• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.N. atomic agency chief says Iran sticking to nuclear deal

code1211 said:
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
Click to expand...

I backed up the fact that republicans are trying to block the sale of Boeing planes to Iran. Why are you still not discussing it? it seemed important enough for you demand proof of it. Now you got it.
 
code1211 said:
You may be as uninformed as you seem to be, but that is not my problem.

From about 1945 to about 1978, NOTHING happened in the Middle East without the tacit approval of the USA.
Click to expand...
Wow.... Just wow.... :doh I wonder what happened in 1979 in Iran? Oh yea... It seemed that the people were tired of being a puppet of the west.

Between 1978 and about 2008, that control ebbed and flowed, but the dominant guiding power was the USA.
Click to expand...
You still dont think the US is a power in the middle east?

Now the dominant power is Russia.
Click to expand...
Russia and the USA have always been fighting for regional dominance around the world. This has been going on since post world war 2...

What have the bombing raids you are so proud of accomplished?
Click to expand...
Never said I was "proud". Simply pointing out how idiotic and wrong it is for you to say that we have given up the ability to interfere in the middle east.

If Iran is complying with the agreement, they are. If they are not, then they are doing what they have been doing. What are they doing? What they have done or what you are imagining they have done?
Click to expand...
So Iran is complying with the deal. Even one of your sources you just posted pointed this out.

I don't know why you are arguing this. The current administration as a matter of policy has pulled out of the Middle East.
Click to expand...
False.
US, Iraqi troops close in on last ISIS-held city - CNNPolitics.com
U.S. troops in Iraq increasingly active as Mosul battle nears | Reuters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria


The prior administration was hell-bent on establishing 20th Century democracy in stone age societies. The area from Afghanistan to Libya has been entirely destabilized by these policies.
Click to expand...
Wait a sec. You said we pulled out. But now you're saying its being destabilized by intervention.... Odd...

We and the world have been severely hurt by the two worst presidents in the history of the Republic having been elected back to back.
Click to expand...
Welcome to neo-imperialism bud.

For us in the USA, this results in the the job prospects being less bright. For the poor bastards born into the world that swath of land, about three generations will be lost to war, poverty, gang fighting and ignorance. This is a tragedy of international proportion and completely attributable to the lack of experience and insight of our last two presidents and the weakness and cowardice of our Congress.
Click to expand...
So tell me how this has to do with the Iranian nuclear deal?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wow.... Just wow.... :doh I wonder what happened in 1979 in Iran? Oh yea... It seemed that the people were tired of being a puppet of the west.


You still dont think the US is a power in the middle east?


Russia and the USA have always been fighting for regional dominance around the world. This has been going on since post world war 2...


Never said I was "proud". Simply pointing out how idiotic and wrong it is for you to say that we have given up the ability to interfere in the middle east.


So Iran is complying with the deal. Even one of your sources you just posted pointed this out.


False.
US, Iraqi troops close in on last ISIS-held city - CNNPolitics.com
U.S. troops in Iraq increasingly active as Mosul battle nears | Reuters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria



Wait a sec. You said we pulled out. But now you're saying its being destabilized by intervention.... Odd...


Welcome to neo-imperialism bud.


So tell me how this has to do with the Iranian nuclear deal?
Click to expand...

The Iran Nuclear deal is also completely attributable to the lack of experience and insight of our last two presidents and the weakness and cowardice of our Congress.

Neo-Imperialism was a term for the expansionist methods of the early 20th Century. Do you mean neo-neo-imperialism?
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
The Iran Nuclear deal is also completely attributable to the lack of experience and insight of our last two presidents and the weakness and cowardice of our Congress.
Click to expand...

.........
 
Vern said:
I backed up the fact that republicans are trying to block the sale of Boeing planes to Iran. Why are you still not discussing it? it seemed important enough for you demand proof of it. Now you got it.
Click to expand...

Still no link? You have an odd understanding, make that lack of understanding, about what backing something up means.
 
code1211 said:
The Iran Nuclear deal is also completely attributable to the lack of experience and insight of our last two presidents and the weakness and cowardice of our Congress.

Neo-Imperialism was a term for the expansionist methods of the early 20th Century. Do you mean neo-neo-imperialism?
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to add other than cheap talking points?
 
code1211 said:
Still no link? You have an odd understanding, make that lack of understanding, about what backing something up means.
Click to expand...

code, this just makes no sense. I posted a link special for you to learn about republicans trying to block the sale of Boeing planes to Iran. I shouldn't even have to post a link for something that is a current event and a news worthy one at that but I did. I can only say, you really shouldn't be at a debate forum if you're simply going to post like that.
 
Vern said:
I backed up the fact that republicans are trying to block the sale of Boeing planes to Iran. Why are you still not discussing it? it seemed important enough for you demand proof of it. Now you got it.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken unless I missed it.

The only link you posted that I noticed was that impudent "Let me Google that for You" link.

If you would like, you are welcome to introduce facts to your discussion at any time.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
How do they know? Most Iranian bases are excluded from inspection, per the deal and they have to give Iran 24 days notice of an inspection.
Click to expand...

Where does one hide nuclear material in 24 hours in a manner that prevents the radiation from being detected?
 
code1211 said:
You are mistaken unless I missed it.

The only link you posted that I noticed was that impudent "Let me Google that for You" link.

If you would like, you are welcome to introduce facts to your discussion at any time.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would call it "impudent". the link types in "republicans try to block sale of boeing planes to Iran" into google for you . You did seem disinclined to figure something out for yourself so I figured I would help you. I would define "impudent" as someone who comes to a debate forum with no intention of having an honest and intelligent discussion, tries to cut and run when his narrative blows up in his face then whines "that link is impudent" rather than admit that republicans are indeed trying to block sale of boeing planes to Iran. that's how I would define "impudent".
 
Vern said:
I don't know why you would call it "impudent". the link types in "republicans try to block sale of boeing planes to Iran" into google for you . You did seem disinclined to figure something out for yourself so I figured I would help you. I would define "impudent" as someone who comes to a debate forum with no intention of having an honest and intelligent discussion, tries to cut and run when his narrative blows up in his face then whines "that link is impudent" rather than admit that republicans are indeed trying to block sale of boeing planes to Iran. that's how I would define "impudent".
Click to expand...

You don't know what impudent means. You should. Water should know what wet means.

Why not just post the link instead of the childish and impudent method you chose.

If you would like to post that link, I will be glad to follow it.
 
code1211 said:
You don't know what impudent means. You should. Water should know what wet means.

Why not just post the link instead of the childish and impudent method you chose.

If you would like to post that link, I will be glad to follow it.
Click to expand...

Oh code, you clever guy, you've been whining about me to avoid discussing the fact that republicans are trying to block the sale of planes to Iran. And your childish snits almost worked. Serioulsy no grown man would post this unless he was desperate to avoid discussing the un-American anti-business republicans.
code1211 said:
Obviously you never speak anything but the non-partisan truth.

If you said, it must be gospel.:roll:

Why should there ever be a need for you to support anything you say?
Click to expand...

It almost worked. so, what do you have to say about the un-American anti-business republicans? why do you support a party that has continually worked to undermine the economy and hurt average Americans?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because they are the inspectors.........


1.)All countries dont allow unsupervised access to military bases.
2.)The IAEA can request access to inspect military bases under the terms of the deal.
"If complementary access is requested to a sensitive location, such as a military base or a high-tech factory with intellectual property to protect, Iran will be able to request that the complementary access be carried out in such a way as to allow the inspectors to gather only the information they need to satisfy their specific request — but not to look around and learn other things that they don’t need to know. All additional protocols include this provision, but it is ultimately up to the IAEA to determine if the access meets its requirements. Depending on the circumstance, Iran might want to move military equipment, transport the inspectors to the exact location they’ve requested in a vehicle with no possibility for the inspectors to see what’s around them, and cover sensitive items with tarps, for example. The inspectors must be able to establish that they are at the specific location they have requested by various means, including GPS navigation."
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/Ar...cation-of-the-Iran-Nuclear-Deal-10-Hot-Issues



False. If there are disputes a special adjudication commission will ensure disputes are settled within 24 days. https://www.armscontrol.org/files/ACA_Iran Brief_July28_D.pdf
Click to expand...


