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

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

However, before Iran can respond to a credible threat of force there must be a U.S. administration with enough steel to do more than talk about whether a vague military option is on or off a metaphoric table. That is assuredly not the current “

So this deal or war was the two options!

We get it, you are for another war in the ME.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

There is no better deal without war...

Not provable. How many houses did you sell?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Wouldn't be a friday without a WSJ op piece copied and pasted by LustyTard. Of course it begins with a falsehood, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

It's not for you, sewer rat. Anything dealing with national security is way over your head, as amply demonstrated by your posts in this thread.

And you're wrong when you say it begins with a falsehood. It actually begins with TWO falsehoods - the two phony talking points parroted by you and your fellow libtards:

1. "We couldn't have negotiated a better deal."

2. "There's no alternative but war."

Your talking points have failed immensely to persuade the American people, who have listened skeptically and are saying - that's it? That's all you got? And you still want me to believe this is good for our national security? Really?

As the author notes, the only way the first falsehood can be made semi-plausible is if the "we" in the sentence is narrowly defined to refer to the feckless, incompetent Odumbo team rather than the rest of us.
.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's not for you, sewer rat. Anything dealing with national security is way over your head, as amply demonstrated by your posts in this thread.

And you're wrong when you say it begins with a falsehood. It actually begins with TWO falsehoods - the two phony talking points parroted by you and your fellow libtards:

1. "We couldn't have negotiated a better deal."

2. "There's no alternative but war."

Your talking points have failed immensely to persuade the American people, who have listened skeptically and are saying - that's it? That's all you got? And you still want me to believe this is good for our national security? Really?

As the author notes, the only way the first falsehood can be made semi-plausible is if the "we" in the sentence is narrowly defined to refer to the feckless, incompetent Odumbo team rather than the rest of us.
.

Failed immensely? Seems you've birthed another lie right before our eyes. Half of America supports it. That seems to call bullshit on your 'immense' failure to persuade.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...e-alternatives

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You like having water that is safe to drink? You like eating food that's safe to eat? You like driving on roads? Your tax dollars aren't 'confiscated', you fucking idiot. I bet you're poor as a fucking church mouse and YET, you will continue to elect white millionaires who don't give two fucks about you, because they're on your team. You are the fucking morons they use as mortar to build their palaces. And you're too fucking stupid to know it. They keep you busy by telling you the brown and black man are your enemy and you eat that shit up, because, as I previously said, you're fucking stupid.

The "brown man and black man" that are my enemy are lying leech La Raza and Reconquista loving putas like you that back idiots like this one in the White House for no other reason than "it would be nice to have the first black man as President "and " it sure would be nice to have a woman as President, without checking on their qualifications, like all the rest of us do when hiring someone and like employers across the land do when hiring someone. And you fall for the dumbascrap party's "income redistribution " plans of tax and spend when they're promising funding to a pet project that YOU like, yet that doesn't get SHIT done but further enslave pendejos like YOU to the government through welfare . And you're too fucking stupid to figure it out and surely won't admit that you following them is wrong out of some sense of shame and embarrassment that they SCREWED YOU and you didn't even get a kiss !!! Keep rimming those dumbascrap "leaders" woomby. They LOOVE sheeple like you in the voting booth. You're one of those that Gruber was referring to when it came to getting odumbercare passed.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

[Note, bolded red section cherry picked for inclusion in the quote within WTF's reply, the rest left out so that he could advance a strawman.

That can be said about each and every one of us....what part of that don't you understand?

You're a War monger. At least you have worn the uniform, much more than many of these War mongers can say.

Just as I've stated before, you consistently take my statements out of context so that you could have something to say. How about addressing what I actually argued? This is not about whether people are driven by ideology or not. This is about the fact that you tried the bullshit the audience about my intention. It was clear, throughout my posts, that every single one of those justifications were used in conjunction with each other as part of a bigger picture.

Insinuating that I was "shifting positions" amounted to academic dishonesty. Don't ask me questions if you refuse to answer questions that I have asked you in the past. I even asked you a question in my complete quote. Go back and answer that question, as well as every question I've asked you on this message board, before you demand an answer to your questions.

Just because I'm destroying your antiwar arguments with facts that exist in the real world does not make me a "warmonger." I don't advocate going to war for the sake of going to war. However, given that I understand the geopolitical and geostrategic threat posed by our asymmetrical enemy, I will advocate military action in a combination of other actions to take on that threat.

This does not make me a "warmonger" anymore than you would be a "troublemaker" if you were to defend yourself against somebody else.

