Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

You are incredibly gullible.

BearN said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.

Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.

---

Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.

---

I agree 100%. This is the script most Western leaders are unable to flip. They think everyone is motivated by capitalist interests and win-win scenarios. And that may be true for some of the smooth billionaire oil sheiks. But the true-believer "Islamist" leaders have a completely different goal. This would be irrational to capitalists, but for them, is the only rationale. Submission to Allah.

---

Iran's leadership is much more practical and worldly than the cartoon characters that some of you seem to imagine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.

Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.

---

Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.

---

I agree 100%. This is the script most Western leaders are unable to flip. They think everyone is motivated by capitalist interests and win-win scenarios. And that may be true for some of the smooth billionaire oil sheiks. But the true-believer "Islamist" leaders have a completely different goal. This would be irrational to capitalists, but for them, is the only rationale. Submission to Allah.

---

Iran's leadership is much more practical and worldly than the cartoon characters that some of you seem to imagine.

---

Yeah, their 'Death to America' chatter and sponsoring much of the world's worst terrorism should impress everyone with their practicality.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

Bribe em, kill em, or stay out of it. Whatever one is the correct path I think most would agree none will work if we keep switching policies.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

Ah yes, you're right, must just be that darned ol coincidence popping up again. Iran funds largest, most successful Hamas attack to date, but no way they used any of the BILLIONS democrats sent them, right? No way some of that money went to the Houthis who suddenly had serious armament to fire at passing ships, right? No way Iran used that money to fund the drone and missile attack on Osrael, right? All just a coincidence.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

Ah yes, you're right, must just be that darned ol coincidence popping up again. Iran funds largest, most successful Hamas attack to date, but no way they used any of the BILLIONS democrats sent them, right? No way some of that money went to the Houthis who suddenly had serious armament to fire at passing ships, right? No way Iran used that money to fund the drone and missile attack on Osrael, right? All just a coincidence.

---

Maybe you didn't understand my question. We all know money is fungible. I'm asking whether we enabled Iran to do what it otherwise couldn't have done. I would suggest the best way to answer is to look at their defense budget since 2015 and see whether there's any significant change from previous years (SPOILER ALERT: there isn't).

ATL Bear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

It may come as a shock, but we live up to the vast majority of the ones we have in place.

---

I didn't see your answer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.

Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.

---

Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.

---

I agree 100%. This is the script most Western leaders are unable to flip. They think everyone is motivated by capitalist interests and win-win scenarios. And that may be true for some of the smooth billionaire oil sheiks. But the true-believer "Islamist" leaders have a completely different goal. This would be irrational to capitalists, but for them, is the only rationale. Submission to Allah.

---

Iran's leadership is much more practical and worldly than the cartoon characters that some of you seem to imagine.

---

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region. No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians." ~ Ali Khamenei

"From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this... The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor that must be removed, and God willing it will be." ~ Ali Khamenei

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:

"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024

---

Nothing should be more alarming to an intelligence professional than dead silence.

---

Why is that? Have you read a few too many Tom Clancy novels?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:

"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024

---

Nothing should be more alarming to an intelligence professional than dead silence.

---

Why is that? Have you read a few too many Tom Clancy novels?

---

I hear Baylor teaches a course of Tom Clancy novels.

---

Would only be an appropriate way to balance out a Harry Potter class. I've read the books, and they are good, but I don't think a class on them is quite warranted. Applies to both authors.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:

"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024

---

Nothing should be more alarming to an intelligence professional than dead silence.

---

Why is that? Have you read a few too many Tom Clancy novels?

---

I hear Baylor teaches a course of Tom Clancy novels.

---

That must really piss off Stephen King

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:

"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024

---

Nothing should be more alarming to an intelligence professional than dead silence.

---

Why is that? Have you read a few too many Tom Clancy novels?

---

No, spent a decade doing the work.

Dead silence means:
-you have no access to the target
-the target has gone silent in preparation for attack

---

I agree.

I much prefer the loud sabre rattling that Iran had been doing up to their strike.

History has shown that when Israel goes quiet an attack is coming.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

Ah yes, you're right, must just be that darned ol coincidence popping up again. Iran funds largest, most successful Hamas attack to date, but no way they used any of the BILLIONS democrats sent them, right? No way some of that money went to the Houthis who suddenly had serious armament to fire at passing ships, right? No way Iran used that money to fund the drone and missile attack on Osrael, right? All just a coincidence.

---

Maybe you didn't understand my question. We all know money is fungible. I'm asking whether we enabled Iran to do what it otherwise couldn't have done. I would suggest the best way to answer is to look at their defense budget since 2015 and see whether there's any significant change from previous years (SPOILER ALERT: there isn't).

---

All I'm going off of is what Iran has done since receiving the money. You can speculate all you like as to whether or not they would have done these things anyway and you're entitled to your own imagination but spoiler alert; we know what they did after receiving the money.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

I read the daily reports of the UN inspectors in Iraq.

You are clueless.
(predictably)

---

So you knew where all the WMD were? Funny you didn't share.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

And what, pray tell, were the benefits of the deal?

I would be fascinated to hear the line of reasoning which explains how a relentlessly malevolent actor would be unable to accomplish anything more with $16b than they could have done without it.

---

The benefits included oversight of Iran's nuclear program and limitations on uranium enrichment.

There are lots of ways to spend $16 billion. Iran is not relentlessly malevolent, but there's no reason to think they've ever refrained from attacking American interests because they couldn't work it into the budget.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

And what, pray tell, were the benefits of the deal?

