CDZ Iran Advancing its Nuke program, Again.

OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.
To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.
Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?
Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.
It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?
Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
 
Last edited:

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
2,505
Points
385
To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.
Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?
Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.
It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?
Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
Damn you really are getting crazier by the minute.
Let's for one minute pretend your little game of Bush did not stop the Clinton agreement. So N.K. Explodes their first nuke a year, two or even four years latter. What did we gain?
Iran continues to deal with N.K. The Iran deal is still in place for the next four years. Iran produces their if nuke in a six moths or a year after that. What do we gain?
Oh I know, nothing but you get to claim it was someone else that caused the problem.

It is true. You just can't fix stupid. I have taken up way too much time with a partisan hack like you. You have been the only one out of how many in this thread that thinks you are even close to right. Simple thought processes would tell a normal person that they may need to rethink.
But people like you won't even hesitate to think so have all the fun you want.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,752
Reaction score
12,392
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?
Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.
It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?
Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
Damn you really are getting crazier by the minute.
Let's for one minute pretend your little game of Bush did not stop the Clinton agreement. So N.K. Explodes their first nuke a year, two or even four years latter. What did we gain?
Iran continues to deal with N.K. The Iran deal is still in place for the next four years. Iran produces their if nuke in a six moths or a year after that. What do we gain?
Oh I know, nothing but you get to claim it was someone else that caused the problem.

It is true. You just can't fix stupid. I have taken up way too much time with a partisan hack like you. You have been the only one out of how many in this thread that thinks you are even close to right. Simple thought processes would tell a normal person that they may need to rethink.
But people like you won't even hesitate to think so have all the fun you want.
More unlikely hypotheticals. That is all you have. Not one fact or use of reasonable logic. You just make stuff up...

Well here's some facts: The iran deal was for 15 yrs, and Iran turned over 98% of their enriched uranium. Iran was 100% complying with the deal. Now we have no deal and Iran has openly said they are enriching uranium again. We are 100% worse and less safe today than in 2016 because of what Tump did.

Another fact: This is the same identical path that led NK to making a nuke. Bush failed completely and achieved the worst possible outcome. While we can not say with certainty that NK wouldn't have made a nuke it certainly would have been much smarter to give NK some dumb ass fuel oil- (big freakin deal fuel oil like that is such a great thing...) than have NK rush out and make nukes. Also there is the very real possibility that NK would never make a nuke, if the situation were managed properly, and to fail to acknowledge that is completely irresponsible, and ignorant.

You didn't even know that exchanging NKs heavy water reactor for a light water reactor was a benefit and positive because you tried to criticize Clinton for doing that. You are too uninformed to even know what is good and bad, because you just regurgitate lies you hear on fake Foxnews... You didn't even know the difference between a heavy water reactor and light, yet you wanted to try and debate the issue without knowing the facts... You pretty much lost all credibility when you did that.
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
2,505
Points
385
Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.
It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?
Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
Damn you really are getting crazier by the minute.
Let's for one minute pretend your little game of Bush did not stop the Clinton agreement. So N.K. Explodes their first nuke a year, two or even four years latter. What did we gain?
Iran continues to deal with N.K. The Iran deal is still in place for the next four years. Iran produces their if nuke in a six moths or a year after that. What do we gain?
Oh I know, nothing but you get to claim it was someone else that caused the problem.

It is true. You just can't fix stupid. I have taken up way too much time with a partisan hack like you. You have been the only one out of how many in this thread that thinks you are even close to right. Simple thought processes would tell a normal person that they may need to rethink.
But people like you won't even hesitate to think so have all the fun you want.
More unlikely hypotheticals. That is all you have. Not one fact or use of reasonable logic. You just make stuff up...

Well here's some facts: The iran deal was for 15 yrs, and Iran turned over 98% of their enriched uranium. Iran was 100% complying with the deal. Now we have no deal and Iran has openly said they are enriching uranium again. We are 100% worse and less safe today than in 2016 because of what Tump did.

