• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 06:06
CET 11:06
KST 19:06
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL21] Ro24 Preview Pt1: New Chaos0Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - Presented by Monster Energy7ByuL: The Forgotten Master of ZvT30Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book20Clem wins HomeStory Cup 289
Community News
Weekly Cups (March 16-22): herO doubles, Cure surprises3Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool48Weekly Cups (March 9-15): herO, Clem, ByuN win42026 KungFu Cup Announcement6BGE Stara Zagora 2026 cancelled12
StarCraft 2
General
https://www.facebook.com/Silen.Sense.Calm.Ears.Ire What mix of new & old maps do you want in the next ladder pool? (SC2) Potential Updates Coming to the SC2 CN Server Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book herO wins SC2 All-Star Invitational
Tourneys
RSL Season 4 announced for March-April StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament World University TeamLeague (500$+) | Signups Open
Strategy
Custom Maps
[M] (2) Frigid Storage Publishing has been re-enabled! [Feb 24th 2026]
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 518 Radiation Zone Mutation # 517 Distant Threat Mutation # 516 Specter of Death
Brood War
General
KK Platform will provide 1 million CNY Recent recommended BW games ASL21 General Discussion Gypsy to Korea RepMastered™: replay sharing and analyzer site
Tourneys
[ASL21] Ro24 Group B [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2026 Changsha Offline Cup [ASL21] Ro24 Group A
Strategy
What's the deal with APM & what's its true value Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Darkest Dungeon General RTS Discussion Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
G2 just beat GenG in First stand
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Which is better SEO or PPC? [Manga] One Piece [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Cricket [SPORT] Formula 1 Discussion Tokyo Olympics 2021 Thread General nutrition recommendations
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
[G] How to Block Livestream Ads
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Money Laundering In Video Ga…
TrAiDoS
Iranian anarchists: organize…
XenOsky
FS++
Kraekkling
Shocked by a laser…
Spydermine0240
ASL S21 English Commentary…
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 6467 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5241

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5239 5240 5241 5242 5243 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
September 28 2016 16:48 GMT
#104801
On September 29 2016 01:44 biology]major wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:26 stilt wrote:
On September 27 2016 21:44 farvacola wrote:
On September 27 2016 21:41 zeo wrote:
On September 27 2016 21:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Taking credit for Obama's birth certificate and doubling down on stop and frisk is what surprised me the most. It makes no sense. He did really, really poorly last night. I am now convinced that he's actually this person. If he was actually well calculated, he would have appeared as normal as possible. I think from here, support crystallizes and Clinton sweeps.

Clinton taking full responsibility for emails and saying she wouldn't do it again just makes any more questions besting a dead horse. What a relief.

She should be in jail then.

You're welcome to send a letter to the Department of Justice so that they can be made aware of their mistake.


Justice is only available for the weak.
But thanks to remind us the total impudence of the elite.

Justice is only a option for the weak????? So the strong don't get justice????

Being responsible for a mistake doesn't make it criminal.


You guys are very distrusting of the government when it comes to lack of prosecution of police officers because of bias or corruption in the system, but very quick to agree with an FBI director who's boss and who's future boss are relevant to his recommendation to or not to prosecute, all under extremely suspect and unique circumstances.

Its almost like we take every case in context and base our decisions around the amount of information we have. In the case of the Clinton emails, the information is overwhelming and the FBI director made a pretty good case why nothing that happened would have risen to criminal charges.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
September 28 2016 16:49 GMT
#104802
Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United States13779 Posts
September 28 2016 16:50 GMT
#104803
On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess.

Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time."


It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI

Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.

Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.


I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence.


I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.

Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.

The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
biology]major
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2253 Posts
September 28 2016 16:51 GMT
#104804
On September 29 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:44 biology]major wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:26 stilt wrote:
On September 27 2016 21:44 farvacola wrote:
On September 27 2016 21:41 zeo wrote:
On September 27 2016 21:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Taking credit for Obama's birth certificate and doubling down on stop and frisk is what surprised me the most. It makes no sense. He did really, really poorly last night. I am now convinced that he's actually this person. If he was actually well calculated, he would have appeared as normal as possible. I think from here, support crystallizes and Clinton sweeps.

Clinton taking full responsibility for emails and saying she wouldn't do it again just makes any more questions besting a dead horse. What a relief.

She should be in jail then.

You're welcome to send a letter to the Department of Justice so that they can be made aware of their mistake.


Justice is only available for the weak.
But thanks to remind us the total impudence of the elite.

Justice is only a option for the weak????? So the strong don't get justice????

Being responsible for a mistake doesn't make it criminal.


You guys are very distrusting of the government when it comes to lack of prosecution of police officers because of bias or corruption in the system, but very quick to agree with an FBI director who's boss and who's future boss are relevant to his recommendation to or not to prosecute, all under extremely suspect and unique circumstances.

Its almost like we take every case in context and base our decisions around the amount of information we have. In the case of the Clinton emails, the information is overwhelming and the FBI director made a pretty good case why nothing that happened would have risen to criminal charges.


I doubt that, the bias is real from both sides and the goggles are always on regardless of how immune you think you are. We also learned one persons immunity should be revoked because they lied to the FBI after receiving immunity, so will that fall through?
Question.?
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15742 Posts
September 28 2016 16:51 GMT
#104805
On September 29 2016 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm.


Polls with an easy registration process are often brigaded if they are popular enough.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United States13779 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-28 16:54:08
September 28 2016 16:51 GMT
#104806
On September 29 2016 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm.

Every poll ever on Clinton vs. Trump has started with a huge Clinton lead, then edged somewhat more towards Trump. I dunno, maybe all Trump supporters are night owls?
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15742 Posts
September 28 2016 16:52 GMT
#104807
On September 29 2016 01:50 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess.

Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time."


It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI

Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.

Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.


I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence.


I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.

Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.

The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.


If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
September 28 2016 16:53 GMT
#104808
On September 29 2016 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
Curious why the Trump's been edging up in the stickied poll. Hmm.


Polls with an easy registration process are often brigaded if they are popular enough.


It's okay, I take solace in this:

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United States13779 Posts
September 28 2016 16:53 GMT
#104809
On September 29 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess.

Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time."


It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI

Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.

Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.

Being an attorney only proves you passed the BAR and didn't get your license taken away. We had an attorney challenge a part of our case recently because we "couldn't prove the mail was delivered by the US post office". He wanted us to prove something was mailed and that we couldn't satisfy the "chain of evidence" as used in criminal cases. About half way through the argument the judge figured out he was talking about a chain of evidence for mail, the lost his shit and told the entire the entire legal system could break down if we couldn't trust mail was delivered.

The same attorney is trying the argument again in front of another court. He thinks he has a winner.

Many of the member of congress remind me of this attorney. They have a law degree, but have not felt the pain of being wrong in a public setting and getting slapped for it.

They should know better. Doesn't mean they always will. Especially in a field that deals with ambiguities to the extent that law does. And I'd wager that Congressional lawyers are probably less effective on average than practicing lawyers.

Part of the reason why I question the "an expert said it to be so, therefore it is true" perspective that some people hold. Though if all the experts disagree with you, the experts are probably right.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United States13779 Posts
September 28 2016 16:57 GMT
#104810
On September 29 2016 01:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:50 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:44 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess.

Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time."


It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI

Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.

Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.


I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence.


I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.

Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.

The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.


If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision.

Think carefully about the long-term effects of the strategy you propose. If that doesn't scream "race to the bottom" I don't know what does.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
September 28 2016 16:59 GMT
#104811
On September 29 2016 01:10 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:03 On_Slaught wrote:
A picture taken from cell phone footage of the San Diego shooting clearly shows it was a justified shooting. Shouldn't be surprised that bystanders lied when they said he was shot with his hands in the air. Probably won't stop the protesters either. Would link it but on phone.

