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

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

watch this video you two socialist braying jackasses and tell me what's the difference?



if this doesn't explain why your libtard mulatto godhead hasn't sold out America nothing will.

The comedian does not tell you that:

1. Iran is not allowed to enrich Uranium past 3.67% P-235. Page 7 Item #5

2. The Natanz enrichment facility will be monitored in real time 24/7. Page 7 Item #6

3. Iran is NOT allowed to stockpile more than 300 KG of enriched Uranium at 3.67 %
Page 34 Item #56

Uranium at a 3.67% P-235 concentration is not high enough to make a nuclear bomb and is harmless. The comedian is PLAYING with you.

Here is a link to the agreement.

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


Do you find it interesting that 5 other countries signed off on this deal? Several Jewish legislators voted yes for the agreement. Do you think that they are anti Israel?

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

How is it provable that there was a better deal possible?

I can play this game better than you and have proven it over and over.

It is provable. A better deal would have prevented Iran from getting involved with enrichment. A better deal would've prevented Iran from even coming up with technologies needed for research related to nuclear energy. A better deal would've put in place the requirement for another country to provide the technologies, infrastructure, and the items required to run a nuclear program. This includes removing used nuclear material from Iran. The deal, that they ultimately came up, is a bad deal. Not coming up with a deal is also a better option than the one that we actually came up with.

The only game that I see you playing, better than anybody else, is the bullshitting game.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

Only combat JDB has seen is a cock fight on a Navy ship.

You have no concept about debt and funding these wsrs you so love...waste of time to actually debate with but i do love to ridicule you.

Are you Lindsey Graham's gay war mongering lover? You two would make a cute couple !

.

Ever heard of Operation Praying Mantis? Ever heard of Naval Gunfire Support? How about Tomahawk cruise missiles? What about the Navy's aviation squadrons? Yup, I thought so. You're that ignorant. The Navy was involved with both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and not just with the SEALS or combat crewmen. 90% of the world's population lives within striking range of the Navy's firepower.

JDB was in the Army prior to joining the Navy. He's a Gulf War veteran because he deployed to Southeast Asia during the Gulf War as a soldier.

Also, you're wrong about what I understand what I don't understand. What part of "the deficit reduced from 2004-2007" did you not understand? I made that point on this thread and in others.

Also, I have a working knowledge of government spending. I was a military pay officer for 2 years. I paid vouchers using checks backed by the federal treasury... AKA, U.S. government checks. I understand annual and biannual appropriations, I had to, given that my job depended on it. I have a better understanding of this you do. I have a Master of Business Administration degree. I'm about to work on the doctorate level of that. What you claim are concepts that I "do not understand", quotation marks used strongly, are actually basic concepts that I do understand.

Unfortunately, you don't understand what you are reading. You don't have a leg to stand on telling people what they do and don't understand if you cannot understand simple English than a fifth grader could understand.

Nothing in your posts constitutes "ridicule." All you are doing is farting out of your face things you have absolutely no understanding of. If you feel that arguing with me is a waste of time, you would not even come back on here and argue with me. Your own actions prove you wrong. This only demonstrates that you're nothing but a liar.

I, on the other hand, enjoy destroying your argument and your credibility. Now, how about answering questions that have asked you before?

From one of our previous debates:

If I were to go on an internet forum, and say that one plus one equals two, would it be safe for someone reading that to assume that you were the one that made that post because you also agree that one plus one equals two? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Are Super Bowl fans on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl in lieu of the football players on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Where you wrong when you claimed that Bush and Maliki, or their representatives, didn't sign a Status of Forces Agreement? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste these questions and their "yes" and "no" options to your reply and put an "X" in the appropriate option that represents your reply. Spare me any nonsense reply that you'd want to add to that.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by bigtex

You're wrong!

Those of us (including WTF, LLIdiot, Turdy the Turdfly, myself and a few others) who regularly posted in ASPD's Houston Pig Pen when the invasion actually occurred, knows that WTF opposed it prior to Shrubbie's final authorization of the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The unit I was on was part of the invasion fleet for Operation Iraqi Freedom 1. I'm not surprised, that while I was participating in support of that operation, that the opposition was back here posting on the Internet. That explains a lot about their cluelessness about this war, and the War on Terrorism in general. You people thinking that you know better than me, or anybody on my side who has actually combat deployed, is extremely laughable and speaks volumes about the arrogance and stupidity that radiates from the opposition.

Also, you are wrong about this being "ill-fated" and "ill-advised", quotation marks used strongly. From the invasion, to the final pullout of US troops from Iraq, the Iraq War was successful on our part. We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi people were firing on all cylinders when it came to implementing what the United States wanted to implement in Iraq.

Invading Iraq was a mark of strategic brilliance, not ill-advised. I've repeatedly argued that our invading Iraq was a logical next step in the War and Terror. This turned the Middle East into a checkerboard pattern of democracies, which in turn became a catalyst for positive change. In both instances that I talk about here, Odumba failed. We handed a successful operation over to the State Department, and by extension to the Obama administration. He fumbled it.

The failures that we see in the Middle East are squarely the Obama administration's fault. Place the blame on him. If this seems to be an alien concept, I will provide a hint. It's what we call LEADERSHIP. The fact that Obama, and his mindless drones, would blame Bush speaks volumes about the lack of leadership on Obama's part, as well as a lack of understanding of what leadership entails on the opposition's part.

Anybody that claims that this was an "ill-fated" and "ill-advised" invasion is an ignorant idiot that was posting on the Internet while I was participating in support of this operation... No wait... That's precisely what happened.

You also owe me a response to a question I've asked you in a previous debate.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

[EMOTION BASED OPINION]

We don't need to. You're doing a terrific job of that yourself.

I wasn’t asking for your opinion about your assumptions about my intelligence. I was asking for PROOF. Anybody looking at my posts here, who is not getting there hind and handed to them, would conclude otherwise. I know that for fact, I’ve lost count of how many people said otherwise after looking at my performance on these threads, and elsewhere. Even you’ve complimented my performance before. I was using the same tactics then as I am using now. The difference is that you are now on the other side of the argument. Surprise, surprise, your opinion changed. You’re just speaking out of that asshole on your face because you’re getting your ass handed to you in this exchange.

The burden is on you to prove that I am “stupid”, quotation marks used strongly. You failed to do that. Don’t mistake your opinion as fact, it isn’t. Not by a longshot. You continue to demonstrate yourself as being a gullible idiot. I’ve seen you in action before, you actually knew what you were talking about back then. Back then, you and I argued on the same side of the argument. Between then, and now, you drank the Kool-Aid and your gullibility went at warp speed.

Notice the bolded red part of your statement. I’m not surprised that you responded to the requirement, to prove something, as something that you people don’t need to do. I guess it’s much easier to use your emotion-based opinions than to actually do the hard work of advancing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument. The latter is how you prove your positions. Not with emotions, opinions, or any tactics that you guys have used here and elsewhere.

[herfacechair]

andymarksman: General Sada was relieved of his command right after the end of the First Gulf War, and has not been employed again by Saddam thereafter.

Serving out your command tenure, then being relieved, does not indicate the end of a career. Being retired does not mean that you are out. Not by a longshot. Being "retired" in the military puts you in a "reserve" status. You are always working for the Commander-In-Chief, whether you are actively involved in military, or in one of the reserve components. The retired reserve is one of those components. You also have to be careful about how you word how someone was relieved. There are two different ways that they are relieved. One way is by serving out their tenure, to being transferred to another position. Another way is being fired. The way you worded it indicates that he was fired, I found no indication from credible sources that indicate that he was fired.

andymarksman: Now don't get me wrong, I am not insinuating that he has ulterior motives to make things up. What I mean to convey is that as a private Iraqi citizen, Sada plainly doesn't possess the firsthand intelligence regarding operations of such gravity. Since he never actually witnessed the alleged airlifts, all he got is the secondhand information, or "hearsay," courtesy of his "friends," who had participated in those clandestine operations.

Your argument has major problems to it.

A retired service member is never really "just a private citizen." A retired service member is in a reserve component of the military branch that he retired from. He is still in the military, and is still subject to recall to active duty. This happened to Georges Sada. When someone is retired from the military, they have friends in the military that feed them with information.

For those two pilots that fed him that information, there has to be a strong powerful friendship bond. Those pilots knew him from he was actively serving, and kept in contact with him. Such is the power of military camaraderie.

When people, still in the military, communicate things to those who are retired, this isn't hearsay. This is a case where people, who have strongly bonded with each other, share information with each other. A person that's retired is still providing advice and mentorship to those who are still in. They still keep tabs with what's going on in the military, and have very close friends, still serving, who provide them with accurate firsthand information.

