Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, K-9 said: You are going down rabbit holes I have no interest in. With full respect, those aren't rabbit holes. Those are facts and direct contributing factors to how and why the deal came together. They were criminally under reported while the deal was going down because the administration was leaning on reporters to keep it quiet. Ignoring their reality only makes it more difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the merits of the deal. 9 minutes ago, K-9 said: You are simply wrong about not curbing Iran's ability to develop nukes. There are no sunset provisions on the prohibition to build weapons. Sure, they can always renege as scumbag leaders have in the past. But their commitments, what they've signed on to, clearly prohibit them from building weapons. And yet... Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped. That's not supposed to be possible based on the language of the deal and how it was sold to the world. (My intent is not to say you're comparing the entire DPRK deal to the Iran deal... my intent is to show you that holding the Iran deal up as a goal or benchmark to reach is a very very low bar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Five days. This doesn't happen unless this program was never shut down. And it wasn't. Because the Iran "nuclear deal" did nothing to stop their nuclear ambitions. Certainly not in perpetuity. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-weapons-uranium-enrichment-five-days-donald-trump-us-deal-a7906276.html Then they will be in violation, the agreement will be voided, sanctions reinstated on the regime, and the threat of military action becomes a reality for them. But if you REALLY want to get down to the essence of it, NOTHING ANY COUNTRY SIGNS UP TO IS WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON. That's the unfortunate bottom line when it comes to geopolitics as we've seen countless times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Let's not forget one important difference between Iran and DPRK: Iran's a non-profliferation issue. DPRK's a disarmament issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: With full respect, those aren't rabbit holes. Those are facts and direct contributing factors to how and why the deal came together. They were criminally under reported while the deal was going down because the administration was leaning on reporters to keep it quiet. Ignoring their reality only makes it more difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the merits of the deal. And yet... Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped. That's not supposed to be possible based on the language of the deal and how it was sold to the world. (My intent is not to say you're comparing the entire DPRK deal to the Iran deal... my intent is to show you that holding the Iran deal up as a goal or benchmark to reach is a very very low bar) No, they are rabbit holes as they have nothing to do with the precise language in the agreement they signed up to. And that's all I'm willing to argue vis a vis Iran and North Korea. I'd be happy if N Korea made the same commitments on paper and joined up for the same. And I'll just let it go at that. Just now, DC Tom said: Let's not forget one important difference between Iran and DPRK: Iran's a non-profliferation issue. DPRK's a disarmament issue. Great point. But I'd still like to see them commit to a non-proliferation treaty all the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, K-9 said: Then they will be in violation, the agreement will be voided, sanctions reinstated on the regime, and the threat of military action becomes a reality for them. But if you REALLY want to get down to the essence of it, NOTHING ANY COUNTRY SIGNS UP TO IS WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON. That's the unfortunate bottom line when it comes to geopolitics as we've seen countless times. I'm really not trying to argue or annoy you (hope you know that), just having a conversation about a very misunderstood and highly charged topic. But if they can do that in five days, they ARE in violation, and have been since the deal was signed. So what does that say about how much the deal was really worth? In the end all it amounted to was 200 billion dollars in the Mullah's pockets, a poorer Iranian population, more dead Americans in the ME, and gave Hezbollah a foothold inside the United States to run drugs and humans. That's the reality of what the Iran deal accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: With full respect, those aren't rabbit holes. Those are facts and direct contributing factors to how and why the deal came together. They were criminally under reported while the deal was going down because the administration was leaning on reporters to keep it quiet. Ignoring their reality only makes it more difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the merits of the deal. And yet... Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped. That's not supposed to be possible based on the language of the deal and how it was sold to the world. (My intent is not to say you're comparing the entire DPRK deal to the Iran deal... my intent is to show you that holding the Iran deal up as a goal or benchmark to reach is a very very low bar) I'd add that we should all take a course in bloviation and empty rhetoric. N Korea threatened to burn the USA to ashes. And they HAVE nukes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, K-9 said: No, they are rabbit holes as they have nothing to do with the precise language in the agreement they signed up to. They do though, K-9. These things were done to bring Iran to the table. Obama exposed Stuxnet as quid-pro-quo. Obama called off the DOJ in Operation Cassandra because he feared it would anger the Mullahs and make them leave the negotiating table. You don't get any deal, let alone the precise language, without the above events taking place. They were integral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, K-9 said: I'd add that we should all take a course in bloviation and empty rhetoric. N Korea threatened to burn the USA to ashes. And they HAVE nukes! But no way to reliably deliver them. Unless they do it by boat. Or truck. Hell, even having a school of albacore tow a nuclear warhead to the West Coast would be more reliable than North Korean rockets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, K-9 said: I'd add that we should all take a course in bloviation and empty rhetoric. N Korea threatened to burn the USA to ashes. And they HAVE nukes! They have threatened indeed. Iran has as well. But unlike the DPRK in the 21st century, Iran's taken hostile action against American forces and civilians alike. That should be factored in if we're comparing the two (which really isn't my intent/point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: But no way to reliably deliver them. Unless they do it by boat. Or truck. Hell, even having a school of albacore tow a nuclear warhead to the West Coast would be more reliable than North Korean rockets. Another good point. Hell, the safest place to be when he threatened Guam was Guam itself. Which is why I never took his bloviating seriously. But he can do extensive damage to the peninsula in the meantime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 54 minutes ago, K-9 said: Hell, the safest place to be when he threatened Guam was Guam itself. That was my line... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: That was my line... What's your opinion of this whole Trump-Kim summit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 It can be found on page one of the thread, Gator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: It can be found on page one of the thread, Gator. We have learned a lot since then, Der Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: It can be found on page one of the thread, Gator. No it can't. You're intentionally lying again. @DC Tom opines on how the media will react to the summit but has yet to state his opinion on the summit itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 On 6/11/2018 at 4:30 PM, DC Tom said: I predict that, whatever happens, Trump gets no credit and all blame. Sorry, Gary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Sorry, Gary. Indeed. He gave his opinion on how others will react instead of his opinion on the summit. What a shock. Hey, look! DC Idiot even admits it On 6/11/2018 at 8:25 PM, peace out said: I also predict DC Tom complains more about the media's coverage of the summit than he discusses the summit itself. On 6/11/2018 at 8:55 PM, DC Tom said: The summit's two guys over a couple hours. The media coverage is a boatload of idiots over a couple of weeks. There's simply more to discuss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 So... in other words, I was correct and not "lying". Here's a chance to prove what you said earlier about not being afraid to admit you were wrong... Let's see if you live up to your own words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: So... in other words, I was correct and not "lying". Here's a chance to prove what you said earlier about not being afraid to admit you were wrong... Let's see if you live up to your own words. I still can't find his opinion on the Trump Kim summit. I found his opinion on the reaction to the summit but that's it. Continue your gaslighting, Doofus Rhino. Keep it up so everyone can see the idiot you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, peace out said: I still can't find his opinion on the Trump Kim summit. I found his opinion on the reaction to the summit but that's it. Continue your gaslighting, Doofus Rhino. Keep it up so everyone can see the idiot you are. Yeah. I'm the one being exposed with this exchange Tom made his opinion quite clear - on page one. And reinforced it in conversation since. You're trying to split hairs just to call me a liar. It's a bad look on you, but completely expected since you refuse to engage on any level of honesty on ANY topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts