https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...HGj?ocid=socialshare

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...OUu?ocid=socialshare

I often criticize Trump. But he may have just remade the Middle East. | Opinion
Opinion by Phil Boas, Arizona Republic • 4h • 7 min read

I hope Iran tells him to FO!

ah ah the last time iran had a deal with a country for civilian nuclear program it did not end well ...

i do hope iran is taking the deal but not paying the dues and continues his own civilian program on the side a win win situation ...

I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

your own president is giving the idea so do not start to complain about the outcome ... france helped irak and iran into past civilian nuclear programs ...

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. So they say.
In principle, helping Iran could enable an real time information channel.
In practice, there may be more spoons in the stew than just ours.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

Your own country has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, countries NEED nuclear weapons to keep stupid, adventurous, war criminals from bombing them!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

Your own country has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, countries NEED nuclear weapons to keep stupid, adventurous, war criminals from bombing them!

At that point, there would be no stopping Iran from allowing its proxies to bomb, terrorize, shoot missiles into other countries, with impunity. No controls because they'd rattle their nuclear swords.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

Your own country has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, countries NEED nuclear weapons to keep stupid, adventurous, war criminals from bombing them!

At that point, there would be no stopping Iran from allowing its proxies to bomb, terrorize, shoot missiles into other countries, with impunity. No controls because they'd rattle their nuclear swords.

So far no one used them!

Except you.

Your argument is like jail every man, because he could be a rapist!

What logic!

And every woman is a prostitute!

All because they are equipped that way!

No, but every man who advocates the raping of women should be watched closely and when he shows any sign of acting on his intent, should be dealt with. Just like Iran. For decades, they have been stating their intent. Should they not be believed? I know, the west is the great evil, right? Iran should have been properly tuned up 45 years ago. It is truly too bad that anyone else ever got involved with the middle east, but that's where we are. Bill.-

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

Your own country has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, countries NEED nuclear weapons to keep stupid, adventurous, war criminals from bombing them!

No, the Doc has it right....letting state terrorism sponsors who provide support to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have nuclear weapons is a terrible idea.

I grew up in the South, and I learned early on when Bubba says something like, "I'm gonna fuck you up, boy", believe him first thing, then plan accordingly. Doing nothing is not an option, unless of course being fucked up against your will is acceptable.

funny north korea and russia are doing the same but not an issue ... you are focused on the wrong problem ... mollah regime is bad but what are you offering instead: the palavi son lol ...

you played that game in lybia, syria, iraq and afghanistan which regimes they have now ?

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
funny north korea and russia are doing the same but not an issue ... you are focused on the wrong problem ... mollah regime is bad but what are you offering instead: the palavi son lol ...

you played that game in lybia, syria, iraq and afghanistan which regimes they have now ?

Russia and NK aren't shelling us soldiers through their proxies in the middle east. Staying topical is a recurring challenge for you . The time Russians DID allow their proxies to engage
..well, you can look up. The battle of khasham aka the battle of conoco fields.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
funny north korea and russia are doing the same but not an issue ... you are focused on the wrong problem ... mollah regime is bad but what are you offering instead: the palavi son lol ...

you played that game in lybia, syria, iraq and afghanistan which regimes they have now ?

Russia and NK aren't shelling us soldiers through their proxies in the middle east. Staying topical is a recurring challenge for you . The time Russians DID allow their proxies to engage
..well, you can look up. The battle of khasham aka the battle of conoco fields.

ah ah russia and north korea are not developping nuclear weapons lol ... but you are right topical is a challenge for me but remember you put me on your ignore list and still reading me despite a subject ... please continue to worship your supreme leader and entertaining the whole world thinking you will control a country because of deal done on civilian nuclear power ...

Again, you confuse being factual correct with support. That's a you issue... need a tissue? Who is ignored and what i choose to respond to is NOT a you issue.

I do suspect you are a big believer in 2 by 10 and 10 by 2

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
funny north korea and russia are doing the same but not an issue ... you are focused on the wrong problem ... mollah regime is bad but what are you offering instead: the palavi son lol ...

you played that game in lybia, syria, iraq and afghanistan which regimes they have now ?

Funny that a moron that is from a country that is as fucked up as canuckistan lectures a country that is actively working to make the world a safer place????

What did canuckistan actually do to keep lil Kim from acquiring nuclear weapons? Eh?

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
funny north korea and russia are doing the same but not an issue ... you are focused on the wrong problem ... mollah regime is bad but what are you offering instead: the palavi son lol ...

you played that game in lybia, syria, iraq and afghanistan which regimes they have now ?

Funny that a moron that is from a country that is as fucked up as canuckistan lectures a country that is actively working to make the world a safer place????

What did canuckistan actually do to keep lil Kim from acquiring nuclear weapons? Eh?

you know that very well when you are getting no arugments and just insult your message is not reaching ... i do not give a flying uck about what you think of that but if you think your supreme leader is making the world a safer place you really need to watch yourself in the mirror ... but what can be expected from texans followers of the cult of the supreme leader that are in bad faith all year round ...

btw next time your country is calling us for help we might not be there ...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I find it interesting that so many think that nuclear proliferation by a state that believes terrorism is an appropriate means of projecting power is something that is a good idea.

Notably, the wiser, more reasoned folks running things for decades didn't stop the Norks from getting nuclear weapons, and it hasn't made the region "safer" for anyone.

I don't think Trump is particularly bright or able, but the bright and able Obama didn't stop this from happening- if anything, he made it easier by allowing them to build dual purpose technology while claiming that we have a nuclear watchdog that will prevent it from being used for weapons.

Seems to me that Trump is also willing to let them have the access and trust some sort of agreement at this point because "he" is making it...

Allowing Iran to have an unfettered civilian nuclear program is giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons, and taking them on trust that they will not make weapons.

Given the Islamic Republic's rhetoric, I really can see why Israel might have an issue there.

If its bad when President Obama did it, its every bit as dumb (if not more so) to do it after we determined they had reneged on their word previously just because we dropped a few bunker buster bombs on their sites and Trump thinks he's smarter than anyone else...

Your own country has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, countries NEED nuclear weapons to keep stupid, adventurous, war criminals from bombing them!

At that point, there would be no stopping Iran from allowing its proxies to bomb, terrorize, shoot missiles into other countries, with impunity. No controls because they'd rattle their nuclear swords.

So far no one used them!

Except you.

Your argument is like jail every man, because he could be a rapist!

What logic!

And every woman is a prostitute!

All because they are equipped that way!

Yes, we did use them (well, technically the US and Britain did- it was a joint program)… so our Canadian friends can’t really get too pope-holy about it…)

The logic is because NK has them, they feel they can fire missiles off without warning to “test” them towards Japan.

They feel safe in sending organized military units to fight in a war without even declaring their intent to do so (troops to Ukraine).

They feel safe Russians feel free to invade their neighbor and not get invaded because of their nuclear shield.

Frankly, our conventional weaponry is probably sufficient to deter any non- nuclear attack on the U.S. but it wouldn’t deter a nuclear armed nation absent the nuclear weaponry.

Tell me, Saeed, do you honestly think that absent the western powers that Iran would allow the UAE to continue to operate as it does? Or would the fact that you are too successful and not Shiite have them invading you and killing all of you that do not become fundamentalist Shiites who accept your Persian born governors?

Admittedly as a superpower our hubris has gotten us to try and tell people how they should behave… from telling you who to trade with to demanding you change your culture over things like women’s rights and gay rights.

We tend to think everyone is just like us and a democratic based system is great… as long as it agrees with us.

But the days of the British empire are not that long ago… was being the second class citizen in an empire that tells you what you will do via an appointed Governor from Jolly olde better?

Was the days when you were a collection of starving tribes paying tribute to a Turkish sultan better?

Was the days of being part of some religious dictatorship better?

