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

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

No woomby, but maybe someday all of those shortbus rides to the Arkansas State School for Gorda Mariconas Y Putas will pay off for you by teaching you how to read AND WRITE and with your graduation from preschool and entry into first grade ! You can hang your "diploma" up in the stalls as your "I love me " wall ! It must have been the only school that your Momma /SEEster could get your into and the only one that would allow you to wear your rainbow colored Depends as YOUR uniform ! If you can't stop liking the windows on the ride to and from school though, they might kick your gorda EUNUCH pobrecita puta ass out, what with all the bad publicity you are generating for them at the school.

I guarantee I've matriculated further in education than you could ever dream of. You display your ignorance and lack of general knowledge in every post. Your syntax betrays any hope you have of convincing someone you've seen the inside of a college, at least not one you where you weren't employed as janitor. It's interesting that you never take a real stand on the subjects at hand. You simply find some way to incorporate gloryholes or gay sex into it and make yourself look like an absolute bastard. You are stupid. You are the lowest common denominator. Please don't procreate. There are enough idiots like you already.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

And how is Obama at fault for a fucking gutless Iraqi Army?

Although the Iraqi government tried to get more out of a potential deal than what it knew they could get, they ultimately came around to agreeing to our requirements when it came to a SOFA agreement.

I combat deployed to Iraq when it was still called Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Iraqi army was competent, and had taken the lead in security throughout the majority of the country. However, their combat support, and combat service support, needed to be developed.

The United States military work toward getting a SOFA agreement so that thousands of US military personnel could remain behind to provide this training. We did this for Japan, Germany, South Korea, the Philippines, etc. Historically, it would have made sense for us to remain in Iraq and to continue to develop the Iraqi military.

As the negotiations progressed, and it became evident that the Iraqis were willing to go by our terms, Obama raised the bar. He did so until it was impossible to come up with such an agreement. Consequently, he had set the Iraqis up for failure before the US pulled out of Iraq in 2011.

While we were there, we gave our ambassador some teeth when dealing with Malaki, who wanted to do some of his stupid crap when we were there, but couldn't. Our ambassador kept him in check.

Al Malaki already knew the answer to the question, "Oh yeah, you and what Army?" He knew that the Iraqi military would side with us in a disagreement with him.

Without the US military there? Our ambassador couldn't stop him from doing the stupid crap he started to do after the US left.

No matter which way you look at this, you have Obama to blame for the situation that currently exists in Iraq.

Care to explain what "bar" Obama raised to make it "impossible to come up with such an agreement?"

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

The "real threat," be it Saddam or the German Communists, still won't alter the fact that the "evidence" had to be "fixed;" unless and until you present facts to rebut my "propaganda links."

The "evidence", Andy the Little Nazi Boy, is that everyone but YOU and other lib-retard morons gifted with 20/20 hindsight like you believed Saddam had WMD. No evidence was "fixed", Andy the Little Nazi Boy. You need only look at Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's justification for his little war on Saddam -- "Operation Desert Fox" -- to see that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual predator believed Saddam had WMD, Andy the Little Nazi Boy.

Intellectually dishonest lib-retards, like you, Andy the Little Nazi Boy, would rather just claim: “Bush lied”, but the truth trumps your lies, Andy the Little Nazi Boy.

The absence of substantial intelligence indicated one of two possibilities: 1) Saddam was doing nothing, or 2) Saddam was really good at hiding what was going on. Consequently, the WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicated that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion was, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?” Afterwards, Saddam even admitted he had every intention of restarting his WMD program, Andy the Little Nazi Boy.

Too many of the self-elected elite -- and minions like you who listen to them, Andy the Little Nazi Boy -- exist in a state of immediate gratification, and they cannot believe and accept that such gross mistakes in intelligence gathering and analysis can be made. Few of these self-elected elite have the incentive to understand either the utility or the limits of intelligence gathering and analysis. So they must claim someone lied when the system fails. One need only look to Pearl Harbor, Operation Market Garden, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and in 1979 Iran to see similar gross mistakes in intelligence—and those presidents were Dim-retards, Andy the Little Nazi Boy. In this instance, even if there had been no errors in gathering and analyzing the evidence, as per the WMD Commission and the Butler report, the analysts could only conclude that Saddam seemed to be actively pursuing all kinds of WMD and probably had some on hand: which he did. While it might be comforting to supercilious lib-retards to continue to believe that the evidence supported a conclusion different than that reached by the intelligence community—and that accepted by the Bush administration—that is simply not the case,Andy the Little Nazi Boy. It's you and your ilk who are the inveterate liars who are "fixing" the evidence, Andy the Little Nazi Boy.

[Yssup Rider]

HFC might be the most verbose asshole since, er, the guy whose sharing his account...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I don't wish you well on your journey back to Idiotville. You and Idiotville deserve each other. But before you start the journey, don't forget to pay me the $500.

Once you have paid your debt, you have my permision to then go fuk yourself.

Enjoy the journey, bitch!

There you go with the tired repetition again. There was enough in the address to identify you. I got it from WeeEnforcer1.911" lawyer.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Intellectually dishonest lib-retards, like you, Andy the Little Nazi Boy, would rather just claim: “Bush lied”, but the truth trumps your lies, Andy the Little Nazi Boy.

Those same "dishonest lib-retards" are silent about the current revelations being aired regarding the "cooking of books" for the current administration regarding "intelligence" reports from the ISIS/ISIL and other terrorist activities over the past couple of years in the Middle East.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There you go with the tired repetition again. There was enough in the address to identify you. I got it from WeeEnforcer1.911" lawyer.

There you go with the same run and hide routine that you made famous during the 70's.

Once a Cowardly Idiot, always a Cowardly Idiot!

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by DSK

I beg to differ most vehemently. I've never seen COG schooled by anyone.

Either you're not paying attention to what you are reading, you missed the posts, or you're highly biased in the argument. COG did nothing but advance a conspiracy whack job-based opinion. I countered him with a fact based, logical, reasoned argument. He failed to respond in kind. Instead, he advanced the same conspiracy whack job theories, then he emotionally self-destructed.

Well Endowed is correct in his statement that COG got schooled.

I was on the same side of the argument as he was a few years ago. While he was an ally of mine in a previous thread, he was an effective debater. I was glad to have him on my side. He has since deteriorated in performance and understanding. When it comes to debating, he's a shadow of his former self.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

[Inductive Fallacy: Strawman]

So you do concede that the neocons would have dug out the whole truth, nothing but the truth, if they were so inclined; yet you want to argue the lives of 4,400 fine U.S. servicemen and women are not worth "one piece of the puzzle?" What a disgrace to the uniforms you have worn!

As frequent as you misinterpret what I say, you should remove the "marksman" from your username. Again, if your marksmanship was anything like your assumptions here, I would hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target in front of you.

First, I have not conceded anything in this argument, or in this thread. Nothing, in my statement that you quoted, indicates any such concession. In fact, nothing in your reply captures what I was communicating in the post that you quoted.

No, your assumptions about the so-called "neocons" is wrong. George Bush, and the Republican side of the argument, advanced the truth in the beginning of the war. They consistently argued the truth throughout the progress of the Iraq war. This truth is partially captured in the posts that I put here. Go back through this thread and educate yourself about this truth.

Again, the truth is that we are engaged in asymmetrical warfare against an entity with visible and invisible parts. We cannot engage this threat thinking in terms of a symmetrical, or conventional war mindset. Iraq, under Saddam, posed an asymmetrical warfare threat against the United States and the West. Going into Iraq was an asymmetrical act designed to have an asymmetrical impact. One was to eliminate a threat, another was to act as a catalyst for change in the Middle East. A change that Pres. Obama failed to nurture when the Arab spring went into motion.

What I've argued repeatedly on this thread is the truth behind why we went into Iraq.

WHERE, in any of the post that I made here, do I argue that the loss of military lives in Iraq was "not" worth one piece of the puzzle? SHOW me where I "said" that, word for word.

What I actually said:

"This is asymmetrical warfare. WMD was just one piece of the puzzle. There were others. After the Iraq invasion, the US military and coalition went after the appropriate targets. WMD was not the main target." -- herfacechair

Now listen up, Stupid. Follow along with me and pay attention.

This is the fact as I understood it the first time I deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This deployment was made to START Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If you think that President Bush, and my side of the argument, argued about this being 100% about WMD, you did not pay attention to the arguments made during the months leading up to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The arguments, that I made on this thread, have been consistent in the theme since I advanced them at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Also, you have no leg to stand on accusing me of being a "disgrace" to the uniform that I "have" worn based on your strawman argument.

YOU'RE a disgrace to the United States Military, and to the service members, for arguing against an argument that the vast majority of them hold. If you want to know what that is, go back and read my arguments on this thread. You're a disgrace not just to the US military, but to the United States in general, for taking my words out of context and for advancing a strawman argument, instead of having the integrity to know that you've been destroyed in this argument.

Again, my arguments against you are similar arguments to what the majority of those in uniform, and those who have worn the uniform, who have combat deployed, hold. Instead of recognizing my obvious first-hand experience in this argument relative to your lack of it, you disgrace the military and the United States by insisting that the argument is what it isn't.

