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

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

yeah you are the type to believe everything you read on the interwebs. you call 1-800-Zarif and see if you get an answer.

You have a problem with the New York Times Wacko? Your Bush worshiping buddy J.D. Barleycorn uses the New York Times as a source frequently you fucking MORON.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You really are a simpleton.

You really are just another angry old white man....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Iran didn't sign the agreement so I guess they can't break it. They still haven't released all the hostages. I bet Carter wished he had the same press blackout as Obama has been getting.

I think they just released the hostages. ..what say you dipshit? Oh wait...you are now bitching out them releasing the hostages!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by DSK

You really are just another angry old white man....

Younger than you JL.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

That wouldn't happen if they disagreed with my assessment.

Wasn't it your opinion that if the USA did not put the 3rd Army in front of Iran's nuclear facility that they would have Nuclear Bomb by now?

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Iran did not break the agreement. The UN and the USA will lift the economic sanctions.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...z&OCID=DELLDHP

First, there is not enough information in that article to reach that conclusion. Your linked article states that the International Atomic Energy Agency made a declaration. That was, that Iran had "fulfilled" requirements to limit its nuclear activities. All we have is what they say. However, given that agency's inconsistencies in the past with regards to what was the case, and what wasn't, that agency has no real credibility.

Second, as I repeatedly argued throughout this thread, everything hinges on what the Iranians are willing to reveal. What they do not reveal is equivalent to the small holes in a sinking boat that are ignored when people try to plug the bigger holes. Again, we would have to scrub every square inch of Iranian soil, and conduct sonar testing on every square inch of their territory, and have complete "human eyes" on both declared an-undeclared nuclear related activities, to come to an accurate conclusion of whether they are meeting the requirements are not. The cold hard reality is that level of information gathering was not conducted. That agency could only apply their opinions to what they have observed.

Here, let me give you a clue. If you read the text of the agreement, there are provisions related to cruise missiles. Western agencies/entities are required to lift the restrictions on cruise missile related technologies headed to Iran. This is done under the assumption that the Iranians would "not" be able to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Note, your article was written in January 16, 2016. The following article, talking about fresh new cruise missile related sanctions being imposed on Iran due to their recent cruise missile test, was written the next day:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35338901

"The US has imposed fresh sanctions on Iranian companies and individuals over a recent ballistic missile test." -- BBC, January 17, 2016

I'm sorry, but if you are testing ballistic missiles, you're showing an intention to be able to deliver a nuclear warhead. You would not waste all that time, money, resources, efforts, etc., to pack a conventional warhead on one of these things for delivery to a target. It would not be efficient in an economic or tactical sense. This is just hint that the Iranians are NOT complying with the agreement in totality. In other words, they're not really complying.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

You have a problem with the New York Times Wacko? Your Bush worshiping buddy J.D. Barleycorn uses the New York Times as a source frequently you fucking MORON.

Despite not posting on this thread for a while, I have been following it in context, unlike you and your side of the argument who require taking things out of context because you people cannot argue with what was actually said. The_Waco_Kid "has a problem" with your seriously flawed arguments. Your responses to our replies show that you are terrible when it comes to understanding what you are reading. Either that, or you're deliberately taking people out of context because you do not have the integrity to either address what we actually said, or to move on from something you cannot argue against.

You pulled an article from msn.com, and, without analyzing what you were actually reading. Without actually doing "real" research on this topic, you ran with something that supported a disproven argument. One that you've been advancing throughout this thread.

His conclusion about you, about you coming across as believing everything that you read on the "interwebs", is close to what I've observed of you. You grab anything out there that would support your opinion without attempting to utilize a combination of understanding, applying, analyzing, or evaluating those articles that you read. I've noticed this among those that argued on your side of the argument as well. Your side of the argument makes no effort to study legitimate literature that would either bolster your arguments, or force you people to change your arguments. Thus, when you guys get to the equivalent of the "theory generation" phase at the end of all of this, you guys enter it using the erroneous, misguided, information and opinion that you guys are attracted to like stink on shit. The result is that you, like those on your side of the argument, spew complete and utter nonsense and prove to my side of the argument you guys are susceptible to propaganda.

THAT is what he was trying to get through your think "brain" dome.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

[Your cherry picked quote bolded in red.]

Wasn't it your opinion that if the USA did not put the 3rd Army in front of Iran's nuclear facility that they would have Nuclear Bomb by now?