I would be fascinated to hear the line of reasoning which explains how a relentlessly malevolent actor would be unable to accomplish anything more with $16b than they could have done without it.

---

The benefits included oversight of Iran's nuclear program and limitations on uranium enrichment.

There are lots of ways to spend $16 billion. Iran is not relentlessly malevolent, but there's no reason to think they've ever refrained from attacking American interests because they couldn't work it into the budget.

---

That wouldn't by any chance be this nuclear deal, would it?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2020/06/05/un-agency-says-iran-is-violating-all-restrictions-of-nuclear-deal/

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

And what, pray tell, were the benefits of the deal?

I would be fascinated to hear the line of reasoning which explains how a relentlessly malevolent actor would be unable to accomplish anything more with $16b than they could have done without it.

---

The benefits included oversight of Iran's nuclear program and limitations on uranium enrichment.

There are lots of ways to spend $16 billion. Iran is not relentlessly malevolent, but there's no reason to think they've ever refrained from attacking American interests because they couldn't work it into the budget.

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

And what, pray tell, were the benefits of the deal?

I would be fascinated to hear the line of reasoning which explains how a relentlessly malevolent actor would be unable to accomplish anything more with $16b than they could have done without it.

---

The benefits included oversight of Iran's nuclear program and limitations on uranium enrichment.

There are lots of ways to spend $16 billion. Iran is not relentlessly malevolent, but there's no reason to think they've ever refrained from attacking American interests because they couldn't work it into the budget.

---

That wouldn't by any chance be this nuclear deal, would it?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2020/06/05/un-agency-says-iran-is-violating-all-restrictions-of-nuclear-deal/

---

Well, of course they were "violating" it two years after we canceled it. That's what I told you they were going to do!

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

I read the daily reports of the UN inspectors in Iraq.

You are clueless.
(predictably)

---

So you knew where all the WMD were? Funny you didn't share.

---

If you had read those reports, you wouldn't be posting the nonsense you post here.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

And what, pray tell, were the benefits of the deal?

I would be fascinated to hear the line of reasoning which explains how a relentlessly malevolent actor would be unable to accomplish anything more with $16b than they could have done without it.

---

The benefits included oversight of Iran's nuclear program and limitations on uranium enrichment.

There are lots of ways to spend $16 billion. Iran is not relentlessly malevolent, but there's no reason to think they've ever refrained from attacking American interests because they couldn't work it into the budget.

---

The idea that a rogue regime complies faithfully with oversight is completely unserious. They can be counted up on to cheat. Even the adherents of the deal openly admitted the Iran deal would not actually prevent Iran from developing a weapon....only slow it down.

Iran is most certainly relentlessly malevolent. Indeed, the relentlessness of their effort against us is their primary advantage. If we would adopt a similarly consistent policy of confrontation, Iran would not be anywhere near the threat they are today. The fatal flaw of Democrat policy on Iran is that it presumes there are conditions under which the mullah regime will be willing to find accommodations with the West. Nothing could be more unrealistic.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearN said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

---

How would your priorities change if you had an extra $20-30 Billion?

Trump had the Iranian terror mullahs living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama/Biden made these terrorists filthy rich with no end to disposable income, allowing them to pursue terror to their little black hearts' desire.

---

Obama used Iran's own money as an incentive to keep them from making nuclear weapons. Trump told them to keep the money and make the weapons too. So much winning.

---

Ah yes, the super trustworthy Iranians were totally honest with the billions Obama gave them but also they did bad things with the money because Orange Man Bad didn't take it back. You live in a cartoon.

---

UN inspections worked in Iraq and they were working in Iran, but you keep swilling that propaganda…and get ready to welcome the mullahs to the nuclear club.

---

Iran is not Iraq. Crazy that you have to be told that. Iran, just like Russia, is going to do whatever they want. Funding them with over $16,000,000,000 resulted in multiple attacks on US bases and Israel. You can whine about Trump not taking back the money Obama sent them but any thinking person can see it was Obama and Biden who caused the problem. Lots of dead people all over the Middle East is my evidence that Iran is not to be trusted. What is your evidence that makes you so sure sending them billions is safe?

---

Trump couldn't take back the money, but he could have kept the benefit of the deal. The evidence of that benefit is in the UN reports. Where's your evidence that the $16 billion enabled Iran to do anything they otherwise wouldn't have done? It's nothing but speculation.

---

And what, pray tell, were the benefits of the deal?

I would be fascinated to hear the line of reasoning which explains how a relentlessly malevolent actor would be unable to accomplish anything more with $16b than they could have done without it.

---

The benefits included oversight of Iran's nuclear program and limitations on uranium enrichment.

There are lots of ways to spend $16 billion. Iran is not relentlessly malevolent, but there's no reason to think they've ever refrained from attacking American interests because they couldn't work it into the budget.

---

The idea that a rogue regime complies faithfully with oversight is completely unserious. They can be counted up on to cheat. Even the adherents of the deal openly admitted the Iran deal would not actually prevent Iran from developing a weapon....only slow it down.

Iran is most certainly relentlessly malevolent. Indeed, the relentlessness of their effort against us is their primary advantage. If we would adopt a similarly consistent policy of confrontation, Iran would not be anywhere near the threat they are today. The fatal flaw of Democrat policy on Iran is that it presumes there are conditions under which the mullah regime will be willing to find accommodations with the West. Nothing could be more unrealistic.

---

This is a fine example of how easy it is to fool the American public...all you have to do is take some old anti-Iraq propaganda, change one letter, and presto! You've got a whole new scam up and running.