Again, I've combat deployed there. You haven't. If anything, I would have a vested interest in knowing why I would have to risk my life doing something like that. You can't even respect that, going as far as accusing me of being a "disgrace" based on your strawman argument. This makes you a disgrace, not me.

Also, I still wear the uniform, and I'm still liable to make combat deployments.

By the way, when I order an egg white mcmuffin, make sure that it comes with egg whites. The yellow that you see in the picture behind the register is the cheese, not the egg.

Even though you quoted my questions in my quote, you failed to answer them. Here they are again:

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

Your refusal to answer the question, truthfully and factually, per the parameters that I set, speaks volumes about your lack of confidence in your own argument.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

[Inductive fallacy: stresses his opinion as "fact"]

Sorry, not a chance. Stanislav Lunev never set a foot inside Iraq. At least Snowden has the "goods" to back up his claims, not withstanding his "traitorous" acts.

WRONG as usual.

First, let's address your hypocrisy. You're trying to advance the BS that Stanislave Lunev "should not" be taken seriously on the account of your erroneous assumption that he had "never set foot inside Iraq." Using your own line of reasoning, I've set foot inside Iraq, as an infantryman, during Operation Iraqi Freedom. You haven't set foot inside Iraq. Who should people take seriously in an argument about the Iraq war? You, who have never set foot inside Iraq, or me, who has combat deployed there? You can have it both ways.

If you want people to take the traitor seriously, because of your assumptions that Lunev "did not" set foot in Iraq, what makes you think that you should be taken seriously in our argument about the Iraq War when it's plainly obvious that you have not set foot there but I have?

If you "have" set foot there, don't even admit it. You'd make yourself look even worse.

Second, Stanislav Lunev HAS set foot inside Iraq. He was one of the people that was assigned to train the Iraqis how to cover and conceal WMD agents. It was part of his job to communicate with the Russian spies in the weapons inspection teams. He was in Iraq working for the Russian government in their move to undermine the weapons inspection teams in the 1990s.

Yes, he set foot there. In his book, he mentioned how he trained the Iraqis to build things like fake bricks to hide WMDs. This is no different, in concept, to the terrorists using Coke bottles or MRD wrappers as IED casings. His account in his book, written in 1998, of how the Iraqis were able to undermine weapons inspectors was very consistent to Collin Powell's description of how they were undermining weapon inspectors during the time he made a speech to the UN.

Snowden? I'm sorry, the traitor did the equivalent of a massive violation of OPSEC. The vast majority of the information that he released was information that needed to remain classified and out of public view.

The fact that you would praise him speaks volumes about your lack of integrity and against your character, as if your actions on this thread didn't do that already. Snowden should suffer a trader's fate.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

[Inductive fallacy: Summarily dismisses fact/firsthand experience based argument as an opinionated reply.]

That's YOUR ARGUMENT. Unless and until you present facts to refute my "propaganda articles," I'll keep standing my ground that Bush's argument to go to war was concocted with criminal intent.

WRONG, as usual. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time? What you're dismissing as nothing but my argument is a fact based, logical, reasoned argument put together mainly through extensive research and from first-hand experience.

I've presented the facts to prove your propaganda articles wrong. For example, one of your propaganda articles attempted to argue against Sada's account of WMD movement. The author did so by demonstrating his lack of understanding of what constituted WMD. I know for fact that WMD could be moved from point A to point B in a small plane. The guy in your article; however, tried to argue about tubes, missiles, launchers, and other items that didn't fit the any WMD category.

When you try to twist things around like that, it's PROPAGANDA. My current MOS, in the Army, is 37F. That's Psychological Operations/Military Information Support Operations. While downrange, counter propaganda would be one of our main tasks. In order to conduct counter propaganda, one has to recognize what propaganda is.

If Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other enemy were to do the exact same thing, or something similar, to what your propaganda articles did, we would rightfully describe it as propaganda. Whether you like it or not, the articles that you used constitute propaganda. The fact that you are clueless about what constitutes the facts about this argument speaks volumes about why you would fall for the arguments advanced in those propaganda articles.

Nobody here is telling you to drop your arguments in favor of something else. As I stated earlier in this thread, changing the opposition's mind is not my objective. I continue to destroy you people's arguments because it's fun. I have no intentions of stopping that.

You have advanced the assumption, the opinion, the Bush's argument to go to war was "concocted" with "criminal intent", quotation marks used strongly. Yet, you have consistently failed to prove that. Instead, you've hidden behind propaganda articles that I have easily dismantled and disproven.

What I say still stands. The arguments made, to invade Iraq, were legal. They were not illegal. George Bush's arguments, for going into Iraq, were legal and based on reality. This is an asymmetrical war. The UN was not designed to address asymmetrical war. Nothing in their bylines adequately addressed asymmetrical warfare. Our Constitution does not require us to ask permission from a body, like the United Nations, to act in our best defense. Neither does common law.