Npr has the picture.

technical note: they may not have lied, but simply been mistaken. There's ample evidence that documents how terribly unreliable eyewitness accounts are.


If we wanted to follow evidence, eyewitness testimony shouldn't be allowed in court, period. Eyewitness testimony has been shown by a slew of psychological research to be horrifically unreliable.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
oBlade
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States5963 Posts
September 28 2016 17:00 GMT
#104812
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 28 2016 15:41 oBlade wrote:
On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote:
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?

Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to.

2003:
GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation.

2000s:
Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions.

2010s:
The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon.

At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop.

With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Drumpf, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught.

In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community.

Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant.

Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal.

It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong.

Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran".



TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us.


Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before?

No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it.

Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again.


Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule.

You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly?

There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.



uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk.

The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with.

The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone.

Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent is what led to trading knowledge and technology with North Korea, and together you're the two most likely countries to cause a nuclear war.

On the subject of introspection, ask yourself what role Pakistan had in helping the US hunt down Bin Laden.


STRAWMAN>>>><<<>>> Has nothing to do with nukes or Pakistan posing a danger ot anyone.

You don't know what a straw argument is.

On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
It takes 2 countries to cause nuclear war.+ Show Spoiler +
unless you are America
Pakistans proliferation was purely retaliatory. And yes the generals sold secrets and knowledge..... to Iran. Most of the credit for North Korea goes to China, they have a completely different tech to what we have. The base itself for the bombs are completely different.

China did not help North Korea or want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, just nonsense.

On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
What does that have to do with our own nukes being unsafe?

And as much as you might like to pat yourself on the back for taking out Bin Laden, what did that achieve exactly ? Some catharsis but thats about it. Bin Laden was a dying nobody at that point and that has proven to be the case since as is pretty evident.

So again, ask yourself why the noble country of Pakistan couldn't help with such a basic task as the manhunt for the most wanted man in the world, a pathetic has-been terrorist kingpin, taking refuge in their own territory.
"I read it. You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" - Andy Dufresne
TheDwf
Profile Joined November 2011
France19747 Posts
September 28 2016 17:01 GMT
#104813
On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-28 17:04:35
September 28 2016 17:04 GMT
#104814
On September 29 2016 02:01 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar.


I play a game called Trump or Markov. Typically the Markov chain generator is the more coherent one
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Rebs
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Pakistan10726 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-28 17:14:25
September 28 2016 17:06 GMT
#104815
On September 29 2016 02:00 oBlade wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
On September 28 2016 15:41 oBlade wrote:
On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote:
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?

Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to.

2003:
GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation.

2000s:
Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions.

2010s:
The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon.

At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop.

With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Drumpf, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught.

In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community.

Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant.

Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal.

It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong.

Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran".



TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us.


Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before?

No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it.

Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again.


Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule.

You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly?

There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.



uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk.

The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with.

The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone.

Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent is what led to trading knowledge and technology with North Korea, and together you're the two most likely countries to cause a nuclear war.

On the subject of introspection, ask yourself what role Pakistan had in helping the US hunt down Bin Laden.


STRAWMAN>>>><<<>>> Has nothing to do with nukes or Pakistan posing a danger ot anyone.

You don't know what a straw argument is.

Show nested quote +
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
It takes 2 countries to cause nuclear war.+ Show Spoiler +
unless you are America
Pakistans proliferation was purely retaliatory. And yes the generals sold secrets and knowledge..... to Iran. Most of the credit for North Korea goes to China, they have a completely different tech to what we have. The base itself for the bombs are completely different.

China did not help North Korea or want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, just nonsense.

Show nested quote +
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
What does that have to do with our own nukes being unsafe?

And as much as you might like to pat yourself on the back for taking out Bin Laden, what did that achieve exactly ? Some catharsis but thats about it. Bin Laden was a dying nobody at that point and that has proven to be the case since as is pretty evident.

