User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 11:54:21 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:01:07 PM EDT
[#2]
 a before shot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:04:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just know his hearing is jacked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Conflict News ?@rConflictNews 10m10 minutes ago Intense photo of an #ISIS member on the edge of a Coalition airstrike in #Kobane https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0pETJ2IEAEV4kg.jpg so are his organs |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:06:36 PM EDT
[#4]
I guess the flag made a nice aiming point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 3:19:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's funny coming from someone who can't pay for their own $24 membership and who probably graduated from Paul Mitchell's beauty college. 
Try again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And here is the separation between theory and reality. In theory, things are separate. In reality, they are all connected. And that is prioritization of objectives. Why are you mocking the pride of the Penn-Foster School of Medical Billing and Encoding & International Relations? That's funny coming from someone who can't pay for their own $24 membership and who probably graduated from Paul Mitchell's beauty college.
Try again. Paul Mitchell......lol Toni & Guy all the way. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 4:39:34 PM EDT
[#6]
This article explains pretty well why everything Sylvan has said is bullshit... and backs up everything I have said.
Wish I could copy and paste the whole article, but it's against the rules. Take the time to click the link and read the whole thing. It's worth it. Not to Worry, Israel
The U.S. won't concede on a nuclear deal with Iran just because it's fighting the Islamic State group, too. By Dalia Dassa Kaye Oct 23, 2014 [Snip] Some Israeli analysts see the group's threat as working in Iran’s favor, possibly leading to future interim or final agreements that offer better terms to Iran. But the idea that the United States would make additional concessions to Iran in the nuclear negotiations because of the anti-Islamic State group effort is not based on realities on the ground. Iran does not need to be coaxed into fighting the group – it has plenty of its own incentives to bolster Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias to protect Baghdad and keep the Shiite-led Iraqi state together. In fact, that is exactly what the Iranians have been doing since the Islamic State group began making advances in Iraq’s northern region. No promises of nuclear concessions were needed to prompt Iranian action against the jihadist group and protect its perceived national security interests. Yes, the Americans and Iranians happen to be on the same side on this one (at least in Iraq), but this is an instance of coinciding interests, not a coordinated strategy or quid pro quo. The Iranians might like to project the myth that they have the upper hand in the Middle East, but in fact Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria are under significant pressure, and Iran’s own domestic challenges remain a source of vulnerability. The incentive for Iranian leaders to negotiate a nuclear deal stems from such pressures, not from overly generous offers from the United States. Indeed, the Islamic State group challenge has not appeared to alter the negotiating positions of the United States on the nuclear issue. Reports suggest that the gaps between Iran and the United States, U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany – the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, commonly known as the P5+1 – are as wide as ever. Despite the floating of various creative solutions to bridge some of these gaps, issues like levels of uranium enrichment, the duration of a deal and the timing of sanctions lifting are all extremely difficult and could derail a deal with or without the Islamic State group situation dominating the regional context. The stakes of a nuclear deal are too great for the future stability of the region and for the status of the global non-proliferation regime – arguably still a high priority for the Obama administration – to suggest the United States would give Iran a free pass because of mutual concerns over the Islamic State group. More at the link: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/10/23/no-the-us-wont-sell-israel-out-to-iran-to-stop-the-islamic-state-group |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:00:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This article explains pretty well why everything Sylvan has said is bullshit... and backs up everything I have said. Wish I could copy and paste the whole article, but it's against the rules. Take the time to click the link and read the whole thing. It's worth it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This article explains pretty well why everything Sylvan has said is bullshit... and backs up everything I have said. Wish I could copy and paste the whole article, but it's against the rules. Take the time to click the link and read the whole thing. It's worth it. Not to Worry, Israel
The U.S. won't concede on a nuclear deal with Iran just because it's fighting the Islamic State group, too. By Dalia Dassa Kaye Oct 23, 2014 [Snip] Some Israeli analysts see the group's threat as working in Iran’s favor, possibly leading to future interim or final agreements that offer better terms to Iran. But the idea that the United States would make additional concessions to Iran in the nuclear negotiations because of the anti-Islamic State group effort is not based on realities on the ground. Iran does not need to be coaxed into fighting the group – it has plenty of its own incentives to bolster Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias to protect Baghdad and keep the Shiite-led Iraqi state together. In fact, that is exactly what the Iranians have been doing since the Islamic State group began making advances in Iraq’s northern region. No promises of nuclear concessions were needed to prompt Iranian action against the jihadist group and protect its perceived national security interests. Yes, the Americans and Iranians happen to be on the same side on this one (at least in Iraq), but this is an instance of coinciding interests, not a coordinated strategy or quid pro quo. The Iranians might like to project the myth that they have the upper hand in the Middle East, but in fact Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria are under significant pressure, and Iran’s own domestic challenges remain a source of vulnerability. The incentive for Iranian leaders to negotiate a nuclear deal stems from such pressures, not from overly generous offers from the United States. Indeed, the Islamic State group challenge has not appeared to alter the negotiating positions of the United States on the nuclear issue. Reports suggest that the gaps between Iran and the United States, U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany – the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, commonly known as the P5+1 – are as wide as ever. Despite the floating of various creative solutions to bridge some of these gaps, issues like levels of uranium enrichment, the duration of a deal and the timing of sanctions lifting are all extremely difficult and could derail a deal with or without the Islamic State group situation dominating the regional context. The stakes of a nuclear deal are too great for the future stability of the region and for the status of the global non-proliferation regime – arguably still a high priority for the Obama administration – to suggest the United States would give Iran a free pass because of mutual concerns over the Islamic State group. More at the link: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/10/23/no-the-us-wont-sell-israel-out-to-iran-to-stop-the-islamic-state-group BS, MS, PhD from Berkeley in political science. But, I will note she has as much experience in the middle east as you do. It would appear her opinion hinges on Barrack Obama's reputation as a "tough of terrorism guy." As she says. Arguable. But everything you have said seems to revolve around the opinion that Iran isn't even pursuing a bomb. So how can barrack be tough on something Iran isn't doing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:32:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BS, MS, PhD from Berkeley in political science. But, I will note she has as much experience in the middle east as you do. It would appear her opinion hinges on Barrack Obama's reputation as a "tough of terrorism guy." As she says. Arguable. But everything you have said seems to revolve around the opinion that Iran isn't even pursuing a bomb. So how can barrack be tough on something Iran isn't doing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This article explains pretty well why everything Sylvan has said is bullshit... and backs up everything I have said. Wish I could copy and paste the whole article, but it's against the rules. Take the time to click the link and read the whole thing. It's worth it. Not to Worry, Israel
The U.S. won't concede on a nuclear deal with Iran just because it's fighting the Islamic State group, too. By Dalia Dassa Kaye Oct 23, 2014 [Snip] Some Israeli analysts see the group's threat as working in Iran’s favor, possibly leading to future interim or final agreements that offer better terms to Iran. But the idea that the United States would make additional concessions to Iran in the nuclear negotiations because of the anti-Islamic State group effort is not based on realities on the ground. Iran does not need to be coaxed into fighting the group – it has plenty of its own incentives to bolster Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias to protect Baghdad and keep the Shiite-led Iraqi state together. In fact, that is exactly what the Iranians have been doing since the Islamic State group began making advances in Iraq’s northern region. No promises of nuclear concessions were needed to prompt Iranian action against the jihadist group and protect its perceived national security interests. Yes, the Americans and Iranians happen to be on the same side on this one (at least in Iraq), but this is an instance of coinciding interests, not a coordinated strategy or quid pro quo. The Iranians might like to project the myth that they have the upper hand in the Middle East, but in fact Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria are under significant pressure, and Iran’s own domestic challenges remain a source of vulnerability. The incentive for Iranian leaders to negotiate a nuclear deal stems from such pressures, not from overly generous offers from the United States. Indeed, the Islamic State group challenge has not appeared to alter the negotiating positions of the United States on the nuclear issue. Reports suggest that the gaps between Iran and the United States, U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany – the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, commonly known as the P5+1 – are as wide as ever. Despite the floating of various creative solutions to bridge some of these gaps, issues like levels of uranium enrichment, the duration of a deal and the timing of sanctions lifting are all extremely difficult and could derail a deal with or without the Islamic State group situation dominating the regional context. The stakes of a nuclear deal are too great for the future stability of the region and for the status of the global non-proliferation regime – arguably still a high priority for the Obama administration – to suggest the United States would give Iran a free pass because of mutual concerns over the Islamic State group. More at the link: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/10/23/no-the-us-wont-sell-israel-out-to-iran-to-stop-the-islamic-state-group BS, MS, PhD from Berkeley in political science. But, I will note she has as much experience in the middle east as you do. It would appear her opinion hinges on Barrack Obama's reputation as a "tough of terrorism guy." As she says. Arguable. But everything you have said seems to revolve around the opinion that Iran isn't even pursuing a bomb. So how can barrack be tough on something Iran isn't doing? Exactly... you have no counter argument because your points are weak and you have no idea what you are talking about. And, once again, you are being intentionally dense to try to obfuscate the obvious. Iran has developed the capability to provide themselves with the option to go nuclear should they so choose. They haven't made the decision to move forward with a bomb at this time. There is too much international pressure to do so, and the world is currently too united against such a prospect. Depending on events going forward, they may choose to never fully develop a bomb. And a nuclear agreement with the international community makes the likelihood of Iran developing a bomb much less. The Obama Admin is currently negotiating with Iran to constrain Iran's program, and take away their current capability to break out and develop a bomb on short notice (1 1/2 to 2 months). The Administration wants to extend the possible break out time to at least a year, giving the international community adequate warning and time to head off a bomb should Iran make the decision to go down that path. The authors credentials are a little more than just her degrees. She currently works for RAND. Her RAND bio below. Dalia Dassa Kaye is the director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. In 2011-2012 she was a visiting professor and fellow at UCLA's International Institute and Burkle Center. Before joining RAND, Kaye served as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. She also taught at the University of Amsterdam and was a visiting scholar at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. From 1998 to 2003, Kaye was an assistant professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University. She is the recipient of many awards and fellowships, including a Brookings Institution research fellowship and The John W. Gardner Fellowship for Public Service. Kaye publishes widely on Middle East regional security issues, including in journals like Survival, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Quarterly, Foreign Policy, and Middle East Policy. She is author of Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia (RAND), Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process (Columbia University Press) and has co-authored a number of RAND monographs on a range of regional security issues. Kaye received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.rand.org/about/people/k/kaye_dalia_dassa.html On the other side of this argument, we have a Lt. Col. who wants to give military aid to terrorists chopping up innocent men, women, and children so they can fight the Iranians, and enable them to continue their slaughter of innocents. It is crystal clear who is credible on this issue and who is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 10:24:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly... you have no counter argument because your points are weak and you have no idea what you are talking about. And, once again, you are being intentionally dense to try to obfuscate the obvious. Iran has developed the capability to provide themselves with the option to go nuclear should they so choose. They haven't made the decision to move forward with a bomb at this time. There is too much international pressure to do so, and the world is currently too united against such a prospect. Depending on events going forward, they may choose to never fully develop a bomb. And a nuclear agreement with the international community makes the likelihood of Iran developing a bomb much less. The Obama Admin is currently negotiating with Iran to constrain Iran's program, and take away their current capability to break out and develop a bomb on short notice (1 1/2 to 2 months). The Administration wants to extend the possible break out time to at least a year, giving the international community adequate warning and time to head off a bomb should Iran make the decision to go down that path. The authors credentials are a little more than just her degrees. She currently works for RAND. Her RAND bio below. On the other side of this argument, we have a Lt. Col. who wants to give military aid to terrorists chopping up innocent men, women, and children so they can fight the Iranians, and enable them to continue their slaughter of innocents. It is crystal clear who is credible on this issue and who is not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This article explains pretty well why everything Sylvan has said is bullshit... and backs up everything I have said. Wish I could copy and paste the whole article, but it's against the rules. Take the time to click the link and read the whole thing. It's worth it. Not to Worry, Israel
The U.S. won't concede on a nuclear deal with Iran just because it's fighting the Islamic State group, too. By Dalia Dassa Kaye Oct 23, 2014 [Snip] Some Israeli analysts see the group's threat as working in Iran’s favor, possibly leading to future interim or final agreements that offer better terms to Iran. But the idea that the United States would make additional concessions to Iran in the nuclear negotiations because of the anti-Islamic State group effort is not based on realities on the ground. Iran does not need to be coaxed into fighting the group – it has plenty of its own incentives to bolster Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias to protect Baghdad and keep the Shiite-led Iraqi state together. In fact, that is exactly what the Iranians have been doing since the Islamic State group began making advances in Iraq’s northern region. No promises of nuclear concessions were needed to prompt Iranian action against the jihadist group and protect its perceived national security interests. Yes, the Americans and Iranians happen to be on the same side on this one (at least in Iraq), but this is an instance of coinciding interests, not a coordinated strategy or quid pro quo. The Iranians might like to project the myth that they have the upper hand in the Middle East, but in fact Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria are under significant pressure, and Iran’s own domestic challenges remain a source of vulnerability. The incentive for Iranian leaders to negotiate a nuclear deal stems from such pressures, not from overly generous offers from the United States. Indeed, the Islamic State group challenge has not appeared to alter the negotiating positions of the United States on the nuclear issue. Reports suggest that the gaps between Iran and the United States, U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany – the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, commonly known as the P5+1 – are as wide as ever. Despite the floating of various creative solutions to bridge some of these gaps, issues like levels of uranium enrichment, the duration of a deal and the timing of sanctions lifting are all extremely difficult and could derail a deal with or without the Islamic State group situation dominating the regional context. The stakes of a nuclear deal are too great for the future stability of the region and for the status of the global non-proliferation regime – arguably still a high priority for the Obama administration – to suggest the United States would give Iran a free pass because of mutual concerns over the Islamic State group. More at the link: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/10/23/no-the-us-wont-sell-israel-out-to-iran-to-stop-the-islamic-state-group BS, MS, PhD from Berkeley in political science. But, I will note she has as much experience in the middle east as you do. It would appear her opinion hinges on Barrack Obama's reputation as a "tough of terrorism guy." As she says. Arguable. But everything you have said seems to revolve around the opinion that Iran isn't even pursuing a bomb. So how can barrack be tough on something Iran isn't doing? Exactly... you have no counter argument because your points are weak and you have no idea what you are talking about. And, once again, you are being intentionally dense to try to obfuscate the obvious. Iran has developed the capability to provide themselves with the option to go nuclear should they so choose. They haven't made the decision to move forward with a bomb at this time. There is too much international pressure to do so, and the world is currently too united against such a prospect. Depending on events going forward, they may choose to never fully develop a bomb. And a nuclear agreement with the international community makes the likelihood of Iran developing a bomb much less. The Obama Admin is currently negotiating with Iran to constrain Iran's program, and take away their current capability to break out and develop a bomb on short notice (1 1/2 to 2 months). The Administration wants to extend the possible break out time to at least a year, giving the international community adequate warning and time to head off a bomb should Iran make the decision to go down that path. The authors credentials are a little more than just her degrees. She currently works for RAND. Her RAND bio below. Dalia Dassa Kaye is the director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. In 2011-2012 she was a visiting professor and fellow at UCLA's International Institute and Burkle Center. Before joining RAND, Kaye served as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. She also taught at the University of Amsterdam and was a visiting scholar at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. From 1998 to 2003, Kaye was an assistant professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University. She is the recipient of many awards and fellowships, including a Brookings Institution research fellowship and The John W. Gardner Fellowship for Public Service. Kaye publishes widely on Middle East regional security issues, including in journals like Survival, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Quarterly, Foreign Policy, and Middle East Policy. She is author of Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia (RAND), Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process (Columbia University Press) and has co-authored a number of RAND monographs on a range of regional security issues. Kaye received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.rand.org/about/people/k/kaye_dalia_dassa.html On the other side of this argument, we have a Lt. Col. who wants to give military aid to terrorists chopping up innocent men, women, and children so they can fight the Iranians, and enable them to continue their slaughter of innocents. It is crystal clear who is credible on this issue and who is not. where have I said that? you are the one advocating aiding Bashir Assad (who gassed thousands of innocents.) You are the one advocating an alliance with a country responsible for the deaths of americans who actually have served this country unlike yourself. I have advocated we help neither. and what do you know of war? You kick back at your community college thinking about joining some other time. You are not only a liar but a coward by your own admission. Seeking an alliance with those who kill real americans because your hatred over israel overwhelms any semblence of patriotism. and you are a whiny little bitch to boot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 10:39:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so are his organs Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conflict News ?@rConflictNews 10m10 minutes ago Intense photo of an #ISIS member on the edge of a Coalition airstrike in #Kobane https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0pETJ2IEAEV4kg.jpg so are his organs I watched the entire video a couple of times and I don't think he got away..there were a total of 5 JDAMS and the last one fell right where that snackbar was...snackbar closed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 11:15:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