Yes, I have worn the uniform. I still wear the uniform. As for the others here that are on my side of the argument, I know that JDB is also a veteran. We are both war veterans. Whether the others, on my side of the argument, have worn the uniform or not is immaterial if their argument regarding the War on Terror is consistent, or close in concept, to JDB's and mine. They could argue for common sense actions, against the threat, just as you would advise somebody to defend themselves if attacked. If those on my side of the argument, who have not served, are "warmongers" for advocating common sense defense policies, then you're a fight starting troublemaker if you've ever advised anybody to protect themselves if attacked in a fight.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

I know what he had written.

Geopolitics, had GWB thought about geopolitics , he would not have removed the counterweight to Iran.

You War Mongers do not understand that if you do not capture in spoils , more than you spend in capturing those spoils....than you war piggy bank dries up.

If you knew what he had written, you would not have accused him of insinuating that Saddam Hussein was a leader in Iran. Also, Iraq was not a counterweight to Iran. It was plainly obvious, during the 1980s, that the Iranians had an advantage over Iraq. Although the Iraqis had the initiative in the beginning, they were getting their asses handed to them toward the end. Had it not been for Operation Praying Mantis, the Iranians would not have sued for peace.

The real counterweight to Iran is Saudi Arabia.

From a geopolitical, geostrategic, and asymmetrical standpoint, invading Saddam controlled Iraq was a logical next step during the War on Terror. During the last decade, the United States had military forces in large numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both countries became fledgling democracies, and developed rapidly. This acted as a catalyst that contributed to pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran. Had it not been for President Obama's knocking the wind out of their sails, Iran would have been part of the Arab spring.

George Bush knew what he was doing. President Obama had a different agenda, and worked against a working plan. This is why we have the fiasco in the Middle East that we have right now. Had he followed through with President Bush's objectives in the Middle East, the way President Clinton followed through with Bush Senior's objectives in Central America, we would be watching the progress of fledgling democracies clear across the Middle East. ISIS would've been defeated long before they became a serious issue.

The idea that you "captured the spoils" is an ancient one. The days when one country could consistently expand by conquering country after country and annexing them are over. They are not even practical.

What you people, who have never combat deployed, don't understand is that the reality today is different. When you go to war with an enemy country, you take that war straight to that enemy countries military. When the military falls, you go after specific leadership, both military and civilian. While you're doing that, you set up a provisional government and get the country in the process democratic development.

The rules of land warfare exist for a reason. The fight is not against the civilians, or the citizenry, their institutions remain intact. Their property is respected and compensated for if applicable. The system works. I know that for fact, as I saw the Iraqis willingly westernize. They were doing so because they wanted to. They didn't just want to adapt what we were helping them create, they wanted to become more and more westernized. A large segment of our success over there involved "winning the hearts and minds." We did that. When PSYOP deploys downrange, their strategic objective is aligned with "winning the hearts and minds."

You don't do that by taking the spoils.

Back in the ancient times, a government entity was the corporation. The main means of production was predominantly based on agriculture. Conquering and annexing another country was a way to increase that means of production. We have an alternate means of production that does not require land acquisitions from another country. Hence, the idea that we should just "take the spoils" is outdated and impractical.

What we initially spend, on an operation involving an invasion, is paid back in other ways in decades. Look at how much money we spent conquering Germany and Japan. Turn around and look at how much money has been gained on both sides for decades after that. The invasions of those two countries have more than paid for themselves.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You take pride in yourself and your gloryhole posts, do you?

[Should be:

You take pride in your gloryhole posts and in yourself, do you? ]

["I'm a writer" -- WombRaider]

That's not the point behind his making those comments. He does them knowing full well that it gets under your skin. The fact that you keep replying to him speaks volumes. He knows that you will react. He has fun creating a post that gets under your skin. That's one of the reasons he keeps doing it.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're an atrocious failure at life.

Say the EUNUCH who's "career" is working the gloryholes at Talleywackers and his gloryhole franchises at the Arkansas truck stops. Is that considered an honorable 'trade" up there in Arkansas ? Do your mojado gente think that being a maricona working the holes is what they want to do once they get over here ? You can always tell them that you're a "musician" and tell them that you "play the trombone" . They might not understand if you told them that it's a "rusty" trombone !!!!!

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why should I engage with you? You are the epitome of Mark Twain's statement, "Never argue with a stupid person. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


You've never changed your mind in an online argument? That PROVES you're an idiot. I have. When someone refutes me in a way that makes sense, I've admitted it, and changed my mind. I've been shown to be wrong on a rare occasion, and I've admitted it. I've done it here. I'm willing to learn. You're not. That's why you're boring, and not worth engaging. You don't want to argue, you want to bully. Fuck you. Use all the blue you want. It's still bullshit.

In order to identify me as being "stupid", you have to actually prove it. Neither the opposition, nor you, have done so. Why you should engage me is a decision that you should make. Not me. As I've repeatedly stated, I take sadistic pleasure in dismantling the opposition's arguments. I do this indefinitely. I do this for fun. Not to change the other person's mind, not to change my position.

People that I debate with reveal a lot about their psychological makeup. I tend to "abuse" that knowledge to generate posts that I know would get them to react a certain way. I do this with every person that argue with. They end up reacting in a way that makes me laugh, and in a way that makes me adjust fire to get them to react some more. I did the same thing with you. I ramped it up as soon as you presented conspiracy whack job theories.

You complain that my refusal to "change my mind" based on what the opposition has said, makes me a "fool." You insinuate that I'm someone that "refuses" to learn. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I've repeatedly stated, on this thread, that in order for me to jump on a thread to debate, certain conditions have to be met. One of those conditions is that the intended opposition demonstrates lack of knowledge of what they are arguing. Another one of those conditions is that I have to know far more than the opposition about the topic being debated. Both of those conditions have to be met.

In other words, I pick and choose which arguments I get into. I don't get into an argument where the opposition knows more than I do. I don't get into an argument where either side could be right. However, I do get into an argument with an opposition that has demonstrated less knowledge on the topic than what I possess. Keep these conditions in mind. How, pray tell, am I going to learn from a group of people that do not know what they're talking about? Knowing what one talks about is a prerequisite for even coming up with a compromise. Unfortunately, I refuse to compromise with someone, or a group of people, who obviously don't know what they're talking about.

Notice, that I stated that I have maintained the same argument, after completion of the debate, that I had before entering the debate. Match that to the conditions that have to exist before I enter an argument.

Let's take the conspiracy angle. I embraced all sorts of conspiracy theories, similar to the ones that you guys are pushing, when I was younger. I had since rejected that. I came across facts, via research and experience, that contradicted that. Last decade, I got into multiple debates with people who advanced your arguments. None of them advanced any facts. In fact, I was able to find flaws, on multiple levels, with the arguments. These people got so desperate that they presented references that contradicted each other.

I also got into debates against conspiracy people on Facebook. This was against friends and family members who argued the "military industrial complex" theory. I hammered them just the same.

Notice, that I have said that the opposition has not gotten me to change my position. Nowhere, in any of these posts, do I claim that nobody, or nothing, got me to change my position in a non-argument. When it comes to neutral exchanges, where a real discussion is going on, on a topic that I do not consider as my SME area, I've mostly been in "listen" mode. However, their commentary isn't something that I run with. I use their commentary to start my research on their topic.

So yes, I learn from others online and face-to-face, when it comes to exchanges outside of these debates. Real discussions. I've lost count of how many "lead ideas" that I have received for doing research for additional learning.

Bottom line, I don't get into an online argument to learn more things. I get into online arguments to destroy the opposition's argument indefinitely and to have fun. Part of that fun involves responding in a way that gets them to react a certain way. Usually, this reaction makes me laugh my arse off.

I remember a time when you actually had a clue. This isn't a case where you "learned the truth" and adjusted fire. This is a case to where you demonstrated gullibility.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The key points are Flighty trusts the Iranians to give an honest baseline, trusts that inspectors can inspect the sites the Iranians are actually doing nuke bomb work, trusts that the snap back sanctions are enforceable and trusts that the Iranians hold up their end of the agreement...all while the Supreme Leader shouts "Death To America!"

And if you don't align yourself with the agreement, you are a warmonger...because you didn't negotiate a better one!

These people don't realize that Iran, under the current ruling elite, would not be friends with the United States unless the American people convert in mass to the Iranian's version of Islam.

He keeps ignoring my questions. When I come back to destroy the opposition again, I'm including my questions in my posts if they owe me an answer per the parameters that I set. These YES/NO questions won't answer themselves. I'm going to continue to include those questions in my replies to them to if they continue to ignore those questions.

[herfacechair]

WTF: There is no better deal without war...and that IMHO is not a better deal.

The idea that we would go to war with Iran without this deal is pure nonsense. We would simply have remained with the status quo, with sanctions continuing to pinch Iran. The Iranians would not be stupid enough to start a war with the United States. Likewise, invading Iran, giving the conditions prior to this agreement, was not on the horizon. Economic sanctions and political pressure were the chosen means to deal with Iran.

Not having a deal is better than the deal that we ultimately came up with.

WTF: The Iraq war gave the Iranians the upper hand in the ME....those of you that do not understand that fact , do not understand this deal.

Wrong. That does not reflect the history and reality of that area. Our invasion of Iraq did not give the Iranians the upper hand. Not even close. Again, Saudi Arabia is the real counterbalance to Iran. It was evident, during the 1980s, that Iraq was no counterbalance for Iran.

After we invaded Iraq, we had US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries flanking Iran. The economic, political, and democratic changes that resulted from the invasions ended up putting pressure on the Iranians. This pressure was applied to the people. The pro-democracy demonstrations there got stronger. This trend would have continued had President Obama been on their side. Instead, his policies toward Iran favored the Iranian regime.

Your statement is not a fact and it's not supported by reality. Also, the deal isn't reflective of anything that you talked about in that statement.

WTF: Think of it like this, A car with no brakes is gaining speed going downhill. The Russians, Chinese and Europeans decided to jump out, you seem to think there is a better outcome by staying in the car. Many like myself think it better to jump out and deal with the inevitable. [Wrong Analogy]

Your analogy assumes that everything that the Obama administration, and the mainstream media, say about the deal is "true." Much of that is propaganda. A better analogy would be trying to shore up an obstruction to prevent whatever is in the other side from getting to your side. Coming up with the Iranian deal would be equivalent to removing people, and objects, from the obstruction.

Your side of the argument thinks that maintaining the effort, to keep the obstruction up, would "put us on a dangerous path." Your argument is equivalent to arguing that continuing to maintain the obstruction would result in our going to the other side to deal with whatever it is on the other side. Our side insists on maintaining the obstruction to keep whatever it is, that we do not want in our side, to remain on the other side.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Scrawling your name and phone number on a men's room stall does NOT make you a writer woomby ! Just a desperate cum guzzling EUNUCH trying to get more "ropey loads" for his facials and more nalgas to rim while practicing your rusty trombone !!!

ECCIE seems to be a major client for his "writing".

The fact that he is on here, constantly throughout the day and night, speaks volumes about the nature of his "writing". When someone tells you that they are a "writer", it's usually because they are doing some kind of professional writing. WombRaider, as a writer, should be doing professionally writing for a client. If not, he could at least attempt to get writing clients.

As much as he posts here as WombRaider, I don't know how much he posted under his previous username, I doubt that he is doing anything related to building his writing business. Someone claiming to be "a writer", which seems to be posting all over the place on this message board, is suspect. It's like I said earlier, this may be an indicator that he made an attempt to be a writer. During that attempt, his attitude, that he displays here, ended up coming through to ruin his chances of making a living as a writer.

The guy is desperate. If he were succeeding with his writing, he wouldn't be living on this board as a means of validation. He wouldn't want to constantly spend his time here.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

The "brown man and black man" that are my enemy are lying leech La Raza and Reconquista loving putas like you that back idiots like this one in the White House for no other reason than "it would be nice to have the first black man as President "and " it sure would be nice to have a woman as President, without checking on their qualifications, like all the rest of us do when hiring someone and like employers across the land do when hiring someone. And you fall for the dumbascrap party's "income redistribution " plans of tax and spend when they're promising funding to a pet project that YOU like, yet that doesn't get SHIT done but further enslave pendejos like YOU to the government through welfare . And you're too fucking stupid to figure it out and surely won't admit that you following them is wrong out of some sense of shame and embarrassment that they SCREWED YOU and you didn't even get a kiss !!! Keep rimming those dumbascrap "leaders" woomby. They LOOVE sheeple like you in the voting booth. You're one of those that Gruber was referring to when it came to getting odumbercare passed.

Reagan was the biggest tax and spend president and you fail to even recognize that. You are hopeless, reytardo. And stupid. And that's just the way republicans want you to stay.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're an atrocious failure at life.

You claim to be a writer. Yet, you are constantly making posts on this and on other threads. You are here throughout the day and a good part of the night. You're a failed or phony writer if you're doing here what I see you doing. If you were doing any sort of writing as you imply, you wouldn't be a frequent poster here.

By the way, when the customer asks for an egg white delight, make sure that it comes with egg whites. Resisting the urge to post here from the McDonald's computer would help you maintain focus on the job.