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

[herfacechair]

flghtr65: HFC, in your post #376 you belittle the "Q" security clearance that many of the scientists who signed the letter had.

First, until you respect my experiences, research, knowledge, etc., that makes me the subject matter expert that has a greater standing than you in this argument, you do not have a leg to complain about my "belittling" the "Q" security clearance that the scientists had.

Second, it doesn't matter if they have the highest security clearance one could have in the United States, or even the world. If they are not going to address the totality surrounding the topic that they are talking about, in this case the agreement, I'm going to hammer them. I'm going to show where they are not qualified to speak.

flghtr65: The "Q" security clearance is a lot more significant than what you indicated.

An energy department security clearance, focusing on one aspect of the agreement, but not on the loopholes of the agreement, nor on the real world variables that would make this agreement fail, does nothing to add to their credibility. Nor does it add to your argument.

It doesn't matter how much significance these clearances have, if the expertise does not fully address the environment that the agreement has to operate in.

flghtr65: It someone wants to make a credible statement regarding detection of cheating of nuclear arms, it would help to have access to TOP SECRET information regarding the DESIGN of nuclear arms. From the first link above.

WRONG. If someone wants to make a credible statement regarding detection of cheating of nuclear arms, one has to speak from a background of having knowledge and/or experience with logistics, operations, interdiction, and many other tactical subjects, items that weigh heavily on whether the agreement, the way it is written, would work.

Scientists and engineers with "Q" clearances could tell you all they want about the theory and mechanics behind what's needed to create a nuclear weapon. If they fail to adequately address the oppositions being able to use cover and concealment, deception, logistics, and other tactics to defeat the agreement, then anybody that relies on the scientists lacks credibility.

Accept the fact that my military experience, and my research, gives me more credibility and standing in this argument than you. Also, answer the questions I've asked you on this thread. Do that before you demand that I even consider their credentials.

flghtr65: Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists,

Unless they have military backgrounds, involving operations, logistics, interdiction, cover and concealment, deception, working knowledge involving satellites, etc., just being physicists and engineers does not give them the "know all end all" say in this argument.

Again, they just address, on a limited basis, some information that would rely on their backgrounds. The majority of their letter, however, is opinion.

flghtr65: and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances -- granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military's top secret security clearance.

What part of "need to know" do you not understand?

Again, someone could have the highest clearance that anybody could have in the United States. If there job specialty does not require specific information, that's also under the same security classification, they are not entitled to it.

The scientists have clearances related to their specialties within the government. That is, if they are working for the government.

A look at their backgrounds suggest that the majority of them are working as tenured professors at universities.

Again, NEED TO KNOW.

If you go and look at their backgrounds, as I indicated in my previous post, it does not appear that any of them work for the government right now. This means their clearances are "inactive" or "expired". That's assuming that they have not met the time deadline for a clearance.

If they had no need to work for the government, for a position that requires that "Q" clearance, there's a good chance that their "Q" clearance EXPIRED. You're quick to point to their having these "Q" clearances, while continuing to ignore my own background holding secret clearances. These clearances have shelf lives.

Until you acknowledge my advantage in this argument against you, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I give them any credibility.

flghtr65: If Iran breaks the agreement and tries to produce a nuclear bomb, Obama/Biden will attack Iran. A link for this has already been provided.

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!

Keep that up, and you would almost be as funny as the guy that keeps threatening people here with his lawyer.

Do you honest to God think that Odumba would order a military attack on Iran if they break the agreement? All you have to do is look at Odumba's track record, both before and during his presidency, and you would see how laughable that opinion is.

When Iran is discovered to be cheating on that deal, Odumba will do nothing. If you look at his policies, towards the Middle East, you'd find that his policies favor groups over there that are hostile to the West. His policies are disadvantageous to our real allies in the region.

Odumba sided with the Iranian regime against the Iranian pro-democracy demonstrations. He will side with this regime when they cheat or even break the treaty.

flghtr65: DSK, I agree with you about this is the best deal we are going to get.

Wrong. This is the best deal that Iran could get, and among the worst deals that we could've gotten into. It's plainly obvious that you continue to not reference the actual agreement as this thread continues. Because, if you have gone through it, you would see how the Iranians made out like bandits.

For us, not having a deal with them at all would be better than this current deal. Saying that this deal is the best deal that you could get is like saying that the $500.00 plain white told bowl lid that you purchased from your shady neighbor was a "good deal."

flghtr65: Question for you did you post a couple weeks ago, that one the Dallas newspapers that had an article that said Obama would bomb Iran if Iran broke the agreement?

Odumba has no credibility among the critical thinkers of this forum, and of the United States. Odumba could come up to me, and swear up and down that he would attack Iran if they cheated on the deal, and I still would not believe him. And rightfully so.

When it comes to attacking our real enemies, Odumba tends to drag his feet and hope that the problem resolves itself. If Iran deviates from the deal, enough to qualify for a military attack, Odumba will do NOTHING. This is based on the trend of him having policies that favor our enemies, and that puts our real, or quasi-allies at a disadvantage.

flghtr65: Do you know where the link is?

It doesn't matter, he will not attack as he insinuates he would. If Iran breaks the deal, they will not suffer any real consequences.

[herfacechair]

DSK: I read Obama's Op-Ed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. If what he says is true, it is the best deal we are going to get. He claims he will bomb them later if needed.So, I'm going to support Obama on this, and hope he got it right.

When Odumba says that he's going to bomb somebody, expect the opposite to happen. He implied a consequence with his "red line in the sand" comment. He never carried out with he implied he'd do.

Odumba is indecisive when it comes to complicated matters, and tends to act toward the end when pressure mounts to the point that even he can't continue to remain indecisive.

He won't bomb Iran if they fail to comply with the agreement.

I've seen your support for WTF and his comment, so this isn't a case where you're sitting in the middle deciding to support Odumba "this time."

DSK: COG - you are speaking the truth and I wish more people would take the time to understand it.

No, he's not speaking the truth. In order for him to do that, he'd have to understand the true makeup of what makes up today's Iran. He did not demonstrate that knowledge in his posts. His assumptions of what Iran would do assumes that they think like us, they don't.

Instead of wishing that people understand what he says, you need to wish that more people would understand the true makeup, and mentality, of Iran's ruling elite as well as other factors going on in that region.

DSK: We need to shrink our military down so we won't be itching to fight everywhere.

Given the current geostrategic makeup of the world, that's one of the dumbest things that I've read on this thread. It also shows a colossal failure from learning from mistakes in the past.

Regardless of what we do, with our military or other assets in this country, our adversaries and enemies have a vote. They cast a vote in what happens in the world. Say we do just that, shrink the military down to the numbers you believe they should be.

Crap hits the fan in Asia, and we have to respond with what's left of the military. If you want to find out what would end up happening in this case, read about what led to our initial series of setbacks, during the Korean War, before we finally got our acts together. The war of 1812 is another example of what happens when you shrink the military down as you argue here.

Contrary to what's said in the history books used in American schools, the US got its azz spanked a lot during that conflict. Yes, we shrunk our military down after the American Revolution.

Crack open a history book and try to learn something with the view that history forgotten is history that risks being repeated.

If you shrink the military now, to levels that you are implying, if crap is the fan, you won't necessarily get your seasoned military veterans back. You would end up responding with a predominantly new military with little experience. Depending on how hard the crap hits the fan, you could be seeing the return of the draft.

It's bad enough that Odumba's policies have weakened the United States, and caused the United States to lose credibility. Shrink the military further and see how far our adversaries and enemies try to push the envelope at the expense of our allies and us.

DSK: I agree. We have to deal with these people rationally, and walk a mile in their shoes.

Sounds "good" on paper, but does not pass the reality test. If you intend to deal with Iran via Western rationality, you're chasing a fools dream. The ruling elite in Iran has a different form of rationality, one that envisions a Palestinian state where the Western world sees Israel.

How do you rationalize with a group of people that think one of your allies, Israel, should "not" be there? You can't.

There radical Islamic elite see things from a radical Islamic perspective, not from your Western liberal perspective. We're dealing with a group of people that make America's conservatives look like flaming liberals in comparison.

If your side of the argument is having a hard time rationalizing with the opposition here, what makes you think that we could rationalize with those radicals? You can't, unless you see things through their radical Islamic perspective and agree with them.

DSK: Although I think Mr. Trump could get a better deal, I believe this is as good a deal as we will ever get.

Having no deal at all with them is a lot better than this current deal the way it is written.

DSK: Additionally, we cannot credibly deny the treaty and get anything better

Denying this treaty would actually build our credibility back up. Signing off on this agreement, the way it is written, destroys our credibility. It represents us going back on the conditions we originally placed on Iran.

The Republicans should send a resolution of disagreement to the White House. This will force a veto. The Republicans should turn around and attempt a veto override, using the nuclear option to defeat any attempt to filibuster in the Senate. Even though this veto will not get overridden, it will force the Democrats to vote twice in favor of this deal.

This deal will backfire. When it does, there will be no easy way for Odumba and his mindless drones to put this on Bush or any Republican.

DSK: unless we want another useless war in the Middle East.

As I've indicated earlier in this thread, Afghanistan and Iraq wars were necessary. They were the logical first and second steps in the war on terrorism. We had to go in and invade under the circumstances that required the invasion.

These wars are far from being "useless," quotation marks used strongly. The only "useless" that I see are the mindless drones that insist that this war was wrong and useless.

DSK: We need to hold our nose and take the deal,

Wrong, this deal should be rejected. The Iranians need to be crushed under oppressive economic sanctions. This deal, and the lifting of sanctions, just facilitates the increase in danger that Iran poses to our allies and interests in that region.

DSK: and pray the monitoring works long enough to accomplish the purpose of denying Iran's ambitions as a nuclear power.

No amount of prayer would do that. The idea that this deal would work, and would "deny" Iran's ambition, is nothing but a pipe dream or the results of spending too much time on the bong.

DSK: Be realistic and take this poor deal over no deal.

Wrong, having no deal at all is far superior to this current deal. This current deal benefits Iran and contributes to the reduction of the US's credibility.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

If Iran breaks the agreement and tries to produce a nuclear bomb, Obama/Biden will attack Iran. A link for this has already been provided.

I can see why you don't want to provide the link. That's not what Obama said. Here's the applicable paragraph(s), they are very near the bottom of the article:

As commander-in-chief, I have not hesitated to use force when necessary. If Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we won’t have any other choice than to act militarily. However, we cannot in good conscience justify a march toward war before we’ve exhausted diplomacy.

This deal prevents Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has agreed to it, and the international community overwhelmingly supports it. And, if Iran fails to meet its commitments, this deal preserves all our options for responding.

from http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/la...clear-iran.ece

What Obama is saying has a high degree of wiggle room. Really, its not worth the paper its printed on. If they don't abide by the deal AND all the negotiations have failed...by that time Obama will be sipping Mai-Tais in Hawaii. BTW, I'm reading that Iran hasn't agreed to the deal. That the Supreme Leader has yet to sign off. He wants the sanctions lifted permanently before Iran fulfills any action. The SL will get it.

The funniest thing is that we are going to be able to detect them cheating by waving a Geiger counter where the Iranians told the inspectors it was OK to wave it.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

DSK: I read Obama's Op-Ed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. If what he says is true, it is the best deal we are going to get. He claims he will bomb them later if needed.So, I'm going to support Obama on this, and hope he got it right.

When Odumba says that he's going to bomb somebody, expect the opposite to happen. He implied a consequence with his "red line in the sand" comment. He never carried out with he implied he'd do.

Odumba is indecisive when it comes to complicated matters, and tends to act toward the end when pressure mounts to the point that even he can't continue to remain indecisive.

He won't bomb Iran if they fail to comply with the agreement.

I've seen your support for WTF and his comment, so this isn't a case where you're sitting in the middle deciding to support Odumba "this time."

DSK: COG - you are speaking the truth and I wish more people would take the time to understand it.

No, he's not speaking the truth. In order for him to do that, he'd have to understand the true makeup of what makes up today's Iran. He did not demonstrate that knowledge in his posts. His assumptions of what Iran would do assumes that they think like us, they don't.

Instead of wishing that people understand what he says, you need to wish that more people would understand the true makeup, and mentality, of Iran's ruling elite as well as other factors going on in that region.

DSK: We need to shrink our military down so we won't be itching to fight everywhere.

Given the current geostrategic makeup of the world, that's one of the dumbest things that I've read on this thread. It also shows a colossal failure from learning from mistakes in the past.

Regardless of what we do, with our military or other assets in this country, our adversaries and enemies have a vote. They cast a vote in what happens in the world. Say we do just that, shrink the military down to the numbers you believe they should be.

Crap hits the fan in Asia, and we have to respond with what's left of the military. If you want to find out what would end up happening in this case, read about what led to our initial series of setbacks, during the Korean War, before we finally got our acts together. The war of 1812 is another example of what happens when you shrink the military down as you argue here.

Contrary to what's said in the history books used in American schools, the US got its azz spanked a lot during that conflict. Yes, we shrunk our military down after the American Revolution.

Crack open a history book and try to learn something with the view that history forgotten is history that risks being repeated.

If you shrink the military now, to levels that you are implying, if crap is the fan, you won't necessarily get your seasoned military veterans back. You would end up responding with a predominantly new military with little experience. Depending on how hard the crap hits the fan, you could be seeing the return of the draft.

It's bad enough that Odumba's policies have weakened the United States, and caused the United States to lose credibility. Shrink the military further and see how far our adversaries and enemies try to push the envelope at the expense of our allies and us.

DSK: I agree. We have to deal with these people rationally, and walk a mile in their shoes.

Sounds "good" on paper, but does not pass the reality test. If you intend to deal with Iran via Western rationality, you're chasing a fools dream. The ruling elite in Iran has a different form of rationality, one that envisions a Palestinian state where the Western world sees Israel.

How do you rationalize with a group of people that think one of your allies, Israel, should "not" be there? You can't.

There radical Islamic elite see things from a radical Islamic perspective, not from your Western liberal perspective. We're dealing with a group of people that make America's conservatives look like flaming liberals in comparison.

If your side of the argument is having a hard time rationalizing with the opposition here, what makes you think that we could rationalize with those radicals? You can't, unless you see things through their radical Islamic perspective and agree with them.

DSK: Although I think Mr. Trump could get a better deal, I believe this is as good a deal as we will ever get.

Having no deal at all with them is a lot better than this current deal the way it is written.

DSK: Additionally, we cannot credibly deny the treaty and get anything better

Denying this treaty would actually build our credibility back up. Signing off on this agreement, the way it is written, destroys our credibility. It represents us going back on the conditions we originally placed on Iran.

The Republicans should send a resolution of disagreement to the White House. This will force a veto. The Republicans should turn around and attempt a veto override, using the nuclear option to defeat any attempt to filibuster in the Senate. Even though this veto will not get overridden, it will force the Democrats to vote twice in favor of this deal.

This deal will backfire. When it does, there will be no easy way for Odumba and his mindless drones to put this on Bush or any Republican.

DSK: unless we want another useless war in the Middle East.

As I've indicated earlier in this thread, Afghanistan and Iraq wars were necessary. They were the logical first and second steps in the war on terrorism. We had to go in and invade under the circumstances that required the invasion.

These wars are far from being "useless," quotation marks used strongly. The only "useless" that I see are the mindless drones that insist that this war was wrong and useless.

DSK: We need to hold our nose and take the deal,

Wrong, this deal should be rejected. The Iranians need to be crushed under oppressive economic sanctions. This deal, and the lifting of sanctions, just facilitates the increase in danger that Iran poses to our allies and interests in that region.

DSK: and pray the monitoring works long enough to accomplish the purpose of denying Iran's ambitions as a nuclear power.

No amount of prayer would do that. The idea that this deal would work, and would "deny" Iran's ambition, is nothing but a pipe dream or the results of spending too much time on the bong.

DSK: Be realistic and take this poor deal over no deal.

Wrong, having no deal at all is far superior to this current deal. This current deal benefits Iran and contributes to the reduction of the US's credibility.

You entire set of arguments, though reasonable within their scope, presuppose that we have any responsibility to police the rest of the world. We cannot continue to do the United Nations job of maintaining world peace. There are a billion Muslims in the world. I don't particularly like them, and I wish they would not come to America. However, they are people too, and have their own right to exist. I believe they would happily kill each other and leave us alone if we left them alone. Is that a moral argument? It is if you think, as I do, that continuing to fight them will materially weaken us, kill millions of them, and when we finally stop killing them, and leave them alone, they will do the same thing as they always have, and add us to the list of people they want to kill the most then in fact it is the rational and moral thing to do.

We have almost no long term ability to fight them for the next hundred years, and why would we want to? Let them settle their own problems - we have more than we can handle here.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

+1

DSK, I agree with you about this is the best deal we are going to get. Question for you did you post a couple weeks ago, that one the Dallas newspapers that had an article that said Obama would bomb Iran if Iran broke the agreement? Do you know where the link is?

I don't have a perfect memory for this sort of thing, but I'm pretty sure I haven't quoted anything from the Dallas Morning news in awhile, and I don't remember the Obama article.

I searched and found this article, which is pretty good and has Obama explaining his rationale. Hopefully, it is what you were looking for - but I believe it was probably distributed nationwide.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/la...clear-iran.ece

[IIFFOFRDB]

WHY THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL WILL MEAN WAR
Imagine Jihadists with nukes on both sides.


September 8, 2015 Daniel Greenfield


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Like a snake oil salesman trying to move a gallon of lies by promising that it’s either buy the bottle or die, Obama sold the Iran deal as the only alternative to war. In fact the deal is a certain road to war.

Or as Churchill said, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Before long, the British and French were facing Czech tanks redesignated as Panzers that had been seized as part of the Nazi spoils of appeasement.

When Obama claimed that the Iran nuclear deal was the only alternative to war, he was lying in more ways than one. The United States has already been dragged into Iran’s war for control of Iraq. That war was one of the levers that Iran exploited to get its way on its nuclear program. Iran also came close to dragging us into its war in Syria and we are hovering on the edge of being dragged into Yemen.

Iran and ISIS have done a thorough job of carving up entire countries into Shiite and Sunni blocs. And there’s no sign that this Islamic realignment of the Sykes Picot borders is going to stop. If the process continues, the scale and scope of the war will expand and transform the region away from nation states.

Everyone will have a choice between backing a Sunni ISIS or a Shiite ISIS. Obama chose the Shiite ISIS.

This would be happening even without the deal, but Iran’s victory and Obama’s appeasement will speed up the process. Russia is blatantly joining the Shiite military coalition as part of Tehran’s victory celebration. And the Russians aren’t there just to protect Assad, but to push America out of the region. As areas of operations overlap, there will be incidents. And Obama will back off once again.

But it’s not just about Syria. Iran promised its Russian and Chinese backers that they will benefit from a major regional realignment. Nations allied with the US will be overthrown or suppressed. And once that process really gets underway and will begin to threaten oil supplies, even a Democrat won’t be able to stay out. But by then America will have little credibility, few allies and major strategic disadvantages.

The real test won’t be in Syria. It has already come and gone in Yemen. It will probably come in Bahrain. Bahrain has a majority Shiite population and is the home of the Fifth Fleet. During the Arab Spring the Saudis put down Iran’s “civilian” uprising in Bahrain using tanks. The next time, it won’t be that easy for the House of Khalifa or the House of Saud. If there’s one thing that Iran knows it’s how to arm and train insurgencies and this time around its bid for a takeover of Bahrain will have Russian backing.

Iran’s Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain played a significant role in the Arab Spring protests under the umbrella of political Islam and human rights organizations. Iran’s ideal game plan would be for its front groups to win Western political backing for a takeover the way that the Muslim Brotherhood did in Egypt. Turning over Bahrain to admirers of the Iranian Revolution would seem insane, but so was turning over Iran to Khomeini or Egypt to Al Qaeda’s parent Muslim Brotherhood organization.

The Saudis have had to consider the possibility that Obama, Hillary or Biden would back Iran over the Saudis in Bahrain as they did in Iraq and Yemen. And they have been making their own plans.

Some months after Iran’s Ahmadinejad visited Cairo and met with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi, the Saudis reversed the Qatari-Obama coup that had put the Muslim Brotherhood in power. As the deadline for last year’s negotiations with Iran approached, the Saudis began dumping oil to hurt Russia and Iran. A similar Saudi move against Iran had helped bring on the Islamic Revolution. The Saudis probably don’t expect to undo that disaster, but they were hoping to offset any Obama-backed Iranian recovery.

Instead of fighting to keep sanctions in place, the Saudis were instead poisoning the well.

Whether he understood it or not, by signing off on Iran’s Shiite bomb, Obama was also signing off on an Egyptian-Saudi Sunni bomb. Israel’s nuclear capability was tacitly understood as a defensive weapon of last resort that would not trigger a regional arms race. Genocidal military invasions of Israel came to an end and any weapons remained under wraps.

Iran however is not looking for a deterrent weapon against its neighbors. With the fall of Saddam, it faces no serious threat of invasion by Sunni forces. Today its nuclear program can have no other purpose except to expand its power and territory while forcing the United States out of the region. Nuking Israel would help seal its right to rule over the Muslim world while intimidating its enemies.

A Middle Eastern MAD with Iranians and Saudis in a nuclear standoff would be bad enough, but both powers have a long history of using terrorists to do their dirty work. And the transfer of nuclear materials to terrorists is a lot harder to track than ICBM launches.

Iran and Saudi Arabia getting the bomb won’t be the end. It will only be the beginning. A decade ago, Iran had already funneled a billion dollars into helping Syria get its own nuclear reactor. A nuclear Iran will expand its points of proliferation to the Shiite regime in Baghdad, to Hezbollah in Lebanon and any other Shiite allied states it can set up. The Saudis will expand their own nuclear capabilities to their GCC allies and Egypt so that instead of two nuclear powers, there may be as many as ten nuclear nations.

Imagine the Cold War in miniature with a lot more proliferation and Jihadists with nukes on both sides.

That is what the Iran nuclear deal really means. Every Sunni kingdom will be glaring out from under its own nuclear shield as petty tyrants keep one finger on the populace and the other on the button. A single popular uprising could see nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda or ISIS.

On the other side, Iran will be aggressively expanding its influence while engaging in escalating naval confrontations with America and its allies. It’s possible that Obama, Biden or Hillary will be able to run away fast enough to avoid a war, but they won’t be able to avoid the resulting economic chaos. And the war will follow them home as Muslim countries have a history of settling their scores by aiming at more “legitimate” non-Muslim targets. That is how 9/11 happened as part of a Saudi power struggle.

And if the United States stays, our people will be trying to keep the peace in a region gone nuclear where American bases will be prime targets for Iran and its terrorist allies. The United States will retaliate against a nuclear strike directly from Iran, but what if it comes from one of the Hezbollahs?

The question isn’t whether there will be a war. It’s how bad the war will be.

That is what Churchill understood and Chamberlain didn’t. While Churchill had fought in Afghanistan against the forerunners of the Taliban, Chamberlain had run family businesses. He saw the military as an unnecessary expense and war as something that could be negotiated away. Churchill knew better.

We are up against something similar today.

The Middle East has exploded before. It will explode again. All we’ve been doing is keeping the lid on. Obama’s surrender means that we won’t control how that explosion happens, but it won’t stop us from getting dragged in anyway once the bombs start going off.

Obama’s advisers have told him to outsource American foreign policy to Tehran. And that’s what he did. Turning over your power to your enemy won’t make him your friend. It won’t stop a war.

It will make the war much worse.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2600...iel-greenfield

[herfacechair]

DSK: You entire set of arguments, though reasonable within their scope, presuppose that we have any responsibility to police the rest of the world. We cannot continue to do the United Nations job of maintaining world peace.

If that is what you got from reading my reply, then you did not understand what I was arguing. I'm not arguing that we should be the global policeman. However, earlier in this thread, I pointed out that every country in the world is going to pursue its interests.

If the United States were to disappear overnight, I guarantee you that another country will step in and do the exact same thing that we are doing. The cold hard reality is that every single country in the world is pursuing its interests at all levels. What we're doing, with regards to pursuing our interests, is more noticeable, as we're doing it on a global scale. But we are not the only ones. We are doing it the best.

If, as you argue, we should not do anything regarding global stability, then we will end up having to step back and have another country take our place. Then, we will fall into economic and political orbit around that country. That's a cold hard reality.

As long as we've had civilization, we've had a pecking order of countries pursuing their interests. When our ancestors were predominantly tribes of hunters/warriors/gatherers, each tribe pursued its own interests.

Our success as a country has put us in position to where we are capable of doing what we're doing now. We are able to secure our interests overseas.

Secondly, what happens in the other part of the world impacts the United States positively or negatively. The cold hard reality is that we are locked in a fight to the death with an entity that wants to see us gone. The United States happens to be the backbone of any kind of military response.

Herein lies the problem with expecting the United Nations to do what you want it to do. Most UN operations, without US backbone, tend to be a joke. Our adversaries around the world do not respect the United Nations, nor their forces.

I learned that firsthand toward the end of my Somalia deployment.

If we step down, and let another country, or group of countries, take our place, then we have to accept that our interests is subordinate to that of the other countries or group of countries. You may not even like it.

We are where we are today because collectively, with our allies, we pursue our interests around the world. That's a fact of life that's going to continue to exist long after we are gone.

The UN does not have the will or the resources to do what you argue they should do. The UN is laughable, and jam packed with representatives from countries that are corrupt. You're talking about an institution that would put a country, notorious for human rights abuses, in charge of the human rights commission. I'm sorry, I cannot trust an institution with that kind of judgment to be the backbone that guarantee stability around the world.

Without the US, or a Western country, UN responses are generally a joke. But even then, among the Western countries, there is a growing desire to sit back and let the US do the heavy lifting. Don't expect most of our Western Allies to step in and do what we do now if we were to pull back from the world.

The more likely candidates to take over from us would be Russia and China. One has already taken over sovereign territory. A second one is working to yank sovereign territory from their neighbors. Just ask China's neighbors if China taking our place would be a good idea. If we were to do what you are suggesting above, and we pulled back and let other people take up this issue, we could potentially end up having friction with the Chinese over our own miscellaneous territory.

But, bringing this back to pursuing our interests. We would not have the economy that we have right now, I'm not talking about economic progress, but what our economy is able to provide, if we did not pursue our interests overseas. If you look at the economic breakdown of where things flow in the world, the global economy is set up to feed the US economy.

If we are not engaged in the world, we would not enjoy the kind of standard and quality of living that we have right now. Hence, we have to remain engaged in the world.

DSK: There are a billion Muslims in the world. I don't particularly like them, and I wish they would not come to America. However, they are people too, and have their own right to exist.

None of my arguments, nor that of those in my side the argument, is against a Muslims right to exist, and a Muslims right to go wherever they want to go. However, I have repeatedly stated radical Islam. That is what we are at war with. Not with the general Islamic population.

DSK: I believe they would happily kill each other and leave us alone if we left them alone. Is that a moral argument? It is if you think, as I do, that continuing to fight them will materially weaken us, kill millions of them, and when we finally stop killing them, and leave them alone, they will do the same thing as they always have, and add us to the list of people they want to kill the most then in fact it is the rational and moral thing to do.

No, they've never left us alone. Remember what happened after the US population screamed, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute!" Yup, they pestered us practically as soon as we came into existence.

The reality does not reflect your statement. If we leave them alone, they will not leave us alone. They have a vote with what happens in our future regardless of which decision we make. There's a reason to why Iran's supreme leader consistently call us the "Great Satan." That's an attitude reflected repeatedly among radical Islamists.

You need to see things from their perspective, not from our Western perspective. You could watch their videos on YouTube. You don't have to understand the language, but the photos/pictures speak volumes.

This isn't a case where we have isolated groups of people fighting each other and shooting each other. Regardless of their differences, the radical elements have a manifest destiny that they fight for. This manifest destiny is to extend radical Islamic law throughout the world. Listen to their speeches. They keep talking about how the whole world will be united under the banner of Islam. They show that through their symbolisms in many of their videos and posters.

"Leaving them alone" shows a lack of understanding of their mindset. Their fighting each other is them fighting to establish dominance. Look at what ISIS is doing. They are trying to expand their influence and control throughout the Islamic world. Like Al Qaeda before them, they are trying to reestablish the Islamic/Moorish caliphates and Emirates. From there, engage in a series of campaigns to expand Islamic influence.

People in the United States saying, "We should just let them kill each other, and we stay out of it," are taking the wrong attitude. That's exactly the kind of attitude that they want us to take on. Again, one group will establish dominance, then the threat from the radicals skyrocket.

What I said earlier still stands, the radical elements over there strongly believe that the world will one day be entirely Islamic. In fact, in this video, the guy talks about the gradual conquests of the countries around the world by Islamic armies. I've lost count of how many videos that I watched, of these religious leaders, predicting the same thing or something similar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUVxxjuK-JI

The idea that our enemies leave us alone if we simply "leave them alone" does not take into account the fact that our adversaries have a vote in what happens next. They won't leave us alone.

DSK: We have almost no long term ability to fight them for the next hundred years, and why would we want to? Let them settle their own problems - we have more than we can handle here.

We have to, because the alternative involves sitting and waiting for our fate. We have no other choice but to keep fighting them indefinitely. Again, you have to see this from their perspective. There's a slight trace of Asiatic philosophy in this, I lived in Asia for five years, I recognize such philosophy. It's one that thinks in indefinite cyclical terms instead of the linear terms that we are used to in the West.

It's similar to the philosophy that I'm using in debates like this. Where the opposition hopes for an end to the debate, I just see this from a cyclical standpoint. No endgame, just take the opposition apart every time they reply. Wait for the next series of replies, then take those replies apart, repeat cycle.

If you think of this in terms of a Western mindset, then you're going to adapt a position that calls for us to wait for our defeat.

These events in the Middle East are not events that happen in isolation. Every terrorist attack that happens around the world, motivated by radical Islamic philosophy, are part of a coordinated united effort around the world. They are not separated, nor are they isolated.

It's a coordinated effort to do what I said earlier this thread, expand Dar al Islam at the expense of Dar al Harb (?).

At one point in time, North Africa was predominantly Christian. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Northwest section of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on, were predominantly Christian.

At the beginning of the dark ages, Islam pushed out of Saudi Arabia. Many of the atrocities that you see ISIS committing, these were many of the same atrocities committed by these Arabs, and later Moors, as they pushed out and spread Islam through areas that were predominantly Christian.

It did not always start that way. Mohammed fought a series of wars uniting a bunch of Arab tribes. Once he got an organization going, which conquered and subjugated these tribes, that organization was able to push out as a united front. From there, they were able to rapidly conquer areas that were predominantly Christian.

It is in their manifest destiny to spread Islam throughout the world. This war has been going on ever since the beginning of the dark ages. The war on terrorism is just the latest chapter in this struggle. It was not our first "rodeo" with them, we had a previous rodeo with them at the beginning of the 19th century. Again, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute."

As Western Civilization, we had to tangle with radical Islam for centuries.

We cannot afford to think that we cannot engage in the struggle definitely. I'm saying this from their mindset, and know for fact that we can take this fight to them, and keep engaging them, indefinitely. We are in position to win provided that the American, and Western, population does not lose the will to fight.

Only one outcome can happen at the end of the struggle that we are in. Either we succeed in the plans that we started the last decade, or the radical elements succeed in converting United States, and the rest of Western civilization and the world, into a series of radical Islamic caliphates/emirates.

There is no alternate, or other, outcome in the long run. Abdicating our role as a superpower isn't the answer unless it's defeat, and mass conversion to Islam that's are our objectives.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

DSK: You entire set of arguments, though reasonable within their scope, presuppose that we have any responsibility to police the rest of the world. We cannot continue to do the United Nations job of maintaining world peace.

If that is what you got from reading my reply, then you did not understand what I was arguing. I'm not arguing that we should be the global policeman. However, earlier in this thread, I pointed out that every country in the world is going to pursue its interests.

If the United States were to disappear overnight, I guarantee you that another country will step in and do the exact same thing that we are doing. The cold hard reality is that every single country in the world is pursuing its interests at all levels. What we're doing, with regards to pursuing our interests, is more noticeable, as we're doing it on a global scale. But we are not the only ones. We are doing it the best.

If, as you argue, we should not do anything regarding global stability, then we will end up having to step back and have another country take our place. Then, we will fall into economic and political orbit around that country. That's a cold hard reality.

As long as we've had civilization, we've had a pecking order of countries pursuing their interests. When our ancestors were predominantly tribes of hunters/warriors/gatherers, each tribe pursued its own interests.

Our success as a country has put us in position to where we are capable of doing what we're doing now. We are able to secure our interests overseas.

Secondly, what happens in the other part of the world impacts the United States positively or negatively. The cold hard reality is that we are locked in a fight to the death with an entity that wants to see us gone. The United States happens to be the backbone of any kind of military response.

Herein lies the problem with expecting the United Nations to do what you want it to do. Most UN operations, without US backbone, tend to be a joke. Our adversaries around the world do not respect the United Nations, nor their forces.

I learned that firsthand toward the end of my Somalia deployment.

If we step down, and let another country, or group of countries, take our place, then we have to accept that our interests is subordinate to that of the other countries or group of countries. You may not even like it.

We are where we are today because collectively, with our allies, we pursue our interests around the world. That's a fact of life that's going to continue to exist long after we are gone.

The UN does not have the will or the resources to do what you argue they should do. The UN is laughable, and jam packed with representatives from countries that are corrupt. You're talking about an institution that would put a country, notorious for human rights abuses, in charge of the human rights commission. I'm sorry, I cannot trust an institution with that kind of judgment to be the backbone that guarantee stability around the world.

Without the US, or a Western country, UN responses are generally a joke. But even then, among the Western countries, there is a growing desire to sit back and let the US do the heavy lifting. Don't expect most of our Western Allies to step in and do what we do now if we were to pull back from the world.

The more likely candidates to take over from us would be Russia and China. One has already taken over sovereign territory. A second one is working to yank sovereign territory from their neighbors. Just ask China's neighbors if China taking our place would be a good idea. If we were to do what you are suggesting above, and we pulled back and let other people take up this issue, we could potentially end up having friction with the Chinese over our own miscellaneous territory.

But, bringing this back to pursuing our interests. We would not have the economy that we have right now, I'm not talking about economic progress, but what our economy is able to provide, if we did not pursue our interests overseas. If you look at the economic breakdown of where things flow in the world, the global economy is set up to feed the US economy.

If we are not engaged in the world, we would not enjoy the kind of standard and quality of living that we have right now. Hence, we have to remain engaged in the world.

DSK: There are a billion Muslims in the world. I don't particularly like them, and I wish they would not come to America. However, they are people too, and have their own right to exist.

None of my arguments, nor that of those in my side the argument, is against a Muslims right to exist, and a Muslims right to go wherever they want to go. However, I have repeatedly stated radical Islam. That is what we are at war with. Not with the general Islamic population.

DSK: I believe they would happily kill each other and leave us alone if we left them alone. Is that a moral argument? It is if you think, as I do, that continuing to fight them will materially weaken us, kill millions of them, and when we finally stop killing them, and leave them alone, they will do the same thing as they always have, and add us to the list of people they want to kill the most then in fact it is the rational and moral thing to do.

No, they've never left us alone. Remember what happened after the US population screamed, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute!" Yup, they pestered us practically as soon as we came into existence.

The reality does not reflect your statement. If we leave them alone, they will not leave us alone. They have a vote with what happens in our future regardless of which decision we make. There's a reason to why Iran's supreme leader consistently call us the "Great Satan." That's an attitude reflected repeatedly among radical Islamists.

You need to see things from their perspective, not from our Western perspective. You could watch their videos on YouTube. You don't have to understand the language, but the photos/pictures speak volumes.

This isn't a case where we have isolated groups of people fighting each other and shooting each other. Regardless of their differences, the radical elements have a manifest destiny that they fight for. This manifest destiny is to extend radical Islamic law throughout the world. Listen to their speeches. They keep talking about how the whole world will be united under the banner of Islam. They show that through their symbolisms in many of their videos and posters.

"Leaving them alone" shows a lack of understanding of their mindset. Their fighting each other is them fighting to establish dominance. Look at what ISIS is doing. They are trying to expand their influence and control throughout the Islamic world. Like Al Qaeda before them, they are trying to reestablish the Islamic/Moorish caliphates and Emirates. From there, engage in a series of campaigns to expand Islamic influence.

People in the United States saying, "We should just let them kill each other, and we stay out of it," are taking the wrong attitude. That's exactly the kind of attitude that they want us to take on. Again, one group will establish dominance, then the threat from the radicals skyrocket.

What I said earlier still stands, the radical elements over there strongly believe that the world will one day be entirely Islamic. In fact, in this video, the guy talks about the gradual conquests of the countries around the world by Islamic armies. I've lost count of how many videos that I watched, of these religious leaders, predicting the same thing or something similar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUVxxjuK-JI

The idea that our enemies leave us alone if we simply "leave them alone" does not take into account the fact that our adversaries have a vote in what happens next. They won't leave us alone.

DSK: We have almost no long term ability to fight them for the next hundred years, and why would we want to? Let them settle their own problems - we have more than we can handle here.

We have to, because the alternative involves sitting and waiting for our fate. We have no other choice but to keep fighting them indefinitely. Again, you have to see this from their perspective. There's a slight trace of Asiatic philosophy in this, I lived in Asia for five years, I recognize such philosophy. It's one that thinks in indefinite cyclical terms instead of the linear terms that we are used to in the West.

It's similar to the philosophy that I'm using in debates like this. Where the opposition hopes for an end to the debate, I just see this from a cyclical standpoint. No endgame, just take the opposition apart every time they reply. Wait for the next series of replies, then take those replies apart, repeat cycle.

If you think of this in terms of a Western mindset, then you're going to adapt a position that calls for us to wait for our defeat.

These events in the Middle East are not events that happen in isolation. Every terrorist attack that happens around the world, motivated by radical Islamic philosophy, are part of a coordinated united effort around the world. They are not separated, nor are they isolated.

It's a coordinated effort to do what I said earlier this thread, expand Dar al Islam at the expense of Dar al Harb (?).

At one point in time, North Africa was predominantly Christian. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Northwest section of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on, were predominantly Christian.

At the beginning of the dark ages, Islam pushed out of Saudi Arabia. Many of the atrocities that you see ISIS committing, these were many of the same atrocities committed by these Arabs, and later Moors, as they pushed out and spread Islam through areas that were predominantly Christian.

It did not always start that way. Mohammed fought a series of wars uniting a bunch of Arab tribes. Once he got an organization going, which conquered and subjugated these tribes, that organization was able to push out as a united front. From there, they were able to rapidly conquer areas that were predominantly Christian.

It is in their manifest destiny to spread Islam throughout the world. This war has been going on ever since the beginning of the dark ages. The war on terrorism is just the latest chapter in this struggle. It was not our first "rodeo" with them, we had a previous rodeo with them at the beginning of the 19th century. Again, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute."

As Western Civilization, we had to tangle with radical Islam for centuries.

We cannot afford to think that we cannot engage in the struggle definitely. I'm saying this from their mindset, and know for fact that we can take this fight to them, and keep engaging them, indefinitely. We are in position to win provided that the American, and Western, population does not lose the will to fight.

Only one outcome can happen at the end of the struggle that we are in. Either we succeed in the plans that we started the last decade, or the radical elements succeed in converting United States, and the rest of Western civilization and the world, into a series of radical Islamic caliphates/emirates.

There is no alternate, or other, outcome in the long run. Abdicating our role as a superpower isn't the answer unless it's defeat, and mass conversion to Islam that are our objectives.

The highlighted portion is completely hyperbolic bullshit. Anytime you start saying it's either one thing or the other, you've fucking lost. You say they will never give up and then you say that we are in a position to win. It can't be both. If they are never going to give up, how do you achieve ultimate victory? You're no different than anyone else on here, you just take a lot longer to say it.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

DSK: You entire set of arguments, though reasonable within their scope, presuppose that we have any responsibility to police the rest of the world. We cannot continue to do the United Nations job of maintaining world peace.

If that is what you got from reading my reply, then you did not understand what I was arguing. I'm not arguing that we should be the global policeman. However, earlier in this thread, I pointed out that every country in the world is going to pursue its interests.

If the United States were to disappear overnight, I guarantee you that another country will step in and do the exact same thing that we are doing. The cold hard reality is that every single country in the world is pursuing its interests at all levels. What we're doing, with regards to pursuing our interests, is more noticeable, as we're doing it on a global scale. But we are not the only ones. We are doing it the best.

If, as you argue, we should not do anything regarding global stability, then we will end up having to step back and have another country take our place. Then, we will fall into economic and political orbit around that country. That's a cold hard reality.

As long as we've had civilization, we've had a pecking order of countries pursuing their interests. When our ancestors were predominantly tribes of hunters/warriors/gatherers, each tribe pursued its own interests.

Our success as a country has put us in position to where we are capable of doing what we're doing now. We are able to secure our interests overseas.

Secondly, what happens in the other part of the world impacts the United States positively or negatively. The cold hard reality is that we are locked in a fight to the death with an entity that wants to see us gone. The United States happens to be the backbone of any kind of military response.

Herein lies the problem with expecting the United Nations to do what you want it to do. Most UN operations, without US backbone, tend to be a joke. Our adversaries around the world do not respect the United Nations, nor their forces.

I learned that firsthand toward the end of my Somalia deployment.

If we step down, and let another country, or group of countries, take our place, then we have to accept that our interests is subordinate to that of the other countries or group of countries. You may not even like it.

We are where we are today because collectively, with our allies, we pursue our interests around the world. That's a fact of life that's going to continue to exist long after we are gone.

The UN does not have the will or the resources to do what you argue they should do. The UN is laughable, and jam packed with representatives from countries that are corrupt. You're talking about an institution that would put a country, notorious for human rights abuses, in charge of the human rights commission. I'm sorry, I cannot trust an institution with that kind of judgment to be the backbone that guarantee stability around the world.

Without the US, or a Western country, UN responses are generally a joke. But even then, among the Western countries, there is a growing desire to sit back and let the US do the heavy lifting. Don't expect most of our Western Allies to step in and do what we do now if we were to pull back from the world.

The more likely candidates to take over from us would be Russia and China. One has already taken over sovereign territory. A second one is working to yank sovereign territory from their neighbors. Just ask China's neighbors if China taking our place would be a good idea. If we were to do what you are suggesting above, and we pulled back and let other people take up this issue, we could potentially end up having friction with the Chinese over our own miscellaneous territory.

But, bringing this back to pursuing our interests. We would not have the economy that we have right now, I'm not talking about economic progress, but what our economy is able to provide, if we did not pursue our interests overseas. If you look at the economic breakdown of where things flow in the world, the global economy is set up to feed the US economy.

If we are not engaged in the world, we would not enjoy the kind of standard and quality of living that we have right now. Hence, we have to remain engaged in the world.

DSK: There are a billion Muslims in the world. I don't particularly like them, and I wish they would not come to America. However, they are people too, and have their own right to exist.

None of my arguments, nor that of those in my side the argument, is against a Muslims right to exist, and a Muslims right to go wherever they want to go. However, I have repeatedly stated radical Islam. That is what we are at war with. Not with the general Islamic population.

DSK: I believe they would happily kill each other and leave us alone if we left them alone. Is that a moral argument? It is if you think, as I do, that continuing to fight them will materially weaken us, kill millions of them, and when we finally stop killing them, and leave them alone, they will do the same thing as they always have, and add us to the list of people they want to kill the most then in fact it is the rational and moral thing to do.

No, they've never left us alone. Remember what happened after the US population screamed, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute!" Yup, they pestered us practically as soon as we came into existence.

The reality does not reflect your statement. If we leave them alone, they will not leave us alone. They have a vote with what happens in our future regardless of which decision we make. There's a reason to why Iran's supreme leader consistently call us the "Great Satan." That's an attitude reflected repeatedly among radical Islamists.