where have I said that? you are the one advocating aiding Bashir Assad (who gassed thousands of innocents.) You are the one advocating an alliance with a country responsible for the deaths of americans who actually have served this country unlike yourself. I have advocated we help neither. and what do you know of war? You kick back at your community college thinking about joining some other time. You are not only a liar but a coward by your own admission. Seeking an alliance with those who kill real americans because your hatred over israel overwhelms any semblence of patriotism. and you are a whiny little bitch to boot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Exactly... you have no counter argument because your points are weak and you have no idea what you are talking about. And, once again, you are being intentionally dense to try to obfuscate the obvious. Iran has developed the capability to provide themselves with the option to go nuclear should they so choose. They haven't made the decision to move forward with a bomb at this time. There is too much international pressure to do so, and the world is currently too united against such a prospect. Depending on events going forward, they may choose to never fully develop a bomb. And a nuclear agreement with the international community makes the likelihood of Iran developing a bomb much less. The Obama Admin is currently negotiating with Iran to constrain Iran's program, and take away their current capability to break out and develop a bomb on short notice (1 1/2 to 2 months). The Administration wants to extend the possible break out time to at least a year, giving the international community adequate warning and time to head off a bomb should Iran make the decision to go down that path. The authors credentials are a little more than just her degrees. She currently works for RAND. Her RAND bio below. Dalia Dassa Kaye is the director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. In 2011-2012 she was a visiting professor and fellow at UCLA's International Institute and Burkle Center. Before joining RAND, Kaye served as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. She also taught at the University of Amsterdam and was a visiting scholar at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. From 1998 to 2003, Kaye was an assistant professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University. She is the recipient of many awards and fellowships, including a Brookings Institution research fellowship and The John W. Gardner Fellowship for Public Service. Kaye publishes widely on Middle East regional security issues, including in journals like Survival, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Quarterly, Foreign Policy, and Middle East Policy. She is author of Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia (RAND), Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process (Columbia University Press) and has co-authored a number of RAND monographs on a range of regional security issues. Kaye received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.rand.org/about/people/k/kaye_dalia_dassa.html On the other side of this argument, we have a Lt. Col. who wants to give military aid to terrorists chopping up innocent men, women, and children so they can fight the Iranians, and enable them to continue their slaughter of innocents. It is crystal clear who is credible on this issue and who is not. where have I said that? you are the one advocating aiding Bashir Assad (who gassed thousands of innocents.) You are the one advocating an alliance with a country responsible for the deaths of americans who actually have served this country unlike yourself. I have advocated we help neither. and what do you know of war? You kick back at your community college thinking about joining some other time. You are not only a liar but a coward by your own admission. Seeking an alliance with those who kill real americans because your hatred over israel overwhelms any semblence of patriotism. and you are a whiny little bitch to boot. I haven't lied about shit. Would you like me to quote your post in this thread where you specifically state "We should continue to aid the losing side [whether it be Iranian or ISIS] to prolong them killing each other as long as possible?" I could go back and find it for you if you've forgotten already.
Here you go: Quoted:
Much, if not most, of libya is controlled by AQIM. Why do we give a fuck about Syria when we don't care about Libya? Help the losers just enough to keep it going for as long as possible. What you are advocating for in your quote above certainly entails providing material support to terrorists [ISIS]. That was your plan. You can't deny your own fucking words.You said it, crystal clear. The fact that you have served, and I have not, gives you no right to call into question my patriotism. Once again, you wish to make this about Israel. Shocker. Seems everything is about Israel with you. I haven't even mentioned Israel hardly at all in the last 25 pages of this thread. But leave it to you to pull the anti-semite card when you are losing an argument. This is about the interests of the United States. Not Israel. Our stated national directive, as directed by both the President and Congress, as of right now, is to destroy ISIS. You want to go against the national command authority, and aid the very people the military has been directed to destroy. All to fuck with Iran, who wants to destroy ISIS as well. Genius!!! My suggesting that we tacitly cooperate with the Iranians doesn't make me a coward, unpatriotic, or any of the other bullshit you just spewed. And I sound whiney? Lol. Did you read your last post before you hit submit? You have resulted to ad hominem attacks because you can't support your ridiculous position. It's the true sign of someone tapping out of a debate. No worries. I won this argument a long time ago. It's been shown in the headlines of various papers and journals that what I have advocated for is already taking place on a tacit level. You can now return to your scholarly publications in Cicero online magazine. Class dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 11:48:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Bro, you agree with Obama's strategy.
Think about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 12:46:08 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bro, you agree with Obama's strategy. Think about that. No. I don't. The Administration's strategy in Syria is to work with the "moderate rebel opposition" of Islamists and rag tag whiners who don't want us to kill terrorists. I couldn't disagree more with that. I also believe the Obama Admin should be tougher on Iran in the current negotiations than it has been. However, in Iraq, it looks like the Administration is open to covert tactical coordination with Iran against ISIS using Iraqi intermediaries. In this, we agree. Even Obama gets something right once in a blue moon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:35:46 AM EDT
[#14]
Dunning-Kruger Effect case study going on here.
"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:55:37 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:41:46 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't lied about shit. Would you like me to quote your post in this thread where you specifically state "We should continue to aid the losing side [whether it be Iranian or ISIS] to prolong them killing each other as long as possible?" I could go back and find it for you if you've forgotten already.
Here you go: What you are advocating for in your quote above certainly entails providing material support to terrorists [ISIS]. That was your plan. You can't deny your own fucking words.You said it, crystal clear. The fact that you have served, and I have not, gives you no right to call into question my patriotism. Once again, you wish to make this about Israel. Shocker. Seems everything is about Israel with you. I haven't even mentioned Israel hardly at all in the last 25 pages of this thread. But leave it to you to pull the anti-semite card when you are losing an argument. This is about the interests of the United States. Not Israel. Our stated national directive, as directed by both the President and Congress, as of right now, is to destroy ISIS. You want to go against the national command authority, and aid the very people the military has been directed to destroy. All to fuck with Iran, who wants to destroy ISIS as well. Genius!!! My suggesting that we tacitly cooperate with the Iranians doesn't make me a coward, unpatriotic, or any of the other bullshit you just spewed. And I sound whiney? Lol. Did you read your last post before you hit submit? You have resulted to ad hominem attacks because you can't support your ridiculous position. It's the true sign of someone tapping out of a debate. No worries. I won this argument a long time ago. It's been shown in the headlines of various papers and journals that what I have advocated for is already taking place on a tacit level. You can now return to your scholarly publications in Cicero online magazine. Class dismissed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly... you have no counter argument because your points are weak and you have no idea what you are talking about. And, once again, you are being intentionally dense to try to obfuscate the obvious. Iran has developed the capability to provide themselves with the option to go nuclear should they so choose. They haven't made the decision to move forward with a bomb at this time. There is too much international pressure to do so, and the world is currently too united against such a prospect. Depending on events going forward, they may choose to never fully develop a bomb. And a nuclear agreement with the international community makes the likelihood of Iran developing a bomb much less. The Obama Admin is currently negotiating with Iran to constrain Iran's program, and take away their current capability to break out and develop a bomb on short notice (1 1/2 to 2 months). The Administration wants to extend the possible break out time to at least a year, giving the international community adequate warning and time to head off a bomb should Iran make the decision to go down that path. The authors credentials are a little more than just her degrees. She currently works for RAND. Her RAND bio below. Dalia Dassa Kaye is the director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. In 2011-2012 she was a visiting professor and fellow at UCLA's International Institute and Burkle Center. Before joining RAND, Kaye served as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. She also taught at the University of Amsterdam and was a visiting scholar at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. From 1998 to 2003, Kaye was an assistant professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University. She is the recipient of many awards and fellowships, including a Brookings Institution research fellowship and The John W. Gardner Fellowship for Public Service. Kaye publishes widely on Middle East regional security issues, including in journals like Survival, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Quarterly, Foreign Policy, and Middle East Policy. She is author of Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia (RAND), Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process (Columbia University Press) and has co-authored a number of RAND monographs on a range of regional security issues. Kaye received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.rand.org/about/people/k/kaye_dalia_dassa.html On the other side of this argument, we have a Lt. Col. who wants to give military aid to terrorists chopping up innocent men, women, and children so they can fight the Iranians, and enable them to continue their slaughter of innocents. It is crystal clear who is credible on this issue and who is not. where have I said that? you are the one advocating aiding Bashir Assad (who gassed thousands of innocents.) You are the one advocating an alliance with a country responsible for the deaths of americans who actually have served this country unlike yourself. I have advocated we help neither. and what do you know of war? You kick back at your community college thinking about joining some other time. You are not only a liar but a coward by your own admission. Seeking an alliance with those who kill real americans because your hatred over israel overwhelms any semblence of patriotism. and you are a whiny little bitch to boot. I haven't lied about shit. Would you like me to quote your post in this thread where you specifically state "We should continue to aid the losing side [whether it be Iranian or ISIS] to prolong them killing each other as long as possible?" I could go back and find it for you if you've forgotten already.
Here you go: Quoted:
Much, if not most, of libya is controlled by AQIM. Why do we give a fuck about Syria when we don't care about Libya? Help the losers just enough to keep it going for as long as possible. What you are advocating for in your quote above certainly entails providing material support to terrorists [ISIS]. That was your plan. You can't deny your own fucking words.You said it, crystal clear. The fact that you have served, and I have not, gives you no right to call into question my patriotism. Once again, you wish to make this about Israel. Shocker. Seems everything is about Israel with you. I haven't even mentioned Israel hardly at all in the last 25 pages of this thread. But leave it to you to pull the anti-semite card when you are losing an argument. This is about the interests of the United States. Not Israel. Our stated national directive, as directed by both the President and Congress, as of right now, is to destroy ISIS. You want to go against the national command authority, and aid the very people the military has been directed to destroy. All to fuck with Iran, who wants to destroy ISIS as well. Genius!!! My suggesting that we tacitly cooperate with the Iranians doesn't make me a coward, unpatriotic, or any of the other bullshit you just spewed. And I sound whiney? Lol. Did you read your last post before you hit submit? You have resulted to ad hominem attacks because you can't support your ridiculous position. It's the true sign of someone tapping out of a debate. No worries. I won this argument a long time ago. It's been shown in the headlines of various papers and journals that what I have advocated for is already taking place on a tacit level. You can now return to your scholarly publications in Cicero online magazine. Class dismissed. Yeah. The academics have always won the war. I don't know who you love more. Obama or the Mullahs of Iran. When you find yourself agreeing with Obama's foreign policy, you aren't winning any argument. You are losing. Clinton was also very good at stopping North Korea's nuclear program. Thats the model. You seem comfortable with it. Terrorists killing terrorists is a win. You are the one who wants to ally with an ideology for whom, "Death to America" is a core tenant. Why do you love people who hate America so much? Why you want to help people who are gassing thousands of people? Bashir Assad is over 100K killed? Why do you want to help him so much? Sometimes you need to at least LIKE your own country more than you hate israel. But I know you can't pull it off. And safe and comfy back home you can think that the Shiittes are "the good american killing terrorists" But there are those with both the education AND the experience to know they are all bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:48:06 AM EDT
[#17]
Chill y'all.
Iran is scared. Noam Chomsky and Mk262 CC faculty advisors say so. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-iranian-official-obama-is-the-weakest-of-u-s-presidents/ some nice tid bits here The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon.
The comments by Ali Younesi, senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, come as Iran continues to buck U.S. attempts to woo it into the international coalition currently battling the Islamic State (IS, ISIL, or ISIS). “Conservatives are war mongers, they cannot tolerate powers like Iran,” he said. “If conservatives were in power they would go to war with us because they follow Israel and they want to portray Iran as the main threat and not ISIS.” Younesi took a more conciliatory view towards U.S. Democrats, who he praised for viewing Iran as “no threat.” “We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said. The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon. About the potential for a nuclear deal, Youseni said, “I am not optimistic so much, but the two sides are willing to reach results,” according to an official translation posted online by Fars News. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have adopted a much more pessimistic view of Iran’s negotiating tactics, which many on the Hill maintain are meant to stall for time as Tehran completes its nuclear weapon. Oh yeah. Clearly you stand atop the intellectual mountain here. MK262. You are firmly entrenched in the democrat's foreign policy. And you call that, "winning" I'd love to hear you expound on economics. Must be a Krugman fan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:58:18 AM EDT
[#18]
I know it's a little old news now, and there have probably been 5 separate threads on it, but in case someone missed it, 3 dipshit teenage girls from Denver tried to join ISIS. They were Somali or Sudanese.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/colorado-teens-syria-odyssey/index.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 12:23:03 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 3:22:30 PM EDT
[#20]
I'm watching Al Jazeera and they're showing how the Iraqi Army doesn't have enough EOD techs to deal with all the IEDs that IS have placed. This Lieutenant is explaining how they are going to clear this village by shelling it with artillery to set off said devices and the camera pans to his guys whomping 82mm mortars into said village for this purpose.
