I don’t agree.
Just kiddin.
1 Like
Jesus. You’re so confused about this that you don’t even know what your own argument is. It’s astounding.
None of this ^ has anything at all to do with what you posted in opening this little tour of your own ability to befuddle yourself. Please, for the love of god, pay attention. In fact, go back and read along if you need to. Here goes:
You tried to compare the JCPOA to the Syrian chemical weapons deal. As explained, this was an utter non sequitur – it was just a way for you to show your ass for a minute. As further explained, the implication of your post – that the Syrian chem. weapons deal failed as an instrument of non-proliferation because of a fucking chlorine gas attack – is pure garbage. It’s fantasy, and I held your hand through an explanation of why it is fantasy: numerically, logically, objectively. I explained that, contrary to your dimwitted innuendo, a thing can be, all at the same time, terrible and sad and undesirable and a non sequitur to some other thing. Oh, and unavoidable (because if some bearded dick anywhere in the world wants to blow up some cans of industrial chlorine, he can do it, and this doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the unmitigated non-proliferation success that is the destruction of ton upon ton of sarin gas that had once been lying around the middle east).
So, again, your point, such as it was, was fantasy…and a real faceplant, too, because if the worst development vis-a-vis Iran’s nuclear future is analogous to a chemical weapons deal that removes thousands of tons sarin, mustard, and VX from the worst place on earth but (obviously) leaves chlorine scattered around so that whoever wants to strap some explosives to it and drop a makeshift, relatively ineffective (remember 543?) chem bomb cannot really be stopped from doing so…then the JCPOA will have been a spectacular success.
Do you see? Do you understand? You tried to draw a totally useless and illegitimate parallel, but even if the parallel had been legitimate, it would have done the precise opposite of what you wanted it to do. It would have proved my point.
As for everything else you are suddenly and inexplicably babbling about: I (and Bis, Sexmachine, and Varq, iirc) already held your hand through the “red line” over the course of a painful thread that is fully in the past. I will not be doing anything of the sort a second time. Dig the last one up if you want to relive the thrill of wasting other people’s time.
I’m not going to respond again unless your next post makes logical sense and suggests to me that you have read and taken the time to understand what I wrote here. I promise to you that I am really good at following arguments and this is a precise and perfect summary of ours. That I had to summarize for you a discussion to which you were party is troubling and pathetic, but so it goes.
That’s the vituperative verbosity I’ve come to know and expect!
I was wondering where your prose had gone for a minute there.
1 Like
So if Iran can produce a dirty bomb using nuclear waste from, let’s say, a hospital, and sets it off in Washington DC we can rest peacefully knowing the JCPOA was a success.
Cool, got it.
Makes perfect sense.
We shouldn’t worry because whoever wants to strap some explosives to it and drop a makeshift dirty bomb can have at it.
Can’t police every swimming pool store, can’t police every hospital.
Nothing to worry about.
Jesus fuck. First, a chlorine bomb in Syria is not analogous to a dirty bomb in DC.
Second, and much more importantly, none of this has anything to do with how a rational, informed person assesses nuclear diplomacy at the most basic level.
Know this: anyone who is reading along and has a bare-bones, high-school-level grasp of world affairs knows with certainty that you don’t.
The JCPOA has nothing to do with your dirty-bomb-in-DC fantasy, is not designed to address it, will never succeed or fail as function of it. That you are babbling about it in a discussion of the JCPOA does not somehow magically connect the two. The JCPOA addresses a national-scale nuclear weapons program – a nation’s push to develop a traditional nuclear weapon and thereby become a nuclear weapons state. Just so that you understand this very basic tangential point: the principle threat of a nuclear Iran was never that they would suddenly launch a first strike the day they put a warhead together. It was that they would gain all of the advantages of nuclear status, use it as an aggressive bargaining tool, throw their newfound status behind terrorist organizations, and encourage other ME states to restore the regional balance of power by arming themselves accordingly. All of this stuff is very real, very possible, very serious, very undesirable. It would elevate Iran to a global rather than mostly regional problem. None of these concerns have anything to do with a babbled “what-if” flung by a monkey at a wall in the frantic hope that something might stick, and none of it has anything to do with a dirty bomb in DC, an unremarkable theoretical feat of which Iran (and many, many other countries) has been capable since the fucking 1950s but which hasn’t happened and which nobody believes is going to happen for a great variety of reasons, among them the assurance that such an ineffective and utterly absurd measure would be met with an exinction-level countermeasure.
Again: the JCPOA addresses the very grave threat of an Iranian push for conventional nuclear warheads; it never had anything to do with a hypothetical dirty bomb in DC, an unremarkable theoretical feat of which Iran (and many, many other countries) has been capable since the fucking 1950s.
Your inability to put cogent arguments together doesn’t deserve anybody’s time or effort or energy. I won’t be embarrassing myself by trying to baby-talk with you anymore.
I’d love to see this quote.
It’s like a poorly written wannabe Tom Clancy novel.
1 Like
I know dip shit.
You got your head so far up your ass you can’t see I’m agreeing with you. Now do you want me to hold your hand through this argument or is it a waste of MY time?
You said the Syrian treaty was excellent because it took tons and tons of sarin and VX gas out of Syria but left Chlorine because Chlorine is so abundant you can buy it next to your freaking apartment. So any asshole terrorist could use it as a bomb and it wouldn’t count in yours and Obama’s fantasy world as a chemical bomb even though it is made of chemicals and used as a weapon. But I digress.
You state in your reply : [quote=“smh_23, post:606, topic:210298”]
Again: the JCPOA addresses the very grave threat of an Iranian push for conventional nuclear warheads; it never had anything to do with a hypothetical dirty bomb in DC, an unremarkable theoretical feat of which Iran (and many, many other countries) has been capable since the fucking 1950s.
[/quote]
Which I agreed with by saying
So basically the fact that the [quote=“smh_23, post:606, topic:210298”]
The JCPOA has nothing to do with your dirty-bomb-in-DC fantasy, is not designed to address it, will never succeed or fail as function of it.
[/quote] was exactly what I said in comparing the two treaties in my last post agreeing with what you had written prior.
The Syrian deal can not stop Chlorine bombs and the JCPOA can not stop dirty bombs.
Tell me I’m wrong please. It’s the exact same point as your post above! If I’m wrong, I’m dying to hear why.
Feel free to plagiarize a better one
The quote is he will change his calculus, his calculations. If you interpret that to mean having the Russians take Syria’s chemical weapons, more power to you. He didn’t say make a deal with the Russians, or the Syrians…listen to what he said. He left it open for interpretation so it could in effect mean just about anything.
They don’t need nuclear advantage to achieve this…they can do it with 400 billion dollars and the lifting of sanctions to fortify their economy.
The rest of your post is just you waving your hands in limp circles. But I want to respond to this:
You are confused. I have never said or believed that a crude chlorine bomb is not a chemical weapon. Instead, I have explicitly said many multiple times that, contrary to your first, stupid-as-shit post on this matter, a chlorine attack in Syria does not reduce the unrestrainedly positive and worthwhile and effective act of non-proliferation that is the removal of Syrian stockpiles of schedule 1 chemicals.
I emboldened those words in the previous paragraph for a reason. You were the one who implied, wrongly, that the Syrian chem weapons deal was somehow a failure because urr durr chlorine. I explained in painstaking detail how and why you were, predictably, wrong. To the record we go:
(Here we are, with me yet again explaining to you what it is you have argued in this toxic little exchange. It’s like a goddamn parody.) As you can see, you came to the table with a totally illegitimate pile of shit in your hand. I explained to you in great detail that the removal of thousands of tons of schedule 1 chemicals from Syria was an end in itself – that the (literally unavoidable, from a non-proliferation standpoint) subsequent use of chlorine in Syria does not in any possible universe diminish the legitimacy or effectiveness of a deal under which sarin and VX were removed by the ton from the worst place on Earth.
And to top it all off, none of this has anything to do with JCPOA.
So: we return to the beginning, where we ought to have stayed all along.
Except that they fuckin’ can’t, and literally nobody thinks that Iran with unfrozen assets is within the same universe of threats as Iran with a nuclear-armed warhead. Nobody. Not a single person.
Another post, another turd flung at the wall, another mess cleaned up easily.
So, in other words, he didn’t say what you said he said. At all. In fact, he left it “open for interpretation so it could in effect mean…anything.” Weird that that is literally the opposite of what you claimed an hour ago.
You never said how I was wrong.
You said (and once again I have to repeat myself because you won’t speak directly to any of my points)
I said[quote=“Gkhan, post:610, topic:210298”]
Can’t police every swimming pool store, can’t police every hospital
[/quote]
in regards to the JCPOA and dirty bombs.
So how am I wrong now?
Further more:
Then why didn’t we bomb Syria after it was first used before the Russians got there? You never answered that question, not here, not in the other thread because if you did you would be proven wrong. Admitting this would be admitting not backing up the red line threat with military action made America look weak.
Tell me how it makes America look strong? The Russians came in, took Syria’s chemical weapons, the Syrians used Chlorine, a chemical, which you now agree is a chemical weapon, yet we did nothing to retaliate against the Syrian regime. How does that make America look strong?
That is my point, one of them, and if you won’t address it then you are the one who can’t or won’t follow an argument.
Answer it.
You can’t.
Here’s how full of shit you are:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/obamasust-give-iran-1-7-billion/
At least I looked at it. Did you?
I already knew it word for word. I quoted it again and again and again, explicitly, in that other thread. You know, the one in which you took your first fatal beating on this topic.
But your posts are so full of catastrophic problems that I have no interest in getting into details with you.
Does a single one of these sources make the claim that it is better for Iran to become a nuclear weapons state than to get assets unfrozen?
If so, good for you, you exposed “literally nobody” as hyperbole! Congrats! But the proposition remains a ludicrously stupid one, and anybody who subscribes to it is an utter imbecile, and my point remains entirely intact.
If not, then why are you posting these articles? Are you going to start lying now on top of everything else?