Another fact: This is the same identical path that led NK to making a nuke. Bush failed completely and achieved the worst possible outcome. While we can not say with certainty that NK wouldn't have made a nuke it certainly would have been much smarter to give NK some dumb ass fuel oil- (big freakin deal fuel oil like that is such a great thing...) than have NK rush out and make nukes. Also there is the very real possibility that NK would never make a nuke, if the situation were managed properly, and to fail to acknowledge that is completely irresponsible, and ignorant.

You didn't even know that exchanging NKs heavy water reactor for a light water reactor was a benefit and positive because you tried to criticize Clinton for doing that. You are too uninformed to even know what is good and bad, because you just regurgitate lies you hear on fake Foxnews... You didn't even know the difference between a heavy water reactor and light, yet you wanted to try and debate the issue without knowing the facts... You pretty much lost all credibility when you did that.
I damn you really are stupid when N.K. said they were cheating they were not drinking an extra glass of milk or more wins at cards. They were continuing to produce the items needed for a nuclear weapon. Yes one light water reactor for one heavy water would have been a win since you get less nuclear material from a light water reactor. Two is almost equal to one heavy.
You do not spend the time energy and resources needed to make a nuclear bomb just to say oh well.
Heavy fuel oil allows some one to make gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel. It can be used for farming, moving materials, fueling war machines.
So you think that bad acting should be rewarded. God help everyone if you ever get in a position where anyone might take you serious.

You seem to have some crazy idea that people and government s will not only follow agreements but follow them to the end and then agree to another.
As an example of how well that brain dead thinking works let me show you that the UN passed a resolution that none of its members would buy oil from Iraq and therefore Saddam. It was later found that Germany and France who both helped pass the reselotion both bought oil from Saddam.

So the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.
Yet Iran is still one of the major founders of terrorism. So by putting sanctions back on that were lifted means less money to spend on terrorism. If nothing else that is a small win.
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?
Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
Damn you really are getting crazier by the minute.
Let's for one minute pretend your little game of Bush did not stop the Clinton agreement. So N.K. Explodes their first nuke a year, two or even four years latter. What did we gain?
Iran continues to deal with N.K. The Iran deal is still in place for the next four years. Iran produces their if nuke in a six moths or a year after that. What do we gain?
Oh I know, nothing but you get to claim it was someone else that caused the problem.

It is true. You just can't fix stupid. I have taken up way too much time with a partisan hack like you. You have been the only one out of how many in this thread that thinks you are even close to right. Simple thought processes would tell a normal person that they may need to rethink.
But people like you won't even hesitate to think so have all the fun you want.
More unlikely hypotheticals. That is all you have. Not one fact or use of reasonable logic. You just make stuff up...

Well here's some facts: The iran deal was for 15 yrs, and Iran turned over 98% of their enriched uranium. Iran was 100% complying with the deal. Now we have no deal and Iran has openly said they are enriching uranium again. We are 100% worse and less safe today than in 2016 because of what Tump did.

Another fact: This is the same identical path that led NK to making a nuke. Bush failed completely and achieved the worst possible outcome. While we can not say with certainty that NK wouldn't have made a nuke it certainly would have been much smarter to give NK some dumb ass fuel oil- (big freakin deal fuel oil like that is such a great thing...) than have NK rush out and make nukes. Also there is the very real possibility that NK would never make a nuke, if the situation were managed properly, and to fail to acknowledge that is completely irresponsible, and ignorant.

You didn't even know that exchanging NKs heavy water reactor for a light water reactor was a benefit and positive because you tried to criticize Clinton for doing that. You are too uninformed to even know what is good and bad, because you just regurgitate lies you hear on fake Foxnews... You didn't even know the difference between a heavy water reactor and light, yet you wanted to try and debate the issue without knowing the facts... You pretty much lost all credibility when you did that.
I damn you really are stupid when N.K. said they were cheating they were not drinking an extra glass of milk or more wins at cards. They were continuing to produce the items needed for a nuclear weapon. Yes one light water reactor for one heavy water would have been a win since you get less nuclear material from a light water reactor. Two is almost equal to one heavy.
You do not spend the time energy and resources needed to make a nuclear bomb just to say oh well.
Heavy fuel oil allows some one to make gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel. It can be used for farming, moving materials, fueling war machines.
So you think that bad acting should be rewarded. God help everyone if you ever get in a position where anyone might take you serious.

