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

watch that video and tell me that sandni**ger isn't braying like a jackass at America.
just tell me.

if you watch it and dare post this is still a good deal then know for a fact Israel WILL strike Iran. and what will the Mulatto Clown do about it? NOT ONE GOTDAM THING!

and once we elect a real leader next year, he'll HELP Israel jack up those sandni**gers back into the Stone Age.

you Ozombies are a joke. you blindly swallow the load and think it doesn't taste sour. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Look, another war! Our righties haven't paid for the last one yet!

Funny that is exactly what the right wing loons in Iran are saying about the deal!

Maybe y'all can join up and go to war with each other!


. Originally Posted by WTF

there are no right wing loons in Iran jackass. they are all mustards. you know the type





have you ever seen an uglier bunch of musbitches in your life? actually .. you probably have and i bet you overpaid them too.

Look, another war! Our righties haven't paid for the last one yet! Originally Posted by WTF

don't worry about it. Israel will do it for us and we have given them conservatively $130 billion in US fed funnymoney to date. they have enough of our loot to kick the sandn**ger ass.

let's presume just for the moment you don't lie. in that case every time you get proven wrong by the facts it means you are stupid. you should have stuck to being a liar. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I haven't been proven wrong on anything. If Lindsay G. wants to bomb me if he aims for Green Bay he will be aiming in the wrong place. Of course, I don't have to worry about that because he will never get elected.

If the USA agrees to this deal Iran will not be getting a bomb for at least 10 years. It will take them time to harvest enough Uranium to get as close as they are today on another bomb. Harold Brown was Physicist before he became Secretary of Defense. He's been through this with Russia. Your guy with the bad dental work doesn't have it that good.

Harold Brown has covered all of your questions. Read the link and then go get some stress relief from your favorite AMP you DUMB FUCK.

How verifiable are these limits? As a physicist and former nuclear lab director, and later as a government official, I participated in other arms-control negotiations. Compared with past agreements with the then-more threatening adversary the Soviet Union, the provisions for oversight are remarkably more intrusive and capable. The chances of detecting Iranian violations that would substantially shrink that one-year estimate are very good.
What’s more, this deal has automatic snap-back provisions for economic sanctions that Western signatories could re-impose if Iran violates the agreement. Hard-nosed inspections and resolute cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency will be vital. The United States retains its sanctions related to terrorism.
Does the agreement decrease pressure on Iran by giving it access to its frozen billions in assets? Yes, but it’s the nature of a deal that adversaries must give up some objectives. We could have devised a more favorable deal, but there would be no chance of an Iranian signature on the document. A “better deal” without an Iranian signature is worthless.
If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15 years’ time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?
Is there another way to delay the time until Iran is capable of making a nuclear weapon? Not even those itching for war suggest an invasion. And a Special Operations forces attack, as I have learned better than most, is chancy, especially given the dispersed Iranian facilities. A preemptive air attack on nuclear facilities is an option, but a poor — and probably disastrous — one. Few if any Western allies would join us. Some Sunni Muslim governments would privately applaud, but not join us, and their respective publics would rage at the United States, however much they dislike the Shiite Iran. At best, a successful strike would probably set the Iranian nuclear program back by only two years, and Iran would rebuild at a site indestructible by conventional military force. Iran would be left with nuclear weapons and a thirst for revenge.
Failure of U.S. adherence to the deal would not slow but would hasten an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Russians and Chinese would certainly not sustain economic sanctions. Sanctions by the other countries would erode as well. With all of this in mind, approving the agreement is a no-brainer.

Former Defense Secretary Harold Brown writes in the Washington Post why he supports the deal. From the link.

