Seems to me the OP is a strawman.
Explain, specifically. How could one provide a strawman argument, before there was an argument??
Good point, I stand corrected. It's simply dishonest.
Seems to me the OP is a strawman.
Explain, specifically. How could one provide a strawman argument, before there was an argument??
Good point, I stand corrected. It's simply dishonest.
Unless the military facilities are where they are creating nuclear weapons.
Did you actually read your own link?
(CNN)Iran's Supreme Leader has said the country will not allow any inspections of its military facilities, the official state news agency reported Wednesday.
On the other hand, Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, so the country's nuclear facilities might not be covered by the statement by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader.
Not allowing UN inspectors on military bases has nothing at all to do with inspecting nuclear plants.
Once again the rabid right grasps at straws!
Seems to me the OP is a strawman.
Explain, specifically. How could one provide a strawman argument, before there was an argument??
Good point, I stand corrected. It's simply dishonest.
Okay....so then specifically what is dishonest?
I said, as anyone with a clear mind at all said, that the Ayatollah would reject the "deal" (none ever existed in the first place anyway) just before the deadline.
This is what they do. This is what they always do.
Any "deal" that would omit military sites and access to scientist is not a deal. That is asinine.
Seems to me the OP is a strawman.
Explain, specifically. How could one provide a strawman argument, before there was an argument??
Good point, I stand corrected. It's simply dishonest.
Okay....so then specifically what is dishonest?
I said, as anyone with a clear mind at all said, that the Ayatollah would reject the "deal" (none ever existed in the first place anyway) just before the deadline.
This is what they do. This is what they always do.
Any "deal" that would omit military sites and access to scientist is not a deal. That is asinine.
It's not been rejected yet.
Explain, specifically. How could one provide a strawman argument, before there was an argument??
Good point, I stand corrected. It's simply dishonest.
Okay....so then specifically what is dishonest?
I said, as anyone with a clear mind at all said, that the Ayatollah would reject the "deal" (none ever existed in the first place anyway) just before the deadline.
This is what they do. This is what they always do.
Any "deal" that would omit military sites and access to scientist is not a deal. That is asinine.
It's not been rejected yet.
What hasn't been rejected?
You mean the "deal" that Obama/Kerry said we have, that they immediately stated was not agreed upon?
Let me say this clearly and succinctly so that there is no misunderstanding.... and please bookmark so you can quote me later...
IRAN WILL NEVER ALLOW INSPECTORS IN.
There...
They have said so many, many, many times. It will not happen.
This is not saber rattling, this is their leaders, AGAIN, simply repeating what they said all along.
Which is why it was foolhardy to have the talks in the first place. That was their attempt to lower sanctions...which worked flawlessly.
Unless the military facilities are where they are creating nuclear weapons.
Did you actually read your own link?
(CNN)Iran's Supreme Leader has said the country will not allow any inspections of its military facilities, the official state news agency reported Wednesday.
On the other hand, Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, so the country's nuclear facilities might not be covered by the statement by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader.
Not allowing UN inspectors on military bases has nothing at all to do with inspecting nuclear plants.
Once again the rabid right grasps at straws!
In which case the Iranians are tacitly admitting that their nuclear program is not intended for peaceful purposes.
If that is so then they will just have to deal with continued sanctions and the inevitable unrest that comes from those privations.
Alternatively this is just more blather and saber rattling to try and win concessions at the bargaining table. Given that this is how negotiations usually go in the ME it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was just another bluff on their part.
Nothing false about it.
The Left never apologizes even though they've been wrong on every issue for 75 years.
Does it matter? Obviously, sanctions have not deterred them. Thank you.
Explain, specifically. How could one provide a strawman argument, before there was an argument??
Good point, I stand corrected. It's simply dishonest.
Okay....so then specifically what is dishonest?
I said, as anyone with a clear mind at all said, that the Ayatollah would reject the "deal" (none ever existed in the first place anyway) just before the deadline.
This is what they do. This is what they always do.
Any "deal" that would omit military sites and access to scientist is not a deal. That is asinine.
It's not been rejected yet.
What hasn't been rejected?
You mean the "deal" that Obama/Kerry said we have, that they immediately stated was not agreed upon?
Let me say this clearly and succinctly so that there is no misunderstanding.... and please bookmark so you can quote me later...
IRAN WILL NEVER ALLOW INSPECTORS IN.
There...
They have said so many, many, many times. It will not happen.
This is not saber rattling, this is their leaders, AGAIN, simply repeating what they said all along.
Which is why it was foolhardy to have the talks in the first place. That was their attempt to lower sanctions...which worked flawlessly.
What sanctions have been "lowered"?