You seem to have some crazy idea that people and government s will not only follow agreements but follow them to the end and then agree to another.
As an example of how well that brain dead thinking works let me show you that the UN passed a resolution that none of its members would buy oil from Iraq and therefore Saddam. It was later found that Germany and France who both helped pass the reselotion both bought oil from Saddam.

So the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.
Yet Iran is still one of the major founders of terrorism. So by putting sanctions back on that were lifted means less money to spend on terrorism. If nothing else that is a small win.
This light water reactor thing is just too complex for you to understand, so here it is:

heavy water reactor waste can easily be enriched into weapons grade material, which is what NK did.
light water waste is very difficult to enrich... so 1 heavy is worse than 100 light waters. Again you don't even know simple facts so how can anything you say be logical... pretty much you're just making shit up, and you look stupid...

You have reduced your argument to:
the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.

SO because we don't have a time machine and can't see 15 years into the future we should just cancel a working deal?????? what a fuckin moron... Your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker. And now Iran is enriching uranium and if they get a nuke, god help us... but I'm sure you will just blame Obama for that...:113:
 
Last edited:

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,787
Reaction score
8,689
Points
2,030
The US has no right to object to Iran developing a nuclear weapon—or anyone else for that matter.

Especially since we’ve torn up the agreement
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
2,505
Points
385
Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
Damn you really are getting crazier by the minute.
Let's for one minute pretend your little game of Bush did not stop the Clinton agreement. So N.K. Explodes their first nuke a year, two or even four years latter. What did we gain?
Iran continues to deal with N.K. The Iran deal is still in place for the next four years. Iran produces their if nuke in a six moths or a year after that. What do we gain?
Oh I know, nothing but you get to claim it was someone else that caused the problem.

It is true. You just can't fix stupid. I have taken up way too much time with a partisan hack like you. You have been the only one out of how many in this thread that thinks you are even close to right. Simple thought processes would tell a normal person that they may need to rethink.
But people like you won't even hesitate to think so have all the fun you want.
More unlikely hypotheticals. That is all you have. Not one fact or use of reasonable logic. You just make stuff up...

Well here's some facts: The iran deal was for 15 yrs, and Iran turned over 98% of their enriched uranium. Iran was 100% complying with the deal. Now we have no deal and Iran has openly said they are enriching uranium again. We are 100% worse and less safe today than in 2016 because of what Tump did.

Another fact: This is the same identical path that led NK to making a nuke. Bush failed completely and achieved the worst possible outcome. While we can not say with certainty that NK wouldn't have made a nuke it certainly would have been much smarter to give NK some dumb ass fuel oil- (big freakin deal fuel oil like that is such a great thing...) than have NK rush out and make nukes. Also there is the very real possibility that NK would never make a nuke, if the situation were managed properly, and to fail to acknowledge that is completely irresponsible, and ignorant.

You didn't even know that exchanging NKs heavy water reactor for a light water reactor was a benefit and positive because you tried to criticize Clinton for doing that. You are too uninformed to even know what is good and bad, because you just regurgitate lies you hear on fake Foxnews... You didn't even know the difference between a heavy water reactor and light, yet you wanted to try and debate the issue without knowing the facts... You pretty much lost all credibility when you did that.
I damn you really are stupid when N.K. said they were cheating they were not drinking an extra glass of milk or more wins at cards. They were continuing to produce the items needed for a nuclear weapon. Yes one light water reactor for one heavy water would have been a win since you get less nuclear material from a light water reactor. Two is almost equal to one heavy.
You do not spend the time energy and resources needed to make a nuclear bomb just to say oh well.
Heavy fuel oil allows some one to make gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel. It can be used for farming, moving materials, fueling war machines.
So you think that bad acting should be rewarded. God help everyone if you ever get in a position where anyone might take you serious.

You seem to have some crazy idea that people and government s will not only follow agreements but follow them to the end and then agree to another.
As an example of how well that brain dead thinking works let me show you that the UN passed a resolution that none of its members would buy oil from Iraq and therefore Saddam. It was later found that Germany and France who both helped pass the reselotion both bought oil from Saddam.