You need to see things from their perspective, not from our Western perspective. You could watch their videos on YouTube. You don't have to understand the language, but the photos/pictures speak volumes.

This isn't a case where we have isolated groups of people fighting each other and shooting each other. Regardless of their differences, the radical elements have a manifest destiny that they fight for. This manifest destiny is to extend radical Islamic law throughout the world. Listen to their speeches. They keep talking about how the whole world will be united under the banner of Islam. They show that through their symbolisms in many of their videos and posters.

"Leaving them alone" shows a lack of understanding of their mindset. Their fighting each other is them fighting to establish dominance. Look at what ISIS is doing. They are trying to expand their influence and control throughout the Islamic world. Like Al Qaeda before them, they are trying to reestablish the Islamic/Moorish caliphates and Emirates. From there, engage in a series of campaigns to expand Islamic influence.

People in the United States saying, "We should just let them kill each other, and we stay out of it," are taking the wrong attitude. That's exactly the kind of attitude that they want us to take on. Again, one group will establish dominance, then the threat from the radicals skyrocket.

What I said earlier still stands, the radical elements over there strongly believe that the world will one day be entirely Islamic. In fact, in this video, the guy talks about the gradual conquests of the countries around the world by Islamic armies. I've lost count of how many videos that I watched, of these religious leaders, predicting the same thing or something similar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUVxxjuK-JI

The idea that our enemies leave us alone if we simply "leave them alone" does not take into account the fact that our adversaries have a vote in what happens next. They won't leave us alone.

DSK: We have almost no long term ability to fight them for the next hundred years, and why would we want to? Let them settle their own problems - we have more than we can handle here.

We have to, because the alternative involves sitting and waiting for our fate. We have no other choice but to keep fighting them indefinitely. Again, you have to see this from their perspective. There's a slight trace of Asiatic philosophy in this, I lived in Asia for five years, I recognize such philosophy. It's one that thinks in indefinite cyclical terms instead of the linear terms that we are used to in the West.

It's similar to the philosophy that I'm using in debates like this. Where the opposition hopes for an end to the debate, I just see this from a cyclical standpoint. No endgame, just take the opposition apart every time they reply. Wait for the next series of replies, then take those replies apart, repeat cycle.

If you think of this in terms of a Western mindset, then you're going to adapt a position that calls for us to wait for our defeat.

These events in the Middle East are not events that happen in isolation. Every terrorist attack that happens around the world, motivated by radical Islamic philosophy, are part of a coordinated united effort around the world. They are not separated, nor are they isolated.

It's a coordinated effort to do what I said earlier this thread, expand Dar al Islam at the expense of Dar al Harb (?).

At one point in time, North Africa was predominantly Christian. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Northwest section of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on, were predominantly Christian.

At the beginning of the dark ages, Islam pushed out of Saudi Arabia. Many of the atrocities that you see ISIS committing, these were many of the same atrocities committed by these Arabs, and later Moors, as they pushed out and spread Islam through areas that were predominantly Christian.

It did not always start that way. Mohammed fought a series of wars uniting a bunch of Arab tribes. Once he got an organization going, which conquered and subjugated these tribes, that organization was able to push out as a united front. From there, they were able to rapidly conquer areas that were predominantly Christian.

It is in their manifest destiny to spread Islam throughout the world. This war has been going on ever since the beginning of the dark ages. The war on terrorism is just the latest chapter in this struggle. It was not our first "rodeo" with them, we had a previous rodeo with them at the beginning of the 19th century. Again, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute."

As Western Civilization, we had to tangle with radical Islam for centuries.

We cannot afford to think that we cannot engage in the struggle definitely. I'm saying this from their mindset, and know for fact that we can take this fight to them, and keep engaging them, indefinitely. We are in position to win provided that the American, and Western, population does not lose the will to fight.

Only one outcome can happen at the end of the struggle that we are in. Either we succeed in the plans that we started the last decade, or the radical elements succeed in converting United States, and the rest of Western civilization and the world, into a series of radical Islamic caliphates/emirates.

There is no alternate, or other, outcome in the long run. Abdicating our role as a superpower isn't the answer unless it's defeat, and mass conversion to Islam that's are our objectives.

I don't believe Mr. Trump would call you a low energy person!!!

You haven't convinced me we should be the world's policeman for free, anyway. If we do everything you want, it will cost trillions - who's gonna pay for that?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The highlighted portion is completely hyperbolic bullshit. Anytime you start saying it's either one thing or the other, you've fucking lost. You say they will never give up and then you say that we are in a position to win. It can't be both. If they are never going to give up, how do you achieve ultimate victory?

You're trapped in Western thinking. You need to think more like Baghdad Bob... oh wait, you do that all the time, dontcha? I mean, you proclaim yourself the winner in this forum everytime someone hands you your ass, right? Sorta like Saddam Hussein bragging that he won Desert Storm after he clung to power in Baghdad post-1991. So maybe you do understand their thinking. Just because they will never give up the way Germany and Japan did in 1945 doesn't mean we can't win. Look at it this way... Sewer rats never give up trying to spread their filth and diseases outside the sewers. But if the sanitation and health departments do their job, the sewer rats get the message. They know they have to stay in the sewers or they will be exterminated. Get it now, sewer rat?



.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

flghtr65: The scientists disagree with you on two major points.



flghtr65: 2. Cheating by Iran will be detected. [REPEAT POINT]

Depending on the security measures that the Iranians implement when cheating, they may, or may not get caught. When it comes to something like this, you need 100% assurance that they will be caught. Based on how the agreement is written, that assurance is not there.

You assume that any attempt of them cheating will lead to them getting caught. The way the agreement is written does not guarantee that. It also does not consider the variables behind the logistics for something like this.

How do you know the scientists have not considered these variables?

Two things come into play. One, the part of the program that the Iranians did not/will not come clean on. Two, importing of the needed materials to continue the program in a way that cheats the agreement. None of the "expertise" of those scientists/engineers addresses those two variables.

How do you know that Iran needs to collect more Uranium, they may already have what they need. They may just need to keep enriching the Uranium they have already stockpiled to create the radioactive isotope U-25 (the isotope needed to make a bomb)

Again, it does not matter what the scientists and engineers say, The Iranians could cheat via those two variables, and do so despite our satellites.

flghtr65: The body of the letter praises the technical features of the Iran accord

Wrong, a small percent of the body of the letter demonstrates their technical understanding of things related to nuclear power. However, the majority of their letter is opinion that doesn't look at the deal critically, like what real scientists and engineers would do.

In a perfect world, where the Iranians have no intentions of cheating the agreement, and everything that's being considered is 100% reflective of reality, and the Iranians intend to abide by the agreement 100%, and the only thing that we have to consider the technical features of the agreement, then they would be on point.

Unfortunately, this is the real world. The Iranians have every intention of cheating, and I'm highly doubtful of them declaring 100% of what they have. In the real world, the variables that are not covered in the agreement, an agreement that only deals with what the Iranians declare, provides plenty of opportunities to cheat the agreement.

In theory, if the variables listed in the agreement are the only variables, and that represents 100% of what Iran has, and the Iranians intend to be honest about this, then what the scientists say would apply. However, not even the agreement guarantees that the Iranians would not get a nuclear bomb.

Correct it doesn't, the purpose of the agreement to push out the time line by 15 years before Iran gets a bomb. Not to prevent Iran from ever getting a bomb.

