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

You should have played this video instead.... Originally Posted by andymarksman

You're late to the game, Jackass, I watched that shortly after he said it. People erroneously blame that as the cause of the extension of the Iraq war. It wasn't. The United States military consistently pulverized the terrorists in battle. Everything that he said in that video was dead accurate, and was called for. What kept the terrorists fighting was the antiwar sentiment in the United States, mainly the sentiments of the liberals/Democrats against the Iraq war. Blaming what Bush said for the uptick is like blaming the increased number of churches in town for the increased number of bars in that same town.

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. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Stop lying again, wouldn't you? You are getting quite disgusting by the hour.

http://wantarevelations.com/wp-conte...-BIN-LADEN.pdf

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...0/16/rifle.htm

So is herfacechair a conservative or liberal? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Read my posts and find out. Where do the retards, that I'm destroying with sadistic pleasure, stand? What is the trend with what I say in my posts?

[STRAWMAN]



Then tell your "idol" to shut up, unless you are a gutless, spineless, unconscionable coward. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Hey retard, did you even bother watching the segment, that you posted, with the intentions of understanding what it is that's going on? Do I even need to go over the concept of the carrot and the stick? That segment had absolutely nothing, in disagreement, with anything that I argued, and bears no relation to whatever it is that you're trying to fart out in that post.

George Bush was doing nothing other than what any other president in his position would've done. North Korea appeared to be making moves toward "coming in the right direction." What he talked about where incentives (carrot) in case North Korea continued on the right path. In that same video, George Bush talked about what could happen if they do not move in the right direction. Nothing in that video contradicted anything that I argued on this thread, nothing contradicted anything regarding what I said in the quote that you quoted.

Based on every one of your replies to me, I could already see that you need a name change. If your marksmanship were anything like your arguments on this thread, I would hate to be the man standing behind you as you attempted to shoot the target in front of you. That's how far you are off. In fact, you are so far off with your comments above that if you were to fall off a boat in the middle of the lake, you'd miss the water.

You're late to the game, Jackass, I watched that shortly after he said it. People erroneously blame that as the cause of the extension of the Iraq war. It wasn't. The United States military consistently pulverized the terrorists in battle. Everything that he said in that video was dead accurate, and was called for. What kept the terrorists fighting was the antiwar sentiment in the United States, mainly the sentiments of the liberals/Democrats against the Iraq war. Blaming what Bush said for the uptick is like blaming the increased number of churches in town for the increased number of bars in that same town. Originally Posted by herfacechair

What kept the terrorists fighting was the anti-war sentiment in the US? Jesus Christ, I've heard it all now. I thought in your earlier bullshit, you stated that they would never quit fighting, that they were driven by ideology. And now, they're apparently driven by anti-war sentiment in the US. You're a fucking liar. And not a good one, at that.

You are lying! In late 2002 and early 2003, North Koreans ejected IAEA inspectors in Yongbyon while re-routing thousands of spent fuel rods from that nuclear facility for plutonium reprocessing for weapons purposes, subsequently they utilized that materials to detonate a plutonium nuclear device on October 9, 2006. No matter whichever way you spin it, it's clearly on Bush. Care to explain why he did nothing to neutralize this grave threat for nearly four years? Originally Posted by andymarksman

Wrong, Dick Face, for the topic related to developing nuclear power, and intercontinental missles, anything less than 20 years is SHORTLY, Stupid. Whenever I present an argument, on a historical perspective, I'm basing that on 2000+ years of Western civilization history. I'm seeing this from a Far East standpoint, not from Western standpoint. HENCE, they did indeed "shortly" donated nuclear bombs.

What I said still stands, what I stated was not a lie, but FACT. It didn't matter what George Bush, or anybody last decade, would have done to prevent the North Koreans from detonating the nuclear bomb. That was already set in motion starting in the 1990s:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/...---fast-facts/

1993
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) charges that North Korea is violating the NPT and demands that inspectors be given access to two nuclear waste storage sites.

North Korea threatens to quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty amid suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons. It ultimately does not quit the program but agrees to inspections in 1994.

1994
North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

1998
August 31 - North Korea fires a multistage rocket that flies over Japan and lands in the Pacific Ocean, proving the North Koreans can strike any part of Japan's territory.

November 17 - The U.S. and North Korea hold the first round of high-level talks in Pyongyang over North Korea's suspected construction of an underground nuclear facility. The United States demands inspections.

1999
February 27-March 16 - During a fourth round of talks, North Korea allows U.S. access to the site in exchange for U.S. aid in increasing North Korean potato yields. U.S. inspectors find no evidence of any nuclear activity during a visit to site in May.

September 13 - North Korea agrees to freeze testing of long-range missiles while negotiations with the U.S. continue.

September 17 - President Bill Clinton agrees to ease economic sanctions against North Korea.

December - A U.S.-led international consortium signs a $4.6 billion contract to build two nuclear reactors in North Korea.

2000
July - North Korea threatens to restart its nuclear program if the U.S. does not compensate it for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants.

Again, keep in mind what I explained above is what constitutes a "short timeframe" with regards to this specific debate. Yes, they shortly obtained the ability to detonate a nuclear weapon after the Clinton era deal.

While you are at it, also care to explain whether this "deal" is better than Clinton's?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nels_bill.html Originally Posted by andymarksman

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework

https://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af

"1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003."

2) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S., representing the consortium, will make arrangements to offset the energy foregone due to the freeze of the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities, pending completion of the first LWR unit."

This specific deal is consistent with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange for the errant country's freezing, with the view of ultimately dismantling its nuclear infrastructure, the other side of the agreement provides the energy technologies needed to compensate for the loss of energy that would've been obtained by the "peaceful" nuclear energy use.

If you read the deal with Iran, Iran is allowed to continue to the enrichment process, and they're allowed to keep enough of their nuclear infrastructure needed to create that "peaceful nuclear energy."

The link for that agreement was recently posted on this thread. Yes, as I argued, it's a better deal than what the North Koreans got.

This message is hidden because herfacechair is on your ignore list.

Goddammit if I don't agree with you. He's a cog in the machine and doesn't even know it. We are reaping what we sowed in the middle east; all the meddling that we have done over the last 70 years is coming back to haunt us. Overthrowing governments and propping up dictators are not things we would put up with, but we think we know better than everyone else. Originally Posted by WombRaider

If you meant that I was a cog in your side of the argument's propaganda machine, then you'd be onto something. You're also wrong if you think that what's going on now is a direct result of our "interventions" over there over the last 70 years. Why, even Osama Bin Laden blamed us for decades of meddling in the Middle East. It's like what I said earlier in this thread. You people are arguing the same argument that is being argued by those who have declared themselves as enemies of the United States.

Place the blame where it should be placed, on Odumba and his failure to exercise proper strategic judgmenet. He failed to support the US military with getting the SOFA needed for troops to remain behind to strengthen the Iraqi forces. Had they been able to do that, they would've repelled ISIS at the Syrian border. Had he capitalized on the Arab Spring, actually siding with our real allies and not those that sided with our adversaries, we'd have multiple countries in the Middle East in various stages of fledgling democracy. They would've been initially fragile, and would've continuously needed engagement.

Obama didn't do that, result? The Middle East "is on fire." His lack of leadership in the Middle East, and in the United States, and elsewhere, have emboldened our enemies and adversaries elsewhere in the world. The Chinese have gotten more aggressive with their neighbors in Asia... The list goes on.

Being a catalyst for change, then not continuing on with what needed to be done after the results of that change became known, is what's biting us in the ass, and you could thank Odumba for that.

Keep spouting the party line. You've been too indoctrinated to see the truth. Lots of Iraq vets agree with me. We had no business being there. We had no business in Vietnam. We really have business anywhere else in the world but right here. But keep typing. Blue is pretty. It brightens the page.


But you're still full of corporatist bullshit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

TONE YOUR HATE INSPIRED RHETORIC DOWN COG!!!!'

Do you have any honor ? You are attacking a man who have served bravely for this country while you were sitting on your old wrinkled ass. Enough is enough - it's enough that you attacked me for being a Christian - now you are attacking veterans - shame on you !!!!

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. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Care to explain why Reagan kept observing the SALT II unilaterally for five and half years, meanwhile repeatedly accusing Soviet violations of the said pact. If anyone ever got duped, it's Reagan, no way to get around it.

http://fas.org/nuke/control/salt2/index.html

What kept the terrorists fighting was the anti-war sentiment in the US? Jesus Christ, I've heard it all now. I thought in your earlier bullshit, you stated that they would never quit fighting, that they were driven by ideology. And now, they're apparently driven by anti-war sentiment in the US. You're a fucking liar. And not a good one, at that. Originally Posted by WombRaider

YOU would be the judge of who's a "fucking liar" after all the support YOU'VE given to odummer, Shrillary and all things that the liberals espouse ? Get back to the 'holes and do something that your good at, because posting YOUR lies on blogs just shows EVEN MORE of what a sorry, swishy walking loser you are.

TONE YOUR HATE INSPIRED RHETORIC DOWN COG!!!!'

Do you have any honor ? You are attacking a man who have served bravely for this country while you were sitting on your old wrinkled ass. Enough is enough - it's enough that you attacked me for being a Christian - now you are attacking veterans - shame on you !!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Go fuck yourself you fucking retard. You still haven't choke on that dick yet. Well keep trying, there are many out here who are counting on you. He was attacking his position not his person, or are you really too stupid to know that. I bet you make even Jesus cringe every time you speak.