So the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.
Yet Iran is still one of the major founders of terrorism. So by putting sanctions back on that were lifted means less money to spend on terrorism. If nothing else that is a small win.
This light water reactor thing is just too complex for you to understand, so here it is:

heavy water reactor waste can easily be enriched into weapons grade material, which is what NK did.
light water waste is very difficult to enrich... so 1 heavy is worse than 100 light waters. Again you don't even know simple facts so how can anything you say be logical... pretty much you're just making shit up, and you look stupid...

You have reduced your argument to:
the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.

SO because we don't have a time machine and can't see 15 years into the future we should just cancel a working deal?????? what a fuckin moron... Your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker. And now Iran is enriching uranium and if they get a nuke, god help us... but I'm sure you will just blame Obama for that...:113:
I am completely done with arguing with a moron. You keep pretending that you know things you have not only something about, as in light water reactors. You keep pretending that you know how countries will react. You keep pretending that that leftist idiots are smarter then anyone else. Go pretend with someone else. In fact why don't you play with yourself in the dark since no one but you thinks you are smart.
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Where have I ever denied this? Of course they were, which is why Iran is going to make a nuke. You don't seem to comprehend that this makes Iran even more dangerous. Iran is going to make a nuke and is actively advancing their nuke program as we speak, with nothing to stop them??

The cheating? minor cheating, easy to handle and deal with. It certainly doesn't mean that they would have gone all the way and made a nuke and tested it a mere 4 years later? That is just not logical.

Your only argument is that NK would have still made and tested nukes had Bush kept the deal in place?? Weak. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And last I checked you don't need fuel oil to make a nuke so that is another weak argument. You fail to see the exact parallels between Iran and NK situations? Are you blind?

Basically you can't hold republicans accountable for their failed policy. Nothing is ever a republicans fault according to you, it's all Clinton or Obama's fault???:abgg2q.jpg:

According to your poor logic, Iran wants a nuke so we should not do anything to stop them??? The same way Bush did nothing to stop NK. Bush canceling the deal and letting NK make a nuke was the best policy and the best outcome we could achieve?? Your logic could be the worst logic I have ever heard? Have you ever stopped to look at how crazy you sound?

All that because you just can't hold you politicians accountable for their failures... sad. maybe pathetic.

Ok insert generic partisan response about how it's not Bush's fault or Trump's fault and they have done nothing wrong, per usual...:21: but but but cheating... cheating...
Damn you really are getting crazier by the minute.
Let's for one minute pretend your little game of Bush did not stop the Clinton agreement. So N.K. Explodes their first nuke a year, two or even four years latter. What did we gain?
Iran continues to deal with N.K. The Iran deal is still in place for the next four years. Iran produces their if nuke in a six moths or a year after that. What do we gain?
Oh I know, nothing but you get to claim it was someone else that caused the problem.

It is true. You just can't fix stupid. I have taken up way too much time with a partisan hack like you. You have been the only one out of how many in this thread that thinks you are even close to right. Simple thought processes would tell a normal person that they may need to rethink.
But people like you won't even hesitate to think so have all the fun you want.
More unlikely hypotheticals. That is all you have. Not one fact or use of reasonable logic. You just make stuff up...

Well here's some facts: The iran deal was for 15 yrs, and Iran turned over 98% of their enriched uranium. Iran was 100% complying with the deal. Now we have no deal and Iran has openly said they are enriching uranium again. We are 100% worse and less safe today than in 2016 because of what Tump did.

Another fact: This is the same identical path that led NK to making a nuke. Bush failed completely and achieved the worst possible outcome. While we can not say with certainty that NK wouldn't have made a nuke it certainly would have been much smarter to give NK some dumb ass fuel oil- (big freakin deal fuel oil like that is such a great thing...) than have NK rush out and make nukes. Also there is the very real possibility that NK would never make a nuke, if the situation were managed properly, and to fail to acknowledge that is completely irresponsible, and ignorant.

