+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? (/thread-12003.html)
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 11:49 AM)Maggot Wrote: Any more questions?
You know, Atheists account for less than 15% of the population. Most people identify with some God or gods.
And, disagreeing with you, Maggot, about foreign policy strategies, the Iran deal, and legal employment obligations does not transform a theist (Christian or otherwise) into an Atheist. That's a fantastical extremist assertion.
Likewise, there might be plenty of Atheists who oppose the Iran deal. That wouldn't surprise me a bit. If so, their agreement with you in opposing the deal doesn't transform them into Christians. No really, it's true.
Anyway, thanks for answering. I don't have any more questions.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 11:51 AM)Maggot Wrote: Were those direct questions?
Yes, they were.
Of course, your responses didn't directly answer those questions (what's new?
), but I think I understand your positions all the same.So, thanks anyway.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Maggot - 09-03-2015
You may be right in believing that most people disagree with the Iran pact crisis and the implications.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Maggot - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 12:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(09-03-2015, 11:51 AM)Maggot Wrote: Were those direct questions?
Yes, they were.
Of course, your responses didn't directly answer those questions (what's new?
So, thanks anyway.
I know you would prefer Yes/No answers but the questions had other stipulations that would not warrant such simple rhetoric.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Donovan - 09-03-2015
What people fail to comprehend is the simple fact that "good for people" and "good for the country" are not synonymous terms. Anybody who thinks we treat different threats from saber-rattling oppositional regimes entirely differently should look at the last decade or two of our involvement in the middle east as opposed to, say, our reaction to the obvious threats made by China, Russia, and North Korea over the same time frame. Politics isn't a fucking bible study group. It's a chess game, and not just a chess game it's Bobby-Fischer-fifty-games-at-once-chess, and every game is on those triple - level fucked up Star Trek chess boards. Our enemy is our enemy is our friend is our enemy.
Anyone who states as Maggot did the the US doesn't do business with terrorist states ought to look up a little place called Saudi Arabia. Or Google some pictures of Bush, Cheney et al with a fella named Saddam. Or research a little fun episode collectively known as the Iran - contra affair. Or go back a little further to WWII and our dividing of the spoils of war with Soviet Russia. Hell, WE back terrorist regimes worldwide. ROUTINELY. The USA hasn't been the world's white hat in many, many years. And this cessation of overt hostility with Iran echoes the moves we made with Egypt years ago, when we realized we couldn't stop them so we needed to have them a little more secure in our pocket. Iran has nukes. They will continue to have nukes. Our best option is to then also have them slightly grateful. Because twenty years from now we will be pretending they were always our friend.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 12:18 PM)Maggot Wrote: I know you would prefer Yes/No answers but the questions had other stipulations that would not warrant such simple rhetoric.
I don't know why you presume to tell me what I would prefer. You're wrong, Maggot.
I would not have preferred yes/no answers. And, yes/no answers don't leave room for rhetoric, so you're not even making sense.
I asked you to clarify why you appeared to be labeling those of us (at Mock and elsewhere) who think people should do the job they get paid to do and who support the Iran nuclear deal as "ones who decry Christianity" and "ones who identify with Islamic Extremists".
You answered, and I thanked you. Your answers (paraphrased): "because you're all Atheists with bad memories, and because you don't agree with me in regards to the strength of the negotiations."
I accept those answers and don't have any other questions about your initial statement. So, thank you, again.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 12:16 PM)Maggot Wrote: You may be right in believing that most people disagree with the Iran pact crisis and the implications.
I didn't make the statement of belief you're attributing to me or anything like it.
You're either weakly trolling me or you're delusional, my friend.
I don't care which...
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Maggot - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 12:42 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(09-03-2015, 12:18 PM)Maggot Wrote: I know you would prefer Yes/No answers but the questions had other stipulations that would not warrant such simple rhetoric.
I don't know why you presume to tell me what I would prefer. You're wrong, Maggot.
I would not have preferred yes/no answers. And, yes/no answers don't leave room for rhetoric, so you're not even making sense.
I asked you to clarify why you appeared to be labeling those of us (at Mock and elsewhere) who think people should do the job they get paid to do and who support the Iran nuclear deal "ones who decry Christianity" and "ones who identify with Islamic Extremists".
You answered, and I thanked you. Your answers (paraphrased): "because you're all Atheists with bad memories, and because you don't agree with me in regards to the strength of the negotiations."
I accept those answers and don't have any others about your initial statement. So, thank you, again.
You answered, and I thanked you. Your answers (paraphrased): "because you're all Atheists with bad memories, and because you don't agree with me in regards to the strength of the negotiations."
Did I say that? I looked but cannot find it. Oh well, carry on.........
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 12:59 PM)Maggot Wrote: Did I say that? I looked but cannot find it. Oh well, carry on.........
Oh, then your answers (about Atheists, not remembering, and your negative opinion of the Iran negotiations) weren't in relation to the questions posed in response to your initial comment.
No worries...
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - username - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 12:36 PM)Donovan Wrote: What people fail to comprehend is the simple fact that "good for people" and "good for the country" are not synonymous terms. Anybody who thinks we treat different threats from saber-rattling oppositional regimes entirely differently should look at the last decade or two of our involvement in the middle east as opposed to, say, our reaction to the obvious threats made by China, Russia, and North Korea over the same time frame. Politics isn't a fucking bible study group. It's a chess game, and not just a chess game it's Bobby-Fischer-fifty-games-at-once-chess, and every game is on those triple - level fucked up Star Trek chess boards. Our enemy is our enemy is our friend is our enemy.
Anyone who states as Maggot did the the US doesn't do business with terrorist states ought to look up a little place called Saudi Arabia. Or Google some pictures of Bush, Cheney et al with a fella named Saddam. Or research a little fun episode collectively known as the Iran - contra affair. Or go back a little further to WWII and our dividing of the spoils of war with Soviet Russia. Hell, WE back terrorist regimes worldwide. ROUTINELY. The USA hasn't been the world's white hat in many, many years. And this cessation of overt hostility with Iran echoes the moves we made with Egypt years ago, when we realized we couldn't stop them so we needed to have them a little more secure in our pocket. Iran has nukes. They will continue to have nukes. Our best option is to then also have them slightly grateful. Because twenty years from now we will be pretending they were always our friend.
Your post is too logical; consequently it shall be ignored.
I agree. I've said before, absent war, there's no way we were going to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon (assuming they don't already have one). I, for one, am not in favor of leading the charge towards war with Iran. I mean...look at all the stability we got in Iraq, Libya and we've sure as shit done a great job in Yemen!! Yep, the U.S. intervenes and peace and democracy for everybody.
If BB wants feels so strongly (and threatened), Israel should start dropping bombs (so they can be even more hated in the region).
North Korea has nuclear weapons FFS. That's as scary a fact to me as any.
We started this nuclear process and it's ignorant to think (again, absent wars everywhere) that we can stop it.
I HOPE that's why we have such a huge freaking defense budget...so we can stay ahead of these nut fuck, crazy leaders should they ever decide to start button pushing.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 01:21 PM)username Wrote: I HOPE that's why we have such a huge freaking defense budget...so we can stay ahead of these nut fuck, crazy leaders should they ever decide to start button pushing.
Hopefully, we won't need to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel or for any other reason.
But, the military option for dealing with Iran is still on the table should the need arise.
The nuclear agreement doesn't dissolve the military option.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Maggot - 09-03-2015
Is this contract between America and Iran the best one that could have come out of this?
Yes or No................
Also, anyone know which other country is with America on this officially?
Just a name or names would be sufficient..........
I'm not trying to convince anyone about the deal, my opinion is I believe its a bad deal. I do not trust Iran and I believe the sanctions were working.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Duchess - 09-03-2015
I don't want my country going to war on behalf of fuckin' Israel!
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Maggot - 09-03-2015
I wonder how many immigrants Iran takes in per year?
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - HairOfTheDog - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 01:47 PM)Duchess Wrote: I don't want my country going to war on behalf of fuckin' Israel at all!
That's because you're a forgetful Atheist who identifies with Islamic extremists!!
And, probably anti-Semite to boot!!
All of which makes you a bad (supposed) Christian.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - BlueTiki - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 08:43 AM)Maggot Wrote: The thing I find comical is that the people that are decrying Christian religious values and the results of laws created in the name of righteousness are the loudest bullhorns for this legislation that identifies with the religious extremists of Islam. Atheists should be the biggest mouthpieces against it.
I agree with this post . . . every word.
I don't believe war was an inevitable conclusion, with Iran, if this agreement (not Treaty) wasn't inked. No credible evidence has been presented to support this claim.
"Anytime, anywhere inspections." was an untruth.
Dono cites examples of the US engaging with "terrorists" almost as a justification to continue this behavior. I oppose many "past polices and attitudes" and hoped this direct and overt capitulation with extreme regimes would end, with this administration.
I view this deal about as effective as a vow of abstinence from a teenager.
As to user's concern about our outrageously over funded defense budget, she obviously has not been following budget negotiations.
As to Maggot's atheist analysis, I find it spot on.
It seems quite apparent that when religious views do not align with administration policies, those holding the contrary views are labeled zealots or haters.
However, when the same views are expressed by a regime AND they align with a "diplomatic" solution, they are down played and excused.
Germany, China and Russia are already conducting contractual discussions with Iran . . . BEFORE the US has agreed to the deal.
Russia will be providing air defense systems within the year.
The UN stated they don't have the funds to perform inspections.
Why didn't we negotiate withholding sufficient funds, from Iran, to allow these inspections?
And why didn't we negotiate the release of our citizens?
I'd bet if they were gay or illegal, they'd be home.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - Maggot - 09-03-2015
I think Israel would kick Irans ass anyways. But it wouldn't be pretty.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - BlueTiki - 09-03-2015
(09-03-2015, 02:16 PM)Maggot Wrote: I think Israel would kick Irans ass anyways. But it wouldn't be pretty.
Israel has a giant-sized Palin-esque bullseye painted on them.
Good news for American weapons contractors.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - username - 09-03-2015
Radio the other day: "the US defense budget exceeds that of the next (not sure what "next" they were referring to) 7 countries combined".
I used to think our defense spending was excessive and perhaps too large of a chunk of our overall spending but I've "evolved" somewhat on the issue. I want the US to have the biggest, best sticks by far (walk quietly and all that).
That said like all other government spending, I
I imagine there's a lot of fraud and waste in there (unfortunately).
Perhaps we could have/should have negotiated a better deal. Having not been privy to the exact negotiations, I can't say. I wouldn't have minded if Trump had been at the table though. Heh-heh.
I do believe we were either going to sign a deal, or continue as we were while Iran developed a nuclear weapon anyway or we were going to start dropping bombs. Sanctions were not stopping their march towards a nuclear weapon. They were economically very painful but not stopping their weapon efforts as far as I have seen.
RE: Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - username - 09-03-2015
Crap. I make quite a few mistakes typing on my phone. I'm getting a little tired having to edit, edit, edit. Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain Ramsey's typos, misspellings etc. have dropped in frequency lately. Maybe I should just stop proofing my posts even briefly and just let them fly...fill the completely fucked up post void.