So stop wasting your time and direct your words to more influential people then. It's pretty clear posters here are not willing to listen to your crap
US/IAEA reach Nuclear Deal With Iran
- Thread starter A.R.$
- Start date
So stop wasting your time and direct your words to more influential people then. It's pretty clear posters here are not willing to listen to your crap
block me already.So stop wasting your time and direct your words to more influential people then. It's pretty clear posters here are not willing to listen to your crap
I'm not here to cater to whether or not you approve of how popular my stance is.
I have no intention to block or ignore anyone
You're just fighting a losing battle if your goal here is trying to "convince people of the implications of their comments and how irresponsible 90% of the posters in this thread are"
Honestly, man, what the fukk is wrong with you? You repeat the same shyt every thread (with the same bolded big fonts and trademark angry-ass tone) as if we haven't heard you the 1st 50 times already.
You're a joke of a poster that nobody takes seriously, and you aren't even worth having a debate with. I don't see eye-to-eye with a lot of posters here but most of them offer a lot of merit to argue with, you literally offer nothing or very little in this regard.
Iwhen you talk as if you're some big shot. The people you cape for would consider you a filthy immigrant and couldn't give a fukk if you dropped dead or got hit with a stray bullet
Honestly, your shyt's getting tired around here and I bet I'm not the only one feeling like this. Just start a blog or a website and share your thoughts and do something
this is what he should doIts the fact that they have a breakout time of less than 1 year. Its unsettling.
They already have enough enrichment going on for a nuke. We've known this for a decade.
Its not about if, but what they'll try and get away with while they have one.
I don't want to find out.
I completely disagree.
Pakistan used stolen intel from AQ Khan.
India got support from outsiders and I dislike that the have one too
The fact is that them hating each other hasn't changed and is still a major problem
Furthermore, I don't acknowledge any sovereign rights outside of the US and MAYBE the UK having nukes.
I like for the US to continue to be the arbiter and strongest force of leverage in all things nuclear weaponry.
I don't believe that each nation has a right to nuclear ambitions especially since I don't think even national borders among many of these nations deserve to exist as they do. I don't even support the governments of those seeking nukes. So why the hell would I support them getting nukes and getting further entrenched????
There are nations that should exist that can't if these factions continue to pursue nukes.
The cuban crisis shows what happens when you fukk with the USA.
We had nukes and proved that we'd use them.
So thats why the Russians backed down in our backyard.
Yet you want rogue nations to have them
Stick to the topic of the thread. Stop trolling with your polemics of how much you like or dislike me.I have no intention to block or ignore anyone
You're just fighting a losing battle if your goal here is trying to "convince people of the implications of their comments and how irresponsible 90% of the posters in this thread are"
Or make a "Napoleon's thoughts thread" with big fonts & angry tone galore
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/should-napoleon-start-a-blog.337070/:Or make a "Napoleon's thoughts thread" with big fonts & angry tone galore
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Or make a "Napoleon's thoughts thread" with big fonts & angry tone galore
Iran is going to get a nuke and its the end of the fukking world
The ONLY reason the P5+1 wanted to negotiate with Iran wasn't because the sanctions were wearing off, but because their nuke program became a real threat.
Thats ONLY it.
Its not the success of the sanctions.
Thats ONLY it.
Its not the success of the sanctions.
Comments I liked from the NYTimes interview:
The difference between President Obama and his predecessor could not be more stark. Obama chooses to reduce the likelihood of using WMDs, while Bush lied about their threat. Obama believes in speaking scientifically, while Bush used a State of the Union address to falsify accounts of purchasing yellowcake uranium. Obama knows that war is the last option, while Bush made it the first. Obama involved other nations in the talks thoroughly, while Bush had a half-baked Coalition of the Willing. Obama looks forward, while Bush never let go of an old conflict. After Bush showed the worst, most cynical American elements, Obama shows the most pragmatic and progressive.
----
I admire Obama's resolve and his clear command of the complex issues at stake. He makes a compelling case for the deal even in the face of Iranian leaders who have repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Obama narrows the focus of the deal to the essential goal of reducing the risk of Iran procuring nuclear weapons, and he astutely connects the necessary shift in mindset on Iran to Nixon on China and Reagan on Russia. Regardless of the outcome of this deal in our dysfunctional Congress, I also admire Obama's leadership. He is acting presidential and showing that he is worthy of our trust in him as Commander in Chief.
----
I agree. Contrast this response given by Obama to what W would have said (even if W had agreed with the approach). The level of this president's understanding and communication, as well as the goal, is so high. You may not agree with the guy, but he is so smart and so able to comprehend all of the issues and concerns that it is impossible to dismiss him. When I disagree with him, and I do, I never think the guy is anything but a true American, working for our side, working hard.
----
Obama shows a realistic grasp of the difficulties. The best arguments in favor of ending sanctions were that they would not be sustainable for our allies in India and elsewhere; and that since sanctions would not prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, war would eventually have been necessary. But war would only strengthen the isolationist hardliners in Iran, consolidating their vision of a militant, uncompromising, extremist Iran. This in turn would become a greater danger to Israel, which would not be able to bomb every nuclear facility, or invade and occupy Iran.
On the other side, Obama appears realistic about the dangers a richer Iran would pose - more money to give to Hezbollah and its other proxies, more money for building weapons, including a secret nuclear program, more money to invest in terrorism. These argue strongly for continuing sanctions as long as possible, until a humbled Iran is ready to abandon nuclear power. But how long would that take?
The President appears to be gambling that money involves obligations, and that participation in the world economy will force Iran to surrender its dream of controlling the Middle East in favor of good relations with countries that buy its products.
Netanyahu thinks Iran will never change. He wants war, and forced regime change. Did he not see how that strategy worked in Iraq? He now faces a worse enemy there, the Islamic State. With reservations, I endorse Obama's deal.
----
I suggest everyone listen to this interview...its fukking incredible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/o...bama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html
Obama really broke this shyt down...its an unfortunate deal but a nuclear Iran is a massive problem...we're really just out here floating in the water
The difference between President Obama and his predecessor could not be more stark. Obama chooses to reduce the likelihood of using WMDs, while Bush lied about their threat. Obama believes in speaking scientifically, while Bush used a State of the Union address to falsify accounts of purchasing yellowcake uranium. Obama knows that war is the last option, while Bush made it the first. Obama involved other nations in the talks thoroughly, while Bush had a half-baked Coalition of the Willing. Obama looks forward, while Bush never let go of an old conflict. After Bush showed the worst, most cynical American elements, Obama shows the most pragmatic and progressive.
----
I admire Obama's resolve and his clear command of the complex issues at stake. He makes a compelling case for the deal even in the face of Iranian leaders who have repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Obama narrows the focus of the deal to the essential goal of reducing the risk of Iran procuring nuclear weapons, and he astutely connects the necessary shift in mindset on Iran to Nixon on China and Reagan on Russia. Regardless of the outcome of this deal in our dysfunctional Congress, I also admire Obama's leadership. He is acting presidential and showing that he is worthy of our trust in him as Commander in Chief.
----
I agree. Contrast this response given by Obama to what W would have said (even if W had agreed with the approach). The level of this president's understanding and communication, as well as the goal, is so high. You may not agree with the guy, but he is so smart and so able to comprehend all of the issues and concerns that it is impossible to dismiss him. When I disagree with him, and I do, I never think the guy is anything but a true American, working for our side, working hard.
----
Obama shows a realistic grasp of the difficulties. The best arguments in favor of ending sanctions were that they would not be sustainable for our allies in India and elsewhere; and that since sanctions would not prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, war would eventually have been necessary. But war would only strengthen the isolationist hardliners in Iran, consolidating their vision of a militant, uncompromising, extremist Iran. This in turn would become a greater danger to Israel, which would not be able to bomb every nuclear facility, or invade and occupy Iran.
On the other side, Obama appears realistic about the dangers a richer Iran would pose - more money to give to Hezbollah and its other proxies, more money for building weapons, including a secret nuclear program, more money to invest in terrorism. These argue strongly for continuing sanctions as long as possible, until a humbled Iran is ready to abandon nuclear power. But how long would that take?
The President appears to be gambling that money involves obligations, and that participation in the world economy will force Iran to surrender its dream of controlling the Middle East in favor of good relations with countries that buy its products.
Netanyahu thinks Iran will never change. He wants war, and forced regime change. Did he not see how that strategy worked in Iraq? He now faces a worse enemy there, the Islamic State. With reservations, I endorse Obama's deal.
----
I suggest everyone listen to this interview...its fukking incredible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/o...bama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html
Obama really broke this shyt down...its an unfortunate deal but a nuclear Iran is a massive problem...we're really just out here floating in the water
nineteeneightysix
Banned
I understand your unjustified fears...You are an American thinking the American way...I am just not buying into the fear mongering...Iran WILL not use a weapon against any other country...
If North Korea hasn't, I doubt Iran would...
Not any different than any other country...
America is able to go in and destabilize entire region because they have the bomb, and so can get away with it...North Korea has it's foot on South Korea's neck because they have the bomb and can get away with ...Russia just took over a part of the Ukrain and NOBODY did shyt because they have the bomb...
Nations with bombs are getting away with murder...Iran would not be any different...However, I understand your American bias...
Supporting my point...No country is stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack in this day and age...No amount of hate is going to push a nation to use a bomb on another...
The best evidence supports my opinion more than your paranoia...
So, somebody born in Iran should just trust that America will not nuke them like they didn't with Hiroshima and Nagasaki...They should just trust that America is not going to fabricate "evidence" and invade their country just like they didn't with Afghanistan and Iraq...
Again, you are an American, and your stance makes sense...I too support the USA, because I live in Canada, and I understand what is good for America tends to be good for Canada...
But sometimes you have to ask yourself, "what if I was an alien observing humanity from a third party sitting outside the box looking in, what will I see?"
This the stance I am using for this argument...Realistically I am down with the USA 100%, but idealistically, I know it is hypocrisy...Anything that is hypocritical can't be the best way of doing things...
This opinion is just
The same mechanisms that created Mexico, the USA and Canada, are creating new borders in other parts of the world...The only way to claim a nation is with power by any means necessary...
If Mexico, the USA and Canada deserve to exist, so does any other country...Because almost every single country was created with force
You are low key a supporter of perpetual war...
(1) Dude, that doesn't even make sense..If I know you have an AR 15 at your house, and I still open the gate, step on your back yard and aim an AK 47 at your children...How is that backing down...? I came to your back yard knowing what you were holding...It didn't deter me...If I leave without bloodshed, it's because we had agreement...
(2) The USA don't want no action with Russia...Just like Russia don't want no action with the USA...That war will NEVER happen...Thanks to nuclear weapons...
(3) Iran is NOT a rogue nation...Let us look at the definition of "rogue nation"...According to www.thefreedictionary.com, a rogue nation is a "state that does not respect other states in its international actions"...
Now let us apply the definition,
America destroys Afghanistan for no good reason...(1) No proof that Osama orchestrated 911 (2) No proof of Afghanistan's role (3) Bin Laden isn't even Afghani, He us Saudi..
America destroys Iraq with no regards of the international community...
America IS the "rogue nation" by definition...
Again, you are American, your bias makes PERFECT sense, and as a Canadian, I support it, because what is good for the USA tends to be good for Canada...
And people call me a troll because I sometimes express a "anything goes, there is no right or wrong, it is survival of the fittest by any means necessary" opinion...
I am not a troll...I just see the HYPOCRISY and BIAS of 99% of everything we believe in, and I challenge it...
myself