(01-07-2020 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This morning I heard an interview with Peter Mansoor, a professor at Ohio State and retired US Army Colonel (and one-time aide to Petreaus), talking about the strike in Iran.

A point he made was that Soleimani definitely had the record to justify the strike, and that the US needed to act somehow, but that the strike itself was likely not a good idea and "a step too far."

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/07/794163542...d-them-out

OO, are you suggesting he is supporting chants of death to america?

Bump.

Was this not answered?

Nobody is directly supporting terrorism, except maybe Omar and Tlaib.

But when you support letting Iran develop the bomb, what are you supporting? Supporting the Obama deal with Iran is just that.

(01-07-2020 05:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 05:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Imagined slurs? You clearly believe I am "inadvertently" supporting terrorists. If it is inadvertent, then you are suggesting that I am just too stupid to realize what I am doing. If I am supporting terrorists on purpose and you are just trying to be PC by calling it inadvertent, then you are calling me a traitor. I don't understand how else to take your comment and follow-up explanations.


I think your reading/description of the situation is way to black & white. Easy example - North Korea has good relationships with China, India, and Russia. Following your logic, all 3 of those countries should be our enemies. But I think our relationship with China is better described as competitors (rather than enemies) and we have a pretty good relationship with India that is being tested lately. I'm OK saying Russia is close to being an enemy at this point, though they are an enemy we need to talk to and work with, not fight.

This post is astonishing. In one part, you tell me that my statement means either you are stupid or a terrorist. No other explanations apply. Then, in the next breath, you tell me I am too black and white. Ever seen a mirror? On top of that, all the stuff about Siths, when you are saying there are absolutely only two, extreme, interpretations.

I would attribute it to being a lawyer, but we have two other lawyers here, and they generally make sense,

I think you are just so determined to be offended, you have to take these little detours.

Well, I must go, perhaps for the day.

Have a good one.

If you provide me an explanation for you calling me an inadvertent terrorist sympathizer that I should not be offended by, I am happy to hear it. I could only come up with a couple explanations and I found them all equally offensive, just for different reasons. It wasn't a situation of black/white sith thinking (by the way I didn't make any sith references, that was Lad). I brainstormed and provided the only options that made sense. I'm happy to listen to other explanations. Stupid and traitor aren't opposite sides of a spectrum with a lot in between, so your sith comment doesn't really make sense. If anything, they are two bad but different things on the same end of the spectrum.

I'm not determined to be offended. I have a 14-year-old son who has called me almost everything in the book, although he hasn't called me a terrorist sympathizer (yet). I have thick skin. I do counsel against being intentionally offensive and I believe calling someone a terrorist sympathizer was intentionally offensive and factually incorrect.

Thanks, I do plan to have a good one. The plumber fixed my downstairs toilet this morning, the kids were on time to school, work is a little slow today, the sun is shining brightly, and my wife is cooking steak tonight!

I hope you have a great day as well!

Maybe you are just determined to misinterpret what I said. I have explained it several times and see no use in doing it again. Tired of repeating myself to deaf ears. It’s all there in the record. Go back and read it again.

What if, hear me out, you're not explaining yourself as well as you think?

It seems like you think I'm misinterpreting you in another thread as well.

That is certainly possible.

Or maybe you just are not understanding me.

(01-07-2020 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This morning I heard an interview with Peter Mansoor, a professor at Ohio State and retired US Army Colonel (and one-time aide to Petreaus), talking about the strike in Iran.

A point he made was that Soleimani definitely had the record to justify the strike, and that the US needed to act somehow, but that the strike itself was likely not a good idea and "a step too far."

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/07/794163542...d-them-out

OO, are you suggesting he is supporting chants of death to america?

Bump.

Was this not answered?

Nobody is directly supporting terrorism, except maybe Omar and Tlaib.

But when you support letting Iran develop the bomb, what are you supporting? Supporting the Obama deal with Iran is just that.

So he is not indirectly supporting terrorism?

That was your line here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16591950

(01-07-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe you are just determined to misinterpret what I said. I have explained it several times and see no use in doing it again. Tired of repeating myself to deaf ears. It’s all there in the record. Go back and read it again.

Ok, here is everything I could find:

(01-07-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump.

(01-05-2020 09:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2020 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who are the “people here” that you’re referring to?

The ones who oppose strong action against terrorists. (Don’t hurt them, don’t capture them, don’t hold them, you might make them mad)

The ones who support the Iranian nuclear deal.

The ones who would prefer to see a softer, more apologetic approach to Mid East relations - more Obama like, lessTrump like. (Please stop what you doing, we will give you money.)

If none of this applies to anybody here, then I am not referring to them.

(01-05-2020 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2020 10:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you're literally equating having a different approach to foreign policy to directly supporting people shouting death to America?

Indirectly.

(01-06-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody opposes getting out of the Iran Permission Deal, then IMO they are supporting terrorists. If they oppose it just because Trump does it, even worse. Same with a lot of Trump’s antiterrorist policies and actions. Sometimes opposing Trump means favoring terrorists. Face it.

(01-06-2020 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don’t think you are a direct terrorist sympathizer. You are not sending money to Hamas. But I think you support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists, by supporting certain Dem policies and actions.

So I actually made a couple errors.

First, you said we were supporting terrorists. I was the first one to use the word "sympathizer." To me, they are essentially the same thing and equally offensive.

Second, and more significantly to me, you wrote "indirectly" and I somehow morphed it into "inadvertently". I'm less offended by "indirectly", even though it is an entirely BS argument IMO. So my bad on that.

Here's the thing (and feel free to correct me if I am mischaracterizing your beliefs).

You believe that not being aggressive enough with terrorists equals appeasement. Appeasement leads to emboldened terrorists who engage in more attacks on USA citizens and USA interests. You think the policies I support are not sufficiently aggressive and therefore I indirectly support terrorists.

I believe that being aggressive in the wrong, non-strategic ways enrages people who aren't terrorists. This makes it easier for terrorists to recruit more terrorists which leads to more attacks on USA citizens and USA interests. I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists. Note that I am not at all against all aggressive acts (and neither was Obama or almost any other Democrat/liberal/progressive). Just ones that I think do more harm to the USA cause then good.

The key difference - I don't call you a terrorist supporter while you call me a terrorist supporter "indirectly". I believe the result of your policies helps terrorists and you believe the result of my policies helps terrorists. But I know that is not the intent of your policies so I would never call you a terrorist supporter, directly or indirectly. I think that would be offensive because that is obviously not where you are coming from. You don't seem to have the same qualms about calling me a terrorist supporter, which I think is a if we are going to have intelligent or productive discourse. It sidetracks us from the substantive issues.

“I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

(01-07-2020 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

WOOSH

(01-07-2020 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

WOOSH

That’s what I said about the people who support appeasement, and y’all took it as calling y’all terrorist supporters.

Same difference.

(01-07-2020 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But when you support letting Iran develop the bomb, what are you supporting? Supporting the Obama deal with Iran is just that.

Back to the BBC article. I have left out some of the positive (for the USA) aspects to avoid quoting the whole article. The Iran Deal did the following to reduce Iran's capability and capacity to develop a nuclear bomb:

Eliminate ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade for 10 years:

Quote:Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.

Quote:It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Quote:In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 10 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.

Reduce Iran's uranium stockpile for 15 years:

Quote:Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Eliminate capacity to enrich plutonium for 15 years:

Quote:Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.

World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.

Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.

Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.

Enhanced inspections for 15 years:

Quote:Inspectors from the [IAEA], ... continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.

Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.

Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.

How do these restrictions from the Iran deal "support letting Iran develop the bomb"? From what I can tell, so long as Iran complies with the agreement, this eliminates Iran's ability to "develop the bomb" for 15 years, which is plenty of time for:
(1) Additional agreements to improve the Iran Deal;
(2) The anti-government protests in Iran to topple the current regime and allow an educated Iranian with western ties like say Arsalan Kazemi to become the leader in Iran; or
(3) Iran to break the deal and go back to square 1, only with the rest of the world on the USA's side instead of against the USA.

Instead Trump pulls out and Iran can start developing the bomb immediately without an international community that will enforce those restrictions.

(01-07-2020 05:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But when you support letting Iran develop the bomb, what are you supporting? Supporting the Obama deal with Iran is just that.

Back to the BBC article. I have left out some of the positive (for the USA) aspects to avoid quoting the whole article. The Iran Deal did the following to reduce Iran's capability and capacity to develop a nuclear bomb:

Eliminate ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade for 10 years:

Quote:Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.

Quote:It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Quote:In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 10 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.

Reduce Iran's uranium stockpile for 15 years:

Quote:Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Eliminate capacity to enrich plutonium for 15 years:

Quote:Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.

World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.

Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.

Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.

Enhanced inspections for 15 years:

Quote:Inspectors from the [IAEA], ... continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.

Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.

Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.

