The Iranian side deals

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

I tried to be nice and polite about this, but you want to get all high and mighty and angry about this deal. I am not the one who sent the PM, Its not my fault I don't want you to suck my dick, its not my fault that you have erection issues, its not my fault that you have always "been burdened with the secret", these are your words not mine, but now you want to turn this on me and make angry and nasty comments towards me. You need help and your not going to get it from me. I hope you get what you need from someone someday , even that thing you talked about with the gerbil. I am done talking about this, so let it go.

Why won't you send the PM to the mods, if it's so awful? Never have I sent you a PM. Not in this lifetime or any other. You are resorting to childish bullshit. And that's sad, because behind your computer sits a man who is much too old to be pulling this shit. Is this how you envisioned your life would be? Playing childish games on a hooker board? Let it go? You started it, motherfucker. I say when it ends.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

It wouldn't matter if the Dems didn't. Obama took it to the UN and had it voted on first. Obama controls the UN Security Council vote.

The Republicans made a huge blunder by not tying the Iranian deal to the Asia trade pact bill.

Gadfly, you missed the point. Assuming Congress votes to not approve the deal that Kerry worked out, then Obama will veto what Congress voted on. The republicans in congress will TRY to override the veto (in the Senate 13 democrats would have to vote with the republicans) for the veto override to pass. There will not be 13 democratic senators voting with the republicans and the override will fail.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Gadfly, you missed the point. Assuming Congress votes to not approve the deal that Kerry worked out, then Obama will veto what Congress voted on. The republicans in congress will TRY to override the veto (in the Senate 13 democrats would have to vote with the republicans) for the veto override to pass. There will not be 13 democratic senators voting with the republicans and the override will fail.

And Obama doesn't own the security council vote anyway.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.

.... Found WMD's however, they were the one's that USA had designed and sold to Iraq back in the 1980's And David killed Goliath with a slingshot, flighty, and the slingshot is no less lethal today than it was 2,000 years ago: "old" doesn't automatically equate to "non-lethal

The weapons that Iraq had purchased from the USA back in 1980 and were found during the 2003 invasion of Iraq had corroded to the point where they were no longer functional. So your comparison to sling shot used in 3000 years B.C. is nonsense. You should go back and read the link from the New York times you Fucking Idiot.

Bush was not talking about finding weapons that the USA had already sold to IRAQ. He was talking about new weapon systems.

You are perfectly okay with spending 2 trillion dollars and having 4 thousand people die to find weapon systems that the USA had already sold to Iraq some 25 years ago? What a moron.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=1


http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1194858&highl ight=

From the nytimes link.

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Why won't you send the PM to the mods, if it's so awful? Never have I sent you a PM. Not in this lifetime or any other. You are resorting to childish bullshit. And that's sad, because behind your computer sits a man who is much too old to be pulling this shit. Is this how you envisioned your life would be? Playing childish games on a hooker board? Let it go? You started it, motherfucker. I say when it ends.

Okay, if you say so...........

[WTF]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Gadfly, you missed the point. Assuming Congress votes to not approve the deal that Kerry worked out, then Obama will veto what Congress voted on. The republicans in congress will TRY to override the veto (in the Senate 13 democrats would have to vote with the republicans) for the veto override to pass. There will not be 13 democratic senators voting with the republicans and the override will fail.

People that oppose this have offered up no solution other than war...

You are correct btw...congress will not be able to override the veto. Our nation building war mongers hate that fact!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

.... Found WMD's however, they were the one's that USA had designed and sold to Iraq back in the 1980's

The weapons that Iraq had purchased from the USA back in 1980 and were found during the 2003 invasion of Iraq had corroded to the point where they were no longer functional. So your comparison to sling shot used in 3000 years B.C. is nonsense. You should go back and read the link from the New York times you Fucking Idiot.

Bush was not talking about finding weapons that the USA had already sold to IRAQ. He was talking about new weapon systems.

You are perfectly okay with spending 2 trillion dollars and having 4 thousand people die to find weapon systems that the USA had already sold to Iraq some 25 years ago? What a moron.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=1


http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1194858&highl ight=

From the nytimes link.

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

Acquaint yourself with the term "dirty bomb", and then familiarize yourself with how Madame Curie died.

[southtown4488]

Republicunts will not be happy until we go to war with Iran. . . maybe yall should suggest that Iran already has WMD's and that a smoking gun will come in the form of say. . .a mushroom cloud. Yall could trot Colin Powell out there to sell his soul again.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Republicunts will not be happy until we go to war with Iran. . . maybe yall should suggest that Iran already has WMD's and that a smoking gun will come in the form of say. . .a mushroom cloud. Yall could trot Colin Powell out there to sell his soul again.

Your remark is only remotely credible if you genuinely believe Odumbo would be willing to send troops to war against Iran if he didn't get this deal, suckclown; if you don't believe he would, then you're full of bullshit.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your remark is only remotely credible if you genuinely believe Odumbo would be willing to send troops to war against Iran if he didn't get this deal, suckclown; if you don't believe he would, then you're full of bullshit.

typical simple minded republicunt, only sees the world in black and white, no shades of gray.

If iran turned down a reasonable deal, it would be easier to get other nations like Russia and CHina to keep sanctions on or turn them up. . . if the U.S. turned down a reasonable deal it becomes almost impossible to get these others to keep sanctions on.
Seems as though Iran and Obama accepted a reasonable deal, of course Republicunts opposed the deal before knowing what the deal was.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

typical simple minded republicunt, only sees the world in black and white, no shades of gray.

If iran turned down a reasonable deal, it would be easier to get other nations like Russia and CHina to keep sanctions on or turn them up. . . if the U.S. turned down a reasonable deal it becomes almost impossible to get these others to keep sanctions on.
Seems as though Iran and Obama accepted a reasonable deal, of course Republicunts opposed the deal before knowing what the deal was.

It's you and Odumbo who are the simple minded clowns advocating that it is either this treaty or war, suckclown. Yet, your lying ass doesn't for one moment believe Odumbo would go to war over a fuckin' thing Iran does to advance the development of its nuclear weapons program.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

....that's sad, because behind your computer sits a man who is much too old to be pulling this shit. Is this how you envisioned your life would be? Playing childish games on a hooker board?

Then that makes you over 20 times sadder, doesn't it sewer rat?

Is this how you envisioned your life would be?

Average Posts per Day
WombRaider - 40.38
Dirty Dog - 1.98

.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

.... Found WMD's however, they were the one's that USA had designed and sold to Iraq back in the 1980's And David killed Goliath with a slingshot, flighty, and the slingshot is no less lethal today than it was 2,000 years ago: "old" doesn't automatically equate to "non-lethal

The weapons that Iraq had purchased from the USA back in 1980 and were found during the 2003 invasion of Iraq had corroded to the point where they were no longer functional. So your comparison to sling shot used in 3000 years B.C. is nonsense. You should go back and read the link from the New York times you Fucking Idiot.

Bush was not talking about finding weapons that the USA had already sold to IRAQ. He was talking about new weapon systems.

You are perfectly okay with spending 2 trillion dollars and having 4 thousand people die to find weapon systems that the USA had already sold to Iraq some 25 years ago? What a moron.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=1


http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1194858&highl ight=

From the nytimes link.

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

Now you're going to qualify your statement? First there were no WMDs...until they found them. Then it was there were no nuclear weapons....but no one claimed that they had nukes. Then it was the quantities were too small to count....then they found larger quantities. Now, it the age that matters....BULLSHIT! The subject was WMDs, chemical weapons that Hussein had used on the Kurds. He had them, they were found, live with it. Those same chemical weapons were also dispersed in 1991 to inflict some damage on US military personnel. They mixed then with the smoke from the oil well fires to create plausible deniability.

Don't worry, Obama has put Iran on a glide path to a nuclear weapon and they already have ballistic missiles to put them on. Obama also tweeted that there are no side deals even though John Kerry seems to think that there were side deals.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's you and Odumbo who are the simple minded clowns advocating that it is either this treaty or war, suckclown. Yet, your lying ass doesn't for one moment believe Odumbo would go to war over a fuckin' thing Iran does to advance the development of its nuclear weapons program.

War is supposed to be the last option, I know u republicunt war mongers love to send other people to kill and die for lies but im glad Obama is not a murdering cunt like GW. You can support murder and lies if u want, its ur right to be a cunt, ill oppose it every step of the way.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Then that makes you over 20 times sadder, doesn't it sewer rat?

Is this how you envisioned your life would be?

Average Posts per Day
WombRaider - 40.38
Dirty Dog - 1.98

.

The difference is he has to drag his sorry ass to work to support his unhappy wife and 2.3 rugrats. I get to sit around while others manage my shit while I fuck off with you shitstains. So, no, it's not how I envisioned my life would be, but I'll take it.