not arguing. I accurately pointed out that gnadfly demonstrated far more knowledge about the topic that we were arguing then your side of the argument. All he did was present a hypothetical situation of when Iran would or would not use a nuclear bomb. Nowhere in those posts did he predict in the applicable posts when Iran would have one.

Also, on this thread, I have consistently indicated that the "projected" amount of time that Iran would have a nuclear weapon was arbitrary and meaningless.

Stay with me now, FOCUS! Pay attention to the post that you are reading before you reply. You're pulling straws.

I see ECCIE's biggest windbag is Back... Winning arguments with verbosity again?

Still Blasting them Ozombies!

hahaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

don't feed tHe troll! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Considering the degree of difficulty that you have, of reading information that a fifth-grader could easily read and understand, it's only natural that you'd dismiss a fact base, logical, reasoned argument as "being a windbag."

As always, when it comes to these debates, those on my side of the argument praised the way I hammer you guys with the facts. You guys, getting butt hurt for getting your arguments destroyed with an extensive fact-based argument, set up stress shields. To protect your fragile ego, you dismiss an argument, thoroughly proving you guys wrong, as "being a windbag."

I win these arguments using a fact base, logical, reasoned argument against those who continuously fail to prove their own arguments. The entire opposition, on this thread, have consistently failed to prove their position. Instead, they constantly resort to emotions and insults and lack of substance in the replies.

If you can't contribute to the opposition's argument, AssUp GayRidden, go be a retard somewhere else.