I tend to think that we are by far more willing to let you do as you want (as long as it doesn’t involve bugging us) than any previous worldwide or regional power.

Are we perfect? Nope.

But I can pretty well predict that if all nations have nukes that pretty soon someone will use one for a pretty petty reason and odds are it would be in your general neighborhood.

at present there are 9 countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons. they are:

russia
united States
china
france
united Kingdom
pakistan
india
israel
north Korea

Difference between Iran and America is, Iran says they will do it.

And America DOES IT!

Commit the deed!

And some of you seem to turn a blind eye to this simple fact!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Difference between Iran and America is, Iran says they will do it.

And America DOES IT!

Commit the deed!

And some of you seem to turn a blind eye to this simple fact!

do not be so basic anti-american my friend: they are here to help ... remember to build schools in afghanistan ... they asked the allies to go with them like in iraq or lybia for what results or outcome ... or even syria where it is now an ex-terrorist become the new friend ...

I remember when a goal was global disarmament. Reducing stockpiles, stopping proliferation.

No, the trio that "W" labeled the, "Axis of Evil" shouldn't have WMD's.

The West and the USA has acted some kind of responsibly with its nukes and unfortunately it was correct to use nukes on Japan. I think if a mistake was made it was the Cold War Arms race. Once we'd achieved " Mutual Assured Self Destruction " there was really no reason to continue new production.

I've thought for a while and said here several times that The West should be in constant contact with Russia and the East repeating a standing offer to assist in securing and neutralizing the former USSR's nukes stockpile. At the same The West should be reducing and safeguarding it's own nukes.

When and if Saeeds cousins figure out how to allow women to wear baseball caps instead of burquas and don't instinctively decapitate Infidels, hopefully our world will be far less atomic WMD prolific.

I'm not holding my breath on the former but the latter is achievable.

quote:

When and if Saeeds cousins figure out how to allow women to wear baseball caps instead of burquas and don't instinctively decapitate Infidels, hopefully our world will be far less atomic WMD prolific.

I guarantee you our women have more basic human rights than yours.

No.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No.

They don’t need to worry about going to the ladies and meeting a man in women’s clothing!

They don’t compete in sports against women with dicks!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I remember when a goal was global disarmament. Reducing stockpiles, stopping proliferation.

No, the trio that "W" labeled the, "Axis of Evil" shouldn't have WMD's.

The West and the USA has acted some kind of responsibly with its nukes and unfortunately it was correct to use nukes on Japan. I think if a mistake was made it was the Cold War Arms race. Once we'd achieved " Mutual Assured Self Destruction " there was really no reason to continue new production.

I've thought for a while and said here several times that The West should be in constant contact with Russia and the East repeating a standing offer to assist in securing and neutralizing the former USSR's nukes stockpile. At the same The West should be reducing and safeguarding it's own nukes.

When and if Saeeds cousins figure out how to allow women to wear baseball caps instead of burquas and don't instinctively decapitate Infidels, hopefully our world will be far less atomic WMD prolific.

I'm not holding my breath on the former but the latter is achievable.

i find it funny you mentionned decapitation as the leftist organisation ammesty put your country at the same level as many others when it is related to death penalty ... i do know which one is more humane: electricity or sabre ... to name a few ... when was the last time alaska killed/executed someone?

and more funny thinking your country seated on the side of russia in the case of ukraine .... so your valors are it fits your agenda ...

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I remember when a goal was global disarmament. Reducing stockpiles, stopping proliferation.

No, the trio that "W" labeled the, "Axis of Evil" shouldn't have WMD's.

The West and the USA has acted some kind of responsibly with its nukes and unfortunately it was correct to use nukes on Japan. I think if a mistake was made it was the Cold War Arms race. Once we'd achieved " Mutual Assured Self Destruction " there was really no reason to continue new production.

I've thought for a while and said here several times that The West should be in constant contact with Russia and the East repeating a standing offer to assist in securing and neutralizing the former USSR's nukes stockpile. At the same The West should be reducing and safeguarding it's own nukes.

When and if Saeeds cousins figure out how to allow women to wear baseball caps instead of burquas and don't instinctively decapitate Infidels, hopefully our world will be far less atomic WMD prolific.

I'm not holding my breath on the former but the latter is achievable.

i find it funny you mentionned decapitation as the leftist organisation ammesty put your country at the same level as many others when it is related to death penalty ... i do know which one is more humane: electricity or sabre ... to name a few ... when was the last time alaska killed/executed someone?

and more funny thinking your country seated on the side of russia in the case of ukraine .... so your valors are it fits your agenda ...

It's no surprise anymore that you side with Islamic terrorist. Seriously, you are an embarrassment and a traitor to your nation.

Anyway, I have long opposed the death penalty in my nation and have made that plain. But there is no comparison to shouting "Allah Akbar" standing in sandals in the sand with a rusty machete swung high over the head of a whimpering child. (You know M, your team.) And American execution.

Alaska does not have a death penalty.

As for Ukraine and Russia, I have also said for a while that we should finish what we started, honor or commitments and there's no advantage to America, no benefit to vlad remaining in power.

Vlad and Russia are on Iran's side M, so I can't see why you aren't cheerleading for Moscow.

quote:

Vlad and Russia are on Iran's side M, so I can't see why you aren't cheerleading for Moscow.

He is. He's just too brainwashed to see it.

Just like Saeed!


Yappy furriners.....

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I remember when a goal was global disarmament. Reducing stockpiles, stopping proliferation.

No, the trio that "W" labeled the, "Axis of Evil" shouldn't have WMD's.

The West and the USA has acted some kind of responsibly with its nukes and unfortunately it was correct to use nukes on Japan. I think if a mistake was made it was the Cold War Arms race. Once we'd achieved " Mutual Assured Self Destruction " there was really no reason to continue new production.

I've thought for a while and said here several times that The West should be in constant contact with Russia and the East repeating a standing offer to assist in securing and neutralizing the former USSR's nukes stockpile. At the same The West should be reducing and safeguarding it's own nukes.

When and if Saeeds cousins figure out how to allow women to wear baseball caps instead of burquas and don't instinctively decapitate Infidels, hopefully our world will be far less atomic WMD prolific.

I'm not holding my breath on the former but the latter is achievable.

i find it funny you mentionned decapitation as the leftist organisation ammesty put your country at the same level as many others when it is related to death penalty ... i do know which one is more humane: electricity or sabre ... to name a few ... when was the last time alaska killed/executed someone?

and more funny thinking your country seated on the side of russia in the case of ukraine .... so your valors are it fits your agenda ...

It's no surprise anymore that you side with Islamic terrorist. Seriously, you are an embarrassment and a traitor to your nation.

Anyway, I have long opposed the death penalty in my nation and have made that plain. But there is no comparison to shouting "Allah Akbar" standing in sandals in the sand with a rusty machete swung high over the head of a whimpering child. (You know M, your team.) And American execution.

Alaska does not have a death penalty.

As for Ukraine and Russia, I have also said for a while that we should finish what we started, honor or commitments and there's no advantage to America, no benefit to vlad remaining in power.

Vlad and Russia are on Iran's side M, so I can't see why you aren't cheerleading for Moscow.

im lot of thing but not a treator for sure but your problem sir is that you do not get that your president is siding with putin on ukraine and siding with iran in offering the deal that you are not seeing ...

i do not cheerlead for moscow nor for the iran or terrorists but for sure i make a different with the habitants of palestine and hamas which you are not doing in putting everybody in the same bag ...

so you are celebrating or mocking decapitation but are against death penalty ... tell me more ...

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Vlad and Russia are on Iran's side M, so I can't see why you aren't cheerleading for Moscow.

He is. He's just too brainwashed to see it.

Just like Saeed!


Yappy furriners.....

who is supporting moscow regime today? i imagine you are not seeing the light from your supreme leader lol ....