so you think the time for USA to step down from being the leader of the western world is right now and we should do that by allowing iran nukes?

actually, the joke is on you. prove that iran isn't sponsoring terrorism.

it's well-documented, regardless what you think of that author.

i have time invested in this topic, unlike yourself, who's scrambling to just try and troll me instead of actually participating in the debate.

do your research on iran sponsored terrorism like i have, do your research on iran's ballistic missile program like i have, do your research on the framework agreement like i have, do your research on the hidden nuclear bunker iran built.

like i have.

then you're welcome to enter into this debate.

again, joke is on you.

:::::::::


Matthew Levitt is an American expert on Islamist terrorism. Levitt is a senior fellow and director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and professorial lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

From 2005 to early 2007 he was a deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In that capacity, he served both as a senior official within the department's terrorism and financial intelligence branch and as deputy chief of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. From 2001 to 2005, Dr. Levitt served the Institute as founding director of its Terrorism Research Program, which was established in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Previously, he provided tactical and strategic analytical support for counterterrorism operations at the FBI, focusing on fundraising and logistical support networks for Middle Eastern terrorist groups. During his FBI service, Dr. Levitt participated as a team member in a number of crisis situations, including the terrorist threat surrounding the turn of the millennium and the September 11 attacks.[1]

Dr. Levitt has also lectured on international terrorism on behalf of the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security, consulted for various U.S. government agencies and private industry, and testified before the Senate and House on matters relating to international terrorism. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the international advisory board for both the Institute for Counter-terrorism in Israel and the International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research in Singapore, and a CTC fellow with the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the U.S. Military Academy (West Point).

He received his B.A. from Yeshiva University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He was a graduate research fellow at Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation, and has taught at Johns Hopkins University. He attended high school at the Maimonides School.

Levitt is a frequent media commentator on terrorism,[2] and has given testimony at the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.[3]

Published works[edit]
Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God (Georgetown University Press) September 2013[4]
Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad (Yale University Press) April 2006[5]
Targeting Terror: U.S. Policy toward Middle Eastern State Sponsors and Terrorist Organizations, Post-September 11, 2002[6]
Negotiating Under Fire: Preserving Peace Talks in the Face of Terror Attacks (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008)[5]
?Hezbollah Finances: Funding the Party of God,? in Terrorism Financing and State Responses: a Comparative Perspective (Stanford University Press, 2007)
?Hamas Social Welfare: In the Service of Terror,? in The Making of a Terrorist: Recruitment, Training, and Root Causes (New York: Praeger Publishers, 2005)
?The Impact of Acute Security Crises on the Process of Ongoing Negotiations: Lessons from the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process, 1993-1996? (Ph.D. dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 2005).

A nuclear weapon delivery system means nothing if you can't enrich uranium to 98%. The tentative deal ensures that won't happen.

how does it ensure that? according to iran's spin, nothing is ensured-
Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims | New York Post

why isn't a nuclear weapon delivery system part of an agreement to 10000 % ENSURE iran doesn't act out and go nuclear militarily? it's not even in the framework. the entire point of the agreement is to stop it all before it starts, wouldn't you include the delivery system in that?

what about the other questions, why does iran want nuck so desperately anyway? why should we concede any ability to them? what's wrong with their aggressively pursuing solar instead of spending 10s of billions enriching shit and building ballistic missiles?

i'll repost the democrat, menendez' press release on Fordow, the top-secret fortified bunker iran built in a mountain and didn't tell anyone about, it was just discovered in 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement regarding an Associated Press report that Iran will be allowed to operate centrifuges at Fordow as part of a potential nuclear agreement.

“If today’s news report from Lausanne is true, we are not inching closer to Iran’s negotiating position, but leaping toward it with both feet. We have pivoted away from demanding the closure of Fordow when the negotiations began, to considering its conversion into a research facility, to now allowing hundreds of centrifuges to spin at this underground bunker site where centrifuges could be quickly repurposed for illicit nuclear enrichment purposes. My fear is that we are no longer guided by the principle that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal,’ but instead we are negotiating ‘any deal for a deal’s sake’.

“An undue amount of trust and faith is being placed in a negotiating partner that has spent decades deceiving the international community; denying the International Atomic Energy Agency access to its facilities; refusing to answer questions about its nuclear-related military activities; and all the while, actively destabilizing the region from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Yemen. A good deal must meet our primary negotiating objective – curtailing Iran’s current and future ability to achieve nuclear weapons capability. If the best deal Iran will give us does not achieve this goal, it is not a good deal for the United States or its partners. A good deal won’t leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state.”




that's an informed Democrat's view, he's the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee.

In the traditional cold-war vernacular, "nukes" was a reference to ICBM-borne nuclear weapons, and not non-weaponized nuclear power generation.

These negotiations are about preventing from Iran developing nuclear weapons (nukes) which they have persistently denied, and, according to the IAEA, were truthful.

The situation reminds me of the WMD weapons inspectors back in the pre-shock&awe invasion of Iraq, where inspectors were saying there weren't any WMDs and so were pulled by the US so Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld could keep making their fear-claims.

I was using Dr. Strangelove as a comparison to Bachmann's bullshit assessment of post-nuclear holocaust vindicating her and her warhawk brethren's insistence on ditching diplomacy and blacking out Iran (which would then drive them "underground" and assure war and military nuclear development).

There are many nations that have (peaceful) nuclear power. I don't agree with it, but there you have it. The whole point of the framework agreement/negotiations is to ensure Irans nuclear development remains peaceful.

This is a supposition. The representatives of the other countries presumeably are reporting back to their heads of state in the same way. There is no reason to believe that "BO" is lording it over the negotiation.

Why haven't we? Why aren't we forcing everyone to "go green"?

Why do you think? Then the super powers and their allies would have to act as... examples? Swap to renewables, shut down nuclear, shut off oil...? Yeah, right.

The US (and friends) recognize nuclear as legit. They want to make sure Iran sticks to "peaceful" nuclear.

Iran ain't quite a wasteland but regardless. This is pointless "discussion" - the negotiations are over the nature of Iran's Nuclear - that's it. Don't talk about solar or wind or ocean current power generation. It's not what that is about.

Again, Iran becoming a nuclear-power-generating nation (since they already are BTW) is OK in the eyes of the Big Five. It is not hysteria to point at Bachmann's hysterical depiction of nuclear holocaust in the homeland and comparison to the suicide commercial jetliner pilot as being the same thing, and saying that BO is like the killer.

So you're saying you agree with Bachmann's analogy in the statement I quoted?

They only have one that I know of the rest are in development. Ever heard of Pakistan? There are two dozen countries in the world with nuclear energy, and most are more stable than Pakistan or Slovenia - including Iran, btw.

The Furdow (?) plant was built because Netanyahu's Israel has had his finger on the trigger against Iran from the start. There is a lot of anti-Iran propaganda in our media that has to be researched and peeled back to be understood. They haven't outright lied, but they have rejected inspection at points because it seems they felt there was no point - no matter what the IAEA found or reported back, the media and hostile governments made WMD/Iraq/Sadam type claims.

But Regardless, Bachmann said a stupid thing. And you haven't said anything about the stupid thing she said. What say you on the stupid thing Bachmann said?

:D

i'm using solar to perfectly illustrate the disingenous iran position, don't be daft and try to imply i'm claiming solar is a part of the framework, instead realize it is a completely valid example.

i've also already commented on bachmann's analogy.

next, here's your post

again, you made reference to the whole quote. i bolded, italicized, underlined and increased the font size of the specific part i replied and i commented on asking you to prove wrong the prediction that this won't lead to a nuclear strike from the ME.


so don't be even more daft exclaiming i didn't and haven't been on topic here (and more importantly, on point).

you're fucking welcome.

Sorry, I scrolled back and saw nothing directly pertinent.

I can't prove or disprove a "prediction".

Iran's missile capability I believe according to analysts is 1000 km. Beyond this, the fact the agreement will remove and pre-empt their (disavowed) ability to create deadly nuclear missile weaponry, regardless of their ballistic technology, means a prediction is hardly more than a baseless fear.

You would need to prove the contrary, no?

Fucking thank you :)

We've (the whole thread) drifted from my point regarding Bachmann's lunacy due to MY unfortunate analogy to Dr. Strangelove, but still it is interesting.

Now, since I can't prove a prediction wrong, I must believe it is most disproportionate and unlikely. Especially since the framework agreement stipulates the IAEA can traipse down and through and around Iranian facilities, and centrifuges have been extremely limited AND restrained to the older type (except Fordow).

Since the US is strictly out of range, and even if the Iranians might be able to carry nuclear payloads, they have fatwawed and vowed and sign non-proliferation regarding nuclear weapons... well, every aspect just begs negation of such a prediction as nuclear annihilation of any body else.

