Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

callen · April 2015

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.

No that's not what he"a trying to do. And it's not Obama it's several countries that are working on some transparency with Iran.

I realize that the right is screaming this at the too of their lungs but read up on deal. Not perfect but better than status quo.

Also find it interesting that economic sanctions brought them to table versus bombs as what many would of preferred.

callen · April 2015

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.

And this is exactly the point of deal so open in table.

Funny wanting thread to follow Fox style.

benjs · April 2015

BS44325 said:
Iran has not agreed to inspections.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/

The deal is a farce.

First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

"COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.

benjs · April 2015

As an aside... It's good to have you back here, Drowned Out... always a big fan of your well-written, reasonable and logic-driven style of debate around here.

BS44325 · April 2015

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

mickeyrat said:
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.

so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
If it's that or a nuclear Iran then yes. A nuclear Iran will be far worse.
Please tell me you're talking weapons and not energy.
If you're talking weapons...You think killing half a million kids is justified against the possibility repeat possibility that Iran can circumvent inspections and build a bomb. And then, the possibility (possibility) that the Iranians will be the second nation with leaders stupid and psychotic enough to use a nuke...and the first to take that stupid psychosis to the next level by being the first nation to use a nuke since the MAD doctrine became reality? you have no faith whatsoever in the humanity of iran, and absolute faith that the motives of the west revolve around security, am I reading this correctly? This is your view, to the point that these incredibly low odds are worth the lives of a half million Iranian kids...is that what you're saying BS?

If you're talking energy...well...I'll keep the personal comments to myself.

I am talking about weapons. I am talking about having no faith in the Iranian leadership. I am talking about my motives for security.

You are talking about the military-industrial complex, the evils of the US and global conspiracies.

Psychosis.

BS44325 · April 2015

benjs said:

BS44325 said:
Iran has not agreed to inspections.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/

The deal is a farce.
First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

"COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.

Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.

BS44325 · April 2015

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
No that's not what he"a trying to do. And it's not Obama it's several countries that are working on some transparency with Iran.

I realize that the right is screaming this at the too of their lungs but read up on deal. Not perfect but better than status quo.

Also find it interesting that economic sanctions brought them to table versus bombs as what many would of preferred.

So why lift them?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/iran-nuclear-bill/index.html

BS44325 · April 2015

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.

Ha! The thread is up! #winning!

Aafke · April 2015

BS44325 said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Ha! The thread is up! #winning!

So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...

badbrains · April 2015

Aafke said:

BS44325 said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...

Hahahahaha

JimmyV · April 2015

Aafke said:

BS44325 said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...

I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

BS44325 · April 2015

JimmyV said:

Aafke said:

BS44325 said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

Correct.

benjs · April 2015

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:
Iran has not agreed to inspections.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/

The deal is a farce.
First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

"COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.

Why do you cherry-pick the parts of my comments to make me out to be some sort of delusional and hatred-filled person? I was pretty clear in my opinion: what we in the public hear does not have a strong correlation to the discussions occurring behind closed doors, and the "leaks" are likely to skew public opinion. This is an age-old game of manipulation: it is also not a novelty, nor is it unprecedented.

As for the 'sponsored by Jews'... Um... yeah. It's literally right there on their mission statement. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a stretch depending on who you ask, but the Commentary article is irrefutably pro-Jewish biased.

Aafke · April 2015

JimmyV said:

Aafke said:

BS44325 said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

I know what he means, my comment was cynical...

mickeyrat · April 2015

So, take me through the argument against.
Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8(read a newer article claiming 11 ton) tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

badbrains · April 2015

mickeyrat said:
So, take me through the argument against.
Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.

Aafke · April 2015

badbrains said:

mickeyrat said:
So, take me through the argument against.
Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.
He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.

Well if he doesn't answer himself, I can only guess for for his reasons. I believe his point of view is motivated with fear. Fear of being attacked by a nation with a different view on certain subjects, as his own. And what better way to overcome your fears... is attacking the so called enemy, it worked so well on numerous occasions for the U.S. didn't it?(Iraq (Wasn't there a nuke as well, oh, no that was a bunch of lies, wasn't it?), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam,...)

BS44325 · April 2015

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:
Iran has not agreed to inspections.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/

The deal is a farce.
First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

"COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.
Why do you cherry-pick the parts of my comments to make me out to be some sort of delusional and hatred-filled person? I was pretty clear in my opinion: what we in the public hear does not have a strong correlation to the discussions occurring behind closed doors, and the "leaks" are likely to skew public opinion. This is an age-old game of manipulation: it is also not a novelty, nor is it unprecedented.

As for the 'sponsored by Jews'... Um... yeah. It's literally right there on their mission statement. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a stretch depending on who you ask, but the Commentary article is irrefutably pro-Jewish biased.

I don't think you are hate filled. I do find it interesting though that you need to point out to everyone on here which articles written by jews lest they be mistaken. What exactly is pro-Jewish bias? Jews fall over the spectrum on this issue and others.

callen · April 2015

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
No that's not what he"a trying to do. And it's not Obama it's several countries that are working on some transparency with Iran.

I realize that the right is screaming this at the too of their lungs but read up on deal. Not perfect but better than status quo.

Also find it interesting that economic sanctions brought them to table versus bombs as what many would of preferred.
So why lift them?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/iran-nuclear-bill/index.html

Don't understand your rebuttle with article. They are still negotiating.

callen · April 2015

JimmyV said:

Aafke said:

BS44325 said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:
Hypocrisy is great isn't it?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

I don't know Jimmy seems the thread has merit.

Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

Comments

Categories