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. 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. Iran would have to convert its under-construction nuclear reactor to a form that would not fuel a plutonium-based nuclear weapon. Even if it decided to break out of the agreement this would push Iran, now probably only a few months away from having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, to a year away. It would take another year to produce the weapon.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinio...ner/ar-BBlIZSi Originally Posted by flghtr65

So Iran is that close according to your source. There is nothing in the agreement to roll back any of that. In fact, we give Iran billions of dollars to spend on anything, including nuclear enrichment, missile development, targeting tech, or what have you that way they can put it together when they decided to break the treaty. I bet you would have believed Hitler when he said that Germany and the Soviets were friends didn't you. Most Washington communists bought into that lie. No brainer is right.

there are no right wing loons in Iran jackass. they are all mustards. you know the type





have you ever seen an uglier bunch of musbitches in your life? actually .. you probably have and i bet you overpaid them too. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Actually number 3 is kind of interesting. I assume that she is into facials with that dead pan look.

I haven't been proven wrong on anything. If Lindsay G. wants to bomb me if he aims for Green Bay he will be aiming in the wrong place. Of course, I don't have to worry about that because he will never get elected.


he knows where you live libtard. the NSA will give him the exact coordinates

If the USA agrees to this deal Iran will not be getting a bomb for at least 10 years. It will take them time to harvest enough Uranium to get as close as they are today on another bomb. Harold Brown was Physicist before he became Secretary of Defense. He's been through this with Russia. Your guy with the bad dental work doesn't have it that good.

you keep believing that libtard. and like you believe Russia .. on anything? fool.

Harold Brown has covered all of your questions. Read the link and then go get some stress relief from your favorite AMP you DUMB FUCK.

for once the only good idea you've ever posted.




How verifiable are these limits? As a physicist and former nuclear lab director, and later as a government official, I participated in other arms-control negotiations. Compared with past agreements with the then-more threatening adversary the Soviet Union, the provisions for oversight are remarkably more intrusive and capable. The chances of detecting Iranian violations that would substantially shrink that one-year estimate are very good.
What’s more, this deal has automatic snap-back provisions for economic sanctions that Western signatories could re-impose if Iran violates the agreement. Hard-nosed inspections and resolute cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency will be vital. The United States retains its sanctions related to terrorism.
Does the agreement decrease pressure on Iran by giving it access to its frozen billions in assets? Yes, but it’s the nature of a deal that adversaries must give up some objectives. We could have devised a more favorable deal, but there would be no chance of an Iranian signature on the document. A “better deal” without an Iranian signature is worthless.

you must be kidding us? you .. expect anyone here to believe this ?
"physicist and former nuclear lab director"

if so, then YOU would surely know what Iran getting a nuclear weapon would really mean to any peace in the middle east?

If congressional action prevents U.S. adherence to the deal, Iran would likely go full bore on its nuclear weapons program. The most informed opinions suggest that Iran could then have nuclear weapons in two years. Opponents of the deal warn that in 10 to 15 years’ time, the deal allows Iran to be only a couple of years away from a nuclear weapon. Why does accepting that danger now seem to bother opponents less than coping with a danger that might be 10 years away?
Is there another way to delay the time until Iran is capable of making a nuclear weapon? Not even those itching for war suggest an invasion. And a Special Operations forces attack, as I have learned better than most, is chancy, especially given the dispersed Iranian facilities. A preemptive air attack on nuclear facilities is an option, but a poor — and probably disastrous — one. Few if any Western allies would join us. Some Sunni Muslim governments would privately applaud, but not join us, and their respective publics would rage at the United States, however much they dislike the Shiite Iran. At best, a successful strike would probably set the Iranian nuclear program back by only two years, and Iran would rebuild at a site indestructible by conventional military force. Iran would be left with nuclear weapons and a thirst for revenge.
Failure of U.S. adherence to the deal would not slow but would hasten an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Russians and Chinese would certainly not sustain economic sanctions. Sanctions by the other countries would erode as well. With all of this in mind, approving the agreement is a no-brainer. Originally Posted by flghtr65

the above is absolute garbage! a fiction of the moralist idiots. not based on reality. you live in a fictional world known as the "twilight Zone"

So Iran is that close according to your source. There is nothing in the agreement to roll back any of that. In fact, we give Iran billions of dollars to spend on anything, including nuclear enrichment, missile development, targeting tech, or what have you that way they can put it together when they decided to break the treaty. I bet you would have believed Hitler when he said that Germany and the Soviets were friends didn't you. Most Washington communists bought into that lie. No brainer is right. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How WOULD you roll that back?