Weapons are sensitive, accountable items. Having a major operation, to move a large percent of the weapons inventory outside of the country, isn't something that people would keep quiet about. They will confide with their friends who are in the same branch of the military as they are, as well as those who were retired.

Unlike the US military, the majority of the Third World countries militaries are primarily forces in Garrison. They have not necessarily mastered the training cycle that involves pushing units out into the field to do combat/field problems. So, when you have a "force in garrison" unit carry out a major real-world operation, the service members involved will talk about it to other service members.

In one sense, it's a way for them to inform their friends that they were involved in something big.

When someone retires from the military, they do not just shut out everything involved in the military. They have spent too much time in the military to do that. The military camaraderie between service members is so powerful that no matter what the status is, a retired military member, or a veteran, would not completely shutting out the military community. This includes the information flow that happens between members of the military community.

The raport, and camaraderie, that joins service members together is so great that when information like what Sada received is shared, it tends to be accurate.

Hmmmm, maybe if one of my battles reports a hostile contact, and I don't see the hostile, I should just do nothing instead of reacting to contact because my not seeing said hostile makes that report "alleged" and "hearsay."

You, linking to an article of a writer who was not privy to the topic of our argument, have no leg to stand on when talking about "hearsay" and about "not personally observing something." Also, since you want to talk about firsthand experience, Jessica Schulberg did not even have the benefit of what potential battle buddies could have told her. She definitely did not observe anything firsthand regarding the argument we are involved with.

If you are going to link to her article as a "credible" source of information, you cannot dismiss the information that Sada received from those who were involved with that information.

To do such is to apply a double standard in this argument. You cannot have it both ways. If you're going to accept Jessica Schulberg's opinion, then you're going to have to respect the information flow between service members and retired service members. If you're going to reject what those two pilots told Sada as "hearsay", then you need to reject Jessica Schulberg's article as nothing but an opinion not based on fact.

Again, if you are a military retiree, your arse "belongs" to military for the rest of your life. In the United States, a service member receiving retainer/retirement pay is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the rest of his/her retired life. That's not exactly being a "just a private citizen." This is the fact that I'm well aware of having 23+ cumulative years in the military, and being qualified to transfer to the retired reserve.

Said military retirees have strong connections with service members still serving. Thus, they're privy to receiving accurate information about the "going on" in the military. I'll trust that information faster that I would an opinion piece by someone that was not there in a combat deployment capacity.

andymarksman: Without further corroboration from the participating flight captains, Sada's allegation is and remains, an allegation.

First, when servicemembers still serving in the military share information about what they did to a military retiree that they served with, you can't dismiss that as just "hearsay". Also, it's not an allegation. As with my experiences, information shared with retirees, in situations like this, tends to be dead accurate. Those who understand the friendships forged via bonding in the military would know that.

Second, his information has been corroborated:

"He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon, Israeli officer

"ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," -- Duelfer

Not having "further corroboration" does not turn a fact into an allegation. For example, prior to you seeing my first post, you had no idea that I existed. If someone were to tell you that I existed, yet you did not see my post here, your argument would indicate that the news about my existence would simply be on "allegation."

If I'm on combat patrol, and I see a hostile my battles do not also see, perhaps they could treat my report as on "allegation," and do nothing until the enemy fires on us. :roll: A fact is a fact, regardless of whether one person reports it, or multiple people report it.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

[STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]

Just curious, any of those 4,400 fine U.S. servicemen and women who paid the ultimate price in Iraq are attributed to Saddam's WMD?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...bush-was-right

The argument isn't on whether any of those that gave the ultimate sacrifice had done so as a result of WMD or not. The argument is on whether Saddam's Iraq had WMD or not. There are two sides of the argument on this. One side argues that Iraq "did not." The other side argues that Iraq did in fact have WMD. When they were made is irrelevant.

The argument is on whether Iraq had WMD or not. Not on when they were made, nor on whether or not they were involved with the deaths of US service members.

Articles generated during the Iraq war, and the above link that I provided, indicate that Iraq indeed had WMD as Bush argued.

Jessica Schulberg can thank you for providing me with her opinion to dismantle. The fact that you would disregard a war veteran's argument regarding a war that he was part of in favor of an opinion piece of one of the armchair generals who do not set foot in Iraq speaks volumes.

From her linkedin profile:

American University - School of International Service
Master's Degree, International Politics
2012 -- 2014

University of California, Santa Barbara
BA, Global & International Studies
2008 -- 2011

Based on that, let's reconstruct her timeline before that, using rough estimates:

High school:

Fall of 2004 through Spring 2008

Grades 1-8:

Fall 1996 -- Spring 2004

Kindergarten:

Fall 1995-Spring1996

Why do I mention her education background? Here's why:

In 1991, when I was on one of the last military deployments of the Cold War, she was still shitting her diapers.

In 1994, when I was deployed to Somalia, she was either in preschool, or had just mastered potty training.

In 1995/96, when I was deployed for operation Joint Endeavor, Former Yugoslavia, she was in kindergarten or the first grade.

In 2003, when I was on a unit that was a part of the invasion fleet for Operation Iraqi Freedom I, she was in grade school, or junior high.

In 2009/2010, when the unit that I combat deployed to Iraq in, which was one of the last combat units in Iraq prior to the mandatory removal of combat troops in Iraq prior to the summer of 2010, Jessica Schulberg was sitting in a college classroom getting indoctrinated by far left professors. By the way, IED laced with WMD were used against coalition and Iraqi forces when I was combat deployed there.

During those times, either by firsthand experience or through access to information that the general public did not have access to, I gained information that contributed to my argument. I'm speaking from real-world experience. Jessica? She's arguing from opinion pieces, having sat in the classroom while I was making my deployments.

Instead of accepting an Iraq Veteran's argument about a war he participated in, you choose to link to an argument advanced by someone that was in the classroom while I was involved with these operations that we are arguing about. Let that sink in for a second.

You can't dismiss Georges Sada's information sources in the same thread that you accept the opinion piece of someone as a "rebuttal" or "fact" when arguing against someone who was actually involved with the war that we are arguing about.

My response to your linked article follows...

[herfacechair]

Jessica Schulberg: The debate over the legitimacy of the Iraq War was never about whether or not Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction at some point in history. It is well known that Saddam Hussein used a variety of chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s--and the U.S., eager to see the destruction of the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran, aided him in creating the program.

Nor was it on whether the WMD that were found there, during the Iraq war, were from a different era or during the lead up to the invasion. The argument was simple. Those who disagreed with the Iraq war insisted that Saddam had "no" WMD. They did not argue that he had WMD from a previous era. They insisted that Iraq had "no" WMD. They did not specify time periods, they just simply advanced the "no WMD" argument.

Throughout the last decade, there have been reports of WMD being found in Iraq. Many of these WMD were used as part of IEDs. These were making some reports, but these were also underreported. Out of those that did report these WMD's, they went out of their way to try to downplay the significance of the find.

But, the fact remains, that despite the argument that there was "no" WMD in Iraq, there was indeed WMD's in Iraq. This is one of the reasons that President Bush argued for going into Iraq. It turned out to be true. He was not lying.

Also, the idea that the United States assisted Saddam in constructing his WMD program is a myth. The technology to create chemical and biological agents has been around for decades. They were created by countries that were not as advanced during their time as Iraq was in the later decades. To argue that the Iraqis need help to create these WMD program is to show lack of understanding of WMD technologies. In fact, people can create WMD's in their garages with technologies and items that they could purchase in the open market.

Jessica Schulberg: But on Septmeber 12, 2002, President Bush described a different threat while making the case for the 2003 Iraq invasion: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." The Times' investigation doesn't mention any findings of biological weapons.

What he actually said:

"From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- President Bush, September 12, 2002.

When you put the sentence that you quoted in the paragraph that she got that from, you get a different picture of what he was arguing. In the last sentence, he was talking about improving the facilities, but he made no mention about what was being done from those facilities. Whether the New York Times mentioned biological weapons or not is irrelevant. Again, the argument was on whether Iraq had WMD or not. WMD consists of chemical, biological, and radiological agents.

The New York Times mentioned the chemical agents that were found. That was all that was needed to prove wrong the argument that Bush "lied" about WMD. He didn't.

The collection of speeches, that Bush made, regarding Iraq were consistent with the themes of the speeches that he has made regarding the War on Terror in general. WMD was not the only justification used. He also used the need for freedom to take place in Iraq. He argued that "freedom" angle. He also argued the "security in the region" angle. The later is the same argument that President Clinton made during one of his speeches after he ordered airstrikes on Iraq during his term.

The facts indicate that President Bush didn't lie about WMD, and that he had other arguments for going into Iraq. Bottom line, the opposition was wrong.

Jessica Schulberg: He went on, "The regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."

Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD capabilities after the inspectors left. Saddam made no secret about his spending lots of money to rebuilding and expanding facilities of his interest. This is true whether he was rebuilding mosques, or any military weapon infrastructure they had.

Jessica Schulberg: According to the investigation, the chemical weapons discovered by U.S. soldiers after the 2003 invasion were all manufactured before 1991.

Irrelevant, the opposition argued that Iraq had "no" WMD. The opposition did not argue that Iraq only had WMD that existed prior to the Gulf War. The opposition did not argue that Iraq only had WMD that was deteriorating. No. They argued that Iraq had "no" WMD.

When they were made was not an issue. The fact that they were discovered, proving the opposition wrong, is what matters. The opposition insisted that there were none, when the facts indicated that WMD did exist in Iraq as was argued. Insisting that they were from prior to 1991 is an attempt for the opposition to move the goal posts. They lose credibility some more when they do that.

Jessica Schulberg: Directly addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Bush continued, "We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of 'oil for food' and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction."

This was based on a pattern, by Saddam, of going full throttle on programs he was not supposed to have that the U.N. was inspecting. When inspection teams restarted in the early 21st century, Saddam immediately resorted to the tactics he used when dealing with inspectors back in the 1990s.

Colonel Stanislav Lunev, Senior GRU officer to defect to the United States as of this time, mentioned this in his book. The tactics Saddam used in 2002 were many of the same tactics he used in the 1990s. As part of an auxiliary Russian special forces unit, his task was to provide training to the Iraqis on how to move, hide, and camouflage WMD for the inspectors. He talked of Russian intelligence officials acting as inspectors, within the inspection team, providing information to the Russians assisting the Iraqis.

He wrote his book in the 1990s. The tactics, mentioned in his book, were repeated again when inspectors went back to Iraq in the early 21st century. That argument is extremely reasonable given Saddam's track record with regard to WMD. He had done this before, he was playing his same games again.

Jessica Schulberg: While Bush's plea to the international community did not win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council,

It didn't win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, because three of the veto wielding members had their hands in Saddam's pockets. That was discovered after the invasion. It was these same three countries that refused to lift the sanctions on Iraq after the invasion. It was done for political purposes, not for strategic purposes.

Jessica Schulberg: he used this rhetoric as the justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein.

First, this wasn't rhetoric. It was a fact based logical argument for going into Iraq. He used multiple arguments, all tied to his overall strategic mission, for waging the War on Terror. He argued for freedom for the Iraqi people, which was an ingredient needed for stability in Iraq and in the region. There is a reason to why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, NOT Operation Iraqi WMD. WMD was NOT the only reason for invading Iraq. After the coalition invaded Iraq, WMD laced IED's were used against the troops.

Jessica Schulberg: He was not declaring war on a decades-old chemical weapons program, but on an alleged new and ongoing program that could be used to destroy mass civilian populations.

Wrong. He was not declaring war on either an old or new WMD programs. He was simply going by the themes of the speeches that he had made since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He was engaging in asymmetrical warfare, or, rather, responding to an asymmetrical threat, that was very much a part of the asymmetrical war being waged against us, using asymmetrical warfare.

In many of the speeches that he made, he warned that this war would take a long time, that we would have more than one campaign. At the same time, he laid out what needed to be done in order to create what form of environment was needed to fight against terrorism. This, is what the invasion of Iraq was about.

He argued, after September 2001, that this war was going to be multiple faceted. It was going to involve an economic element. It was going to involve a political element. It was going to involve a military element. He identified an entity that was both "visible" and "invisible" to the rank-and-file civilian.

It was against this entity, and the threat it presented against Western civilization and the world in general, that George Bush waged his war against. Anybody, that argues that this was just about WMD, is clueless about the geopolitical and geostrategic threats that the United States has to address.

Iraq, under Saddam, was a logical next step on the War on Terror. That created a checkerboard pattern, in the Middle East, of countries in different states of democratic development. This was one of George Bush's intense. It was the change, happening in these countries in the region, that was going to cause a chain reaction of events that would lead to democracy throughout the region. Obama failed to capitalize on this.

This was not just about WMD.

Jessica Schulberg: If the post-2003 discovery of a decaying chemical weapons program could serve as proof that the invasion was justified, the Bush White House would have seized the opportunity to proclaim so.

Because WMD was not the only reason for the Bush administration's arguing for going to war in Iraq. It also was not the main reason for going into Iraq. Again, the main thrust of Bush's arguments for going into Iraq were consistent with his statements and speeches after September 11, 2001. A common theme is the fact that we needed to change the environment that created the terrorist mentality. In order to do that, you have to create an economically prospering environment.

George Bush, in 2002, argued that people in Iraq needed to experience freedom. The conditions, to make that possible happen to be the same conditions that facilitate economic development.

So, when troops encountered WMD laced IED's, President Bush did not emphasize those reports. This was not only about WMD. This was about setting up conditions, in the Middle East, that would act as catalyst for change towards democracy in the region. I saw that in play when I was in Iraq.

Jessica Schulberg: By 2005, CIA weapons inspectors concluded in a 92-page report that the WMD investigation had "gone as far as feasible" and found no evidence of an active weapons program.

They also explained what they meant by "going as far as feasible." They explained the security situation did not facilitate them following all leads. They couldn't search all the country. They couldn't interview all of the people that he needed to interview in order to do a complete report. After an extremely limited search in Iraq, they came up with the conclusion that they came up with.

The results of the investigation could only be applied to the area of the Iraq that they inspected. It's an extremely limited area. You can only apply the results to the areas searched, and people talked to. Applying the results, of the investigation to this limited area of Iraq to the entire country of Iraq is academically irresponsible.

However, their finding "no" evidence of an active weapons program is not the same thing as that program not existing.

This leads me to a question that I have for all who buy into this argument:

As of the time stamp on this post, Jessica Schulberg has no evidence that I, herfacechair, exist. Does that mean that I do not exist? YES [ ] NO [ ]

If you told your friend about my existence, and your friend has never seen my posts, should he dismiss your reports, of my existence, as "hearsay" and as an "allegation" because he hasn't seen my posts or me? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Please copy the questions, and their yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanations that you might want to add to clarify your response.

Jessica Schulberg: The CIA report included an addendum: "military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons -- most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War."

Again, the opposition insisted that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction means that, no weapons of mass destruction. It's not saying no weapons of mass destruction after 1991. To turn this into an argument about when they were made is to move the goal posts. They were clear on what they were arguing.

The major fact that WMD was discovered there post invasion proves wrong the argument that there were "no" WMD in Iraq, and that Bush "lied." Neither were true. The opposition, instead of acknowledging that they were wrong, are moving the goal posts, and building strawmen arguments.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

That proves nothing , except you have a huge double standard and you're foolish.

Wrong, that proves that there were options to get a better deal. Any deal, that would've prevented Iran from being involved with nuclear enrichment, would've been a better deal. Also, walking away and not agreeing to the agreement would also have been a better option.

Before I forget, answer my yes/no questions to you above, per the parameters that I set.

[herfacechair]

flghtr65: HFC, you didn't win anything.

Wrong, as usual. I've consistently won against the opposition, whether we're talking about this thread or about others.

My side of the debate has advanced a fact-based, logical, reasoned argument. I've done that repeatedly. You guys have done nothing but advanced emotion-based rhetoric, and referencing questionable information sources. Whether you like it or not, I'm destroying you in debate.

flghtr65: You are ignorant of physics [REPEAT POINT]

You don't know anything about operations, the text of the Iran nuclear deal, logistics, or anything else involving this argument. Also, I'm not giving you any information that would indicate what I did know, or don't know, regarding physics. This tells me that you are clueless about logic and critical thinking.

Don't mistake my rejecting your responses, and my pointing out the phasing out of centrifuges (which you're ignoring), as my being "ignorant", quotations used strongly. Comical Ali? Is that you?

flghtr65: and can't comprehend what the document is saying.

Wrong. In order to come to that opinion, you would have to test my ability to understand every single statement in the document. You have not done so. The fact is I understand what the document is saying. For example, when I say that they start dismantling a specific part of the program in 10 years, I know exactly what that's saying. You should to, because I threw that part at you.

flghtr65: Facts:

Actually, this is you using cherry picked data to present a strawman argument.

flghtr65: 1. You can enrich uranium with any centrifuge. You don't have to use the most efficient model. If you use a model that is less efficient, it will just take longer to do.

First, assuming that the Iranians disclosed everything that they have, assuming that they intend to be honest about sticking to the deal, and assuming that the Iran deal covers everything that Iran has, how is that going to happen if Iran phases out all of the centrifuges? You said so yourself, you can enrich uranium with any centrifuge. So, what if you don't have any centrifuges because they "phased them all out"?

That's the intent of this part of the document:

"Iran will begin phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years."

If the above assumptions were correct, there would be no centrifuges for them to work with.

flghtr65: 2. On page 7 Item #15 of the agreement. Iraq is NOT allowed to enrich Uranium past 3.23% P-235. This is a significant restriction. You cannot make a nuclear bomb unless Uranium is enriched to 20%.

Again, this is assuming that the Iranians were completely honest about everything they had in their nuclear infrastructure, and that they would be completely honest about abiding by the deal. This would only be effective if everything in the deal covers everything that the Iranians have.

But the reality is that this isn't the case. The Iranians could "abide" by the treaty with regards to their infrastructure that they admitted to having, while violating the agreement within the infrastructure that they didn't admit to having. That enrichment could take place within this part of their infrastructure, outside of prying eyes.

flghtr65: 3. The Natrnaz facility which has most of the centrifuges and the nuclear reactor will be monitored in real time 24/7 to make sure uranium is not enriched past 3.23%. The USA is not trusting Iran. If we did the USA would not monitor the facility.

And, after 10 years, assuming that the agreement contains everything that Iran has, and assuming that the Iranians intend to abide by the deal, they would start phasing out their centrifuges. This is expected to be completely done 5 years after these 10 years, or 15 years from the time the agreement comes into effect. If the above assumptions were applicable, Iran wouldn't have any centrifuges.

How could they enrich uranium without centrifuges if they phase them all out? You seem to consistently ignore that part of the agreement.

Now, if you insist that the Iranians would be able to enrich uranium until they have a nuclear bomb, then you will also have to accept the fact that the Iranians didn't declare everything that they had. If they didn't, then their undeclared infrastructure is what'd be used to enrich that uranium after those 15 years... just as it would be used prior to those 15 years.

Again, when they'd detonate the bomb is just an assumption.

flghtr65: 3. On page 26 Item #25 of the agreement. Iran will be ALLOWED to enrich Uranium to 20% concentration and above after 15 years from when the agreement goes into effect. [REPEAT POINT]

Based on what the Iranians are willing to admit to, and what is suspected, the IR-1 is centerpiece in their suspected nuclear program. Without the IR-1, no nuclear weapon... unless you're willing to entertain the reality that exists in 3rd world countries and what they're willing to do relative to what is traditionally done by governments and by western civilization.

They must start dismantling their IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years. Many of the, "Iran will not seek.... " Comments have a shelf life of 15 years. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, they're estimating that it'd take up to 5 years to completely phase out these centrifuges? And it so happens that they're limiting Iran for 15 years because the negotiators anticipate that the Iranians "wouldn't" have any centrifuges by that time?

flghtr65: The agreement pushes out Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon for 15 years from the wording of page 26 Item #25. Any attempt by Iran to enrich uranium past 3.23 % prior to 15 years from the start of the agreement would be a violation. [REPEAT POINT]

From the text of the agreement:

"Iran will begin phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years. During this period, Iran will keep its enrichment capacity at Natanz at up to a total installed uranium enrichment capacity of 5060 IR-1 centrifuges. Excess Centrifiges and enrichmen t-related infrastructure at Natanz will be stored under IAEA continuous monitoring, as specified in Annex I." -- Page 6 of 159 of the Iran nuclear agreement.

What's the big deal about IR-1 centrifuges?

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles...el-collection/

April 15, 2015

The IR-1 is the workhorse of Iran's enrichment program, with over 15,000 installed at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz and 2,710 installed at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. The IR-1 is Iran's first centrifuge, and is based off Pakistan's P-1 machine supplied via the A.Q. Khan black-market network in the 1980s and 1990s.

Based on what the Iranians are willing to admit to, and what is suspected, the IR-1 is centerpiece in their suspected nuclear program. Without the IR-1, no nuclear weapon... unless you're willing to entertain the reality that exists in 3rd world countries and what they're willing to do relative to what is traditionally done by governments and by western civilization.

They must start dismantling their IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years. Many of the, "Iran will not seek.... " Comments have a shelf life of 15 years. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, they're estimating that it'd take up to 5 years to completely phase out these centrifuges? And it so happens that they're limiting Iran for 15 years because the negotiators anticipate that the Iranians "wouldn't" have any centrifuges by that time?