There are too many loopholes in the agreement, and, from a logistic standpoint, there are plenty of opportunities to circumvent the agreement.

flghtr65: and offers tacit rebuttals to recent criticisms on such issues as verification and provisions for investigating what specialists see as evidence of Iran's past research on nuclear arms.

Correction, the letter provides WEAK rebuttals to legitimate criticisms against the verification provisions, as well as the investigation involved.

Those scientists/engineers base their opinions only on the variables that are specifically spelled out in the agreement in black and white. The cold hard reality is that the Iranians have cheated the international community when it comes to nuclear research. There were even cheating during the negotiations.

If they would cheat or not this time is not even a question. Only a fool would believe that they will not cheat during the inspections. I will address the specifics when I tear apart the letter written by these scientist/engineers.

flghtr65: It also focuses on whether Iran could use the accord as diplomatic cover to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.

They do so with the assumptions that the agreement lists every single variable possible. Those scientists have no knowledge, working knowledge, on logistics, cover and concealment, deception, and other operational competencies that the Iranians could utilize to cheat the agreement and pursue nuclear weapons in secret.

In this argument, whether you like it or not, military/operational experience trumps that of the scientists and engineers.

flghtr65: The deal's plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates "concerns about clandestine activities." It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as "unprecedented," [REPEAT POINT]

Did you even bother reading the text of the agreement? No, you haven't. If you did, you would see how the dispute resolution process, listed in the agreement, allows Iran time to drag its feet. Is not based on objectivity, and is based on the whims of those manning the commissions.

On top of that, it provides a hierarchy of resolution process, each taking days to take place. Add that to the 24 day cap mentioned above, and you have more than enough time for the Iranians to clear a suspected site.

Get rid of a nuclear reactor?

flghtr65: adding that the agreement "will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern."

No it doesn't.

There are provisions, in the agreement, for the inspection team to query the Iranians about "suspected sites." The Iranians are given due notice. The Iranians can recommend alternate ways to resolve such suspicions. That's NOT what I will call on "effective challenge inspection" of suspicious activities.

Now, this will more than likely lead to an impasse. The Iranians have up to an X number of days to allow inspections of the suspected site. Once an impasses is reached, the disagreement resolution hierarchy kicks in.

flghtr65: It also welcomes as without precedent the deal's explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons "rather than only their manufacture," as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age. [REPEAT POINT]

What I said the last time you said that:

Actually, there is precedent. The agreement with North Korea also prohibited their manufacture and research on nuclear weapon development. That did not work. Don't expect it work in this case either.

Also, the Iranians have continuously insisted that their program is for peaceful purposes. Of course they're going to sign a declaration matching that insistence. However, as with the North Koreans, only fools would believe that the Iranians would follow through.

flghtr65: The letter notes criticism that the Iran accord, after 10 years, will let Tehran potentially develop nuclear arms without constraint.

The real criticism involves the fact that the Iranians do not need to start phasing out its centrifuges until 10 years after the agreement. Also, number of years, by which Iran could get a nuclear weapon, are arbitrary numbers being thrown around.

The agreement, as a means to eliminate Iran's ability to generate a nuclear weapon, is weak. Just like the North Koreans, the Iranians could visibly detonate a nuclear bomb while the agreement is in place.

flghtr65: "In contrast," it says, "we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely." [REPEAT POINT]

What I said the last time you said that:

Actually, using the "constraints" listed in the agreement, assuming that the Iranians do exactly what they're supposed to do per the agreement, Iran would feasibly be able to create a nuclear weapon after 25 years. However, the success of the agreement hinges heavily on the Iranians being honest, and disclosing everything. If they don't, then they could develop a nuclear weapon regardless of what the agreement says.

By now, you should see that no matter how many times you rant the same things, I will hammer you with the same rebuttals. Pay close attention to my rebuttals. That's a forecast of what you will see again if you repeat the same thing again.

flghtr65: The Natanz facility will be the only facility where uranium enrichment will be allowed.

That's assuming that facility is the only facility that they have to enrich uranium. That's also assuming that the Iranians declared that facility as their only facility, as the truth.

If a Swedish man can play around with "splitting the atom" in his kitchen, with nobody knowing about it until he notified authorities about it, only a fool would think that a national government, with more resources, with its military backed by Russian intelligence, would not be able to run a facility to enrich uranium in an undisclosed location.
If you could enrich enough Uranium to make a bomb, with just a standard household oven, then why do they make reactors for Nuclear Fission? The complex reaction needed to produce the isotope U-235 (which is needed to make a bomb) U-238 can't be used it is not radioactive.

Variables like this, and others, outside of your scientists/engineers bandwidth destroys their argument, as well as the argument of people on your side of the argument, who are in favor of this deal.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...wedish-kitchen

flghtr65: There will be real-time monitoring to detect cheating.

That "real-time monitoring" has to cover every square inch of Iranian soil. It also has to cover every square inch of Iranian borders. This includes a comprehensive interdiction program that will intercept every single shipment into Iran from air, land, and sea.

How do you know that this won't occur? The scientists have access to information that you don't have access to with the "Q" clearance, with all due respect.

Without that, monitoring the KNOWN areas will be meaningless.

I am going to make this brief.

1. Without a deal Iran will get a bomb much sooner than later. The purpose of the agreement is to move the out the time-line by 15 years for when Iran gets a bomb. Enrichment takes a while to do. You not only need the raw Uranium, but you need reactors to do the nuclear fission to create the U-235 isotope. You need to run the nuclear fission process over and over again.

2. I am not going to speak for the scientists. The scientists must speak for themselves. Your arguments should be taken up with the scientists or Metz the energy guy who testified at hearings.

3. The idea was to give a diplomatic solution a chance to stabilize the region before considering a military option to prevent or slow down Iran getting a nuclear bomb.

4. The deal is going through, so we will find out over time if Iran cheats and Obama or the president after him uses military force. Forty one senators have said they are voting for the agreement, so that is more than enough to block a veto override attempt by the republicans.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by DSK

I don't believe Mr. Trump would call you a low energy person!!!

You haven't convinced me we should be the world's policeman for free, anyway. If we do everything you want, it will cost trillions - who's gonna pay for that?

Good point, the USA spends 1 Trillion on defense every year. The rolling debt is what 16 Trillion dollars? How that is going to get paid for is a very good question. The Bush tax cut percentages for the 6 lowest tax brackets are frozen, effective 1/1/13. The 7th and highest tax bracket percentage is 39.6%. I don't think anyone democrat or republican wants to make that higher.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're trapped in Western thinking. You need to think more like Baghdad Bob... oh wait, you do that all the time, dontcha? I mean, you proclaim yourself the winner in this forum everytime someone hands you your ass, right? Sorta like Saddam Hussein bragging that he won Desert Storm after he clung to power in Baghdad post-1991. So maybe you do understand their thinking. Just because they will never give up the way Germany and Japan did in 1945 doesn't mean we can't win. Look at it this way... Sewer rats never give up trying to spread their filth and diseases outside the sewers. But if the sanitation and health departments do their job, the sewer rats get the message. They know they have to stay in the sewers or they will be exterminated. Get it now, sewer rat?



.

That isn't what he said. You're stuck on stupid. And it's you who is constantly claiming an 'ass-handing'.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Good point, the USA spends 1 Trillion on defense every year.

No we don't. The 2015 defense budget is only $585 billion. You're way off.
.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

No we don't. The 2015 defense budget is only $585 billion. You're way off.
.

That's budget. He said 'spending'. That's not the same thing. What about the shit that's off the books?