Besides, the instant Iran would launch a single ICBM, they would be erased from the world by the massively potent US, Israeli, Pakistani, and more nuclear powers. WHO CARES if they get a nuke? They would be afraid to use it; as in past cold-war ideology, it would be a deterrent/defensive measure. As they all are, unless they desire planet-wide destruction.

And Michelle Bachmann is mad, btw.

:D

I've already lived longer than I ever thought I would, and have no children. When the big fuck-up comes, and at this rate it will, it will just make the bonus part of my life more interesting.

You younger guys and those with children will live to regret Muslim nations with nuclear capabilities. Don't kid yourselves ........


(and yea, I know about Pakistan)

.

It's always funny to see the usual suspects jump up to the defense of the indefensible.

If you don't know Michelle Bachman is an idiot by listening to her speak for more than a few seconds, then so are you.

This is like watching Manson debate which is the best Beatles song.

I agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people willing to use them (such as the United States did in WW2 don't forget) is a bad scenario.

I DON'T agree that the United States has any power to order other countries around and try to make up "rules" for them to follow (especially since we won't follow them ourselves).

To me, the only real answer to the nuclear problem (and face it...you just can't keep assassinating scientists in other countries, you can't kill science and how to make a bomb) is to do this:
Have the President Of The United States make a declaration that is ratified by Congress that declares that if ANY country tries to join the nuclear weapons club in the future...it will be considered an act of war and the United States will immediately go to war with them.

At least that can be legitimized.

Not this vague bullshit of "do what we order you to do" that is going on now.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I guess that is where we differ; but does anyone care about Canadian politics outside of GFY?

You beat me to it... Board of Advisors - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The advisory board is a who's who of war criminals and friends.:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I guess hasbara project now pays for gfy posts too.

who's defending bachmann in here? the usual suspects, which ones are they?

i haven't spent 1 single fucking second listening to her since she was the vp nom, only a fucking idiot would do that.

so fill us all in. who the fuck are you talking about? because it certainly isn't me, i've voiced concern over a nuclear deal and supported those concerns with real data.

again, iran sponsored terrorism is well-documented, i know you spend your life drunk most the time so most things fly right by you, but i'll ask anyway, fill us all in then, who the fuck on this list of advisors is a war criminal?

Gen. John R. Allen
United States Marine Corps (ret.)

Howard Berman
Member of Congress, 1983-2013

Birch Evans Bayh III
United States Senator, 1999-2011

Eliot Cohen
Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies

Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State, 1973-1977

Joseph Lieberman
United States Senator, 1989-2013

Edward Luttwak
Center for Strategic and International Studies

Michael Mandelbaum
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Robert McFarlane
National Security Advisor, 1983-1985

Martin Peretz
Journalist and Publisher

Richard Perle
Assistant Secretary of Defense, 1981-1987

Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State, 2005-2009

James G. Roche
Secretary of the Air Force, 2001-2005

George P. Shultz
Secretary of State, 1982-1989

R. James Woolsey
Director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995

Mortimer Zuckerman
Publisher, U.S. News and World Report

You are looked at as defending her because you do everything possible to avoid the subject of having to say she is a crazy fucking nut.

It's the same as Muslims whom don't condemn other Muslims whom commit terrorist actions. While they might not support it, they end up supporting it by not condemning the actions of those whom do.

While it's not the same seriousness, it is the same concept. The Right Wing has this "team" issue that allows morons like Michelle Bachmann to breed with in your ranks like wildfire.

Her remarks are clearly ridiculous but she is pandering to her narrow minded base. Meanwhile people like you and our other GFY Republicans may not agree with her, but you don't say anything about it. You just brush it off as if it means nothing.

This same brushing it off happens all the way up the line with-in the Republican party which empowers the lunatics to run amok. By saying nothing you are doing just as much wrong as those whom support her actions, because if people in her own party took a stand to ridiculous things like this being said, things like this would stop being said.

Much like if Muslims started standing up to the hate speech of their fringe elements, the fringe elements would start to die off..

i get it, you don't give a shit:

keep your head in the tar sands but keep your hand free so you can still point your finger at people.

i am more concerned with current events, not hi-5ing a bunch of libtards re: what an entirely irrelevant bachmann tweets or facebooks or wtfever it is y'all get boners about.

for the drunk clueless nitwit anti-americans who try to gotcha me over a link:

Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview

it's beyond fucking hilarious to me you fucking nitwits are trying dispute something that has been fact for 30+ fucking years.

State Sponsors: Iran - Council on Foreign Relations

Iran's supreme leader orders fresh terror attacks on West - Telegraph

State Department: Iran Supports Al Qaeda, Taliban | The Weekly Standard

'Iran's support for terrorism highest in decade' - International - Jerusalem Post

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Leb...cilitator.ashx

i could fuckign go on and on and on and on posting links.

fucking nitwits.

Then why argue in a topic, which is about the stupid shit she said?

again, i already explained that more than once. the op described the topic as the entire comment, i've posted my views on multiple angles of that, from the inappropriate analogy, the need for libtards to point their collective finger at a non-entity, as well as my thoughts on the primary part of the quote- her concern that this would lead to a nuclear event in North America.

along the way, i've had to deal with my legions of fans. :1orglaugh




i've contributed substantially to the topic,


you're fucking welcome.

I would say that a lot of the people that dynamo is listing who describe Iran as a "terrorist" state have a vested interest in war-mongering. They make a lot of money for their cronies in the defense contracting industry by making sure we always have a boogeyman that we need to spend so much money on for "defense". And that includes both Democrat and Republican bureaucrats.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't "dangerous" or whatever...but hell, who is more dangerous than the United States?
We actually invade other countries without them attacking us first. We actually USED nuclear weapons on people. We spy on everyone around the world (including our own citizens). And if our govt. gets it's way...we'll have our own version of the "Berlin Wall" across Mexico.

I got a feeling that most countries leaders are far more afraid of the United States than we are of them.

I mean...we spend more than the next ten countries combined on our military. And Iran is nowhere NEAR that league of countries.

And again...just how DO you pretend to be everybody's boss and "stop" them from building a nuclear bomb?
Science is science. This ain't 1945. And there are scientists in every developed country who KNOW how to make them.
Do we kill them all? Do we inject them with something that will erase their memory?

I'm not arguing. Just thinking out loud.

This is not what our country is SUPPOSED to be. We are supposed to be that "beacon of hope" to the world.
Now, if our bureaucrats can actually broker a deal that offers Iran enough incentive (by relaxing the sanctions we've had on them for decades) to not build a weapon...that's great!
But thinking that we are "allowing" them or any other sovereign nation to do anything they want it very egotistical.

the list of random links to news articles i cited re: iran sponsored terrorism that dates back 30+ years? you think random journalists have a vested interest in war-mongering?

or are you speaking to the list of advisors of 1 think tank that a couple of my fans are trying to use to gotcha me on?

either way, i usually don't disagree with you and i don't this time either. i see things some degree different from you and combined with your being able to not be disrespectful in debate, i find that is where good spirited debate lies, not with someone who is steadfastly opposed to me/views and can't think for themselves so they lash out and have lingering butthurt after i reply with authority.

i'm otr here stating that USA should step down from being leader of the western world and pass the baton to Canada, let's those knuckleheads see how hard the job is.

more importantly though, the USA has enemies and that's a fact. and iran is one of those. and their plans of ME domination are well-documented. that's an important enough reason for me to take this accord seriously and critique the living shit out of it.

regardless of what color the president is, red or blue.

I was just turning 18 years old when the Shah of Iran was deposed and the hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy.

Our govt. had propped up the Shah for decades against the will of the people. And then we gave him refuge when he fled the country.

When all of that happened, I was too young to realize that it was the Govt. in Washington D.C. that CAUSED all of that to happen in the first place by keeping a dictator in power.

Were those people in Iran PISSED at America? Hell yes. And with pretty damn good reason.

Having said that...they brokered a deal with nominee Reagan and released the hostages.

Turned out that despite what we've been told...they were reasonable and able to negotiate. (not like Isis with all the beheadings).

As for "state sponsored terrorism"...does that mean that they arm rebel armies and govt.'s that we don't "Like"?
Maybe so.

So I would guess that using that logic of our govt., WE would be a "state sponsored terrorism" country for arming Israel and other groups that THEY don't "Like".

Just sayin', it's a matter of perspective.

Gen. George Washington was a "terrorist" and a "traitor" to England.
To us, he's a hero and a patriot.

Agreed.

So you would do the right thing because Science says so. That's good. Why can't I do the right thing because Science says so, too? CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas, and too much greenhouse gas has proven to warm the planet, and too high an average temperature will cause a lot of changes for the earth, which has also been proven and is even visible. Science is science, truth is truth, and must apply to everyone.


