Two Men Charged Over Manchester Airport...
News0 min ago
Tough One For The Trump Haters......
63 Answers
https:/
It seems the president thought the estimated deaths were disproportionate and called off the strike. That'll confuse the Trumpaphobes!
It seems the president thought the estimated deaths were disproportionate and called off the strike. That'll confuse the Trumpaphobes!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who was the character in Family Guy who always thought the "commies" had infiltrated everywhere? It wasn't TTT, was it? Strange user name you have though - codeword for a successful terror attack. Probably chosen to try and illustrate your exaggerated outrage.
Frinton-on-Sea is said to be the epitomy of Tory snobbery and outrage. I just love this website! :o)
Frinton-on-Sea is said to be the epitomy of Tory snobbery and outrage. I just love this website! :o)
so free-T, said the school bully - you havent brought in your dinner money in cash as I told you to
and THAT means I cant spend it
( cripes ! finks 3T )
and that means hunger and bad temper
and that leads onto punishment for 3T ! - who wants to hit him anybody? 10p a clout - but not hard ! - a crowd gather round with tuppences and button and perhaps a broken doll as a token - but hey look - kay - vee !
Oh OK here is a master - tomorrow then - but there is a penalty !
free-T - free cheers for the school bully who is a nice fella after all !
hip hop .....
and THAT means I cant spend it
( cripes ! finks 3T )
and that means hunger and bad temper
and that leads onto punishment for 3T ! - who wants to hit him anybody? 10p a clout - but not hard ! - a crowd gather round with tuppences and button and perhaps a broken doll as a token - but hey look - kay - vee !
Oh OK here is a master - tomorrow then - but there is a penalty !
free-T - free cheers for the school bully who is a nice fella after all !
hip hop .....
I would have thought Clinton's policy to depose Gaddafi should have disqualified her as a candidate (or at least made her an unacceptable one to those people who can work out that an unpleasant B is a very likely consequence of doing A.
dd to that her moral character in firstly allowing the murder of the US ambassador in Benghazi, and then lying about the circumstances which led to it.
To judge her the "lesser of two evils" doesn't prove that you've carefully weighed the defects of each candidate and, reluctantly, and with a heavy sigh decided that you have to vote Hillary; it proves you're a slave to the zeitgeist who can't distinguish between private grossness and public corruption.
dd to that her moral character in firstly allowing the murder of the US ambassador in Benghazi, and then lying about the circumstances which led to it.
To judge her the "lesser of two evils" doesn't prove that you've carefully weighed the defects of each candidate and, reluctantly, and with a heavy sigh decided that you have to vote Hillary; it proves you're a slave to the zeitgeist who can't distinguish between private grossness and public corruption.
Glad Trump wasn't as Gung-Ho! as the top Republican Party donor
http://
The crowd loved it.
http://
The crowd loved it.
No abuse from me v_e, I prefer facts.
"Q2: Unaware of the sunset provisions, i.e. do what you like after ten years? Meanwhile, you'll tell us who's allowed to inspect what."
16th January 2016: the JCPOA came into effect.
'Iran has currently accepted continuous monitoring of the enrichment level of the product of its Natanz plant, the only location in Iran where uranium enrichment is permitted. Daily visits by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are allowed, helping to assure, among other things, that this monitoring is operating properly, and has not been circumvented... It is also important to recognize that other key clauses in the JCPOA extend past 2031, providing oversight of centrifuge production and uranium mining.,,
The Preamble and General Provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or “Iran Deal”) indicate that Iran is ultimately to be “treated in the same manner as that of any other non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT.” This means that Iran has agreed to allow the implementation of internationally accepted safeguards even after 2031, when the present strict safeguards regime in Iran is no longer mandated.'
https:/
"Q2: Unaware of the sunset provisions, i.e. do what you like after ten years? Meanwhile, you'll tell us who's allowed to inspect what."
16th January 2016: the JCPOA came into effect.
'Iran has currently accepted continuous monitoring of the enrichment level of the product of its Natanz plant, the only location in Iran where uranium enrichment is permitted. Daily visits by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are allowed, helping to assure, among other things, that this monitoring is operating properly, and has not been circumvented... It is also important to recognize that other key clauses in the JCPOA extend past 2031, providing oversight of centrifuge production and uranium mining.,,
The Preamble and General Provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or “Iran Deal”) indicate that Iran is ultimately to be “treated in the same manner as that of any other non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT.” This means that Iran has agreed to allow the implementation of internationally accepted safeguards even after 2031, when the present strict safeguards regime in Iran is no longer mandated.'
https:/
Thanks for your thoughtful post, SevenOP.
The "facts", of course, exist in two forms. There are the textual facts as in what does the agreement "say", and there are practical ones as in what can be done to monitor and, if necessary to force, compliance?
This (from your link) says it all really, doesn't it:
"Iran has agreed to allow the implementation of internationally accepted safeguards even after 2031, when the present strict safeguards regime in Iran is no longer mandated".
That codacil is the equivalent of the twenty six page "political declaration", isn't it? And as convincing.
The "facts", of course, exist in two forms. There are the textual facts as in what does the agreement "say", and there are practical ones as in what can be done to monitor and, if necessary to force, compliance?
This (from your link) says it all really, doesn't it:
"Iran has agreed to allow the implementation of internationally accepted safeguards even after 2031, when the present strict safeguards regime in Iran is no longer mandated".
That codacil is the equivalent of the twenty six page "political declaration", isn't it? And as convincing.
"Q2: Unaware of the sunset provisions, i.e. do what you like after ten years? Meanwhile, you'll tell us who's allowed to inspect what."
2031 is not 10 years from 2016.
"That codacil is the equivalent of the twenty six page "political declaration", isn't it? "
I have no idea as I have not read this twenty six page "political declaration". If you give a Link to this twenty six page "political declaration" I will read it.
The JPCOA is 159 pages. http://
"...what can be done to monitor and, if necessary to force, compliance? "
The same as is being done at present, and which in the past brought Iran to the JCPOA table... unless you favour stronger measures as this fruitcake advocates
2031 is not 10 years from 2016.
"That codacil is the equivalent of the twenty six page "political declaration", isn't it? "
I have no idea as I have not read this twenty six page "political declaration". If you give a Link to this twenty six page "political declaration" I will read it.
The JPCOA is 159 pages. http://
"...what can be done to monitor and, if necessary to force, compliance? "
The same as is being done at present, and which in the past brought Iran to the JCPOA table... unless you favour stronger measures as this fruitcake advocates
v-e: I would be happy to defend my decision to prefer Trump to Clinton any time, but first you have to at least allow for the possibility that it was a decision made in good faith. Lately I have got the impression that you, and others, have more or less already made up their mind to disagree with what I say by virtue of the fact that I'm the one saying it, rather than the content on its own merits -- and then get what I say and think so hopelessly wrong that I have to spend half my time setting them straight on what I think (and do not) before getting to anything more substantial. From you in particular I had kind of got used to enjoying my debates with you, no matter that we were on different sides most of the time. Lately I can't say I look forward to seeing what you have to say about me since it's at least 75% character assassination.
Leaving that aside, I think you're massively exaggerating Clinton's role in the events in Benghazi. Ten separate investigations across the US system have more or less completely cleared her of any wrongdoing. Certainly the claim you make that she "allowed" the murder of the US ambassador there is false, and the claim that she lied about the circumstances is also, at the very least, debatable.
On the other hand, there is the scandal about using private email accounts for official government business. Again, in the event she was found to have done nothing legally wrong, her sins confined to merely being reckless and incompetent. And, at the risk of being accused of dragging Trump back into this, the massive fuss that he made about it (this is what the "lock her up!" chant was about) looks rather hypocritical when his own daughter was doing the same thing.
But if we're going to take this discussion any further then it has to be in good faith, and it simply can't be when you are busy calling me a "slave" to Clinton's supporters, rather than something closer to the truth -- a free thinker who just happens to disagree with you.
Leaving that aside, I think you're massively exaggerating Clinton's role in the events in Benghazi. Ten separate investigations across the US system have more or less completely cleared her of any wrongdoing. Certainly the claim you make that she "allowed" the murder of the US ambassador there is false, and the claim that she lied about the circumstances is also, at the very least, debatable.
On the other hand, there is the scandal about using private email accounts for official government business. Again, in the event she was found to have done nothing legally wrong, her sins confined to merely being reckless and incompetent. And, at the risk of being accused of dragging Trump back into this, the massive fuss that he made about it (this is what the "lock her up!" chant was about) looks rather hypocritical when his own daughter was doing the same thing.
But if we're going to take this discussion any further then it has to be in good faith, and it simply can't be when you are busy calling me a "slave" to Clinton's supporters, rather than something closer to the truth -- a free thinker who just happens to disagree with you.
"You had a choice between Trump and that mentally ill, bellicose thing.
You couldn't have neither, jim."
Ah, the charade of 'choice'
"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War)....The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
Carroll Quigley, a Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton a quote from his book Tragedy & Hope.
You couldn't have neither, jim."
Ah, the charade of 'choice'
"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War)....The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
Carroll Quigley, a Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton a quote from his book Tragedy & Hope.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.