Trucks... My Opionin whats yours

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The infidel is in the details of course - We never got to do real independent inspections of what Iran had before hand, and the limits on what can be inspected and when (some areas the inspectors would have to give Iran 24 days notice beforehand) don't suggest that this deal is really anything more than an honorary handshake.

Ehhh...24 hours seems too little to evacuate a centrifugator.

I didn't question it too much because very few people disliked the treaty (also, the alternative was...I think nothing). Iran having missiles seems Iran being Iran. Poor people there are living a live action version of The Handmaid's Tale.

(by the way, I was screwed by the paywall)

"

innervation wrote:

whose leadership doesn't give a damn about the standard of living or human rights of their people.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

whose leadership doesn't give a damn about the standard of living or human rights of their people.

Meanwhile, the highest rate of incarceration in the world is in the USA. Daily police shootings of unarmed kids. Patrolman doing 'regular' stops asking for papers. NSA programs spying on every phone call and internet search. Required gps in every phone. the bottom 70% of the citizens owning less than 10% of the wealth. Government mandates to possess insurance. Government restrictions on medical procedures and prescriptions. Regulations barring citizens from regulating their own moods with drugs. Vagrancy a crime.

If we are honest here, noone can truly call out another nation for human rights without admitting their own shortcomings as well.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

I'm going to say something and it's very offensive but it's my thought. Few generations ago we were not scared to call things as they were and point our enemies.

Japan attacked the USA during the WW2, USA not only retaliated but they have made temporary for the Japanese population in the USA to control them in order to avoid terrorism or civil war because there could have been spies or militants of the Japanese fachist Gov in that population.


So now we see so many terrorist attack, more and more each years, all from Islam. I think we should stop being so politically correct and call things as it is. Islam is not a religion of peace and we are clearly at war against radical Islam, and that is part of the Muslim community.

We should start by closing our borders from anyone who could come from these countries and start some serious actions against radical Islam.

The problem with that narrative is as bad as the lefts gun banning. It's just reactionary BS that wont do anything. These killers are not muslim. They are gangsters. They kill more Muslims than anyone. My grandfather and his brother left Afghanistan in the early 1970s under threat of death from these gangsters. He is still muslim today and has owned a bar, a construction company, pays his taxes and vote republican every election. Good American.

Yeah, but it's always been gangsters. Always. Do you think Japan held a public vote before bombing Pearl Harbour? Do you think a single soul at Hiroshima or Nagasaki had a choice in that decision? Do you think every last German was in support of the massive systemic genocide of a people?

But lots of Japanese and Germans were slaughtered anyway. A cost of war.

The way I see it is: other people will represent you if you do nothing about it, and as a free person it is your duty to distance yourself from such representatives when they take an abominable stance or act of war. In other words, if you were in Japan after Pearl Harbor, the appropriate response would have been: get the fuck out of Japan. Or at least speak up about ending the war. Something. It's possible your very survival depended on it.

I would have no issues with fucking up a sovereign nation based on even tolerance, much less support, of terrorist activity. Such a nation had a choice to fight such people when they could have; such a nation choose poorly.

Yes, I get that our nation has a history of helping terrorists to win the Cold War, etc. That does make such a stance against Islamic terrorism hypocritical. But if it's hypocritical to take a stance against the intolerable when one has acted intolerably in the past, then hypocrisy is precisely what we fucking need.

Don't get me wrong here: I'm all for the minimization of collateral damage. If there was a way to kill the hateful terrorists and only them, that'd be peachy. But there isn't, and the fear of collateral damage is holding back the hand of the righteous from striking at its foes. We need to start prioritizing victory more. Our first concern should be the defeat of this enemy, and sparing the innocent should come second.

It's not any easy choice. It requires the conviction that some things aren't just worth dying for, but killing for.

"

innervation wrote:

Days. 24 days.

Also TONS of people disliked the treaty, but this is a symptom of the increasing polarization and partisanship of the country - when a party spends every single fucking 24 hour news cycle saying that whatever the other side is doing is the worst thing ever in the history of ever, everyone starts to tune you out.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

first of all, is not an armed society a polite society? I believe so.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

That being said, isn't Iran being constantly under surveillance from US satellites anyway? Seriously, I don't think it would be easy for them to break the deal. And what was the alternative again? Iran was under sanctions, how would the nukes have been neutralized then? war?

And when I said everyone, I meant everyone except the Republican party, some people in Israel and Iran hardliners. The rest of the world agreed. I don't see the upsides to doing a bad deal and I don't think the world is stupid. Republican party foreign policy became the laughingstock of the world after Bush, that's the reason everyone discounted them quickly (although you are right that would be unfair).

Then again, that's applying Occam's razor, and not a proper reasoning.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Meh, not convinced. If surveillance from the orbit is on the table, it's almost the same than that option. I don't think the world followed because it's PC (sounds silly, in my opinion). Putin would have trolled everyone if that was the case (I don't think anyone wants religious wackos with nukes).