Bingo. Everyone should think critically and seek the truth. You and I are in total agreement.



Loi, easy on the name-calling. You didn't read the post at all. I didn't mock the old lady. I said Rick Santorum "pussied out".

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Why are you taking something and turning it completely into something else just to forward your own opinions? Do you do this all the time and with everything?




Iran has achieved self-sufficiency in the construction of most of its solar power plants, wind farms, geothermal plants, dams, and so on, and they even take on contracts to build some of the same all across the region and even globally in some cases (recent projects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tajikistan, Armenia, Oman, and Nicaragua). Don't you know anything?

And also, you should really stop using the word "Nukes". This is language that Fox News would use when describing this scenario. What we're talking about are Nuclear reactors for energy, not nuclear bombs.

Here's the facts.

Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium to 3.67%. You can't make a bomb with this. They would have to enrich it to almost 90% to make a bomb.

Iran cuts centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104, with 5,060 for enrichment. If they were going to be sneaky and try to enrich uranium to the 90% they need to make a bomb, trying to do so with so few centrifuges would take forever, giving them plenty of time to get caught in the act before being able to attack someone with a bomb.

Iran to cut Uranium Stockpiles from 10,000kg to just 300kg (97%). By giving up all this material they cannot possibly create a nuclear bomb anyway.

Finally, with all of that above, IAEA will still inspect Iran?s nuclear facilities. The deal has severely crippled Iran's abilities to make a bomb, and if by some crazy miracle they did make one, the sanctions destroying their country now that are lifted under the deal would be instantly returned.

Dynamo for once in your life, turn off your ultra-paranoid republican hat, and start giving your president a little credit.

This is pretty much what I feel on the subject. The same people whom want us to go into Iran or don't like this deal are the same ones whom want us to send troops into Syria or Ukraine. It's always the same people beating the same war drums no matter whom the target is..

It's all about the billion dollar war industry and creating boogiemen to scare the masses into going along with it. What is worse is that same attitude has come to our own boarders with the building up of the current military police departments and the billion dollar war industry which now drives it as well.

look douchebag, i've spent the last 3 months debating you like an adult, a commitment i made to myself and made public here at teh gfy. your reply to that was for me to go back to fucking my mom. i honored my commitment to kyself regardless of your reply to it. and regardless of your continuing to categorize my 28,000+ posts in a negative light and regardless of your continually making shit personal.

i'm done with that.

priceless :1orglaugh

dumbfuck, you can do a fucking search and stick the results up your ass.

it's all on the fucking record here. the fact i have to point that out to you confirms yet again just how much of a dumbfuck you are.

want to be treated like an adult by me? then act like an adult toward me, otherwise you get treated like the fuckwad child you are.

i've proven in this thread i respond back to people in the same tone they have towards me. but you're too fucking stupid to even see that, let alone figure out you are posting about something you truly have no fucking clue about, i'm not surprised.

i tell ya what i'm going to do. since it's Easter and the topic is a nuke peace accord, i'll extend to you the same truce i offered ********** back in december, you stop with the personal bullshit, including the gotcha attempts and drive-by insults and i'll stop replying to it in kind. i won't be stopping if you don't, unlike what i decided to go forward on with **********, that was back when i gave him the benefit of the doubt of being an OK guy.


this isn't a framework, there are no late-night coffee talks, this is the deal.


it's entirely up to you.

and i'll even take the initiative

i apologize for my personal attacks on you directfiesta.

If you actually looked at the facts of the deal, you'd realize that the deal the US, Europe, Russia and China made with Iran massively reduces their nuclear capability.

:helpme

:1orglaugh

In other threads you have repeatedly posted in a vitriolic tone towards those you disagree with....even when the other person has not attacked you personally.

if you haven't figured out by now i have immersed myself in the "facts" of this deal there is nothing anyone can do to prove otherwise, especially me.

nevertheless, the "facts" you are referring to are spun from the WH and to be perfectly blunt with you, are not "facts".

you are more than welcome to buy the WH version, i couldn't give 1 single shit.

you are not good at english. again, i didn't call ANYONE a name, i called a group a name.

dumbfuck.



that's me calling you a name, dumbfuck. fyi.

bull fucking shit.

prove it.

it's people like you who fail to realize we are on a board called gofuckyourself, yet you get your panties twisted up when someone writes the word fuck.

not to mention you completely waxed over my attempt to make peace with one of my trolls, just a couple posts above your bullshit and i've treated everyone different in this thread, like i do every thread.