Iranian nuclear deal
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2015 19:44
VIEWED: 4290
PAGE 4 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Echo Chamber.
I have seen you use this term, and had assumed you understood it's actual meaning. But your consistent expelling of drivel of Libtard bias indicated that you really had no clue what it's meaning was, what it produces, how it works. I had given you the benefit of the doubt, but in that I was wrong.
Absent the actual definition, you seem to have reverted the the bebop, hip-hop version of definitions, via some drastically biased source.
You seem to think an Echo Chamber is like the MainStreamMedia phenomenon where they make a fake story or quote, and then all others attribute their false "facts" to this knowingly fake origin, and then they all runaway on tangents of the fake origin, trying desperately to prove their surreal and false delusions with these fake "facts". And then you mistakenly applied these delusional properties to the right side of the spectrum.
Had you understood the real, true, original meaning of Echo Chamber, your attribution to the Right would have been accurate. Alas, you failed.
Then wy do I spell it 'eko'?
If I wuz the wun in an eko chamber, I shoud be going along with everything.
You hav been proven rong so many timez, shown that you wer lied to by your trusted rite wing soursez, yet there you are, still soaking up their propaganda like a good little sheepl.
You even go out uv your way to post the idiotic spelling "echo chamber"!
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And we give Iran funds to Jihad against Americans, plus provide them with a supply of Russian ICBMs, and have incompetent inspectors from UN who are Muslims and their apologists, using equipment from the stone age to look for radioactivity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And nobody involved ever had any intention of ever abiding the terms of the deal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421461/congressmen-discover-secr
et-deals-iran-agreement
http://tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=248235
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/22/lawmakers-warn-there-are-tw
o-secret-side-deals-to-iran-nuclear-deal-that-wont-even-be-shared-with-congress/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.667458
http://zoa.org/2015/07/10291332-pres-obama-must-disclose-iran-deal-sec
ret-annexes/
also, looks like the message ID count recently went over 1 million.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Echo Chamber.
I have seen you use this term, and had assumed you understood it's actual meaning. But your consistent expelling of drivel of Libtard bias indicated that you really had no clue what it's meaning was, what it produces, how it works. I had given you the benefit of the doubt, but in that I was wrong.
Absent the actual definition, you seem to have reverted the the bebop, hip-hop version of definitions, via some drastically biased source.
You seem to think an Echo Chamber is like the MainStreamMedia phenomenon where they make a fake story or quote, and then all others attribute their false "facts" to this knowingly fake origin, and then they all runaway on tangents of the fake origin, trying desperately to prove their surreal and false delusions with these fake "facts". And then you mistakenly applied these delusional properties to the right side of the spectrum.
Had you understood the real, true, original meaning of Echo Chamber, your attribution to the Right would have been accurate. Alas, you failed.
Then wy do I spell it 'eko'?
If I wuz the wun in an eko chamber, I shoud be going along with everything.
that statement proves you do not understand the meaning of Echo Chamber.
Quote:
You hav been proven rong so many timez, shown that you wer lied to by your trusted rite wing soursez, yet there you are, still soaking up their propaganda like a good little sheepl.
You even go out uv your way to post the idiotic spelling "echo chamber"!
If you are not talking about an Echo Chamber, then explain what you are talking about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
So in your expert opinion, IF Iran agrees to allow the requested inspection within 24 days, nobody in the world can make any evidence of production go away - it will be there forever, or more than 3 months, or more than 24 days.
In your expert opinion, how many days is needed for evidence of violations to be cleaned up? Or do you claim never?
Hoo boy! Here comes RAPPY II, with the paranoid delusions of secret WMD programs!
No, you CAN'T "clean up" a former site where radioactive materials were processed. At least, not in 24 days. Do you want to know why?
Because radioactive material "declares itself", even in minute concentrations, thanks to the fact that it emits ... radiation. You don't even need a Geiger counter. All you have to do is put a sample of dirt on photographic film, and it'll take its own picture. That's how sub-micron (1/10 the diameter of human hair/ invisible to the naked eye) radioactive aerosols from Fukushima were detected thousands of miles away.
But if you want to get fancy, you can analyze for specific compounds, like cesium. In fact, the USGS measured Fukushima radioactive daughter products in the USA, even though they were in really low quantities (not readily distinguishable by Geiger counter above "background" radiation)
https://bqs.usgs.gov/fukushima/
The technology is there to make those measurements. That's ONE thing you don't have to worry about! The fact that "reporters" make such a deal about it, when they can (and SHOULD) educate themselves about the realities by consulting nuclear monitoring experts tells me that they're only interested in spreading toxic lies.
Heck, if it were possible to clean up sites so thoroughly and so quickly, Chernobyl, Hanford and Fukushima would be sparkling clean by now! (They've had YEARS to work on the problem.)
Those 3 sites were never built to be portable sites. And they were not given an attempt to be cleaned up. Only "made safe" in terms of radiation.
I listened to that Moniz guy (on FNC's interview with Chris Wallace), who has been co-opted by Bobo when he became Secretary, and when he was repeatedly interrupted and corrected (and told he was wrong) by Swiftboat Ketchup.
He was not so certain as you that detectable evidence could not be removed, and he did not state that it could certainly be detected. He did state that it is possible that evidence might be detected. His previous statement that inspections needed to be available and accessible was played and he walked that back, pointing out that was before he was part of the Bobo Administration.
But it sounds like you are a much more credible expert that that Moniz guy.
I keep remembering that Moniz guy, your proclaimed expert, being interrupted, told he is wrong, and "corrected" with the Talking Points by JFK Klueless repeatedly, each time Moniz tried to get a complete word out, over and over again. Makes it hard for me to fall asleep.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
John Forbes Kerry accidentally veers into the truth, his office staffers are aghast at his blunder.
Why can't Obama admit that this is a Treaty?
Because that would be the legal way and we cannot do anything legal.
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/29263751/reid-ribble/sec-kerry-we-don8
217t-have-the-votes-to-do-it-right
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/29/john_kerry_explains_
why_iran_deal_is_not_a_treaty_you_cant_pass_a_treaty_anymore.html
http://ribble.house.gov/press-release/sec-kerry-we-don%E2%80%99t-have-
votes-do-it-right
http://wtaq.com/podcasts/the-jerry-bader-show/1031/congressman-reid-ri
bble-john-kerry-exchange-on-iran-deal/
http://article.wn.com/view/2015/07/30/Sec_Kerry_We_don_t_have_the_vote
s_to_do_it_right_Reid_Ribble/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, you tend to get a great deal when you have an M.I.T. nuke scientist leading the charge, Dr. Ernest Moniz, actually he's a former physics professor at M.I.T.
He's THE proverbial rocket scientist you've heard tell about.
And here you have all the "geniuses" in Congress describing the deal as the worst Obama has come up with. WRONG!!! He has perhaps the smartest man on his cabinet in the lead on the nuke issues, doing his thing. Have any of the politicians ever negotiated a nuke deal before? Plus, you have about 7 other countries involved. Are you going to tell them "you suck at negotiations," and start an international incident? I don't think so?
The way these guys talk, you'd think that the president sat down at the table and started shuffling the cards - "Okay, gentlemen the game is Down & Dirty Texas Hold 'Em, deuces wild, no limit poker" Fucking idiots. POTUS hires the best to deal, he's briefed and then makes a decision. Most of these guys would shit their pants if they had to make these decisions. So people should back the fuck up and let the big boys run the show. Sometimes I can't believe how stupid both Congress and our brilliant contributors here at FFF.net can be?
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
it's looking like it's been a great deal for the world. This is being cited by the experts as a great deal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Need more from an "expert" who actually was there to negotiate, then look no further:
Get it straight from the horses mouth, I always say.
Comments? Suggestions?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Need more from an "expert" who actually was there to negotiate, then look no further:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/iran-negotiator-defends-deal-
513844803626
Get it straight from the horses mouth, I always say.
Comments? Suggestions?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saudi Arabia satisfied with Obama's assurances on Iran deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/04/us-usa-saudi-jubeir-idUSKCN0
R42D420150904
But since there's always a quid pro quo, what do you think was promised in return?
Quote:
The U.S.-Saudi relationship has suffered strain because of what Riyadh sees as Obama's withdrawal from the region, a lack of direct U.S. action against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and a perceived U.S. tilt towards Iran since the 2011 Arab uprisings.
But the countries share many strategic objectives [oil, the dollar] and depend on each other on a number of core security, economic, and political issues. [oil, the dollar]
Speaking after the meeting between Obama and Salman, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Obama had assured the Saudi king that the agreement prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, includes inspections of military and suspected sites, and has a provision for the snapback of sanctions if Iran violates the agreement.
Under those conditions, al-Jubeir said, Saudi Arabia supported the deal.
"Now we have one less problem for the time being to deal with, with regards to Iran," al-Jubeir said. "We can now focus more intensely on the nefarious activities that Iran is engaged in the region."
Every time I hear the word "we", I think of Tonto's famous apocryphal line ... What mean this "we", kimosabe?" Usually uttered when the Lone Ranger had roped Tonto into yet another dangerous activity.
Quote:First of all, why are we listening to the Gulf States? They're pretty much a bunch of Arab Muslim monarchies, and Saudi Arabia is exporting wahhabism throughout the Middle East and Africa. So, have our morals become clouded by the smell of OIL?
Gulf Arab states had previously expressed their support for the Iran nuclear deal,
Quote:You mean, like supporting terrorists like al Qaida throughout the ME and N Africa? Oh, wait ... that would be Saudi Arabia, wouldn't it?
but fear that the lifting of sanctions on Iran would enable it to pursue destabilizing policiesin the Middle East.
Quote:HAHAHAHAHA!!! The infamous head-loppers of the Mideast and the serial nation-destroyer share a concern about a "humanitarian situation"? My guess is, Saudi's war of choice in Yemen isn't going too well!
Salman skipped a Gulf Arab summit at Camp David in May, a move widely seen as a diplomatic snub over Obama's Iran strategy, though both governments denied that interpretation.
Critics say the nuclear deal will empower Iran economically to increase its support of militant groups in the region.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are opposed on a number of regional issues, especially the 4 1/2-year-long Syrian civil war and unrest in Yemen, where a coalition of Arab states led by Riyadh, assisted by the United States, are targeting Iran-allied Houthi forces.
Obama said on Friday that he and Salman share concerns about Yemen and the need to restore a functioning government and address the humanitarian situation there.
Quote:Well, since the Saudis are trying to exterminate the Houthis to clear the way for Al Qaida in Yemen, it should come as no surprise that they're withholding supplies from Houthi civilians.
U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said ahead of Salman's visit that the United States believed more care needs to be taken to avoid civilian casualties in the air strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen.
Al-Jubeir said on Friday that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen was being exacerbated by the Houthis and that supplies were at risk of being diverted from Yemenis who need them most
I'm sure the Houthis will take comfort in the fact that it's not personal, it's just war.
Quote:Really??? Because I can tell you, it's not the Red Cross, nor the R
but that Saudi Arabia was working with international organizations
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME