Question: Will the emerging deal with Iran prevent it from....
- Thread starter 86Hawkeye
- Start date
No. It just says they have to wait ten years to do it.
Iran doesn't like it because they don't want to wait period.
Bibi doesn't like it because he wants Iran to wait forever. (We have never offered to negotiate a time-frame until this Administration)
The Administration loves it because it gives the impression of something, but it is really just kicking the can down the road to whomever is in the WH in 2025.
Iran doesn't like it because they don't want to wait period.
Bibi doesn't like it because he wants Iran to wait forever. (We have never offered to negotiate a time-frame until this Administration)
The Administration loves it because it gives the impression of something, but it is really just kicking the can down the road to whomever is in the WH in 2025.
What difference will it make? Does anyone really think Iran will live up to the terms of any agreement unless it is in their best interests to do so???
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Aren't we basically bribing them to not build one? If they don't want to be bought off, they will either get the bomb or we will go to war with them.
That's the thing. Once Iran gets nuclear weaponry then you are looking at many of the Sunni states in the Gulf looking to dabble in it too to balance out Iran.
Same thing China worries about in regard to South Korea trying to offset North Korea's nukes and setting off a regional nukefest.
The more nations with nukes the higher the probability that we will have a nuclear "accident" somewhere in the world in the future.
I don't like the thought of an Islamic Republic that hates us having that kind of destabilizing capability. Pakistan having nukes is bad enough.
Same thing China worries about in regard to South Korea trying to offset North Korea's nukes and setting off a regional nukefest.
The more nations with nukes the higher the probability that we will have a nuclear "accident" somewhere in the world in the future.
I don't like the thought of an Islamic Republic that hates us having that kind of destabilizing capability. Pakistan having nukes is bad enough.
Funny thing about neocons. They claim they adore the 2nd amendment because it is their right to sell-defense. On a grander scale, they mustn't let their lessors be armed or they'll have trouble getting them to submit.
Perfect analogy, Nat. They think they know who will or will not use them. So far, only one country has ever used them- the USA.
The reason they don't want Iran to have a nuke is because, once a country gets a nuke, then that country is no longer on the list for invasion and/or occupation by the US military.
Until hrot I didn't believe people really believed things like this or that there were folks dumb enough to equate Americans owning firearms to a militant Islamic country owning nukes. Very enlightening to say the least.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Define "militant", please. The most militant country in the world- in the HISTORY of the world- is the USA. Iran has a fairly peaceful military past. They don't have military bases all over the world.
That's as ghey as anything you've ever said. The right to protect yourself, is not just a right, it's essential to survival.
This is exactly why we lose so many people during Vietnam and during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Blind Patriotism. Nat and Strumm aren't saying these things because they are damning the US soldiers. They are damning the policies and the Tyrants responsible for sending are people over to foreign lands to wage war in the name of FREEDOM.
What a bunch of BS these wars were. They were based on lies, and good Americans died because of them. You COMPLETELY miss out on the fact that people like myself, Nat, and Strumm preach against these wars because we don't want to see our people killed, nor do we want to see more anger and terrorism to come and kill more Americans.
They aren't spitting on the soldiers, they are trying to preach against the madness in order to save them.
Nice try. Draft-dodging, power-hungry men like Dick Cheney is who I would spit on. The facts and truths we have posted here have not one damn thing to do with spitting on the pawns in the game of war. I actually support and contribute to the Wounded Warriors association. But, I have a strong aversion to war-mongering neo-cons that people like you bow to and elect, that kill American kids AND civilians in foreign countries.
Really? You think the US is more militant than Persia? What about Rome? The Huns? Sparta? I mean thats a ridiculous point I admit, but so is saying the US is the most militant country in the history of the world. Just saying.
The problem we have with people in this country is that they are uneducated as #$#$# about our foreign policy and the truth about the wars we have been invovled in. They have only watched movies and read the US version of how things happened.
Most of them never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin, nor understand how we helped to create Al Queda. They don't understand how the Military Industrial Complex fits into the equation, nor how having our hand in propping up dictators has helped create the problems in the Middle East.
What they don't get is quite simply this. We aren't doing this for the sake of "Freedom". We are doing this for the sake of power. They could at least admit, that this isn't about protecting from 'bad guys'. It's about getting as much control as possible so the 'other guys' don't get it first. It's a power struggle, and greed is involved as well.
News flash, thats not what the 2nd amendment is about. But if it were, that would be a right for "ragheads" too right? See the pickle? (No thats not a gay dick reference, NTTAWWT)
You're in blissful denial ofreality. When have you ever heard any of us say that? Go find some actual Liberals to argue with my friend.
Ah,yes the liberal reinterpretation of what the 2nd amendment actually meant. The ol' it was about militias and not the people. I love it when anti-gun folks try that one.
So trusting of the State, as if the State itself is some sort of all protecting God. Tsk, Tsk. So scared of guns, yet so happy to let people who 'abuse authority' have them eh Natural?
Yes, we are ol' ignorant one. How many of those countries had bases in 100's of other countries? How many of those countries had a Navy that patrols all 7 of the seas and can reach out and attack any country with missiles and nuclear weapons? How many of those countries had a Nuclear Arsenal that could destroy the world 100x over? Who's been involved in the most wars this century? Who's dropped more bombs than we have?
Come on Natural, you're not even fun anymore. You're trolling is way too transparent these days. Unlike that Administration you like to speak up for.
This post was edited on 3/3 10:14 PM by Aegon_Targaryen
fee 86...I don't know...I thought you were negotiating the treaty.
How would anyone know 86, until it is all said and done? Then the Senate votes on its ratification (2/3 majority required).
Ugh, whatever. It's pretty simple really, either you support Iran having nukes or you don't. No matter your twisted hatred of America or Israel, no one with a functioning brain thinks it's a good idea for Iran to have nukes besides Iran and those who want to see the destruction of Israel.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I don't "want" anyone to have the damned things. But, to have such a simple-minded default presumption that Iran having a nuke means the end of the world is showing just how indoctrinated you really are.
You're always so skeptical about government intentions except the one time I want you to be skeptical about government intentions. I'm the one not trusting that the politicians enshrined rebellion and self defence in an amendment clearly aimed at providing for national defence. Simply read the whole thing with your typical skepticism and you will see this was the government protecting itself on the cheap. The founding fathers were just politicians after all. Follow your own advice and stop being so trusting. .
Thanks for answering that for me. Nice to see Natural on the same side as his alleged "R's" opposition. I'm actually surprised he would even attempt to challenge such an easily-defended assertion. The United States is one of the youngest countries (240 years) and averages a major war every 16 years. It's been almost constantly at war since the Cold War ended! It's been at war for over a century theoretically. Not to mention the War on Drugs, The War on Poverty, the War on You Name It.
As George Carlin said "We're the only country who's national anthem mentions f*cking rockets and bombs in the godd*mned thing!"
All of those nations save Sparta had the technological equivalents to what you speak of at their time. And they didn't just set up bases, they took over the whole nation and committed genocide as a normal part of diplomacy. And the exception, Sparta forced all males into brutal military service for years.
Ignorant one, get a mirror and a history book and stop believing your own hyperbole.
Stop being so dumb Natural. Just stop. First off, we have in fact had drafts, more than one as a matter of fact. It also led to
'brutal' military service. Second off, we nuked two entire cities and killed 100's of thousands in a matter of minutes, and even more in a matter of decades through radiation effects.
We have military positioning throughout the entire world. Our technology as you speak of, has the potential to wipeout life on earth. Because of that, we don't have to take over, we just simply say our piece and eventually get what we want. Not to mention we simply don't have the numbers to cover all these countries and 'takeover', so we do it with our technology instead.
Stop being so dumb. Stop worshipping the Government. Start thinking for yourself. Do you know how many casualties came from the Iraq war? How about the the Vietnam war? Did you agree with those wars Natural? What were the reasonings behind those wars?
Try and at least challenge me.
You and your ilk ran away from me once I revealed my credentials in the NN thread. Perhaps you can do better here. So far, it's not looking good.
Don't forget how our wonderful Federal Reserve Central Bank rules-over the global monetary system. You can enslave people and make them indebted to you in much more sophisticated ways than by chaining them to a ball. It's so refined now that the slaves actually perpetuate it willingly.
I'm kind of surprised as well my friend. I'm thinking either he's just really ignorant tonight, or he's possibly trying to manipulate us into pissing off the Cons who read what we have to say about this stuff. No need to do that Natural, we would have said most of this anyways.
Either he's playing us against the Cons, or he's really bad at history or current affairs.
I wonder how many on here know about the Billions we sent to LIbya just before we made the moves to take out Gaddafi in 2010? For those that say it was NATO that did that did the damage in Libya, just remember that NATO is mostly the US, by a margin of at least 65% both financially and militarily.
Dude, if you think the experience under the Vietnam draft was comparable to the experience a Spartan male went through starting at age 7, you might just lack the awareness to even have an intelligent opinion on this topic.
When people use phrases like "The most militant country in the world- in the HISTORY of the world" one normally takes that in stride and realizes that's just hyperbolic rhetoric used for effect. But I had a sneaky suspicion you and strumm really believed your own BS. Thanks for having the grace to play along and expose yourselves.
Oh, and LOL at your NN comment.
