Iran agrees to preliminary nuclear deal

After the title of the thread the only thing left to be said is move over Neville, John Kerry and Barack HUSSEIN Obama have given new meaning to appeasement.

Quote of the day goes to Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.): “Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from Adolf Hitler"

What Liberals fail to comprehend is that they will get their asses bombed same as everyone else. The Manchild cannot protect them.

Can you tell me when North Korea bombed someone with a nuclear weapon please?

I seem to have missed that event.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:Can you tell me when North Korea bombed someone with a nuclear weapon please?

I seem to have missed that event.

*whispers* ahem. the thread is about Iran.

Skeptical wrote:
*whispers* ahem. the thread is about Iran.

Bear with me here, this does have a point when did North Korea attack someone with a nuclear weapon?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
*whispers* ahem. the thread is about Iran.

Bear with me here, this does have a point when did North Korea attack someone with a nuclear weapon?

Your story ... when did North Korea attack someone with a nuclear weapon.

Skeptical wrote:
Your story ... when did North Korea attack someone with a nuclear weapon.

Yes that is what I asked.

When did they attack someone with a nuclear weapon?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Your story ... when did North Korea attack someone with a nuclear weapon.

Yes that is what I asked.

When did they attack someone with a nuclear weapon?

I must be missing something here. What does NK have to do with a deal made with Iran?

nightlight88 wrote:
I must be missing something here.  What does NK have to do with a deal made with Iran?

The are viewed as very similar, both radical and crazy, yet NK has a nuclear weapon and Iran does not.

Why would it mean Iran would use one when NK as not?

Also why are we trying to stop people from getting alternative power means?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:
I must be missing something here.  What does NK have to do with a deal made with Iran?

The are viewed as very similar, both radical and crazy, yet NK has a nuclear weapon and Iran does not.

Why would it mean Iran would use one when NK as not?

Also why are we trying to stop people from getting alternative power means?

You can't be serious in that logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nightlight88 wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:
I must be missing something here.  What does NK have to do with a deal made with Iran?

The are viewed as very similar, both radical and crazy, yet NK has a nuclear weapon and Iran does not.

Why would it mean Iran would use one when NK as not?

Also why are we trying to stop people from getting alternative power means?

You can't be serious in that logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the strawman building liberal logic that allows them to dodge and weave from anything that doesn't fit their sick ideology. Same way that lying half black POS got elected by a bunch of overly medicated snowflakes.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:
I must be missing something here.  What does NK have to do with a deal made with Iran?

The are viewed as very similar, both radical and crazy, yet NK has a nuclear weapon and Iran does not.

Why would it mean Iran would use one when NK as not?

Also why are we trying to stop people from getting alternative power means?

1) With Iran sitting on one of the largest pools of oil in the world, they have more than enough oil and natural gas to fuel generators.

2) The Iranian nuclear program and clandestine enrichment program has already destabilized the Mideast. If When Iran develops a bomb, it will touch off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all seeking weapons.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
1) With Iran sitting on one of the largest pools of oil in the world, they have more than enough oil and natural gas to fuel generators.

You are right, but nuclear is a better and more viable alternative to oil and natural gas. It also would allow Iran to export both and make more money (IE prosperous) for everyone in the region with such large supplies available.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
2) The Iranian nuclear program and clandestine enrichment program has already destabilized the Mideast. If When Iran develops a bomb, it will touch off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all seeking weapons.

There is no evidence to support your straw man.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
1) With Iran sitting on one of the largest pools of oil in the world, they have more than enough oil and natural gas to fuel generators.

You are right, but nuclear is a better and more viable alternative to oil and natural gas. It also would allow Iran to export both and make more money (IE prosperous) for everyone in the region with such large supplies available.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
2) The Iranian nuclear program and clandestine enrichment program has already destabilized the Mideast. If When Iran develops a bomb, it will touch off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all seeking weapons.

There is no evidence to support your straw man.

Ummmmmm,

Since Nuke is so good, why aren't your liberal EPA brethren allowing any plants to be built? Oh I know, they want to invest in stupid scams like Solyndra and the like.

Are you prepared to give up 'oil' and 'coal' to make electricity and other types of energy?

Take a stand tree hugger!

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
1) With Iran sitting on one of the largest pools of oil in the world, they have more than enough oil and natural gas to fuel generators.

You are right, but nuclear is a better and more viable alternative to oil and natural gas. It also would allow Iran to export both and make more money (IE prosperous) for everyone in the region with such large supplies available.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
2) The Iranian nuclear program and clandestine enrichment program has already destabilized the Mideast. If When Iran develops a bomb, it will touch off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all seeking weapons.

There is no evidence to support your straw man.

This reeks of lying scumbag liberalism. I hope when the bomb goes off, you and your liberal comrades are within range.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
1) With Iran sitting on one of the largest pools of oil in the world, they have more than enough oil and natural gas to fuel generators.

You are right, but nuclear is a better and more viable alternative to oil and natural gas. It also would allow Iran to export both and make more money (IE prosperous) for everyone in the region with such large supplies available.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
2) The Iranian nuclear program and clandestine enrichment program has already destabilized the Mideast. If When Iran develops a bomb, it will touch off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all seeking weapons.

There is no evidence to support your straw man.

This reeks of lying scumbag liberalism. I hope when the bomb goes off, you and your liberal comrades are within range.

Here is my logic if I were ISIS:

FIrst of all since Obama is "giving us permission" to go nuke, my tarket would be someplace highly populatied to get maximum effect.  And since I wouldn't want retaliation I would hit liberal hot spots, such as NYC or SanFran.

Knowing that liberals would spend days, weeks, and years wondering why I hate the US, I could strike and not be molested in the least.  

Then, once they decide that the best way to stop my attacks would be to offer me a job in the White House, I would say, 'sure, I will take that job'.  Then I could plan my next strike.  Maybe Madison WI, another hotbed of liberalism and pussification.

Darth Cheney wrote:
This reeks of lying scumbag liberalism. I hope when the bomb goes off, you and your liberal comrades are within range.

You have no evidence that a country would use a nuclear bomb in modern times.

This is part of the problem that has continued since the 60s.

I hate to break it to you but the Cold War was completely faked.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:
This reeks of lying scumbag liberalism. I hope when the bomb goes off, you and your liberal comrades are within range.

You have no evidence that a country would use a nuclear bomb in modern times.

This is part of the problem that has continued since the 60s.

I hate to break it to you but the Cold War was completely faked.

DAYUM woman, you are completely braindead and clueless.

WHF are you coming up with these crazy statements??????? Morons-r-us????????????

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:
This reeks of lying scumbag liberalism. I hope when the bomb goes off, you and your liberal comrades are within range.

You have no evidence that a country would use a nuclear bomb in modern times.

This is part of the problem that has continued since the 60s.

I hate to break it to you but the Cold War was completely faked.

Next thing she will be telling us is the Holocaust never happened.

nightlight88 wrote:
DAYUM woman, you are completely braindead and clueless.

WHF are you coming up with these crazy statements???????  Morons-r-us????????????

No I'm not, feel free to read up on how much of it was a complete joke.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/index.htm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:
DAYUM woman, you are completely braindead and clueless.

WHF are you coming up with these crazy statements???????  Morons-r-us????????????

No I'm not, feel free to read up on how much of it was a complete joke.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/index.htm

Hindsight anyone?

Skeptical wrote:
Hindsight anyone?

There was plenty of information available to those who needed it to not cause the panic they did. They just didn't care and wanted more.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Hindsight anyone?

There was plenty of information available to those who needed it to not cause the panic they did. They just didn't care and wanted more.

Provide a link to an article from June 1965 saying the Cold War was completely faked.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:
DAYUM woman, you are completely braindead and clueless.

WHF are you coming up with these crazy statements???????  Morons-r-us????????????

No I'm not, feel free to read up on how much of it was a complete joke.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/index.htm

Nuclear Vault? Is that anything like the Fortress of Solitude?