You didn't even know that exchanging NKs heavy water reactor for a light water reactor was a benefit and positive because you tried to criticize Clinton for doing that. You are too uninformed to even know what is good and bad, because you just regurgitate lies you hear on fake Foxnews... You didn't even know the difference between a heavy water reactor and light, yet you wanted to try and debate the issue without knowing the facts... You pretty much lost all credibility when you did that.
I damn you really are stupid when N.K. said they were cheating they were not drinking an extra glass of milk or more wins at cards. They were continuing to produce the items needed for a nuclear weapon. Yes one light water reactor for one heavy water would have been a win since you get less nuclear material from a light water reactor. Two is almost equal to one heavy.
You do not spend the time energy and resources needed to make a nuclear bomb just to say oh well.
Heavy fuel oil allows some one to make gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel. It can be used for farming, moving materials, fueling war machines.
So you think that bad acting should be rewarded. God help everyone if you ever get in a position where anyone might take you serious.

You seem to have some crazy idea that people and government s will not only follow agreements but follow them to the end and then agree to another.
As an example of how well that brain dead thinking works let me show you that the UN passed a resolution that none of its members would buy oil from Iraq and therefore Saddam. It was later found that Germany and France who both helped pass the reselotion both bought oil from Saddam.

So the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.
Yet Iran is still one of the major founders of terrorism. So by putting sanctions back on that were lifted means less money to spend on terrorism. If nothing else that is a small win.
This light water reactor thing is just too complex for you to understand, so here it is:

heavy water reactor waste can easily be enriched into weapons grade material, which is what NK did.
light water waste is very difficult to enrich... so 1 heavy is worse than 100 light waters. Again you don't even know simple facts so how can anything you say be logical... pretty much you're just making shit up, and you look stupid...

You have reduced your argument to:
the Iran agreement was for 15 years. Can you prove that at the end of that time that we would have a better outcome then we do now? No you can't. Can you prove that Iran itself would not have terminated the agreement before the end of the agreement? No you can't.

SO because we don't have a time machine and can't see 15 years into the future we should just cancel a working deal?????? what a fuckin moron... Your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker. And now Iran is enriching uranium and if they get a nuke, god help us... but I'm sure you will just blame Obama for that...:113:
I am completely done with arguing with a moron. You keep pretending that you know things you have not only something about, as in light water reactors. You keep pretending that you know how countries will react. You keep pretending that that leftist idiots are smarter then anyone else. Go pretend with someone else. In fact why don't you play with yourself in the dark since no one but you thinks you are smart.
Your surrender has been noted.

You have fabricated lies and fake news out of thin air to try and justify your weak arguments. If you want to go up against me you better do your homework SON, and come correct with the facts. You don't even know what a light reactor is, but yet you tried to criticize Clinton for it, when it was a good thing and a benefit... You look stupid. Well have fun blaming Obama when iran makes a nuke...
:abgg2q.jpg:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,752
Reaction score
12,392
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
You probably did not know that Obama GAVE THEM 115 metric tons of raw uranium as a parting gift.. And you're stupid about their compliance.. They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment.. You don't get to 20% in days or MONTHS.. They been cheating all along and even the phony inspectors know it...
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
2,505
Points
385
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
You probably did not know that Obama GAVE THEM 115 metric tons of raw uranium as a parting gift.. And you're stupid about their compliance.. They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment.. You don't get to 20% in days or MONTHS.. They been cheating all along and even the phony inspectors know it...
You can sit and argue with this brain dead idiot all day it won't matter. I have no doubt it started this thread thinking everyone would come on boosting his little ego by claiming it was right.

I just gave up trying to explain things to the fool. It's like a two year old that lies on the floor kicking its heels and yelling I'm right. No matter how you explain the truth it does not care about the truth, it cares only about its own fragile ego.
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
You probably did not know that Obama GAVE THEM 115 metric tons of raw uranium as a parting gift.. And you're stupid about their compliance.. They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment.. You don't get to 20% in days or MONTHS.. They been cheating all along and even the phony inspectors know it...
You can sit and argue with this brain dead idiot all day it won't matter. I have no doubt it started this thread thinking everyone would come on boosting his little ego by claiming it was right.

I just gave up trying to explain things to the fool. It's like a two year old that lies on the floor kicking its heels and yelling I'm right. No matter how you explain the truth it does not care about the truth, it cares only about its own fragile ego.
truth you don't even know what a light water reactor is, yet you FALSELY tried to criticize Clinton for exchanging a heavy for 2 lights, when it is a benefit to us.

You want to go up against me you better have your facts straight.
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
You probably did not know that Obama GAVE THEM 115 metric tons of raw uranium as a parting gift.. And you're stupid about their compliance.. They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment.. You don't get to 20% in days or MONTHS.. They been cheating all along and even the phony inspectors know it...
They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment..

More fake news by you. Provide a link for this. You have provided 2 completely and totally false statements, with no links to support them.

Clearly you didn't even read the link i attached in the OP:

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Tehran has threatened to take further steps by Sept. 6, such as enriching uranium to 20% or restarting mothballed centrifuges, machines that purify uranium for use as fuel in power plants or, if very highly enriched, in weapons.

So they said they are going to start enriching to 20%, not days away from 20%, liar. Get your facts straight, notta good look Son.

Oh and BTW what do we have to stop Iran from enriching this uranium and making a nuke, because we had something in place and the world verified it was working, and now we don't have anything in place.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
57,752
Reaction score
12,392
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
You probably did not know that Obama GAVE THEM 115 metric tons of raw uranium as a parting gift.. And you're stupid about their compliance.. They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment.. You don't get to 20% in days or MONTHS.. They been cheating all along and even the phony inspectors know it...
You can sit and argue with this brain dead idiot all day it won't matter. I have no doubt it started this thread thinking everyone would come on boosting his little ego by claiming it was right.

I just gave up trying to explain things to the fool. It's like a two year old that lies on the floor kicking its heels and yelling I'm right. No matter how you explain the truth it does not care about the truth, it cares only about its own fragile ego.
truth you don't even know what a light water reactor is, yet you FALSELY tried to criticize Clinton for exchanging a heavy for 2 lights, when it is a benefit to us.

You want to go up against me you better have your facts straight.
I'm not gonna go up against you -- you're foolishly ignorant on the topic... There was no gift or exchange of reactors that OBAMA (not Clinton) arranged. And you don't even have to REFINE uranium for weapons with a reactor anyways.. Go play on Dem Underground if demagoguery is all ya got...
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
350
Points
210
Location
Boston
That was all theater for the masses.. Russia sailed off with a large part of their enriched stockpile in a big ceremony, at the SAME TIME Obama sent them 115 Metric Tons of RAW Uranium as a "thank-you"... And they've been enriching that uranium ALL DURING "the deal"... To the point where they can get to 20% in a matter of days.. THey've ADMITTED it was all a show... Don't know why you think we STOPPED anything....
And your evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium all during the deal is what???

Fake news. You just made that up... pathetic. nice try though bud:290968001256257790-final:
You probably did not know that Obama GAVE THEM 115 metric tons of raw uranium as a parting gift.. And you're stupid about their compliance.. They just told the EU they are within DAYS of 20% enrichment.. You don't get to 20% in days or MONTHS.. They been cheating all along and even the phony inspectors know it...
You can sit and argue with this brain dead idiot all day it won't matter. I have no doubt it started this thread thinking everyone would come on boosting his little ego by claiming it was right.

I just gave up trying to explain things to the fool. It's like a two year old that lies on the floor kicking its heels and yelling I'm right. No matter how you explain the truth it does not care about the truth, it cares only about its own fragile ego.
truth you don't even know what a light water reactor is, yet you FALSELY tried to criticize Clinton for exchanging a heavy for 2 lights, when it is a benefit to us.

You want to go up against me you better have your facts straight.
I'm not gonna go up against you -- you're foolishly ignorant on the topic... There was no gift or exchange of reactors that OBAMA (not Clinton) arranged. And you don't even have to REFINE uranium for weapons with a reactor anyways.. Go play on Dem Underground if demagoguery is all ya got...
AHAHA!!

Nice try.:abgg2q.jpg:

I say again do you have any links for your fabricated fake news lies? You got caught posting fake news lies 2x. Sad, especially for a moderator, where's the accountability? Why does your side always need to resort to lies? Maybe because when the facts aren't on your side you just make up facts, like they do on Foxnews... Might as well quit now before you look even worse. Here's a free tip, stop posting fake news, because I'm going to call you out on it every time.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top