The findings of inspectors have been negative. They ain’t found nuthin. Inspecting every "base" that exists is not a necessity. Y’all are arguing about something that’s not there. Be specific and state your case, substantively, or go away.
 
Vern said:
Oh code, you clever guy, you've been whining about me to avoid discussing the fact that republicans are trying to block the sale of planes to Iran. And your childish snits almost worked. Serioulsy no grown man would post this unless he was desperate to avoid discussing the un-American anti-business republicans.

It almost worked. so, what do you have to say about the un-American anti-business republicans? why do you support a party that has continually worked to undermine the economy and hurt average Americans?
Click to expand...

Still waiting for the link that you refuse to produce.

The common method for doing this is to post the link and then cut and paste the nugget from that link that you feel is most important. In this way the source can be evaluated and the references judged.

If you ever do post the link you are referring to, we can discuss your opinion in light of the facts. As it is, all we are discussing is your opinions.
 
code1211 said:
Still waiting for the link that you refuse to produce.

The common method for doing this is to post the link and then cut and paste the nugget from that link that you feel is most important. In this way the source can be evaluated and the references judged.

If you ever do post the link you are referring to, we can discuss your opinion in light of the facts. As it is, all we are discussing is your opinions.
Click to expand...

I agree code, make a point, post a relevant blurb and then post a link. But I posted something that was common knowledge and a current event. And its not a matter of opinion that republicans tried to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran so you don't need any of your special evaluation "skills" for the references. so the link I posted was adequate. You whining that it was "impudent" was just another conservative dodge. We both know you clicked on it so that proves you're whining instead of addressing the fact that republicans tried to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. So if you're not here to have an honest and intelligent conversation, why are you at a debate forum?
 
Vern said:
I agree code, make a point, post a relevant blurb and then post a link. But I posted something that was common knowledge and a current event. And its not a matter of opinion that republicans tried to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran so you don't need any of your special evaluation "skills" for the references. so the link I posted was adequate. You whining that it was "impudent" was just another conservative dodge. We both know you clicked on it so that proves you're whining instead of addressing the fact that republicans tried to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. So if you're not here to have an honest and intelligent conversation, why are you at a debate forum?
Click to expand...

It's possible that those who helped to block the deal did not want augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists.

Let me show you how an adult posts a link and supports an idea:

State Department report finds Iran is top state sponsor of terror - CNNPolitics.com
<snip>
On Iran, the report said that country "remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world."

The report also said that Iran was continuing to provide arms and cash to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah (KH).

Both groups are designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the report.
Iran is one of three listed state sponsors of terrorism, the others being Syria and Sudan.

Cuba was removed from the list last year.
Siberell added that the department was "concerned about a wide range of Iranian activities to destabilize the region."

Iran's designation and continued sponsoring of terrorism is bound to fuel criticism of the Iran nuclear deal.

Critics of the deal have charged that the removal of economic sanctions would allow Iran to increase its support of terror groups.
<snip>

It's not that hard to do.
 
code1211 said:
It's possible that those who helped to block the deal did not want augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists.
Click to expand...

congratulations Code, you stopped pretending not to know that republicans tried to block the sale of Boeing plans to Iran. why did you think pretending not to know was a good debate tactic? If this was a "dodge and deflect" forum you'd be one of the best posters here. But its a debate forum. anyhoo, of course you think boeing planes will " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists". its what all obedient conservatives think. Its just that most conservatives go right to that narrative instead of pretending not know about republicans trying to block the sale.

If you're going to support the republican claim (now that you've stopped pretending not to know about it) then explain how the passenger planes for their air line will do that? And if you want to be super duper sharp, explain why boeing planes would " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists" but Airbus planes wouldn't. thanks in advance.
 
Vern said:
congratulations Code, you stopped pretending not to know that republicans tried to block the sale of Boeing plans to Iran. why did you think pretending not to know was a good debate tactic? If this was a "dodge and deflect" forum you'd be one of the best posters here. But its a debate forum. anyhoo, of course you think boeing planes will " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists". its what all obedient conservatives think. Its just that most conservatives go right to that narrative instead of pretending not know about republicans trying to block the sale.