So again, ask yourself why the noble country of Pakistan couldn't help with such a basic task as the manhunt for the most wanted man in the world, a pathetic has-been terrorist kingpin, taking refuge in their own territory.


They didnt care ... And yes China has been pretty involved with North Korea, its just as viable a possibility as the one we were accused of with limited proof.

As for OBL. They just didnt give a shit. There is nothing noble about any of this, lay of the platitudes.

They have their interests and their goals which are centered in what they feel best serve their national interest. They can be wrong or right. Just as much as US FP has been an unmitigated disaster since the cold war.

You keep attacking the moral question here but what im trying to explain to you here that you dont have any moral high ground to attack any country from let alone Pakistan so please drop it k ? And this is all strawmanning Im not saying Pakistan is noble or doesnt have issues or that its ok to let OBL hang around. Theres a reason I live in Canada.

So thanks for the condescending bullshit that is your conservative thinking but Ill pass.

The original issue was the claim that "Pakistan is the most danger country in the world.. because nukes"

Which is a load of bullshit and you know it. The only evidence you will ever find for this is populist right wing indian newspapers but then again a Drumpf supporter should be all about populist bullshit propaganda. Im done. You are wrong.

+ Show Spoiler +
(which we have our own equivalent off naturally but thats besides the point)

Thanks,
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
September 28 2016 17:13 GMT
#104816
Relationships and alliances with other nations are not zero sum equations. We take the good with the bad, just like them. If anyone thinks the people of Pakistan are super pumped about US drone strikes, think again.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
September 28 2016 17:16 GMT
#104817
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Alright, I'm done. I wanted to watch in case something good happened, but these are complete lightweights. They don't even research what they are talking about. Comey is constantly correcting them for being just so unbelievably wrong. What a sad, sad mess.

Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time."

it's annoying how much time-wasting there is in congressional hearings in general.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Luolis
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
Finland7161 Posts
September 28 2016 17:26 GMT
#104818
On September 29 2016 02:01 TheDwf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar.

Wait what, is this quote actually legit?O_o
pro cheese woman / Its never Sunny in Finland. Perkele / FinnishStarcraftTrivia
oBlade
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States5963 Posts
September 28 2016 17:27 GMT
#104819
On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 02:00 oBlade wrote:
On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
On September 28 2016 15:41 oBlade wrote:
On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:
On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to.

2003:
GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation.

2000s:
Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions.

2010s:
The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon.

At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop.

With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Drumpf, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught.

In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community.

Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant.

Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal.

It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong.

Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran".



TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us.


Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before?

No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it.

Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again.


Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule.

You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly?

There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.



uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk.

The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with.

The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone.

Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent is what led to trading knowledge and technology with North Korea, and together you're the two most likely countries to cause a nuclear war.

On the subject of introspection, ask yourself what role Pakistan had in helping the US hunt down Bin Laden.


STRAWMAN>>>><<<>>> Has nothing to do with nukes or Pakistan posing a danger ot anyone.

You don't know what a straw argument is.

On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
It takes 2 countries to cause nuclear war.+ Show Spoiler +
unless you are America
Pakistans proliferation was purely retaliatory. And yes the generals sold secrets and knowledge..... to Iran. Most of the credit for North Korea goes to China, they have a completely different tech to what we have. The base itself for the bombs are completely different.

China did not help North Korea or want nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, just nonsense.

On September 28 2016 23:16 Rebs wrote:
What does that have to do with our own nukes being unsafe?

And as much as you might like to pat yourself on the back for taking out Bin Laden, what did that achieve exactly ? Some catharsis but thats about it. Bin Laden was a dying nobody at that point and that has proven to be the case since as is pretty evident.

So again, ask yourself why the noble country of Pakistan couldn't help with such a basic task as the manhunt for the most wanted man in the world, a pathetic has-been terrorist kingpin, taking refuge in their own territory.


They didnt care ... And yes China has been pretty involved with North Korea, its just as viable a possibility as the one we were accused of with limited proof.

It's documented that Pakistan and North Korea were exchanging ballistic missile and nuclear tech. This sort of clandestine activity is common among countries like Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran as you pointed out. The last thing China wanted was a starving state with nuclear weapons right next to them which is evident by their changing foreign policy stance towards the DPRK now.

On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote:
As for OBL. They just didnt give a shit. There is nothing noble about any of this, lay of the platitutdes.

They didn't give a shit about Osama Bin Laden. Great answer.

On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote:
They have their interests and their goals. You keep attacking the moral question here but what im trying to explain to you here that you dont have any moral high ground to attack any country from let alone Pakistan so please drop it k ?

You can shit on the US ad nauseam but it's irrelevant. The US could annex Mexico tomorrow and sink South America the day after that. That would not erase the threat of regional nuclear war and Pakistani weapons falling into the wrong hands.

On September 29 2016 02:06 Rebs wrote:
The original issue was the claim that "Pakistan is the most danger country in the world.. because nukes" Which is a load of bullshit and you know it. The only evidence you will ever find for this is populist right wing indian newspapers but then again a Drumpf supporter should be all about populist bullshit propoganda.

This has nothing to do with the US election, I've said for a while allowing proliferation of nuclear weapons to Pakistan was the biggest mistake in modern times.
"I read it. You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" - Andy Dufresne
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
September 28 2016 17:28 GMT
#104820
On September 29 2016 02:26 Luolis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 29 2016 02:01 TheDwf wrote:
On September 29 2016 01:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Hahaha this reads like the stream of consciousness of your typical drunk guy at the local bar.

Wait what, is this quote actually legit?O_o

Yes. If you ever quote Trump, it becomes clear he doesn't finish sentences. Or thoughts.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Prev 1 5239 5240 5241 5242 5243 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RSL Revival
10:00
Season 4: Playoffs Day 3
Cure vs Zoun
herO vs Rogue
Tasteless310
CranKy Ducklings34
Rex15
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Tasteless 310
Rex 15
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4379
Killer 601
Hyun 388
Jaedong 379
Soma 372
Stork 275
actioN 209
Dewaltoss 135
EffOrt 116
Leta 80
[ Show more ]
sSak 56
Soulkey 44
Sharp 40
ZerO 35
scan(afreeca) 33
hero 32
sorry 30
Movie 19
Barracks 18
Hm[arnc] 18
NaDa 14
SilentControl 8
Dota 2
XaKoH 785
XcaliburYe112
canceldota110
febbydoto8
League of Legends
JimRising 454
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1250
Other Games
B2W.Neo696
singsing540
crisheroes261
Fuzer 142
mouzStarbuck117
Livibee88
RotterdaM75
ArmadaUGS14
ZerO(Twitch)5
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV82
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH291
• LUISG 33
• CranKy Ducklings SOOP2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• HappyZerGling128
Upcoming Events
Platinum Heroes Events
4h 54m
BSL
9h 54m
RSL Revival
23h 54m
ByuN vs Maru
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
WardiTV Team League
1d 1h
BSL
1d 8h
Replay Cast
1d 13h
Replay Cast
1d 22h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 23h
Light vs Calm
Royal vs Mind
Wardi Open
2 days
Monday Night Weeklies
2 days
[ Show More ]
OSC
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Rush vs PianO
Flash vs Speed
Replay Cast
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
BeSt vs Leta
Queen vs Jaedong
Replay Cast
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
WardiTV Winter 2026
Underdog Cup #3

Ongoing

BSL Season 22
CSL Elite League 2026
CSL Season 20: Qualifier 1
ASL Season 21
Acropolis #4 - TS6
2026 Changsha Offline CUP
StarCraft2 Community Team League 2026 Spring
RSL Revival: Season 4
Nations Cup 2026
NationLESS Cup
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual

Upcoming

CSL Season 20: Qualifier 2
CSL 2026 SPRING (S20)
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
CCT Season 3 Global Finals
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.