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

I don't believe in false flags, shows how much you know, shitbird. Originally Posted by WombRaider

But you DO believe in REAL FAGS, like you and assup !

But you DO believe in REAL FAGS, like you and assup ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

You stanking-ass motherfucker

So we didn't remove the democratically elected leader of Iran in order to place a dictator who was more favorable to us? Are you fucking nuts?

The middle east and central america aren't the same thing. Now YOU'RE comparing apples and oranges, shitstain. The middle east is the way it is because of decades of meddling along with other factors. Originally Posted by WombRaider

you stupid fucking libtard, there has never been a democratically elected leader of Iran, EVER.

fucking libtard idiot



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_o...2.80.931979.29

overthrown by this guy ,, a military coup



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Hassan_al-Bakr

betrayed his uncle by this guy ,,



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

try learning some real history you fucking idiot

Blue colored bullshit, HerrGoebbelsChair. You're the propaganda minister for the New World Order.

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

I'm not challenging him because he's a veteran. I'm challenging him because he fails to see the truth.

Why don't you quit lying about being a Christian and having an attorney, you phony bastard, WeeEndowed1.911"?

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

First, that makes him a part of the minority, among the retired generals and admirals, who voiced their argument either for or against the deal. Let's not forget that 190 retired generals and admirals who accurately identified it as a bad deal.

Second, he's a RINO, driven to make partisan commentary in favor of the Democrats. RINOs have no credibility among the conservatives.

Third, he argues about the reduction of centrifuges. Guess what? The agreement, as written, allows them to continue to use the centrifuges. Dismantling does not begin until 10 years from the agreement.

This tells me that RINO Colin Powell did not appear to have read the text of the agreement. If he did, he would not of talk about how it was on "good deal" given the "reduction in centrifuges." Originally Posted by herfacechair

Wish he's a RINO back then....

Wish he's a RINO back then.... Originally Posted by andymarksman

+1

Good post Andy. The USA never did find the WMD's that Powell was talking about. Our soldiers only found the weapons that the USA had sold Iraq as far back as 1980. Those weapons had corroded and were NO LONGER FUNCTIONAL.

J. D. Barleycorn, you remember posting that link by the New York times?

.

.

Now, here are two statements side-by-side that invalidates your entire comment:

"They simply will not have the ability to make a bomb at 3.67 % enrichment." -- flghtr65

Versus this:

"The number one objective of the agreement was to push out Iran's ability to produce a Nuclear Weapon. This agreement does that." -- flghtr65

How the God damn fuck is this going to push out their ability to produce a nuclear weapon if they will not have the ability to make a bomb? Nothing in the agreement supports your so-called "number one objective."



This deal will not restrict the Iranians in real life any more than speed limits would restrict traffic speed.

I downloaded the agreement, and have been going through it ever since we started this argument. You are cherry picking it, and are coming to conclusions that the agreement does not support. What section, in the agreement, does it say that the number one objective is to push out Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon? WHERE?

Why don't you quote that part of the agreement supporting your assumptions about its objectives? Originally Posted by herfacechair

Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon after 15 years. On Page 26, Item #25, The item reads that Iran cannot produce or purchase highly enriched uranium-235 at (20% concentration) or plutonium for 15 years. After 15 years this restriction is lifted. There are only two substances that can be used to make an Atomic Bomb like the ones used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The substances are:
U-235 at enriched at 20% or Plutonium. Jackie S, talked about this in one of his posts.
After 15 years Iran can try to purchase these substances or try to make it themselves from the Uranium ore that they have in the ground. Harold Brown is correct in what he said in post #1.

Here are the only two nuclear fission reactions that can produce the fission fragments material needed for an Atomic Bomb.

These reactions must be run in a NUCLEAR reactor. If you try to run this in the oven in your home, you will just BURN your house down.

Iran will have the ability to run either of these reactions AFTER 15 years and will be able produce an Atomic Bomb. The U235 used must be highly enriched to 20% or the bomb will be a dud.

HFC, You have just lost your first on-line argument. Study up.

Here is the link from post #424.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction



[10][10)

you stupid fucking libtard, there has never been a democratically elected leader of Iran, EVER.

fucking libtard idiot







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Hassan_al-Bakr

betrayed his uncle by this guy ,,



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

try learning some real history you fucking idiot
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You think Saddam Hussein was a leader in Iran?

You will burn in hell trust me hell awaits you filthy POS! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Yeah and your momma will be down there sucking my dick. Hey, have you told your pastor yet that you love to put your tongue in a hooker fart box, WWJD. Still counting the days until you choke on that cock and die.

You think Saddam Hussein was a leader in Iran? Originally Posted by WTF

LMFAO

[STRAWMAN]

[Inductive fallacy based on his failure to read and comprehend what he was reading, and his removing text in order for him to take the post out of context.]

herfacechair is a tool. In one breath it is their ideology in the next it is their mortality.

the fact of the matter that is wtf all people are driven by. Jesus don't fall for arguing with this longwinded war monger.

His ideology is to get others to pay for his wars! Originally Posted by WTF

Once again, you demonstrated a colossal failure to understand English that a fifth grader could easily understand.

What part of, driven by their ideology to do something until they are faced with their mortality, did you not understand? It doesn't matter if they ultimately ran, abandoned their terrorist act, or actually carried it out. The entity, that we are fighting, has pushed forward with an ideology. Without any real resistance, or efforts to counter them, they continue to push on. However, when they are faced with strength, against them, that complicates their problem.

Go back and reread all of my posts, including lustylad's sewer rat analogy. If you need to, hire a retard interpreter. If you can't understand simple English, perhaps such an interpreter could break this down into retard terms in order for you to understand what's being said.