First,

WHERE, in any of MY posts, did I state that if we didn't place the 3rd Army in front of Iran's nuclear facility that they'd have a nuclear bomb by now? WHERE? Link to a post that I made that shows those exact words.

Since you made this post yesterday, January 30, 2016, in addition to finding that alleged quote, you also have to find where I stated that they would have a nuclear bomb by January 30, 2016.

Second, if you're going to address me, or anything I say, you need to actually quote me in context, and not take me out of context. You need to have the integrity to actually address what I said, and not what you wish I said. Take a look at the quote above. What you cherry picked is bolded in red. Read it in context of what I said, given that I was replying to WTF regarding the Israeli Defense Force, then ponder your demonstration of why criticism of your opinions of what is going on around the world, based on how you read your information, is justified. If your failure to read and understand what you are saying here is atrocious, and severely misses the mark, then forgive my side of the argument for not trusting anything you say based on how you regurgitate misinformation force-fed to you people by your opinion masters... By extension, seeing you as having absolutely no credibility in your stance.

Third, don't dismiss, a reasoned argument, as a simple opinion. My argument has been consistent. The agreement, the way it is written, does not do the mission it was intended to carry out. From reading the agreement, and from my understanding of real-world operations, I saw a crap load of gaps that allows the Iranians to cheat that agreement. My argument still stands.

Fourth, until you answer all my questions to you factually, per the parameters that I set, you do not have a leg to stand on asking me any questions. In fact, you need to have the integrity to answer my questions to you on this thread, factually without attempting to "tap dance", before you even reply to me. Here's one of the questions I asked you, which you failed to answer. You need to answer these questions in your next reply:

Were you guys wrong when you guys argued that Iraq had no WMD? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Here's a cheat sheet for you.

The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=0

WMD laced IEDs, despite their attempts to "explain it away", these agents are WMD:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05...y-in-iraq.html

I asked you that question earlier in the thread when you claimed that Iraq had "no" WMD. You failed to answer this question. I asked you other questions which you also failed to answer. So, when you go back to find the alleged quote that I asked you about earlier in this reply, go back and find the questions that I asked you, and answer them per the parameters that I set.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So what would you have done differently?

Just puffed up their chests and yelled, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or "nuke them until the sand glows" and let them keep enriching, building and testing their nukes.....just like W did.

You should also notice that when the RWWs complain about the ayatollah promoting, "Death to America", they don't mention their colleagues advocating for bombing the ME back to the Stone Age and other cretinous threats. Pure hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I've yet to hear you offer an alternative.

\

They never offer anything useful, just pablum and war.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

As usual, you go on and on, post some irrelevant pictures and you're on to shit on the next thread.

Now you are catching on to the MO. It is useless discussing/arguing with them as they just spout memes, fantasies, beliefs based on no facts and insults. I used to engage and then discovered the only real fun was to provoke them into a frenzy.

When that got boring I turned that energy and attention back to pussy...a much more satisfying endeavor. The hos on the board are actually far more informed and better conversationalists than the RWW mongers on here (if they really are mongers or use this forum because their dicks went limp) and they have the good sense not to involve themselves here either.

[herfacechair]

LordBeaverbrook: Just puffed up their chests and yelled, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or "nuke them until the sand glows"

Actually, if you bothered reading the progress of the argument on this thread, you would not have come to that conclusion. We have repeatedly argued that the conditions in place before they came to this agreement were better than the ones that are in place now. We consistently argued that no agreement was better than this agreement. Your opinion here just proves that you are the very thing that you are accusing the side of the argument, that actually knows what it's arguing about, of being.

LordBeaverbrook: and let them keep enriching, building and testing their nukes.....just like W did.

Iran tested nuclear weapons? When did that happen? Please locate an article that verifies that Iran detonated a nuclear weapon. Again, if you followed actual information surrounding Iran, the previous president, who happens to be last real president we had, aimed for applying more sanctions against Iran and moved to make it hard to obtain materials and resources it needed to do the very thing that you imply they have already done. Hussein O'shitstain, on the other hand, settled for an agreement that strengthens Iran relative to us. That is a worse alternative than simply continuing with the sanctions until Iran met more realistic requirements.

If you were talking about North Korea, you can trace the history of that to the 1990s, where similar foolishness was exercised in hopes that the other side will comply.

LordBeaverbrook: You should also notice that when the RWWs complain about the ayatollah promoting, "Death to America", they don't mention their colleagues advocating for bombing the ME back to the Stone Age and other cretinous threats. Pure hypocrisy.

You mistake a legitimate argument as being something else. Those, the post on this message board, are not giving orders to the Pentagon, or the U.S. government, regarding what to do with Iran. However, when Iran's "Supreme Leader" chants "Death to America", he is representing a view that is driving Iran's movers and shakers. Many that don't understand how things are done in the Middle East, fail to grasp the fact that the ayatollah is influential within the real entity driving Iran. They are the movers and shakers that drive Iran's policy.

So yes, when their supreme leader chants "Death to America", you get an insight on who we are actually dealing with. The destruction of the United States, along with the rest of Western civilization, paves the way for them to spread their version of Islam throughout the world. The removal of the United States, and the West, is crucial to accomplish their manifest destiny.

This isn't hypocrisy, but basing an argument on reality. Either we neutralize them [radical Islamic elements that want to spread Islam globally], or they "erase" our culture and way of doing things, as radical Islamists have been doing for centuries in regards to non-Islamic cultures. Keep in mind that northern Africa, Syria, and other areas that were a part of the Roman Empire were heavily Christian prior to the radical Islamic invasions. Had it not been for the Reconquista, Spain and Portugal would've been Islamic kingdoms. They have not given up on pushing that to the rest the world.

LordBeaverbrook: They never offer anything useful, just pablum and war.

I could say with confidence that the side of the argument that does not offer anything useful is your side of the argument, the side of the argument that I have been arguing against for over 12 years. It's like you people operate from the same playbook, argue mostly from emotion and feeling without regards to the facts, while mistaking those feelings and emotions as being "fact". That normally results in my side of the argument fact checking your side of the argument. My side of the argument, the side of the argument that you are attacking, is the only side that is offering a realistic argument on the debate topic.

Your side of the argument has consistently offered an opinion that generally benefits our adversaries and enemies. Part of the reason to that is that you people have a colossal lack of understanding of how the real world works geopolitically, geo-strategically, and geo-economically. On the latter, you people have a colossal lack of understanding on the macro and micro levels, and how policy impacts both.

The description "low information voter" accurately describes the side of the argument that I have been dismantling all this time.

LordBeaverbrook: Now you are catching on to the MO.

The person that you were replying to, like the rest of the people on your side of the argument, did what I've observed you guys doing over the past 12 years have done, project your own traits onto us. If there was an Olympic sport on who could provide useless statements, not having anything to do with the argument or with reality, you people would be taking home the Olympic gold. You people's mode of operation is to run off with your mouths spewing nonsense based on your emotions and feelings, then turn around and exercise piss poor judgment by consistently arguing against the side of the argument that obviously knows what it is talking about compared to you guys not knowing they're talking about.

LordBeaverbrook: It is useless discussing/arguing with them

Then why are you here saying something that you know will get you a response, thus an argument? I highly disagree with the reason that you provided in your post. More on that later. The mere fact that you are on here, attacking others, proves your own wording false. If it was "useless" discussing/arguing with my side of the argument, you wouldn't have left a comment on this thread. You would have matched your actions to your statements. You didn't.

LordBeaverbrook: as they just spout memes, fantasies, beliefs based on no facts and insults.

said without advancing a logical, reasoned, argument supporting that opinion. You just described your recent post, as well is that of the others that I've argued with, to the "T". When it comes to delivering the facts, the side of the argument that you are attacking happens to be the side that consistently delivers the goods. All you guys do is spew rubbish and drivel based on your emotions and feelings, then attempt to argue against the facts simply because your emotions and feelings don't agree with the facts and your egos drive you on.

You people consistently dismiss actual facts as "opinions", while acting like your emotions and feelings are "fact".

LordBeaverbrook: I used to engage and then discovered the only real fun was to provoke them into a frenzy.

How about owning up to the fact that you have had your ass handed to you, and/or you were beaten in your own game, and you were left with no choice but to "sit down, shut up, or do something else"?

I've argued with enough of you guys to categorize you guys into different psychological profiles. The more of your reactions that I see, the more I could build onto those psychological profiles. You're not really having fun doing this. Your ego lets you get away with that assumption, because accepting reality would rub your ego the wrong way. It's much easier for you to twist this as if you are having some sort of victory than it is for your ego to accept the fact that you simply had your azz shoved down your throat.