How do these restrictions from the Iran deal "support letting Iran develop the bomb"? From what I can tell, so long as Iran complies with the agreement, this eliminates Iran's ability to "develop the bomb" for 15 years, which is plenty of time for:
(1) Additional agreements to improve the Iran Deal;
(2) The anti-government protests in Iran to topple the current regime and allow an educated Iranian with western ties like say Arsalan Kazemi to become the leader in Iran; or
(3) Iran to break the deal and go back to square 1, only with the rest of the world on the USA's side instead of against the USA.

“Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.”

Yeah, great. Phone ahead 24 days. No surprise inspections. Kind of like giving a prisoner on house arrest notice of when the parole officer will drop 8n.

Anyway you twist this, it is begging for Iran to join North Korea as a nuclear power. I don’t like giving that to people who chant Death to America. Seems like you do. Something that pleases both Iran and Big. Hmm.

(01-07-2020 05:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

WOOSH

That’s what I said about the people who support appeasement, and y’all took it as calling y’all terrorist supporters.

Same difference.

OK, this is getting silly. You literally called us, and I quoted you a few posts before this which is why it is silly, "on the side of" the people chanting "Death to America" and "favoring terrorists" and said we are indirectly "supporting terrorists" and "support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists". Those are your actual words that I'm quoting. How do you write those things and then come out of it suggesting that you didn't call us terrorist supporters?

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

WOOSH

That’s what I said about the people who support appeasement, and y’all took it as calling y’all terrorist supporters.

Same difference.

OK, this is getting silly. You literally called us, and I quoted you a few posts before this which is why it is silly, "on the side of" the people chanting "Death to America" and "favoring terrorists" and said we are indirectly "supporting terrorists" and "support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists". Those are your actual words that I'm quoting. How do you write those things and then come out of it suggesting that you didn't call us terrorist supporters?

And your statement I quoted is different...how?

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.”

Yeah, great. Phone ahead 24 days. No surprise inspections. Kind of like giving a prisoner on house arrest notice of when the parole officer will drop 8n.

I agree, it isn't ideal. Explain to me how inspections were better before the Iran deal or better after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal. I don't think they were, but if I'm misunderstanding or not educated on the subject, educate me. I love facts.

From my understanding, the 24-day inspection is better than what is in place today after Trump's decision to pull out of the deal and better than what was in place before the deal. The USA has all kinds of detailed satellite imagery so if Iran tries to move stuff around 24 days before an inspection it will be obvious. And usually radioactive material leaves a trace so it isn't like an easter egg that can be just moved away and no one knows where it originally started out.

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anyway you twist this, it is begging for Iran to join North Korea as a nuclear power. I don’t like giving that to people who chant Death to America. Seems like you do. Something that pleases both Iran and Big. Hmm.

Not everyone in Iran was chanting Death to America. When the deal was in place and before Trump took out Soleimani, very few of them were doing so. In fact, the week before Trump decided to kill Soleimani (BBC again) Iranians were taking to the streets chanting "not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran" and "leave Syria, think about us". So literally 1 week before masses of Iranians were in the streets chanting Death to America, masses of Iranians were protesting their own government to stop supporting terrorists in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria!

(11-22-2019 06:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have been told I am intentionally obtuse. Probably so.

(01-07-2020 06:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 06:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have been told I am intentionally obtuse. Probably so.

It is the best way to get people to explains themselves.

(01-07-2020 05:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

OK, this is getting silly. You literally called us, and I quoted you a few posts before this which is why it is silly, "on the side of" the people chanting "Death to America" and "favoring terrorists" and said we are indirectly "supporting terrorists" and "support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists". Those are your actual words that I'm quoting. How do you write those things and then come out of it suggesting that you didn't call us terrorist supporters?

And your statement I quoted is different...how?

I was explaining that I wouldn't make such a statement about you, so my statement was only by way of explanation. I was explaining how your approach was different from mine. You actually made those statements about me.

Honestly, I don't get you. I also don't get why I keep trying to engage with you on this stuff. Lad probably asks himself the same question after going down the rabbit hole with you.

(01-07-2020 06:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.”

Yeah, great. Phone ahead 24 days. No surprise inspections. Kind of like giving a prisoner on house arrest notice of when the parole officer will drop 8n.

I agree, it isn't ideal. Explain to me how inspections were better before the Iran deal or better after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal. I don't think they were, but if I'm misunderstanding or not educated on the subject, educate me. I love facts.

From my understanding, the 24-day inspection is better than what is in place today after Trump's decision to pull out of the deal and better than what was in place before the deal. The USA has all kinds of detailed satellite imagery so if Iran tries to move stuff around 24 days before an inspection it will be obvious. And usually radioactive material leaves a trace so it isn't like an easter egg that can be just moved away and no one knows where it originally started out.

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anyway you twist this, it is begging for Iran to join North Korea as a nuclear power. I don’t like giving that to people who chant Death to America. Seems like you do. Something that pleases both Iran and Big. Hmm.

Not everyone in Iran was chanting Death to America. When the deal was in place and before Trump took out Soleimani, very few of them were doing so. In fact, the week before Trump decided to kill Soleimani (BBC again) Iranians were taking to the streets chanting "not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran" and "leave Syria, think about us". So literally 1 week before masses of Iranians were in the streets chanting Death to America, masses of Iranians were protesting their own government to stop supporting terrorists in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria!

Oh my goodness, you mean we had peace in our time in the Mideast and made them mad?

Well, in that case, we need to apologize again. All those peaceful Iranians and we insulted them? No wonder they want to kill us.

We need to let them operate without interference so they can become our ally in the war on Israel.

What happens if you cannot make new deals and they have the bomb?

Got to tell you, all this interaction with Lad, Big, and Founty is really making me more convinced we cannot have a liberal led government in DC. Misguided idealism combined with selective deafness is not a great model.

Still waiting to hear about the “only” from Lad.

(01-07-2020 06:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “I think the policies you support are not strategic enough and therefore the policies you support indirectly support terrorists”.

I guess this means you are calling me a terrorist supporter.

OK, this is getting silly. You literally called us, and I quoted you a few posts before this which is why it is silly, "on the side of" the people chanting "Death to America" and "favoring terrorists" and said we are indirectly "supporting terrorists" and "support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists". Those are your actual words that I'm quoting. How do you write those things and then come out of it suggesting that you didn't call us terrorist supporters?

And your statement I quoted is different...how?

I was explaining that I wouldn't make such a statement about you, so my statement was only by way of explanation. I was explaining how your approach was different from mine. You actually made those statements about me.

Honestly, I don't get you. I also don't get why I keep trying to engage with you on this stuff. Lad probably asks himself the same question after going down the rabbit hole with you.

I know I am asking myself that since going down the rabbit hole with the two of you.

I am as tired of this as you are, I think. If I say that Iran is our friend, can we stop?

(01-07-2020 05:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But when you support letting Iran develop the bomb, what are you supporting? Supporting the Obama deal with Iran is just that.

Back to the BBC article. I have left out some of the positive (for the USA) aspects to avoid quoting the whole article. The Iran Deal did the following to reduce Iran's capability and capacity to develop a nuclear bomb:

Eliminate ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade for 10 years:

Quote:Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.

Quote:It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Quote:In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 10 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.

Reduce Iran's uranium stockpile for 15 years:

Quote:Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Eliminate capacity to enrich plutonium for 15 years:

Quote:Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.

World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.

Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.

Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.

Enhanced inspections for 15 years:

Quote:Inspectors from the [IAEA], ... continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.

Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.

Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.

How do these restrictions from the Iran deal "support letting Iran develop the bomb"? From what I can tell, so long as Iran complies with the agreement, this eliminates Iran's ability to "develop the bomb" for 15 years, which is plenty of time for:
(1) Additional agreements to improve the Iran Deal;
(2) The anti-government protests in Iran to topple the current regime and allow an educated Iranian with western ties like say Arsalan Kazemi to become the leader in Iran; or
(3) Iran to break the deal and go back to square 1, only with the rest of the world on the USA's side instead of against the USA.

Instead Trump pulls out and Iran can start developing the bomb immediately without an international community that will enforce those restrictions.

It kind of simply overlooks the issue that Israel seems convinced of, that is an 'off the books' nuclear program.

I have actually lost count of the sites Israel exposed through its commando raid on the files in Iran post 2015.

Again, this goes back to OOs point -- we got a piece of paper. A piece of paper that seems to have been fairly well blown off by the Iranian government.

Linky poo to decent article on the problems with the deal, and the Israeli exposures

(01-07-2020 06:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Got to tell you, all this interaction with Lad, Big, and Founty is really making me more convinced we cannot have a liberal led government in DC. Misguided idealism combined with selective deafness is not a great model.

Still waiting to hear about the “only” from Lad.

I’m still waiting for you to actually respond to the former colonel’s quote...

Also, not sure what “only” you’re talking about.