the above is absolute garbage! a fiction of the moralist idiots. not based on reality. you live in a fictional world known as the "twilight Zone"

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You're funny. You're on here bashing a plan you have no idea about. You no more know the inner workings of this deal than you know the inner workings of your own mind. You are like all republicans. You don't defer to those who are experts in the field. You don't trust science and I've explained why before, but it has to do with religion and how you can't believe science and believe your religion at the same time, so instead of tossing out the one with the talking snake and the 7-day creation, you decide to toss out the one that came up with gravity and astrophysics

You lot will never cease to amaze me. Even when something is proven, you don't believe it. You are so wrapped up in your own belief system that you must deny all incoming information. It's fascinating.

a fiction of the moralist idiots. not based on reality.

Originally Posted by flghtr65
I haven't been proven wrong on anything. If Lindsay G. wants to bomb me if he aims for Green Bay he will be aiming in the wrong place. Of course, I don't have to worry about that because he will never get elected.


he knows where you live libtard. the NSA will give him the exact coordinates
Lindsay G. will never get elected, he can't even get out of the happy-hour debate.

If the USA agrees to this deal Iran will not be getting a bomb for at least 10 years. It will take them time to harvest enough Uranium to get as close as they are today on another bomb. Harold Brown was Physicist before he became Secretary of Defense. He's been through this with Russia. Your guy with the bad dental work doesn't have it that good.

you keep believing that libtard. and like you believe Russia .. on anything? fool.

WTF are you talking about, Brown is saying the negotiation with Russia was more complex than with Iran.

Harold Brown has covered all of your questions. Read the link and then go get some stress relief from your favorite AMP you DUMB FUCK.

for once the only good idea you've ever posted.


Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

It's simple with you, it would have a former SOD that was a republican before you would believe anything.

You and the other eccie repubtards may not believe Brown, but there are 20 democratic senators who are voting yes for the deal so far. If they get 14 more to join them the republican veto override will fail and the deal will go through. You can take that to the bank.

So Iran is that close according to your source. There is nothing in the agreement to roll back any of that. In fact, we give Iran billions of dollars to spend on anything, including nuclear enrichment, missile development, targeting tech, or what have you that way they can put it together when they decided to break the treaty. I bet you would have believed Hitler when he said that Germany and the Soviets were friends didn't you. Most Washington communists bought into that lie. No brainer is right. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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). The sanctions by all the countries would go back on. You wouldn't be able to roll back making of the bomb if the conversion of the reactor goes undetected.

The guy with the bad dental work joked that they don't need heat in Iran, but they do need air conditioning. The chances are slim that the reactor is getting converted.

How WOULD you roll that back? Originally Posted by WombRaider

JD would unleash the hidden Malaysia Airliner on his enemies!

Brown is saying that ..... The sanctions by all the countries would go back on. ...... Originally Posted by flghtr65

I can't stand these things, but this is the first post in which they are perfect!!



Just out of curiosity ... do you believe all the other bullshit "Brown" said?

Just out of curiosity ... do you believe all the other bullshit "Brown" said? Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Just out of curiosity ..." when are you going to answer the question that you have cut and run from?

As far a "great deal" with Iran, yup, it is a "great deal" for Iran, they give up nothing and gain 150 billion dollars, which of course Secretary of State Kerry claims its only 50 billion (OK, I feel safer now), and where does one think they money is going? Now that is definitely what one might consider a "great deal". (One lacking brain matter, of course)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...clear-deal.php Originally Posted by Cherie

You haven't told me a better solution Cherie...

http://www.masslive.com/opinion/inde...guments_f.html

The great majority of arms experts support the deal, some enthusiastically, some grudgingly. They recognize shortcomings, but, on balance, as 29 of America's leading nuclear scientists and arms experts wrote in an open letter last week, it has "much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework."
Likewise, three dozen retired American generals and admirals released a joint letter declaring the deal "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."