If you're going to support the republican claim (now that you've stopped pretending not to know about it) then explain how the passenger planes for their air line will do that? And if you want to be super duper sharp, explain why boeing planes would " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists" but Airbus planes wouldn't. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I finally googled that idea and found it since you are no help whatever.

Also tried to show you how you might want to do so in the future.

I have a full time job, am remodeling a house, do the normal charity work and have a social life.

When I indicated that I didn't know this thing, YOU attacked me based on your misunderstanding. I can't help you on that personal failing. I can only point it out, which I did.

I don't know what "claim" you think I'm supporting. Would you care to expand on your delusion?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
The whole problem was that the deal had so many holes, it would be easy to follow through.

Iran would be completely buckling right now if we kept sanctions.
Click to expand...

No, no. You don't confront your enemies head on and try and stop them. Screw national security. You open your arms and trust them! See how great Iran really is? Obama knew better than everyone! I'm sure they are net concealing anything.
 
code1211 said:
I finally googled that idea and found it since you are no help whatever.
Click to expand...
All you had to do was click the link. so I was help. You were just determined to dodge and deflect.

I have a full time job, am remodeling a house, do the normal charity work and have a social life.
Click to expand...
oooo, let me stop you right there. Not only do I not need to hear your life story, I must point out you found the time to whine at me post after post instead of just clicking on the link. And you found the time to whine about the link.

When I indicated that I didn't know this thing, YOU attacked me based on your misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
What was my misunderstanding? I was aware that republicans tried to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. And FYI, I mocked you for not putting the slightest effort into knowing it. That not only included not bothering to look it up yourself, it also included you refusing to click on the link I provided. "wah wah impudent" was the excuse if I remember correctly. So just to be clear, you not only put no effort into looking it up yourself, you put no effort into simply clicking on the link.

I don't know what "claim" you think I'm supporting. Would you care to expand on your delusion?
Click to expand...

oh code, there you go again. You finally got around to posting the obedient conservative narrative " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists" as justification for republicans to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. You just posted it. But just in case you really are to busy to remember what you posted, here it is

code1211 said:
It's possible that those who helped to block the deal did not want augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists.
Click to expand...
So again I ask, how will the boeing planes " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists." And please explain how Airbus planes wont " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists".
 
Vern said:
All you had to do was click the link. so I was help. You were just determined to dodge and deflect.


oooo, let me stop you right there. Not only do I not need to hear your life story, I must point out you found the time to whine at me post after post instead of just clicking on the link. And you found the time to whine about the link.


What was my misunderstanding? I was aware that republicans tried to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. And FYI, I mocked you for not putting the slightest effort into knowing it. That not only included not bothering to look it up yourself, it also included you refusing to click on the link I provided. "wah wah impudent" was the excuse if I remember correctly. So just to be clear, you not only put no effort into looking it up yourself, you put no effort into simply clicking on the link.



oh code, there you go again. You finally got around to posting the obedient conservative narrative " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists" as justification for republicans to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. You just posted it. But just in case you really are to busy to remember what you posted, here it is


So again I ask, how will the boeing planes " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists." And please explain how Airbus planes wont " augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists".
Click to expand...

Continue on with your delusions.
 
code1211 said:
Continue on with your delusions.
Click to expand...

code1211 said:
I don't know what "claim" you think I'm supporting. Would you care to expand on your delusion?
Click to expand...

code1211 said:
It's possible that those who helped to block the deal did not want augment the abilities of Iran to continue its support of terrorists.
Click to expand...

again code, if you're not capable or willing to have an honest and intelligent discussion you shouldn't be at a debate forum.
 
In the early years, the head of our atomic energy agency was Robert Oppenheimer. The FBI knew as early as 1942 that both he and his wife were members of the Communist Party USA, which in those days was a front for Stalin's Soviet Union. After his work on creating the first atom bomb was complete, the Cold War was fully underway, and Oppenheimer had greater access than ever to our most sensitive military information, his loyalty became suspect enough that President Eisenhower finally replaced him. Just a reminder that what an official like this one says about our enemies and nuclear weapons should be taken with a grain of salt--especially when he works for an anti-American Marxist liar who sympathizes with Islamists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom