Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11148260

Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.

For one who favors war instead of negotiating a reasonable and realistic detail you express much hatred for potential allies.

Another fool who has forgotten who the thread is about.
Complete with another lie.
As has been made clear to you several times, I do NOT favor war over negotiating. What I favor is negotiations that produce the right results. NOTHING I have seen from barack obama in the last 6 years would lead me to believe he will come up with a good agreement. Further, NOTHING I have seen from IRAN for the last 40 years would lead me to believe that Iran would abide by even a bad agreement.

 

[Ernie S.]

JH 10925798

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...

You are assuming the potential treaty is not a good one. What makes you right and anyone that sees the serious value in extending Iran's 'break-out' time from three months to a year as plenty of time to bomb any suspected sites where violations by Iran of the deal would be necessary to deny Iraq the ability to make a nuclear weapon. If they don't try to break out for fifteen years - this turns out to be a very good deal. Unless you prefer bombing first only to stop Iran from having nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Erni 11152960

Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.

The full quote is always a mouse click away. I highlight the exact statements that rightwinger's bury amidst much of what us nental garbage.

I change no meaning or authors intent - If I did any rightwinger could point it out and they never successfully do.

Your being annoyed is much more Realtek to not having a plausible argument for the horrible thoughts that dance in your head.

Point out what exactly you think I've written that is ignorant or dishonest. You can't do that either.

I call this type of desperate post of yours "running from the discussion".

It was only a matter of time until you did it.


Your confession that you only would accept a deal that forces Iran to give up all peaceful use of nuclear power is never going to happen. The only way to achieve that us by going to war with Iran.

You are for war - That truth hurts doesn't it?

 

[eagle1462010]

Erni 11152960

Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.

The full quote is always a mouse click away. I highlight the exact statements that rightwinger's bury amidst much of what us nental garbage.

I change no meaning or authors intent - If I did any rightwinger could point it out and they never successfully do.

Your being annoyed is much more Realtek to not having a plausible argument for the horrible thoughts that dance in your head.

Point out what exactly you think I've written that is ignorant or dishonest. You can't do that either.

I call this type of desperate post of yours "running from the discussion".

It was only a matter of time until you did it.


Your confession that you only would accept a deal that forces Iran to give up all peaceful use of nuclear power is never going to happen. The only way to achieve that us by going to war with Iran.

You are for war - That truth hurts doesn't it?

Peaceful use of Nuclear Power............Funny bed fellows your side keeps.............You fight tooth and nail here for more nuclear power plants, but now are the poster children for Promoting Nuclear Power...............

LOL

Iran doesn't need nuclear power to power their country...........unless you believe you are Alice in Wonderland......................

They have one intent............same as North Korea did.............no piece of paper is going to change that.............no agreement will change their ambitions..................

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them................

and people like you want to cut a deal..................

Jeff Foxworthy has a sign for you.

 

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11152960

Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.

The full quote is always a mouse click away. I highlight the exact statements that rightwinger's bury amidst much of what us nental garbage.

I change no meaning or authors intent - If I did any rightwinger could point it out and they never successfully do.

Your being annoyed is much more Realtek to not having a plausible argument for the horrible thoughts that dance in your head.

Point out what exactly you think I've written that is ignorant or dishonest. You can't do that either.

I call this type of desperate post of yours "running from the discussion".

It was only a matter of time until you did it.


Your confession that you only would accept a deal that forces Iran to give up all peaceful use of nuclear power is never going to happen. The only way to achieve that us by going to war with Iran.

You are for war - That truth hurts doesn't it?

Call my post whatever you want. I have NOT run from you or anyone EVER. You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war. It is more a part of a negotiation that is more likely to produce the results I would be happy with.
So, You are a liar. The truth hurts, doesn't it.

And STOP fucking with the damned quotes!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11152946

Did I say that? We are talking about Iran here.

Iran is singular. The other five countries are plural. You opened your paragraph referring to "five other countries" saying "fuck them". I read that as you were calling our P5+1 partners "pigs" also. Pigs is plural.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Erni 11155129

You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war

You said you would only accept a deal whereby Iran gives up all peaceful nuclear activities. That is a recipe for war. This deal is forcing Iran to prove it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.

I have not mischaracterized anything you've written.

 

[Ernie S.]

11152946

Did I say that? We are talking about Iran here.

Iran is singular. The other five countries are plural. You opened your paragraph referring to "five other countries" saying "fuck them". I read that as you were calling our P5+1 partners "pigs" also. Pigs is plural.

Iran has about 80 million (thus plural) pigs living there. I have no grief with P5+1, have not discussed or even mentioned them. It should have been evident from what I had written to that point that I detest and distrust the Iranian government. Only a fool would have assumed "pigs" was meant for P5+1.

 

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11155129

You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war

You said you would only accept a deal whereby Iran gives up all peaceful nuclear activities. That is a recipe for war. This deal is forcing Iran to prove it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.

I have not mischaracterized anything you've written.

No! It is a recipe for Iran to capitulate if they wish to avoid war. It is also a very strong starting point to negotiations, not an ultimatum that the bombing will start tomorrow.

If you don't understand my position now, please avoid further response. I refuse to engage idiots and the intellectually dishonest.

 

[Slyhunter]

Erni 11155129

You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war

You said you would only accept a deal whereby Iran gives up all peaceful nuclear activities. That is a recipe for war. This deal is forcing Iran to prove it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.

I have not mischaracterized anything you've written.

If they didn't put on chants of death to america or death to israel we might not need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. But they do.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Erni 11155887

No! It is a recipe for Iran to capitulate if they wish to avoid war. It is also a very strong starting point to negotiations, not an ultimatum that the bombing will start tomorrow.

Negotiations don't start at your starting point. The world has traveled past your starting point years ago. To demand they cease all peaceful nuclear activity at this point means you will bomb them if they don't stop doing what was only acceptable to you.

Did you write this?

Erni 11145320

A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.

What are your "serious consequences" if not 'WAR' to stop all enrichment - to take out all centrifuges - to force them to fill in underground bunkers.

You are not backing up your 'starting point' with anything unless you mean to stop all those things by use of force. You are engaged in meaningless negotiations if you can't back up your starting point demands.

In post 155887 your are threatening war unless they capitulate to your specific demands.Are you going to capitulate on those demands after threatening war to enforce them? Where do you stop capitulating if war is a last resort in your mind?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Slyh 11156698

If they didn't put on chants of death to america or death to israel we might not need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. But they do.

If they didn't put on chants of death to America or death to Israel we would definitely still need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. The Iranians say they are not interested in producing nuclear weapons, there is no reason to trust them. They have to prove it as this deal would force them to do.

 

[Jroc]

Slyh 11156698

If they didn't put on chants of death to america or death to israel we might not need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. But they do.

If they didn't put on chants of death to America or death to Israel we would definitely still need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. The Iranians say they are not interested in producing nuclear weapons, there is no reason to trust them. They have to prove it as this deal would force them to do.

LOL..what deal? Iran's deal?or Obama's deal?

 

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11155887

No! It is a recipe for Iran to capitulate if they wish to avoid war. It is also a very strong starting point to negotiations, not an ultimatum that the bombing will start tomorrow.

Negotiations don't start at your starting point. The world has traveled past your starting point years ago. To demand they cease all peaceful nuclear activity at this point means you will bomb them if they don't stop doing what was only acceptable to you.

Did you write this?

Erni 11145320

A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.

What are your "serious consequences" if not 'WAR' to stop all enrichment - to take out all centrifuges - to force them to fill in underground bunkers.

You are not backing up your 'starting point' with anything unless you mean to stop all those things by use of force. You are engaged in meaningless negotiations if you can't back up your starting point demands.

In post 155887 your are threatening war unless they capitulate to your specific demands.Are you going to capitulate on those demands after threatening war to enforce them? Where do you stop capitulating if war is a last resort in your mind?

You are either talking in circles intentionally, or you can't comprehend what I am saying. I'm done with you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are either talking in circles intentionally, or you can't comprehend what I am saying. I'm done with you.

I thought you said you don't run from a discussion - the points I've made are not running in circles. It is a straight line of fact. Your "starting point" for "good negotiations" (no nuclear enrichment - nothing nuclear in Iran ) comes with the threat of war if they don't capitulate on that. I asked if you would capitulate on your demand that Iran cease all peaceful nuclear activity and instead of answering you pull the "running in circles" stunt. You cannot answer the question - the definitive conclusion has to be that you have chosen to capitulate (run) from our discussion instead.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11159487

LOL..what deal? Iran's deal?or Obama's deal?

You've all been complaining and shivering in fear that Obama would strike a weak deal with Iran. Now you are complaining that Obama has laid a framework for a deal that is too strong for Iran to accept. And you suddenly are quoting Iran's leaders as the one's telling the truth just to call our President a liar based on trusting the Iranians speaking the truth. What's up with that? Could you make up your mind please?

 

[Jroc]

11159487

LOL..what deal? Iran's deal?or Obama's deal?

You've all been complaining and shivering in fear that Obama would strike a weak deal with Iran. Now you are complaining that Obama has laid a framework for a deal that is too strong for Iran to accept. And you suddenly are quoting Iran's leaders as the one's telling the truth just to call our President a liar based on trusting the Iranians speaking the truth. What's up with that? Could you make up your mind please?

A deal means the two sides agree on something, obviously they don't. Obama is attempting this capitulation for his legacy. He's a weak president and they know it. Too bad you libs just can't come to grips with that fact.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11160679

A deal means the two sides agree on something, obviously they don't

It is the Iranians who want sanctions lifted immediately upon signing the deal. That is not the agreement the P5+1 settled on. So Obama's position is too strong and intrusive for the Iranian side. Why are you not in agreement with Obama that there must be specified actions taken by Iran before lifting of sanctions would phased in gradually?

 

[Jroc]

11160679

A deal means the two sides agree on something, obviously they don't

It is the Iranians who want sanctions lifted immediately upon signing the deal. That is not the agreement the P5+1 settled on. So Obama's position is too strong and intrusive for the Iranian side. Why are you not in agreement with Obama that there must be specified actions taken by Iran before lifting of sanctions would phased in gradually?

Iran toys with your pathetic president.The sooner you come to grips with that fact, the sooner you'll be living in the real world.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iran toys with your pathetic president.

How on earth do you reach such a conclusion that Iran is toying with President Obama? Iran's economy is struggling. They need sanctions lifted. Obama and the rest of the P5+1 are not going to lift sanctions the minute Iran signs a deal. Iran needs sanctions lifted. Who is really being toyed with?