Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?
I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran
I think the reason Israel and in particular Zionists are looking to null this deal is simply because they want the Israel-Palestine conflict to go on, at least for a while, rather than to come to an end. Because as long as there is conflict, Israel can hold on to the land, and grab it day by day.
If Israelis want any peace in their land, this is an opportunity to take. Netanyahu, not so long ago, was alarming the UN, claiming Iran would get nukes in a year, and now with this deal, Obama postponed that for 10 years, and he is still not happy.
I think Israeli right wing is just as hypocrite as US right wing. They could have at least said: "Thank you for buying us another 10 years. At least with the Iranian 'right winger' Ahmedinejad removed from power, they they will have a chance to behave before we decide to obliterate them"
Or a simple "Thank You" would do it...
But I guess, right wing is a right wing, regardless...........
I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.
This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.
This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.
This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.
The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.
This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.
Well done.
"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."
This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.
I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.
US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.
With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...
I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and over aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran
"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"
It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..
And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?
I think you are a joke...
and thus I rest my case.is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?
I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran
I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a rejection of the deal would instantly start a war between the Us and Iran, but without this deal, I believe that war in the middle east would be an eventuality, and the US would probably join in.
I got bad news for you-----the WAR in the middle east which includes Iran has already started. Its epicenter RIGHT NOW----is in Yemen----Iran has planted lots and lots of very well armed SHIITE fighters in Yemen and the objective is an attack on Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to control water ways over there which are essential for INTERNATIONAL TRADE-------actually world-over. This war has been in the planning stage BY IRAN for many years. . There is very little question that the USA will "get involved" in some way-----we already have nuclear subs over there. ----a little clue---****HE WHO OWNS MECCA AND THE BLACK ROCK---OWNS THE UMMAH****-------more clues-----one of the prime objectives of OSAMA (sunni league) was invasion of Saudi Arabia and ownership of the black
rock. Osama was----by his heritage on both paternal and maternal sides-----YEMENI I cannot describe the IMPORTANCE of family
----that means anything related in anyway-----amongst Yemenis. The epicenter of the current war is YEMEN---but it ain't staying localized for long
PS----it is more than a "bit of an exaggeration" to say rejection of the nuke deal will cause a war-------It is grossly disgusting, manipulative ,
sociopathic propaganda
and thus I rest my case.is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?
I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran
I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a rejection of the deal would instantly start a war between the Us and Iran, but without this deal, I believe that war in the middle east would be an eventuality, and the US would probably join in.
I got bad news for you-----the WAR in the middle east which includes Iran has already started. Its epicenter RIGHT NOW----is in Yemen----Iran has planted lots and lots of very well armed SHIITE fighters in Yemen and the objective is an attack on Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to control water ways over there which are essential for INTERNATIONAL TRADE-------actually world-over. This war has been in the planning stage BY IRAN for many years. . There is very little question that the USA will "get involved" in some way-----we already have nuclear subs over there. ----a little clue---****HE WHO OWNS MECCA AND THE BLACK ROCK---OWNS THE UMMAH****-------more clues-----one of the prime objectives of OSAMA (sunni league) was invasion of Saudi Arabia and ownership of the black
rock. Osama was----by his heritage on both paternal and maternal sides-----YEMENI I cannot describe the IMPORTANCE of family
----that means anything related in anyway-----amongst Yemenis. The epicenter of the current war is YEMEN---but it ain't staying localized for long
PS----it is more than a "bit of an exaggeration" to say rejection of the nuke deal will cause a war-------It is grossly disgusting, manipulative ,
sociopathic propaganda
I think you made it well and I quite agree with what you wrote.
and thus I rest my case.is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?
I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran
I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a rejection of the deal would instantly start a war between the Us and Iran, but without this deal, I believe that war in the middle east would be an eventuality, and the US would probably join in.
I got bad news for you-----the WAR in the middle east which includes Iran has already started. Its epicenter RIGHT NOW----is in Yemen----Iran has planted lots and lots of very well armed SHIITE fighters in Yemen and the objective is an attack on Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to control water ways over there which are essential for INTERNATIONAL TRADE-------actually world-over. This war has been in the planning stage BY IRAN for many years. . There is very little question that the USA will "get involved" in some way-----we already have nuclear subs over there. ----a little clue---****HE WHO OWNS MECCA AND THE BLACK ROCK---OWNS THE UMMAH****-------more clues-----one of the prime objectives of OSAMA (sunni league) was invasion of Saudi Arabia and ownership of the black
rock. Osama was----by his heritage on both paternal and maternal sides-----YEMENI I cannot describe the IMPORTANCE of family
----that means anything related in anyway-----amongst Yemenis. The epicenter of the current war is YEMEN---but it ain't staying localized for long
PS----it is more than a "bit of an exaggeration" to say rejection of the nuke deal will cause a war-------It is grossly disgusting, manipulative ,
sociopathic propaganda
I think you made it well and I quite agree with what you wrote.
To what does "IT" refer. If it refers to 'party's' "case"------
just what is his "case"? "what he wrote..." (??) He really did not write anything specific ------just rambled. When one refers to a CASE-------the implication is a SPECIFIC POINT. What is that specific point of this "case" In the field of medical diagnosis one can made a CASE for a specific diagnosis------like "OCCLUSION OF THE RIGHT CAROTID ARTERY"--------one does not just say
----'the patient seems sick' ---------or "......
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - perhaps she'll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and wiggled and tiggled inside her;
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;
How absurd to swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.
This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.
This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.
This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.
The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.
This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.
Well done.
"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."
This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.
I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.
US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.
With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...
I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and over aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran
"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"
It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..
And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?
I think you are a joke...
you must be very young-----Saddam supported international
terrorism way back in the 1970s. International terrorism is not a
SAUDI phenomenon. Osama was not even Saudi by heritage he was YEMENI. No doubt Saudi money gets into the system----
thru ZAKAT -----but that's because there is so much Saudi money
in the hands of private Saudis-------which is why Osama's family ended up there. There ain't nutthin' in Yemen with which to
DO BUSINESS. ------they cannot even manage to plant salmon
there (eating fish is not part of the Yemeni cuisine----ask me how
I know) It is true, however, that there is oil---especially in the southern part of Yemen.
I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.
This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.
This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.
This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.
The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.
This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.
Well done.
"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."
This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.
I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.
US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.
With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...
I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and over aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran
"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"
It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..
And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?
I think you are a joke...
you must be very young-----Saddam supported international
terrorism way back in the 1970s. International terrorism is not a
SAUDI phenomenon. Osama was not even Saudi by heritage he was YEMENI. No doubt Saudi money gets into the system----
thru ZAKAT -----but that's because there is so much Saudi money
in the hands of private Saudis-------which is why Osama's family ended up there. There ain't nutthin' in Yemen with which to
DO BUSINESS. ------they cannot even manage to plant salmon
there (eating fish is not part of the Yemeni cuisine----ask me how
I know) It is true, however, that there is oil---especially in the southern part of Yemen.
Yes, back in the days, when "being conservative" meant "being fiscally conservative", not "being ideologically conservative". But it evolved to something that prevents this country on its progressive tracks, that is being "right wing".
You think you are democrat, you could be a democrat, but that doesn't prevent you from being a "right wing" democrat. You are an "ideologically conservative" democrat. Your ideas can no longer progress. You can't look at this Iran deal from any other angle, I would not expect you to. You have a set mind, unfortunately. You do not believe people could change, and you know why? Because you can not change... Changing mind is so foreign to you, it is almost like out of this solar system, so you do not believe Iranians could have changed, therefore this deal is a "bad deal" to you.
But let me tell you this, human beings evolved and survived under only one circumstance, "adaptation". So people change, their minds change, even tho they do not admit they have done so. It is inside of us, in our genes.
Iranians have changed too. And they will change even further. But to be able to get them on the right track, US should have stopped her hypocrite policies, and thanks to Obama, she is doing so. I see this as a big progress which makes this country the most unique and special on the face of the earth.
---LONG LIVE USA---
Well done.
"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."
This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.
I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.
US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.
With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...
I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and over aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran
"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"
It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..
And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?
I think you are a joke...
you must be very young-----Saddam supported international
terrorism way back in the 1970s. International terrorism is not a
SAUDI phenomenon. Osama was not even Saudi by heritage he was YEMENI. No doubt Saudi money gets into the system----
thru ZAKAT -----but that's because there is so much Saudi money
in the hands of private Saudis-------which is why Osama's family ended up there. There ain't nutthin' in Yemen with which to
DO BUSINESS. ------they cannot even manage to plant salmon
there (eating fish is not part of the Yemeni cuisine----ask me how
I know) It is true, however, that there is oil---especially in the southern part of Yemen.
Yes, back in the days, when "being conservative" meant "being fiscally conservative", not "being ideologically conservative". But it evolved to something that prevents this country on its progressive tracks, that is being "right wing".
You think you are democrat, you could be a democrat, but that doesn't prevent you from being a "right wing" democrat. You are an "ideologically conservative" democrat. Your ideas can no longer progress. You can't look at this Iran deal from any other angle, I would not expect you to. You have a set mind, unfortunately. You do not believe people could change, and you know why? Because you can not change... Changing mind is so foreign to you, it is almost like out of this solar system, so you do not believe Iranians could have changed, therefore this deal is a "bad deal" to you.
But let me tell you this, human beings evolved and survived under only one circumstance, "adaptation". So people change, their minds change, even tho they do not admit they have done so. It is inside of us, in our genes.
Iranians have changed too. And they will change even further. But to be able to get them on the right track, US should have stopped her hypocrite policies, and thanks to Obama, she is doing so. I see this as a big progress which makes this country the most unique and special on the face of the earth.
---LONG LIVE USA---
you used quite a few words to say nothing at all other than "I am smarter than you are". I knew Iranians way back then. I know that
IRANIANS can change------they changed from opened minded to
slaves of a theocracy in the 1970s-----quite a strong theocracy. Only one aspect of the Iranian mind did not change------they still hate arabs
(in general make that 'sunnis') The issue as to the functioning of Iran in the world is not really the Iranian people----it is whether or not
their theocratic leaders will continue to hold the country by its throat. ---The next logical question is-----what should be done to get rid of the
ayatollahs ---if anything. The ayatollah grip is that which has galvanized such exciting phenomena as---ISIS and the current ongoing war in the Levant. There is so much an interplay between
these many forces ------that any suggestion that the USA policy to Iran and sanctions and "nuke deal" will change the situation----is far-fetched-----actually a bit silly.
Shiite vs Sunni battle has only one solution, partition. Treat them as equal, and partition them. There are already 20 million refugees
I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and over aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran
"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"
It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..
And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?
I think you are a joke...
you must be very young-----Saddam supported international
terrorism way back in the 1970s. International terrorism is not a
SAUDI phenomenon. Osama was not even Saudi by heritage he was YEMENI. No doubt Saudi money gets into the system----
thru ZAKAT -----but that's because there is so much Saudi money
in the hands of private Saudis-------which is why Osama's family ended up there. There ain't nutthin' in Yemen with which to
DO BUSINESS. ------they cannot even manage to plant salmon
there (eating fish is not part of the Yemeni cuisine----ask me how
I know) It is true, however, that there is oil---especially in the southern part of Yemen.
Yes, back in the days, when "being conservative" meant "being fiscally conservative", not "being ideologically conservative". But it evolved to something that prevents this country on its progressive tracks, that is being "right wing".
You think you are democrat, you could be a democrat, but that doesn't prevent you from being a "right wing" democrat. You are an "ideologically conservative" democrat. Your ideas can no longer progress. You can't look at this Iran deal from any other angle, I would not expect you to. You have a set mind, unfortunately. You do not believe people could change, and you know why? Because you can not change... Changing mind is so foreign to you, it is almost like out of this solar system, so you do not believe Iranians could have changed, therefore this deal is a "bad deal" to you.
But let me tell you this, human beings evolved and survived under only one circumstance, "adaptation". So people change, their minds change, even tho they do not admit they have done so. It is inside of us, in our genes.
Iranians have changed too. And they will change even further. But to be able to get them on the right track, US should have stopped her hypocrite policies, and thanks to Obama, she is doing so. I see this as a big progress which makes this country the most unique and special on the face of the earth.
---LONG LIVE USA---
you used quite a few words to say nothing at all other than "I am smarter than you are". I knew Iranians way back then. I know that
IRANIANS can change------they changed from opened minded to
slaves of a theocracy in the 1970s-----quite a strong theocracy. Only one aspect of the Iranian mind did not change------they still hate arabs
(in general make that 'sunnis') The issue as to the functioning of Iran in the world is not really the Iranian people----it is whether or not
their theocratic leaders will continue to hold the country by its throat. ---The next logical question is-----what should be done to get rid of the
ayatollahs ---if anything. The ayatollah grip is that which has galvanized such exciting phenomena as---ISIS and the current ongoing war in the Levant. There is so much an interplay between
these many forces ------that any suggestion that the USA policy to Iran and sanctions and "nuke deal" will change the situation----is far-fetched-----actually a bit silly.
You used a lot of words, just to make the point "I know more than you do"
First of; zakat has nothing to do with anything, using the word doesn't make you any more credible on this issue.
I lived right next to Iran for quite chunk of my life. During the Iraq-Iran war, we would be spending time in the shelters scared of Saddam's scuds. Well, yes, Iranians hate Arabs, you got that right, and they have every reason to do so. Saddam gassed Iran, and guess what, he was a US ally while doing so.
But you know what Iranians did not do? They did not gas Iraq back. Even this alone makes Iran and Iranians special. Can you imagine the maturity of these people, while their children died in agony right in front of their eyes by some chemical, most likely US supplied, they showed the courage to not retaliate back the same way.
Iran deserves a second chance more than any other Sunni Arab country that US supplied plenty of. And they showed us during the rallies against Ahmedinejad, and toppling him at the end that they want to use this opportunity for progress, rather than anything else.
And at the end, war mongers has nothing to loose; if they want to obliterate Iran, they can do so if this deal does not work.
But, oh wait; if deal works tho, there is no war. Hmmm, thats a problem for a war monger, innit.................
Shiite vs Sunni battle has only one solution, partition. Treat them as equal, and partition them. There are already 20 million refugees
"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"
It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..
And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?
I think you are a joke...
you must be very young-----Saddam supported international
terrorism way back in the 1970s. International terrorism is not a
SAUDI phenomenon. Osama was not even Saudi by heritage he was YEMENI. No doubt Saudi money gets into the system----
thru ZAKAT -----but that's because there is so much Saudi money
in the hands of private Saudis-------which is why Osama's family ended up there. There ain't nutthin' in Yemen with which to
DO BUSINESS. ------they cannot even manage to plant salmon
there (eating fish is not part of the Yemeni cuisine----ask me how
I know) It is true, however, that there is oil---especially in the southern part of Yemen.
Yes, back in the days, when "being conservative" meant "being fiscally conservative", not "being ideologically conservative". But it evolved to something that prevents this country on its progressive tracks, that is being "right wing".
You think you are democrat, you could be a democrat, but that doesn't prevent you from being a "right wing" democrat. You are an "ideologically conservative" democrat. Your ideas can no longer progress. You can't look at this Iran deal from any other angle, I would not expect you to. You have a set mind, unfortunately. You do not believe people could change, and you know why? Because you can not change... Changing mind is so foreign to you, it is almost like out of this solar system, so you do not believe Iranians could have changed, therefore this deal is a "bad deal" to you.
But let me tell you this, human beings evolved and survived under only one circumstance, "adaptation". So people change, their minds change, even tho they do not admit they have done so. It is inside of us, in our genes.
Iranians have changed too. And they will change even further. But to be able to get them on the right track, US should have stopped her hypocrite policies, and thanks to Obama, she is doing so. I see this as a big progress which makes this country the most unique and special on the face of the earth.
---LONG LIVE USA---
you used quite a few words to say nothing at all other than "I am smarter than you are". I knew Iranians way back then. I know that
IRANIANS can change------they changed from opened minded to
slaves of a theocracy in the 1970s-----quite a strong theocracy. Only one aspect of the Iranian mind did not change------they still hate arabs
(in general make that 'sunnis') The issue as to the functioning of Iran in the world is not really the Iranian people----it is whether or not
their theocratic leaders will continue to hold the country by its throat. ---The next logical question is-----what should be done to get rid of the
ayatollahs ---if anything. The ayatollah grip is that which has galvanized such exciting phenomena as---ISIS and the current ongoing war in the Levant. There is so much an interplay between
these many forces ------that any suggestion that the USA policy to Iran and sanctions and "nuke deal" will change the situation----is far-fetched-----actually a bit silly.
You used a lot of words, just to make the point "I know more than you do"
First of; zakat has nothing to do with anything, using the word doesn't make you any more credible on this issue.
I lived right next to Iran for quite chunk of my life. During the Iraq-Iran war, we would be spending time in the shelters scared of Saddam's scuds. Well, yes, Iranians hate Arabs, you got that right, and they have every reason to do so. Saddam gassed Iran, and guess what, he was a US ally while doing so.
But you know what Iranians did not do? They did not gas Iraq back. Even this alone makes Iran and Iranians special. Can you imagine the maturity of these people, while their children died in agony right in front of their eyes by some chemical, most likely US supplied, they showed the courage to not retaliate back the same way.
Iran deserves a second chance more than any other Sunni Arab country that US supplied plenty of. And they showed us during the rallies against Ahmedinejad, and toppling him at the end that they want to use this opportunity for progress, rather than anything else.
And at the end, war mongers has nothing to loose; if they want to obliterate Iran, they can do so if this deal does not work.
But, oh wait; if deal works tho, there is no war. Hmmm, thats a problem for a war monger, innit.................
Nope------your laud of Iran that it did not GAS Iraqis would be comical if it did not conjure up horrors------Saddam used Gas because he was
a BAATHIST and he had access------Iran used whatever it had as well. Right now Iran is happily supporting carnage thruout the Levant. A little advertised fact is that Iran has reddened the gutters of Yemen with blood for the past several years----for a very ambitious agenda----actually murdering defenseless people. Ahmadinejad was not removed by popular vote----the
Ayatoallah dictators demoted him because he was a liability. Iran is fomenting a widespread war in the LEVANT-----right now
PS-----partition what? Saudi Arabia and mecca? remove Shiites
from every land in which they reside and send the WHERE?
PS-----partition what? Saudi Arabia and mecca? remove Shiites
from every land in which they reside and send the WHERE?
That was a leftover from another post I was trying to make, but already edited it out. Because it doesn't really make sense to argue someone who just makes stuff up, has no evidence to what he/she is talking about, and thinks using some arabic word makes him/her more credible on the subject of Sunni-Shia conflict.
First you either need to admit you are wrong with Iranians retaliating Saddam with mustard gas, or simply show any evidence you have to prove that they have done so.
For now tho, I have to stick to the fact that; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
PS-----partition what? Saudi Arabia and mecca? remove Shiites
from every land in which they reside and send the WHERE?
That was a leftover from another post I was trying to make, but already edited it out. Because it doesn't really make sense to argue someone who just makes stuff up, has no evidence to what he/she is talking about, and thinks using some arabic word makes him/her more credible on the subject of Sunni-Shia conflict.
First you either need to admit you are wrong with Iranians retaliating Saddam with mustard gas, or simply show any evidence you have to prove that they have done so.
For now tho, I have to stick to the fact that; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
Alpine has mendaciously stated that I have accused the Iranians of using Nitrogen MUSTARD GAS upon Iraqis------in fact I have never done so and do not even know if Iran is in possession of Nitrogen Mustard Gas. Saddam was------but as far as I know did not use it but did use various gases on the Kurds. Alpine seems to
"know" that saddam used the stuff on Iranians (???) I did not know that. I have little doubt that he would use it on the Shiites of Iraq----but do not actually know. Why do you lie, Alpine?
PS-----partition what? Saudi Arabia and mecca? remove Shiites
from every land in which they reside and send the WHERE?
That was a leftover from another post I was trying to make, but already edited it out. Because it doesn't really make sense to argue someone who just makes stuff up, has no evidence to what he/she is talking about, and thinks using some arabic word makes him/her more credible on the subject of Sunni-Shia conflict.
First you either need to admit you are wrong with Iranians retaliating Saddam with mustard gas, or simply show any evidence you have to prove that they have done so.
For now tho, I have to stick to the fact that; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
Alpine has mendaciously stated that I have accused the Iranians of using Nitrogen MUSTARD GAS upon Iraqis------in fact I have never done so and do not even know if Iran is in possession of Nitrogen Mustard Gas. Saddam was------but as far as I know did not use it but did use various gases on the Kurds. Alpine seems to
"know" that saddam used the stuff on Iranians (???) I did not know that. I have little doubt that he would use it on the Shiites of Iraq----but do not actually know. Why do you lie, Alpine?
This user claimed; during Iran-Iraq war, Iran retaliated back to Iraq with everything they had. This is his/her own words: "Iran used whatever it had as well."
"According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Iran initiated a chemical weapon development program in 1983 "in response to Iraqi use of riot control and toxic chemical agents" during the war"
Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Anthony H. Cordesman, Adam C. Seitz
Page 140
So if Iran had access to the chemical weapons, and did not retaliate back with to Iraq, and you claim that they have done so (with your own words: "Iran used whatever it had as well."), what this makes you?
A BIG FAT LIAR!!!
I have read in many places when Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and Iran did not use them against Iraq, also Iraq started the war right after the revolution, lasted about 8 years. M. Albright even says the coup should of never been done. Ever since we have been in a cold war with Iran, sanctioning them to death, or tried to like we did with Iraq. Iran has been rather patient all these years if you ask me, and this deal is long overdue.
Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.
