You are assuming he won't be able to get past your security without you noticing, which judging by your "Ask Slashdot" question, seems a poor assumption. My money is on him getting past your security and you not even realising.
But that wasn't an American probe. It had contributions from the world over, and was based on the work of people from many other countries. I think that's the problem - the willingness to turn a blind eye to the facts because nationalism. You are using nonsense to explain why you are behaving in an irrational manner, and seem to think that's wonderfully acceptable.
Who installed the Shah in the first place (and set up his secret police)? Oh, right. You conveniently pick arbitrary points in time to start judging the actions of countries. Points coincidentally beneficial to your argument. You are either living in denial or are woefully ignorant of the history of the area. Neither paint you in a good light, but you're just more concerned with not having to challenge your world-view than actually being right. Each post you make is for your own benefit, not anyone else's. Anything to keep that veil over your eyes. You poor bastard. Life must be hell in your head.
It doesn't appear to be a fucked-up agreement. It seems perfectly reasonable, hence the fact it being made. It wasn't just between the US and Iran, remember.
Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. Hell, they issued a Fatwa decreeing as much, and Mossad seems to believe them. You can keep parroting the nonsense you heard the talking heads spew, but you are spouting abject bullshit.
Iran was a friend of the US after 9/11. It was one of the first countries to offer assistance to the US, and was then included in the "Axis of Evil" because one can't have an axis of two countries without looking like stretching to make a point. Iran didn't deserve that reputation then, and it certainly doesn't deserve it now. The "Great Satan" posturing is for internal show, and doesn't reflect the thinking of the government. That much is evident in the great strides made in diplomatic relations between the two countries.
What happens should Iran violate the agreement is clearly defined in the agreement. You deciding to not bother to read it, and then complain about it, is your problem.
And there is no evidence of them having, developing, or even wanting a bomb. Of course you ignore that point (which even Mossad agrees with), as otherwise you'd have to tone down your pathetic, childish rhetoric.
Regardless, even if that is true (which it very well might not be), that doesn't mean western countries have carte blanche to install a dictator and set up a horrific secret police service to reinforce the shaky puppet at the helm.
Of course when the Shah was in power - he was a western puppet. Israel did nothing to deserve it? Are you that wilfully ignorant of history? Why should anyone listen to a word you say if you are willing to sweep great swathes of history under the rug in order to win a fake argument?
The US has done great things helping countries, and it has also done horrific things which led to the deaths of countless people in terror camps, being thrown from aircraft, and so on. The setting up of brutal secret police, and so on, has been a forte of American foreign policy for decades.
Iraq invaded Kuwait after the US told Saddam it has no opinion on "Arab/Arab affairs". Provocation for the invasion was scant, and based on fake intelligence.
Whether Iran would have been a "democratically elected Islamic caliphate" is your fantasy. Iran was a very progressive country.
You are either ignorant of the US's history, or are wilfully ignoring it to make a point. Neither speaks well of you, but then that's to be expected, as you seem to enjoy spouting nonsensical bullshit. Hint: School of the Americas.
Seeing as there is absolutely no evidence they even want nuclear weapons, you might be waiting a while. When Mossad says Iran doesn't have or want nuclear weapons, you should probably believe them.
The US being a republic has nothing to do with it. The term you meant to use is "representative democracy". Not having a dynastic leader has nothing to do with the system of democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming he won't be able to get past your security without you noticing, which judging by your "Ask Slashdot" question, seems a poor assumption. My money is on him getting past your security and you not even realising.
You've been so wrong about a lot of things lately, I really can't bring myself to believe a single word of that.
... get wiped out by the armed forces the first time they raise them to fire. Now one million people with explosives, now that'll worry a government.
But that wasn't an American probe. It had contributions from the world over, and was based on the work of people from many other countries. I think that's the problem - the willingness to turn a blind eye to the facts because nationalism. You are using nonsense to explain why you are behaving in an irrational manner, and seem to think that's wonderfully acceptable.
You proffer some vague guesses, and then come to the conclusion that flag-waving is fine. Brilliant. Really logical stuff.
bobbied wrong? Say it ain't so!
Or you encrypt it and keep one or more copies. Problem solved.
You are a pathetic human being. Wow.
It means his education was sub-par, which would explain the fountain of shit which frequently spews from his mouth.
It's cute you think gamergate has anything to do with journalism. Cute and horrifying.
Who installed the Shah in the first place (and set up his secret police)? Oh, right. You conveniently pick arbitrary points in time to start judging the actions of countries. Points coincidentally beneficial to your argument. You are either living in denial or are woefully ignorant of the history of the area. Neither paint you in a good light, but you're just more concerned with not having to challenge your world-view than actually being right. Each post you make is for your own benefit, not anyone else's. Anything to keep that veil over your eyes. You poor bastard. Life must be hell in your head.
There is trust, though, hence the agreement being reached. You're great at projecting and terrible at reading. Seriously. You suck at this.
It doesn't appear to be a fucked-up agreement. It seems perfectly reasonable, hence the fact it being made. It wasn't just between the US and Iran, remember.
Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. Hell, they issued a Fatwa decreeing as much, and Mossad seems to believe them. You can keep parroting the nonsense you heard the talking heads spew, but you are spouting abject bullshit.
Iran was a friend of the US after 9/11. It was one of the first countries to offer assistance to the US, and was then included in the "Axis of Evil" because one can't have an axis of two countries without looking like stretching to make a point. Iran didn't deserve that reputation then, and it certainly doesn't deserve it now. The "Great Satan" posturing is for internal show, and doesn't reflect the thinking of the government. That much is evident in the great strides made in diplomatic relations between the two countries.
What happens should Iran violate the agreement is clearly defined in the agreement. You deciding to not bother to read it, and then complain about it, is your problem.
Iran has no such plans. Stop lying.
And there is no evidence of them having, developing, or even wanting a bomb. Of course you ignore that point (which even Mossad agrees with), as otherwise you'd have to tone down your pathetic, childish rhetoric.
Regardless, even if that is true (which it very well might not be), that doesn't mean western countries have carte blanche to install a dictator and set up a horrific secret police service to reinforce the shaky puppet at the helm.
Err go fuck yourself? You use a pathetic idiom to justify calling for a country to discard its sovereignty. Wow.
Of course when the Shah was in power - he was a western puppet. Israel did nothing to deserve it? Are you that wilfully ignorant of history? Why should anyone listen to a word you say if you are willing to sweep great swathes of history under the rug in order to win a fake argument?
The US has done great things helping countries, and it has also done horrific things which led to the deaths of countless people in terror camps, being thrown from aircraft, and so on. The setting up of brutal secret police, and so on, has been a forte of American foreign policy for decades.
Iraq invaded Kuwait after the US told Saddam it has no opinion on "Arab/Arab affairs". Provocation for the invasion was scant, and based on fake intelligence.
Whether Iran would have been a "democratically elected Islamic caliphate" is your fantasy. Iran was a very progressive country.
You are either ignorant of the US's history, or are wilfully ignoring it to make a point. Neither speaks well of you, but then that's to be expected, as you seem to enjoy spouting nonsensical bullshit. Hint: School of the Americas.
Seeing as there is absolutely no evidence they even want nuclear weapons, you might be waiting a while. When Mossad says Iran doesn't have or want nuclear weapons, you should probably believe them.
And from that one statement it's clear where you get your information from - politicians. Great work.
The US being a republic has nothing to do with it. The term you meant to use is "representative democracy". Not having a dynastic leader has nothing to do with the system of democracy.