The facts, as I have argued them, have remained consistent. The extensive research that I do, surrounding the topics of this debate, continue during and between these arguments. History will prove me right and you guys wrong, just like I expected it to do when I made my arguments in favor foreign-policy back in the 1980s. I will argue the arguments that I made on this thread until I'm too old to even be cognizant of any of these arguments.

Yes, I have absolutely no intention of stopping my consistently destroying the arguments that your side of the argument keep advancing.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

[Inductive Fallacy: Apples to Oranges comparison]

The "real threat," be it Saddam or the German Communists, still won't alter the fact that the "evidence" had to be "fixed;" unless and until you present facts to rebut my "propaganda links."

[REPEAT POINT]

Again, you're making an apples to oranges comparison. The event that you describe, that happened to Germany, is nowhere near the event involving Saddam. In fact, your comparison is so far off left field that if the ball were launched via launcher, it would still not hit your argument.

You're trying to describe a "false flag" political move to an actual threat. There is no "fact" to your assumption that the evidence had to be "fixed" with regards to Iraq. In your example, the Nazis' set a building on fire, then blamed the Communists.

In the case of Saddam, the evidence was real. WMD agents were used in Iraq, post invasion, via IED explosions. The US military consistently found WMD agents during Operation Iraqi Freedom. When these agents were created, or where they were assumed to be from, is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that WMD was in Iraq as argued. Also, the other arguments that George Bush advanced, with regards to freedom, and the need for economic stability to help stem the threat, is fact.

When I was in Iraq, the Iraqis were forging full steam ahead with being able to fight our war for us in Iraq, against the terrorists, by proxy. Our efforts in Iraq contributed to creating an environment that alienated the terrorists. The majority of the people that lived there wanted what we were working to implement there. This is what George Bush argued. The Arab Spring, a natural result of this, was bound to happen. It was up to Obama to leverage the Arab spring to bring about the kind of change in the Middle East that we brought about in Central America.

Also, you have consistently failed to present any "fact" or any real "argument" to support your arguments on this thread. You have no leg to stand on demanding that I present something that I have consistently been presenting on this thread, when you've consistently failed to do what you demand that I do. Heck, nobody on your side of the argument has done so either.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

A "tentative agreement that allowed the US to get what it wanted." Care to provide the citation on that statement?

The U.S. military wanted to keep thousands of troops in the Green Zone beyond December 31, 2011. Out of the numbers they were considering, up to 20,000 + troops was looked at. We needed to leave a presence, in Iraq, to continue building on strengthening the Iraqi military. In order to do that, the Pentagon wanted a SOFA similar to the one that was about to expire in December 31, 2011. The Iraqis were willing to abandon some of their initial demands in favor of essentially creating a follow-on SOFA to the one that was about to expire.

George Bush's administration were willing to work with the Iraqis, at their pace, to make this possible. Obama tried to force their hand instead, ensuring that we didn't get one.

When I combat deployed to Iraq, the Iraqi military proved itself competent. They were handing the terrorists their asses. However, they needed to work on their power projection capability, as well as on their logistical ability. They also needed to work on their leadership. They had a basic one in operation, they needed to build on it and strengthen it. These, and other issues, were issues that the residual US military force would have helped the Iraqis strengthen.

Had the US military been able to do that, the Iraqis would have defeated ISIS at the Syrian-Iraqi border. Without that SOFA, the US military had no other choice but to abandon those plans. This made absolutely no sense. Despite when the Spanish-American War, World War II, and the Korean War ended. We maintained troops in the Philippines, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, to continue building and working with those countries militaries.

Our remaining in Iraq, with a smaller presence, made perfect sense. Obama was not willing to work toward that.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Care to explain what "bar" Obama raised to make it "impossible to come up with such an agreement?"

First, he tried to force Iraq's hand before our allies in Iraq were able to get enough people, in the Iraqi government and elsewhere, to support the SOFA. Forcing them to make a stand would result in failure for the agreement. Obama knew that this would result on the SOFA being "dead on arrival".

Second, he rejected the Pentagon's proposal on how many troops were to be left behind, and on what they would do.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

HFC might be the most verbose asshole since, er, the guy whose sharing his account...

Assup Gayridden, you're calling me a "verbose asshole" because I thoroughly destroyed your arguments. Instead of attempting to mount an effective counter debate, you tried farting your opinions. I kept hammering you anyway. Apparently, you saw yourself as having no other recourse outside of name-calling as your main argument.

I'm the only one using this account. Dummies like you would like to think otherwise. If you were to get any dumber, you'd start photosynthesizing.