I, on the other hand, take sadistic pleasure in dismantling you people's opinions in a topic that you guys are clearly ignorant on. Your reactions make me laugh even when I'm not on this message board. It also gives me a bigger insight on the kind of "luck" that you guys have in the real world. The same piss poor judgment that would drive somebody to argue against someone else that's consistently destroying them in debate is related to the piss poor judgment that these people exercise outside of ECCIE and in their normal lives.

LordBeaverbrook: When that got boring I turned that energy and attention back to pussy...a much more satisfying endeavor.

On numerous occasions, I provided my attention to pussy in the same day that I jumped on this message board, or another one, to dismantle the opinions of people who have absolutely no clue about what they are talking about, then move on to other activities. What really "got boring" to you is having others beat you at your own game, or consistently hand you your azz.

LordBeaverbrook: The hos on the board are actually far more informed and better conversationalists than the RWW mongers on here

First, you just demonstrated your lack of ability to understand things beyond what you are seeing. Most providers, during a session, would not try to educate someone that is obviously clueless on a political topic when they are engaged in what they do best. Yes, they're going to de-escalate and try to agree with you in some way, or come to a compromise, shift the conversation focus, and focus on what you are there to see them for. The other hobbyists on this message board have no requirement to do that to your side of the argument, nor are they impacted their ability to continue to be hobbyists. This gives us the ability to dismantle your arguments at will.

Second, I highly doubt that you would hold onto this opinion if you came across a provider that argued on our side of the argument. I have seen the posts of two different providers that jumped on this message board to argue against your side of the argument. Perhaps you could straighten the people out, who attacked them and who are on the same side of the argument as you, and inform them that the providers that destroyed you people's arguments are far more informed and better conversationalists.

You have not demonstrated, in your posts, that you don't have the analytical acumen to pass judgment on who is informed and who isn't. You're not even informed on the totality of the argument on this thread. Otherwise, you would not have opened it with the wrong conclusion about what my side of the argument would say or argue.

LordBeaverbrook: (if they really are mongers or use this forum because their dicks went limp)

Mine still goes stiff on its own. Never needed medication to make that happen either. Heck, living up to my username makes it go stiff. I've been seeing/hobbying with the same provider since late 2014. Don't let my lack of recent reviews lead you to another false conclusion.

LordBeaverbrook: and they have the good sense not to involve themselves here either.

Hate to burst your bubble, but your side of the argument is wrong. You people are getting your asses handed to you on this thread. We're not the ones that should decide to do something else. We are here to stay, and to continue to fact check your arguments and show you guys that you guys have absolutely no clue about what you guys are talking about. You need to convince the others on your side of the argument to do what you imply we should do. Based on what I have seen, on what you guys have advanced, you people need to do more research on the topics that we are arguing about instead of wasting your time on these threads proving foreign criticism about our education system to be "warranted".

[DSK]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

LordBeaverbrook: Just puffed up their chests and yelled, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or "nuke them until the sand glows"

Actually, if you bothered reading the progress of the argument on this thread, you would not have come to that conclusion. We have repeatedly argued that the conditions in place before they came to this agreement were better than the ones that are in place now. We consistently argued that no agreement was better than this agreement. Your opinion here just proves that you are the very thing that you are accusing the side of the argument, that actually knows what it's arguing about, of being.

LordBeaverbrook: and let them keep enriching, building and testing their nukes.....just like W did.

Iran tested nuclear weapons? When did that happen? Please locate an article that verifies that Iran detonated a nuclear weapon. Again, if you followed actual information surrounding Iran, the previous president, who happens to be last real president we had, aimed for applying more sanctions against Iran and moved to make it hard to obtain materials and resources it needed to do the very thing that you imply they have already done. Hussein O'shitstain, on the other hand, settled for an agreement that strengthens Iran relative to us. That is a worse alternative than simply continuing with the sanctions until Iran met more realistic requirements.

If you were talking about North Korea, you can trace the history of that to the 1990s, where similar foolishness was exercised in hopes that the other side will comply.

LordBeaverbrook: You should also notice that when the RWWs complain about the ayatollah promoting, "Death to America", they don't mention their colleagues advocating for bombing the ME back to the Stone Age and other cretinous threats. Pure hypocrisy.

You mistake a legitimate argument as being something else. Those, the post on this message board, are not giving orders to the Pentagon, or the U.S. government, regarding what to do with Iran. However, when Iran's "Supreme Leader" chants "Death to America", he is representing a view that is driving Iran's movers and shakers. Many that don't understand how things are done in the Middle East, fail to grasp the fact that the ayatollah is influential within the real entity driving Iran. They are the movers and shakers that drive Iran's policy.

So yes, when their supreme leader chants "Death to America", you get an insight on who we are actually dealing with. The destruction of the United States, along with the rest of Western civilization, paves the way for them to spread their version of Islam throughout the world. The removal of the United States, and the West, is crucial to accomplish their manifest destiny.

This isn't hypocrisy, but basing an argument on reality. Either we neutralize them [radical Islamic elements that want to spread Islam globally], or they "erase" our culture and way of doing things, as radical Islamists have been doing for centuries in regards to non-Islamic cultures. Keep in mind that northern Africa, Syria, and other areas that were a part of the Roman Empire were heavily Christian prior to the radical Islamic invasions. Had it not been for the Reconquista, Spain and Portugal would've been Islamic kingdoms. They have not given up on pushing that to the rest the world.

LordBeaverbrook: They never offer anything useful, just pablum and war.

I could say with confidence that the side of the argument that does not offer anything useful is your side of the argument, the side of the argument that I have been arguing against for over 12 years. It's like you people operate from the same playbook, argue mostly from emotion and feeling without regards to the facts, while mistaking those feelings and emotions as being "fact". That normally results in my side of the argument fact checking your side of the argument. My side of the argument, the side of the argument that you are attacking, is the only side that is offering a realistic argument on the debate topic.

Your side of the argument has consistently offered an opinion that generally benefits our adversaries and enemies. Part of the reason to that is that you people have a colossal lack of understanding of how the real world works geopolitically, geo-strategically, and geo-economically. On the latter, you people have a colossal lack of understanding on the macro and micro levels, and how policy impacts both.

The description "low information voter" accurately describes the side of the argument that I have been dismantling all this time.

LordBeaverbrook: Now you are catching on to the MO.

The person that you were replying to, like the rest of the people on your side of the argument, did what I've observed you guys doing over the past 12 years have done, project your own traits onto us. If there was an Olympic sport on who could provide useless statements, not having anything to do with the argument or with reality, you people would be taking home the Olympic gold. You people's mode of operation is to run off with your mouths spewing nonsense based on your emotions and feelings, then turn around and exercise piss poor judgment by consistently arguing against the side of the argument that obviously knows what it is talking about compared to you guys not knowing they're talking about.

LordBeaverbrook: It is useless discussing/arguing with them

Then why are you here saying something that you know will get you a response, thus an argument? I highly disagree with the reason that you provided in your post. More on that later. The mere fact that you are on here, attacking others, proves your own wording false. If it was "useless" discussing/arguing with my side of the argument, you wouldn't have left a comment on this thread. You would have matched your actions to your statements. You didn't.

LordBeaverbrook: as they just spout memes, fantasies, beliefs based on no facts and insults.

said without advancing a logical, reasoned, argument supporting that opinion. You just described your recent post, as well is that of the others that I've argued with, to the "T". When it comes to delivering the facts, the side of the argument that you are attacking happens to be the side that consistently delivers the goods. All you guys do is spew rubbish and drivel based on your emotions and feelings, then attempt to argue against the facts simply because your emotions and feelings don't agree with the facts and your egos drive you on.

You people consistently dismiss actual facts as "opinions", while acting like your emotions and feelings are "fact".

LordBeaverbrook: I used to engage and then discovered the only real fun was to provoke them into a frenzy.

How about owning up to the fact that you have had your ass handed to you, and/or you were beaten in your own game, and you were left with no choice but to "sit down, shut up, or do something else"?

I've argued with enough of you guys to categorize you guys into different psychological profiles. The more of your reactions that I see, the more I could build onto those psychological profiles. You're not really having fun doing this. Your ego lets you get away with that assumption, because accepting reality would rub your ego the wrong way. It's much easier for you to twist this as if you are having some sort of victory than it is for your ego to accept the fact that you simply had your azz shoved down your throat.

I, on the other hand, take sadistic pleasure in dismantling you people's opinions in a topic that you guys are clearly ignorant on. Your reactions make me laugh even when I'm not on this message board. It also gives me a bigger insight on the kind of "luck" that you guys have in the real world. The same piss poor judgment that would drive somebody to argue against someone else that's consistently destroying them in debate is related to the piss poor judgment that these people exercise outside of ECCIE and in their normal lives.

LordBeaverbrook: When that got boring I turned that energy and attention back to pussy...a much more satisfying endeavor.