Which brings us to my question...

How the holy God dammed fuck, based on your own arguments and the above facts, as well as the contradictory comments you made as recorded in a previous reply to you regarding this, are they going to generate a nuclear weapon?

And this, which is what I asked you earlier in this thread:

WHERE, in the TEXT of the agreement, does it specifically state that the objective of the agreement is to prevent Iran from detonating a nuclear bomb until after 15 years? WHERE?

I don't want your opinion as a response, which is what you're repeatedly doing. I want the text, within the agreement, that specifically states, WORD FOR WORD, that the intent of the agreement is to prevent Iran from that made a nuclear bomb until after 15 years. NOT your REPEAT OPINION RESPONSE!

Again, notice how I've replied to your repeat posts by copying and pasting my previous response to my reply to those repeat points. Keep making the same argument, I'll keep rebutting you with the same/similar rebuttals.

Don't tell me that "I don't understand", quotation marks used strongly, the document, simply because I refuse your opinion response to the question asking for word for word proof of which is able to document.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Reytard, stop drinking the HFC Kool-Aid. HFC knows less about physics than you do.

Don't mistake a fact-based, logical/reasoned argument as "Kool-Aid," quotation marks used strongly. You need to put the bong, Kool-Aid, and your propaganda force feeders down, let their impacts where out, before you, ROTFLMFAO, claim that I'm providing, or drinking, the Kool-Aid. That's as idiotic as claiming that anybody that believes that the earth orbits the sun is "drinking Kool-Aid."

Which brings me back to the questions that I asked you earlier, which you keep ignoring:

How the holy God dammed fuck, based on your own arguments and the above facts, as well as the contradictory comments you made as recorded in my last reply to you regarding this, are they going to generate a nuclear weapon?

Which brings me back to my earlier question to you. WHERE, in the TEXT of the agreement, does it specifically state that the objective of the agreement is to prevent Iran from detonating a nuclear bomb until after 15 years? WHERE?

Here's a new one:

How would they be able to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb if they phase out all of their centrifuges? Assuming that the agreement contains everything that Iran has, and that the Iranians disclosed everything and they intend to honestly abide by the agreement?

Get used to seeing these questions, I'm going to keep asking them every time I reply to you if you fail to answer them per the parameters that I set.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

[STRAWMAN]

Doesn't the Army give tuition reimbursement for an honorable discharge? You should go register for fall classes and get some education. Uranium isotopes and nuclear fission are words that are too BIG for your dumb ass.

Even civilians, who never served in the military, would know that if someone got an honorable discharge, they would be able to use the G.I. BILL. Also, if you have worked at a place that provided tuition assistance, you would know that tuition assistance is only available to those who are serving. This leads me to question whether you've been gainfully employed these past few years or not.

The argument isn't specifically about the parts that are required to make nuclear fission possible. The argument is on whether the deal was a good one or not. It wasn't. The argument is on whether the deal would avert a nuclear weapon Iran or not. Even you admit that Iran would still create a nuclear weapon. A nuclear deal is intended to prevent a country from creating a nuclear weapon. So, if this deal does not do so, this deal is not a good one. THAT's the CRUX of this part of the argument.

Stop building and fighting strawman, and start to actually focus on the argument. Also, answer my questions per the parameters that I set. Don't give me your opinions as to what the answers are. Again, your repeat points will get the same copy and pasted rebuttals.

[DSK]

HFC has won me over as a pretty good debater, though I still think any war outside the United States is a waste of time, and leads to horrible loss of human life for no gain for either mankind, the lives of the US servicemen, or the Treasury of our once great and rapidly declining economic consortium that exists to benefit the rich and minorities.

[CuteOldGuy]

He's not a debater, he's a propagandist. There is no talking sense to him. He "wins" by boring his opponents to death. If you engage with him, you're wasting your time. Let him have his three or four pages per thread, and move on.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

He's not a debater, he's a propagandist. There is no talking sense to him. He "wins" by boring his opponents to death. If you engage with him, you're wasting your time. Let him have his three or four pages per thread, and move on.

This sums it up. He's on ignore. Huge time suck.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

This sums it up. He's on ignore. Huge time suck.

And as the Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas and Professor of Peter-Puffing , YOU would be the sites expert on SUCKING, right woomby ! And the sites expert on how to live life as a EUNUCH, practitioner of ATM, fudge packing, bukakke and golden showers !