Reply With Quote
Look guys, debates are about positions.
If you say what Obama should have done, well what are the repercussions of that?
If you can't explain those both things, STFU.
Look guys, debates are about positions.
If you say what Obama should have done, well what are the repercussions of that?
If you can't explain those both things, STFU.
We shouldn't have signed the agreement. We should have pursued Hezbollah as a criminal en y as is shown by Project Cassandra. As such, we should not have also paid a secrent $1.7 million American dollar cash drop to them. We should have thusly continued the sanctions. We should have continued to explore all military options as we monitored Iran's nuclear capabilities. And we probably should have worked with the international community to create a red line wherein they would face war if they choose to enrich uranium and explore nuclear weapons capabilities.
Now, you tell me why the agreement was good. I don't think you have a good answer for it.
So war, huh?
That did absolutely nothing about their nuclear capabilities. Not even the pre-existing ones you were ing about. And the war you threatened would probably be a unilateral decision. You want to enlist to fight that war?
It's an eight country+EU agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for several years.Now, you tell me why the agreement was good. I don't think you have a good answer for it.
It prohibits them. It doesn't prevent them; and in fact it actually enables them given that the sanctions are lifted as well as other factors. Wow, you really failed to deliver, as expected.
Have they broken the agreement?
lol red line.
Why would that be funny?
Would you bet a thousand dollars that they haven't?
What would your military action against Iran look like?
Trump keeps certifying it. Take it up with him.Would you bet a thousand dollars that they haven't?
I didn't ask to hear about your daddy issues. Would you bet a thousand dollars that Iran hasn't broken the agreement?
This is the existential distraction I spoke of. It has no bearing on the fact that we actually gave Iran concessions and material support to further their nuclear weapons advancement. This is why Hillary never had a counter every time Trump called it a "disaster." It's fundamental reality.
Depends on your definition. TSA and I already discussed it long ago. As long as Trump certifies the agreement, that's good enough for me.
And he keeps certifying the agreement. That's fundamental reality.
Let me know when Trump comes up with something else to replace it.
Trash/MIC want to kill the Iran deal, and then bomb Iran for oil
Probably another plus for the existing agreement then.
Hardly lock-stock logic given that Trump has stated that Iran is not following the agreement.
He keeps certifying it and hasn't come up with anything else. We can talk about it when he decertifies it and comes up with something else.
So, what is your measure for success for the agreement? If in some odd months or years Iran has nuclear weapons, will the agreement be a failure?Please give me an out.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 12-21-2017 at 01:42 AM.
If they have nuclear weapons before the end of the agreement term, it will be a failure -- but the consequences for Iran in that case are pretty bad. That's an advantage to the multilateral agreement.
The important thing is for the US to live up to everything they agreed to. Can't half-ass it like we did with the DPRK.
And what will those "pretty bad" consequences be?
so is nick short your kyle griffin?
Oh Lordy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions