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

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

If you think we were in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, you're dumber than a bag of fucking hammers.

Idiots, clueless about history and geography, argue against the fact that this involved going against the spread of communism. Yes, going into Vietnam to stop the spread of communism was one the objectives for going there. That's not just based on confirmed Soviet actions in the last century. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, former Soviets confirmed what the conservatives had said about them all along. One of these is the confirmation of the fact that they had a campaign to spread communism throughout the world. Their support of the communist Vietnamese was part of that effort.

The Soviets and Communist Chinese were knee-deep involved with supporting the communist Vietnamese. They did not intend to stop at Vietnam. They were funding similar movements in other Asian countries. So yes, our intervention in Vietnam was a move to stop the spread of communism.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Jesus fucking Christ. If you ask a question in english, I might answer it.

"why don't point out where it is was not"

How fucking inbred ARE you?

Even when it comes to what you will do, you get it wrong. You have a problem understanding simple English that even a fifth grader could understand. I understood his question. Like me, he's demanding that you prove your stance instead of pulling crap out of your arse. I doubt that you would do otherwise, as inductive fallacies are your bread and butter.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Says the guy that consistently farts on this thread and in others. You, dismissing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument that destroys your position as "nothing but hot air" are just throwing your stress shields up. I doubt that you have me on ignore, as with anything else that you've lied about on this thread, that's BS. However, your last sentence reminds me of the time I said something similar, back when I was a kid, after my parents belted me. Of course, I said that when I was elsewhere. But, that last sentence is testament to your sub conscience telling you that you got your arse whopped bad.

One can only come to the inevitable conclusion that woomby the swishy walker LOVES to get his sorry lying ass spanked ! Especially if it a jalapeno dick that's hitting him !

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Like you go full-on up lusty's ass? There's that transference again. Don't involve me in your gay fantasies.

Say’s the glory hole fuck face that says something like, “Read the wrinkles on my nuts.” The only person that’s projecting his own traits onto others is you. Your description of our side of the argument is your sub-conscience admitting to who you are as a person.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Original? Like going on about fudge packing and gloryholes? Get the fuck outta here. You're the most unoriginal cocksucker this side of a shiny turd. Transfer your ass out of there, do us all a favor.

So I let the rest of the poster know what your "career" and employment location are and YOU'RE angry ? And here I was trying to help you get more of the sites libs to CUM down and support your "expansion" of YOUR franchises ! And I'll be staying to watch you get your sorry, swishy walking ass handed to you and to watch your meltdowns !

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

We were there because it made a select few very rich. Get the pigeon shit out of your eyes.

My english is better than yours could ever hope to be, shitbird.

That's as idiotic as saying that our ancestors fought the American Revolution in order to make a few men rich. Many of the movers and shakers of the American Revolution were wealthy men.

No, we were not there to make somebody rich. We were there to reverse Soviet/Cuban influence in our own backyard. It so happens that the philosophy that we pushed on that region, regarding property rights and respect for rule of law, tend to be the philosophy that facilitates economic prosperity. Not only does that benefit the rich, it benefits everybody. Those were side effects. The objectives; however, were political and strategic.

Interesting that you would say "shitbird". Given your trend of piss poor judgment on this thread, I would not be surprised that if you were in the military, and you combat deployed, your duties would've mainly involved cleaning the latrines/head and maintaining them.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

sit DOWN puss in boots. you weren't asked.

BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA! "Puss in Boots in the Glory Hole Booth..."

[Rey Lengua]

Well then ! Maybe we can see if woomby will remember his post to me a few days back concerning his military service !

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

That's as idiotic as saying that our ancestors fought the American Revolution in order to make a few men rich. Many of the movers and shakers of the American Revolution were wealthy men.

No, we were not there to make somebody rich. We were there to reverse Soviet/Cuban influence in our own backyard. It so happens that the philosophy that we pushed on that region, regarding property rights and respect for rule of law, tend to be the philosophy that facilitates economic prosperity. Not only does that benefit the rich, it benefits everybody. Those were side effects. The objectives; however, were political and strategic.

Interesting that you would say "shitbird". Given your trend of piss poor judgment on this thread, I would not be surprised that if you were in the military, and you combat deployed, your duties would've mainly involved cleaning the latrines/head and maintaining them.

Or as a "short arm" cleaner and inspector !

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Well then ! Maybe we can see if woomby will remember his post to me a few days back concerning his military service !

Do you remember where that post is? I'd like to read what he says about his "military service". It might still reek of BS. If he did serve, I have an idea, based on his psychological profile and on his conduct here, how it may have gone. Also, if he has the Waco Kid on ignore, perhaps you could show woomby those puss in boots in the glory hole stalls posts.

[TheDaliLama]

Undercount has proved time and time again that he is a congenital liar. First he was black, then a Mexican, then a white guy, a rich man, a poor man, a soldier and sailor. He is as phony as they come and no one should ever give him any credence in anything he says.

[IIFFOFRDB]

wormser is a chic/nut-job.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Wrong. The only person here, that's spouting the party line, is you. Except, you are not spouting a Republican or Democrat party line, you're spouting the conspiracy whack job party line. You people like to fart flap your lips about "corporate control" or "New World order" or "the illuminati," or some other entity that allegedly takes our rights away and is controlling things from the background.

You people mistake these misperceptions, and your emotional rants frenzies, as the "truth." You people don't realize that what you think is the "truth" is pure nonsense. You people are gullible. Dale Gribble, of King of the Hill, is a perfect representation of you guys. How the audience sees him is how the population sees you people.