Go fuck yourself you fucking retard. You still haven't choke on that dick yet. Well keep trying, there are many out here who are counting on you. He was attacking his position not his person, or are you really too stupid to know that. I bet you make even Jesus cringe every time you speak. Originally Posted by dirty dog

You will burn in hell trust me hell awaits you filthy POS!

However, you need to know where to look. If you don't know where to look, you can't focus a satellite on the area that you need to focus on to verify whether new activities are taking place elsewhere are not.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Google Earth. If you look closely at the map, when you pull up Google Earth, you'd notice that the photo is not constant. The photo, of the area that you're looking at, is a collection of multiple photos taken during different times of the day, and different days of the week.

I've seen where one patch will be in broad daylight while the next patch over would be in the darkness of night. I've seen where one patch was cloudy, and the adjacent patch was clear. The reason to why this is the case is that you can't get a snapshot, of details on the ground, with a single view of an entire country from a satellite.

You have to focus that satellite to a specific area in order to zoom in. Again, you need to know where to look. Originally Posted by herfacechair

So you want to argue that no one inside the Pentagon and NSA is capable of doing his/her job?

It's damNing, you goddamned illiterate shitstain.

I never said I was in the military. NEVER. Go back and find the post where I said that. It's not a claim I ever made. Period. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

What I've found is that idiots like you are often tiny-dicked blowhards who make up for their lack of sack by using tons of words. I don't give a shit what your argument is. You're full of shit. You're a fucking cog in the machine and you're too fucking stupid to even know it. You were used and spit out so that old, white men could get richer. Originally Posted by WombRaider

First, what I said earlier in the thread:

"I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Version 13, to dictate my replies. My voice gets converted to typed text. I don't change every mistake it makes, as I know that desperate people would jump at those mistakes the way Olongapo kids jumped into muddy waters after coins tossed in, or like Iraqi kids rushing in after candy thrown on street sides." -- herfacechair

Now, what, exactly, did I mean by that?

Erroneous word usage, misspelled words, or any other simple error, that I leave in my posts, are there for a purpose. What purpose? I use "errors" to measure the desperation of the opposition. I find that the more desperate the opposition becomes, in the debate, they tend to zero in on misspelled words, erroneous word usage, or any other simple error.

The opposition goes grammar police mode when they know, deep down downside, that they are losing the debate. You cannot win in a straight up debate, so you desperately reach for what you think would "gain you points." In this case, finding something I misspelled, misused, or any other mistake.

The trend, in your replies to me, shows that of someone who knows that he cannot take me on directly. You're desperate to find anything wrong, and you find it with the wrong word. I tossed that coin into nasty waters, you, desperate for change, jumped right in.

Also, if you paid attention to what you are reading, I was responding to somebody else who stated that you make such a claim. I asked that person to direct me to a post that you made claiming to be such. Now, considering that you do not have any credibility with me, and that you have a tendency to lie, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have more credibility than you.

Again, in my posts, I made leeway for either possibility. I followed that up with possibilities on either end. Two credible people, however, claimed that you stated such. Take your issues up to them. Not me.

There you go again, unable to resist the urge to image the balls and dick part of the human anatomy. My efforts on this thread, with these replies, have nothing to do with what you assume are "insecurities." You're wrong; however, about why the lengths of my posts are the way they are. The cold hard reality is that I enjoy doing this. I enjoy going online and picking people apart. Then, as they reply to me, I take advantage of what I learn of their psychological profile to get under their skin. I do that in conjunction with destroying their arguments.

I love watching people, who are used to having "control" over things they do in life, lose that control. Your reactions, as well as that of the others that I'm rebutting, are hilarious. In fact, I had to break away and regain my composure. I was laughing uncontrollably over the comments that you, and others replying to me, made. The bullshit smell is strong with you guys. With you, and ColanderOnGrape, it's blatantly obvious that you guys have a thin skin.

Neither of you can handle being wrong. None of those, on your side of the argument, can handle being proven wrong. So, when I go at length to prove you guys wrong, with as much argument required to prove you wrong, I know you guys will end up getting an aneurysm. The sight of that, or even the thought of that, makes me laugh. This is also about entertainment. I have lost count of how the times I've broken out laughing, throughout the day, when I'm not even near a computer. When I remember what I said in response to guys and project how you guys would react, I just can't help but laugh.

Simply take a look at the descriptions you labeled me. Those are you projecting your own traits onto me. The opposition, throughout these past 12 years of my debating with them online, have consistently projected their traits onto me. That's probably why you are on this thread and other threads debating, isn't it? Is this a case to where you are building up your post counter to make up for your dick being sized challenged? Or, as I suspect, you're trying to make up, via post count, for your failures in life?

Do keep tap dancing. I'm laughing my ass off reading your replies, as well as that of the other idiots that I'm replying to.