patrick.net

I hate Bill Maher, he is an asshole.

But I do agree with the Iran nuclear deal.

I also hate Bill Maher and I agree he's an asshole.
However, I see no upside to the Iran deal.

Every deal has an upside and a downside.
I should not even have to say this it's so obvious...

ie..hezbollah just got their allowance raised...

Iran has nor shown a propensity towards starting a war, despite the "evidence" they do not have nuclear weapons capability the upside is less chance that the cronies will be able to lobby for yet another war...

SoftShell says

Every deal has an upside and a downside.

I should not even have to say this it's so obvious...

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

Bill Mar is what you find when you peel back a pile of shit.
And if you swipe him away with the shitstick you were using to uncover Bill, you'll find the Iran nuke deal.

UN-Iran deal will let Tehran inspect site where it allegedly worked on nukes

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/08/19/ap-exclusive-un-iran-deal-will-let-tehran-inspect-site-where-it-allegedly/?intcmp=hpbt1

I've noticed a pattern here. People who call Bill Maher a piece of shit or an asshole never back up their assertion with a reason. They cannot justify their opinions.

In fact, I suspect that those people hate Maher simply because he points out beyond any doubt how wrong those people are in their political positions. The fact is that Maher is a far more decent human being than any conservative and cares more about the common American than any inbred, flag-toting, gun waving red neck. Conservatives cannot attack the message, so they attack the messenger. It's the quintessential example of poisoning the well and it demonstrates weakness of both mind and position. It's the debate equivalent of declaring that you have a small penis and are insecure about it.

Dan8267 says

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

Still waiting...

By the way, the fact that the above question got a dislike really shows the corrupt and underhanded political motivations of those questioning the deal. If there were any plausible reason why the deal is bad, opponents of it would be happy that I asked that question as it would give them an opportunity to explain their reasons. Only those who know they have no honorable reason for their opposition would take offense at the question.

So let's get real. Racist conservatives don't like that blacky-mc-black-ass got the best deal imaginable. If a white Republican negotiated this deal, they would be calling it the greatest diplomatic triumph in American history.

Oh, and this is coming from someone who still, rightfully, calls Obama the worst president ever. The difference between me and conservatives is that I feel no need to lie and bullshit to justify my outrage at Obama. Even though this was a clear victory for Obama, it does not make up for the crimes against civilians, both foreign and domestic, that he has committed. It is,however, a clear case of a good thing done by a president who was overall very bad and it is a far better thing done by ANY Republican president since Eisenhower.

There's a SERIOUS downside to the Iran deal! The Reznicks of Southern California will not have a worldwide monopoly on pistachio production any longer! Further, the superior Persian Pistacchio will become available to discriminating nut munchers. This can only lead to cannibal anarchy and reduced prices of nuts.
Won't somebody please think of the billionaires??!!

indigenous says

I hate Bill Maher, he is an asshole.

But I do agree with the Iran nuclear deal.

mmmarvel says

I also hate Bill Maher and I agree he's an asshole.

However, I see no upside to the Iran deal.

I love Bill Maher, BECAUSE he is an asshole.
However, I too see no upside to the Iran deal.

Dan8267 says

By the way, the fact that the above question got a dislike really shows the corrupt and underhanded political motivations of those questioning the deal. If there were any plausible reason why the deal is bad, opponents of it would be happy that I asked that question as it would give them an opportunity to explain their reasons. Only those who know they have no honorable reason for their opposition would take offense at the question.

So let's get real. Racist conservatives don't like that blacky-mc-black-ass got the best deal imaginable. If a white Republican negotiated this deal, they would be calling it the greatest diplomatic triumph in American history.

I don't care who negotiated the deal. I don't trust religious wackos.

Dan8267 says

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

There is no downside.

There is only the apparency of one created by the defense contractors.

Dan8267 says

In fact, I suspect that those people hate Maher simply because he points out beyond any doubt how wrong those people are in their political positions.

Here is an example of the venerable George Will exposing Bill Maher for the glib ignorant Libby that he is.

https://www.qPoujgyGUDI

Strategist says

The safest bet is to go by what Israel has demanded. Basically, dismantle every brick on every nuclear installation. Now and in the future.

Bullshit, Netanyahu has an agenda just like everyone else, and it has nothing to do with what is true.

indigenous says

Strategist says

The safest bet is to go by what Israel has demanded. Basically, dismantle every brick on every nuclear installation. Now and in the future.

Bullshit, Netanyahu has an agenda just like everyone else, and it has nothing to do with what is true.

What's his agenda?

Strategist says

What's his agenda?

At the time getting reelected, followed closely by building Israels War Machine.

indigenous says

Strategist says

What's his agenda?

At the time getting reelected, followed closely by building Israels War Machine.

You are claiming Israel does not want the nuclear agreement with Iran, because Israel wants to build it's war machine. That makes no sense at all.
Israel can and will build it's war machine even with an agreement with Iran. What Israel wants is 100% safety from total alienation. Iranian threats to Israel have to be taken seriously, because religious wackos have to be taken seriously. We cannot allow them to even come CLOSE to a nuclear bomb. It's just not worth the risk.

Strategist says

Israel can and will build it's war machine even with an agreement with Iran.

So what is the downside?

indigenous says

Strategist says

Israel can and will build it's war machine even with an agreement with Iran.

So what is the downside?

Two countries getting nuked. Israel and Iran. Followed by extraordinary terrorism against the West.
Lets prevent that.

Strategist says

Two countries getting nuked. Israel and Iran. Followed by extraordinary terrorism against the West.

Lets prevent that.

Damn you are steeped in the neocon kool aid. That is vastly less likely with the deal.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Two countries getting nuked. Israel and Iran. Followed by extraordinary terrorism against the West.


Lets prevent that.

Damn you are steeped in the neocon kool aid. That is vastly less likely with the deal.

Only for a limited time.
They are still allowed to refine uranium, which brings them closer to a bomb. It does not help anyone except for the wackos who think they will get their 72 virgins.

Dan8267 says

I've noticed a pattern here. People who call Bill Maher a piece of shit or an asshole never back up their assertion with a reason. They cannot justify their opinions.

How about he shuts down anyone that isn't there to riff off of his skew or at least out skew him. Funny people don't cut people off and out yell them on a funny television show, the guy is a menace and sociopath.

Strategist says

They are still allowed to refine uranium, which brings them closer to a bomb.

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,” apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away”
.
https://www.3dXyD8rHmq4#t=43

Did you see the messageat 6:07?

https://www.3dXyD8rHmq4#t=43

Strategist says

https://www.K8E_zMLCRNg

If you consider giving iran 150 billion of which some is most likely to be diverted to financing hezbollah, palestinian islamic jihad, hamas, and houthis a good thing, why then there is no down side....
if you consider helping pave the way for iran to get the bomb, in which case the saudis and friends will have to buy their way into the club, a good thing, why then there is no down side...
There really was no need for any deal. And there was no need to start a war. Sanctions were working. And there was a lot of room to turn the sanction screws tighter.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Every deal has an upside and a downside.


I should not even have to say this it's so obvious...

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

I shot a 76....that takes time...

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

Still waiting...

This is the default position of the people who analyze in two dimensions only.
It's either deal or war to them.
The sanctions were working, and there was a shitload of room to slowly ratchet them up even further.
There was no need to do anything other than to slowly continue twisting the sanctions tourniquet.

Strategist says

If Iran says no, the sanctions continue. Eventually they will cave in.

Who said anything about boots on the ground?

Obama only has 15 months left. He can not wait for sanctions to work. He needs more chits for his new library.

The downside to the Iran deal is that I'm dumb enough to read the comments. lmao

SoftShell says

It's either deal or war to them.

it certainly is another boogeyman to the warmongers.

We spend north of 600 billion a year on defense, Iraq and Afghanistan has seen 250,000 non combatants killed in the wars there.

War more often than not, actually almost always is provoked through propaganda, i.e. WMDs, Gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania. IOW total bullshit. Iran is just another case of that.

The US cannot afford empire anymore.

I for one would like to see proof not fucking propaganda, Anyone who causes a war through propaganda is a war criminal.

SoftShell says

The sanctions were working, and there was a shitload of room to slowly ratchet them up even further.

There was no need to do anything other than to slowly continue twisting the sanctions tourniquet.

I thought they were just a year away from having the bomb? That's the sanctions "working"? I'd hate to see them "not working" then.

Strategist says

If Iran says no, the sanctions continue. Eventually they will cave in.

Just like cuba after 55 years. Oh wait, we went to them.

Ford's annual new year rollout meeting with the press 1989. Ford announces they are discontinuing the exp (look it up) because it hasn't met sales expectations. Reporter (david e davis of automobile if I remember right) stands up and say excuse me, the exp is an ugly, unreliable, slow, poor handling, uncomfortable 2 seater with a cheap crappy interior. What exactly were your sales expectations?

What exactly is your time frame for eventually?

What blows my mind is the liberal support of the nuclear agreement.
Here you have extreme left wing liberals like Dan, demanding religion be banned. Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

Strategist says

Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

So going from zero inspections (now) to inspections under the deal is trusting Iran more? How do you figure that?

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

So going from zero inspections (now) to inspections under the deal is trusting Iran more? How do you figure that?

Trusting radicals beyond Zero is a major strategic error.
Reagan famously stated "Trust, but verify" That can be used with a well educated country like Russia, where MAD is well understood by both parties.
MAD cannot work with radicals who are only to eager to die.

Paradise says

tatupu70 says

So going from zero inspections (now) to inspections under the deal is trusting Iran more? How do you figure that?

It's letting Iran do "self-inspections" which is the problem.

As stupid as the IRS letting us do our own audits.

Strategist says

Trusting radicals beyond Zero is a major strategic error.

Reagan famously stated "Trust, but verify" That can be used with a well educated country like Russia, where MAD is well understood by both parties.

MAD cannot work with radicals who are only to eager to die.

Why do you keep saying that. Nobody is trusting them. That's the point of the inspections.

Paradise says

It's letting Iran do "self-inspections" which is the problem

What are you referring to? It's the IAEA that does the inspections.

Strategist says

As stupid as the IRS letting us do our own audits.

But, you're completely missing the point. We went from NO inspections to SOME inspections. How is that worse?

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

As stupid as the IRS letting us do our own audits.

But, you're completely missing the point. We went from NO inspections to SOME inspections. How is that worse?

That was a good question. Here is an analogy.
My son comes home with a grade of F-
I take away his iPhone.
Next week he comes home with a grade of F+
He wants his iphone back claiming "How is that worse?"
He is not getting his iPhone back.