Lots of Iraq Veterans agree with you? BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA! Good one! You're funnier than that guy that came here threatening people with a lawsuit for libel.

I combat deployed to Iraq with an entire brigade. Every single last soldier that I came across, and that brigade, agreed with me about the Iraq war, as well as the concepts that argued on this thread. Many of them came up with those conclusions as well. There were a handful of soldiers that questioned why we were there; however, after a series of questioning, it turned out that they were really saying that if they were not on the deployment, they would've been home doing one thing or another. Even those soldiers came around to seeing the very concepts that I argued on this thread.

The vast majority of the Iraq war veteran that I've came across, outside of those that have deployed with, have also argued the same concepts that I've argued on this thread. I post in the comments section of a military blog. None of the Iraq war veterans there agree with you, or those alleged Iraq vets that agree with you. The common trend, that you would hear, is very similar to what I argued here. The White House fumbled it, and that we should've stayed there. That conclusion is consistent, even among those who were civilians before who had argued that we should not have gone into Iraq. These guys had subsequently argued that we should've stayed there once we went in until the job was truly done.

Again, the majority of the Iraq war veterans will argue the same concepts that I'm arguing on this thread. IF "many" Iraq Veteran "agree" with you, they are part of the minority that I talk about. I guarantee you that if I were to meet them face-to-face, and ask a series of questions, I'll get their actual positions.

Yes, we had to go into Iraq given the asymmetrical warfare threat that it, under Saddam posed to us. Being there was our business. Being in Vietnam was also our business. In both cases, it was up to Democrats to facilitate the victory that we made possible.

Our failure to invade Iraq would've made Afghanistan bloodier. Our entry into Iraq forced the majority of the terrorists to divert to Iraq. Why is that important? Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires, and rightfully so. Afghanistan's terrain is effective in neutralizing the advantage that our war machine has over there.

Iraq? Flat terrain, perfect for bringing the majority of our war machine to bear in a battle. It was in this terrain that the terrorists brought their main fight to. Thanks to that, we pulverized them in Iraq while the US led coalition stood up the Afghan army in Afghanistan. By the time it became evident that they were not going to achieve their objectives in Iraq, the terrorists started trickling back to Afghanistan. By the time the terrorist momentum in Afghanistan picked up, they were not just fighting a US-led coalition. They were also fighting a fledgling Afghan army.

Considering that your lack of a military experience, and knowledge, painfully shows in your replies, it's evident that you would not see that. It explains why you don't understand, or even see, the concepts that I'm arguing here.

Only a fool, with no understanding of world history, geostrategic and geopolitical realities, would argue that we could just focus on what's happening in the US. If only we would just "stay out" of the rest the world. That's idiotic. If we did that, it would make it easier for the terrorists to bring the fight to us on a larger scale. History is littered with examples of civilizations that "just focused on the Homeland, to hell with the rest the world." That attitude did not bode well for them.

Again, energies and resources that the enemy utilizes for defense are energies and resources they cannot use an offense. By withdrawing to the United States, and just focusing on the United States, we remove that pressure on the enemy. Thus, making it easier for them to go on the offensive and take the fight to us. You don't win a war by adopting a "defense only" stance. That's outright stupid, and that's what you're asking for if you insist that we should disengage with the world.

Every country in the world is going to pursue its interests. Guaranteed, if we were to pull out of the world, another country will step in and do precisely what we are doing. We're simply setting ourselves up, in your scenario, to have other powers meddle in our business. History has proven that over and over again.

The information that I am presenting here is based on my own conclusions, based on my own extensive research on what I'm arguing about, and on my own firsthand experiences. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I'm too stubborn for that. These conclusions that I've argued, are based on my own analysis based on the facts that I researched. Other people, in the military, have independently came to very similar conclusions that I've came too.

Again, corporations are not out and about presenting the arguments that I'm arguing here. That's not their job to come up with such arguments. These corporations are competing against each other for increased customer share. That's where the vast majority of their energies and resources are going.

The cold hard reality is that I'm not full of "corporate propaganda." You're full of conspiracy whack job nonsense.

Also, I'm not typing these responses. You, of all people, should know that I'm using speech to text. I even told you which speech to text program I was using a few years ago. I'm using Version 13 of the same program.

Now STFU and be retarded elsewhere.

HerrGoebbelsChair, you're a propagandist for the Military Industrial Complex. You're what Ike warned us about. Use all the blue and red you want, it's still bullshit. Look behind the curtain, asshole, and learn the truth. Your arguments are lame. You probably copy and past from Wiki like others on here. Nothing new, nothing original, all party line statism. Along with a few ill thought out ad hominem attacks. You're wasting time, and bandwidth. No one thinks you're smart, you're just a blowhard who thinks the longest post wins the argument. Wrong.

[Yssup Rider]

I think he's IBIdiot ...

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The Iranians haven't given up anything. They've promised to give up some of their enriched uranium. Does the US really know how much u235 Iran has or is it an educated guess? Seems to me without "anytime, anywhere" inspections we can't.

Wrong again. The full text of the agreement is in the link at the bottom. See page 7 item #5. Iran must keep it enriched uranium below 3.67%. Weapons grade enriched uranium is 20%. They simply will not have the ability to make a bomb at 3.67 % enrichment. To conduct nuclear fission, requires a nuclear reactor. The Natchez facility will be monitored 24/7 in real time. This agreement will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for 15 years.

HFC, question for you. Did you read that part of the agreement? Did you understand what you read?

The number one objective of the agreement was to push out Iran's ability to produce a Nuclear Weapon. This agreement does that.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ear-deal/1651/