The argument that I made throughout this thread incorporated all of those concepts, ideology, mortality, fighting indefinitely, etc. These terms and others are woven into my responses throughout this thread. This isn't something that I am "changing position" on. The smart people get it, why don't you? Oh yeah, that's right, you have a problem understanding simple English. Or, you're deliberately building strawmen, as you know for a fact that you cannot take on the actual argument and what is actually said.

Also, why are you doing what you are insinuating other shouldn't do? You ask why others "fall" for arguing against me, yet here you are arguing against me. You're a moron and a hypocrite. Also, you don't know what my ideology is. All I've done on this thread was to present reality.

Don't dismiss as "long-winded" a fact based, logical, well-articulated reasoned argument. Smart people get it, why don't you? Nevermind.

[ REPEAT DESPERATION + REPEAT POINT]

Come back when your syntax is improved. Please. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Copy and paste of what I said the last time you fell one of my booby-traps, with additional bold emphasis:

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 inside, 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. - herfacechair

Your desperation was such, that I left an even bigger error in my post. I knew that you were so desperate, that despite my disclosing why I left errors in my post, you would go for them again in desperation.

Figured out why I use the "Puss in the boots in the glory hole booth" against you? Again, everything I say and do has a purpose.

You've proven to be the most desperate person on this thread. Oh, yeah, I'll come back when I deem it necessary.

I don't believe in false flags, shows how much you know, shitbird.
Originally Posted by WombRaider

I don't either, SCAT BOY, but that wasn't the point.

Did you even bother reading my post, which you quoted, with the intention of understanding what it said? I know for a fact that a fifth grader could understand my correspondences. If you can't, never answer "yes" to the question of whether you are smarter than a fifth grader or not. Because, you are.

If you go back and read what I said, you'd notice that I talked about thinking like you guys when I was younger. I was 19/20 years old. Corporate control, rich and super rich control, or any other entity control of the government and taking our rights away? Doesn't matter, I used to believe in that nonsense at one point in time. Then, reality mugged me. Facts, gained via attempting to research those assumptions, assisted reality during the mugging.

Throughout this thread, you have persistently failed to prove any of your conspiracy whack job theories true. You keep talking about the military industrial complex, or something similar. Where is the actual proof to that control? We need credible proof, not some conspiracy whack job author's article.

Back in 2006, I argued against a bunch of conspiracy whack jobs. Unlike you, they actually tried to defend their position with references. Unfortunately for them, I proved those references wrong. So how about it? Give me links to articles, that support your conspiracy whack job theories, that I could dismantle?

[STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]

So we didn't remove the democratically elected leader of Iran in order to place a dictator who was more favorable to us? Are you fucking nuts? [inductive fallacy]

The middle east and central america aren't the same thing. Now YOU'RE comparing apples and oranges, shitstain. The middle east is the way it is because of decades of meddling along with other factors. [inductive fallacy] Originally Posted by WombRaider

As was repeatedly pointed out to you on this thread, Turd, they never had a "democratically" elected leader. In reality, they had one choice of a thug or another. The "democratically" elected leader represented a lot of radical elements. He was no more "democratically" elected than Saddam was in Iraq. Again, pay attention to what you are reading. Nothing in my statement, that you quoted, provides enough information for anybody to infer that I said that.

As I've referenced them on this thread, when it comes to remaining engaged with fledgling democracies, or fledgling democracies about to stand up, the events in the Middle East and Central America are the same thing. This is an apples to apples comparison, Scat Boy.

The United States got engaged with Central America, via the DOD and CIA, during the 1980s. Our campaigns worked in that area. Fledgling democracies stood up. During the 1990s, the mission shifted from the DOD/CIA to the DOS. The DOS remained engaged in those new democracies until the first decade of the 21st century. They had reached the point to where they could reach an economic agreement with the United States.

As I've argued earlier in this thread, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended up being catalysts that would greatly contribute to the Arab Spring. This was naturally bound to happen, especially since we set up a checkerboard pattern of fledgling democracies in the Middle East. Again, as with Central America, this movement required engagement from Washington D.C.

Washington D.C. failed. Had the Obama administration followed the example of the Clinton administration, we would've had a positive effect going on in the Middle East today. Had the Obama administration followed the example of the Bush ministration, ISIS would not have been in Iraq or Syria.

Last decade, I was privy to meetings where they were talking about what would happen post Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of the missions would've involved strengthening the ability of other countries to fight terrorism, and to being engaged with countries that have recently established a fledgling democracy.

That plan was in place, and was a logical next step after Iraq and Afghanistan slowed down. Obama did not follow through. Claiming that the Middle East is the way it is today because of "decades of meddling" is nothing but shifting the blame. It's as idiotic as a person, on trial, blaming society for his crime.

That's bullshit. And so is your argument that our "meddling in the Middle East for decades" screwed them up. What was required was continuous engagement and involvement. We do not always provide that. We did not provide that after the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars when it came to engaging things like the Arab Spring.

Had we done that, much of the Middle East today would be similar to Central America in the early 1990s.

I've been to the Middle East. I know for a fact that the majority of the people in those countries want to change and be more like the Western countries. They saw how that worked in Israel, and Turkey, and they saw how that was working in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people, in the Middle East, are capable of bringing out positive change. What was needed, since this was happening on a regional scale, was US led leadership. That wasn't there.

I know that you emphatically claim that you are not in the military. Your lack of such experience painfully shows in your posts. Your lack any real firsthand experience with regards to the Middle East also shows.