On numerous occasions, I provided my attention to pussy in the same day that I jumped on this message board, or another one, to dismantle the opinions of people who have absolutely no clue about what they are talking about, then move on to other activities. What really "got boring" to you is having others beat you at your own game, or consistently hand you your azz.

LordBeaverbrook: The hos on the board are actually far more informed and better conversationalists than the RWW mongers on here

First, you just demonstrated your lack of ability to understand things beyond what you are seeing. Most providers, during a session, would not try to educate someone that is obviously clueless on a political topic when they are engaged in what they do best. Yes, they're going to de-escalate and try to agree with you in some way, or come to a compromise, shift the conversation focus, and focus on what you are there to see them for. The other hobbyists on this message board have no requirement to do that to your side of the argument, nor are they impacted their ability to continue to be hobbyists. This gives us the ability to dismantle your arguments at will.

Second, I highly doubt that you would hold onto this opinion if you came across a provider that argued on our side of the argument. I have seen the posts of two different providers that jumped on this message board to argue against your side of the argument. Perhaps you could straighten the people out, who attacked them and who are on the same side of the argument as you, and inform them that the providers that destroyed you people's arguments are far more informed and better conversationalists.

You have not demonstrated, in your posts, that you don't have the analytical acumen to pass judgment on who is informed and who isn't. You're not even informed on the totality of the argument on this thread. Otherwise, you would not have opened it with the wrong conclusion about what my side of the argument would say or argue.

LordBeaverbrook: (if they really are mongers or use this forum because their dicks went limp)

Mine still goes stiff on its own. Never needed medication to make that happen either. Heck, living up to my username makes it go stiff. I've been seeing/hobbying with the same provider since late 2014. Don't let my lack of recent reviews lead you to another false conclusion.

LordBeaverbrook: and they have the good sense not to involve themselves here either.

Hate to burst your bubble, but your side of the argument is wrong. You people are getting your asses handed to you on this thread. We're not the ones that should decide to do something else. We are here to stay, and to continue to fact check your arguments and show you guys that you guys have absolutely no clue about what you guys are talking about. You need to convince the others on your side of the argument to do what you imply we should do. Based on what I have seen, on what you guys have advanced, you people need to do more research on the topics that we are arguing about instead of wasting your time on these threads proving foreign criticism about our education system to be "warranted".

Notwithstanding all that above, how do you feel about deficit spending during a commodity deflation cycle like we now have?

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

What part of UPDATED did you not understand?

Originally Posted by herfacechair

GWU archives: Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq

Why would he instruct his team to create an updated war plan if this allegedly was a "brand new" attack plan?

What happened was the Pentagon received orders to update a war plan, as I argued earlier in this thread.

Those fuckers had to concoct an "updated" war plan because the old one required upward of half million U.S. men and women to conquer Iraq and still bogged down in that quagmire for years to come. The Bush administration was so desperate to devise a palatable war plan to the "joe public," they were willing to expose the lives of our servicemen and women to undue risks by drastically reducing the number of troops needed to accomplish the mission. What a fucking disgrace to the avatar you just put up by defending Rumsfeld's criminal plot! You are as useful to dubya as Julius Streicher.

Go ahead and delete my links, coward.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Ce..._OPLAN_1003-98

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

In fact, this war plan, against Iraq, was in existence since the 1980s.

Stop the fucking lies, you weren't in the military during the '80s.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

A conspiracy implies a plot to commit crimes.

Proof of correspondence between Gen. Franks and Rumsfeld indicating a conspiracy? Or, is this a case where you want me to believe that simply because you say so? Cough up that proof, or admit that you're pulling crap out of your ass.

So if several would-be robbers conspire to rob a bank, what "proof of correspondence" is deemed valid under any state and/or federal penal code to find them guilty of conspiracy? Cite me any single statue or legal precedent to support your asinine argument that "proof of correspondence" is required to establish the act of conspiracy. Now admit you are full of shit.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Absent specification in the rules of land warfare, contract law as applied to warfare applies.

Under contractual law, this constitutes a breach of contract. A contract, continuously breached, becomes null and void.

What a dumbass! A UN resolution is not a contract at all. It's a collective will expressed by the UN Security Council to command one or several member states under the mandate of the UN charters. So if Saddam failed to abide by the command of the UN Security Council, the Council collectively have the legal authority to mete out appropriate punishments, not by the U.S. unilaterally. Your personal rants don't mean shit at all.