Yeah,that should work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:29:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. The academics have always won the war. I don't know who you love more. Obama or the Mullahs of Iran. When you find yourself agreeing with Obama's foreign policy, you aren't winning any argument. You are losing. Clinton was also very good at stopping North Korea's nuclear program. Thats the model. You seem comfortable with it. Terrorists killing terrorists is a win. You are the one who wants to ally with an ideology for whom, "Death to America" is a core tenant. Why do you love people who hate America so much? Why you want to help people who are gassing thousands of people? Bashir Assad is over 100K killed? Why do you want to help him so much? Sometimes you need to at least LIKE your own country more than you hate israel. But I know you can't pull it off. And safe and comfy back home you can think that the Shiittes are "the good american killing terrorists" But there are those with both the education AND the experience to know they are all bad. Riiiiiiight. Because I don't pray at Sylvan's Temple of Strategic Stupidity (STSS), I am: 1) an Obama lover 2) anti-American 3) fully on-board with Obama's policies, and 4) a lover of everything Mullah It's funny you say I'm inline with the Democrats, when it is you who is taking tactics from their playbook. You can't refute the arguments I've made (which have made your points look pathetically foolish), so you switch to Alinsky's tactics of not debating the opposing side's arguments, but instead, using ad hominem attacks. I hope you enjoy rubbing elbows with that kind of slime, because you are demonstrating the type of character necessary to walk squarely among them. I've already refuted all the other bullshit you've posted, so there is no need to go back and re-hash any of it. People can just go back and read the last 10 pages. As soon as you started the personal attacks and stopped debating, you lost the argument. It's ok, I accept your defeat. No need for me to pound my chest and gloat over it. Again, class dismissed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:31:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm watching Al Jazeera and they're showing how the Iraqi Army doesn't have enough EOD techs to deal with all the IEDs that IS have placed. This Lieutenant is explaining how they are going to clear this village by shelling it with artillery to set off said devices and the camera pans to his guys whomping 82mm mortars into said village for this purpose. Yeah,that should work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:41:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Riiiiiiight. Because I don't pray at Sylvan's Temple of Strategic Stupidity (STSS), I am: 1) an Obama lover 2) anti-American 3) fully on-board with Obama's policies, and 4) a lover of everything Mullah It's funny you say I'm inline with the Democrats, when it is you who is taking tactics from their playbook. You can't refute the arguments I've made (which have made your points look pathetically foolish), so you switch to Alinsky's tactics of not debating the opposing side's arguments, but instead, using ad hominem attacks. I hope you enjoy rubbing elbows with that kind of slime, because you are demonstrating the type of character necessary to walk squarely among them. I've already refuted all the other bullshit you've posted, so there is no need to go back and re-hash any of it. People can just go back and read the last 10 pages. As soon as you started the personal attacks and stopped debating, you lost the argument. It's ok, I accept your defeat. No need for me to pound my chest and gloat over it. Again, class dismissed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. The academics have always won the war. I don't know who you love more. Obama or the Mullahs of Iran. When you find yourself agreeing with Obama's foreign policy, you aren't winning any argument. You are losing. Clinton was also very good at stopping North Korea's nuclear program. Thats the model. You seem comfortable with it. Terrorists killing terrorists is a win. You are the one who wants to ally with an ideology for whom, "Death to America" is a core tenant. Why do you love people who hate America so much? Why you want to help people who are gassing thousands of people? Bashir Assad is over 100K killed? Why do you want to help him so much? Sometimes you need to at least LIKE your own country more than you hate israel. But I know you can't pull it off. And safe and comfy back home you can think that the Shiittes are "the good american killing terrorists" But there are those with both the education AND the experience to know they are all bad. Riiiiiiight. Because I don't pray at Sylvan's Temple of Strategic Stupidity (STSS), I am: 1) an Obama lover 2) anti-American 3) fully on-board with Obama's policies, and 4) a lover of everything Mullah It's funny you say I'm inline with the Democrats, when it is you who is taking tactics from their playbook. You can't refute the arguments I've made (which have made your points look pathetically foolish), so you switch to Alinsky's tactics of not debating the opposing side's arguments, but instead, using ad hominem attacks. I hope you enjoy rubbing elbows with that kind of slime, because you are demonstrating the type of character necessary to walk squarely among them. I've already refuted all the other bullshit you've posted, so there is no need to go back and re-hash any of it. People can just go back and read the last 10 pages. As soon as you started the personal attacks and stopped debating, you lost the argument. It's ok, I accept your defeat. No need for me to pound my chest and gloat over it. Again, class dismissed. You have refuted nothing. You have repeated various liberal foreign policy talking points verbatim with the notable exception that you can't keep your bullshit theories straight. Iran isn't making a bomb. Iran is making a bomb but US sanctions are going to stop it. Iran is making a bomb and it won't matter. We should ally with Iran to defeat ISIS. Iran doesn't need our help to defeat ISIS. If your argument consists of throwing 20 different theories out, many of which are mutually exclusive, then I guess you might be right eventually. You are the only person reading this thread who thinks you are doing well. Which is a tribute to self-delusion, if nothing else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:45:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have refuted nothing. You have repeated various liberal foreign policy talking points verbatim with the notable exception that you can't keep your bullshit theories straight. Iran isn't making a bomb. Iran is making a bomb but US sanctions are going to stop it. Iran is making a bomb and it won't matter. We should ally with Iran to defeat ISIS. Iran doesn't need our help to defeat ISIS. If your argument consists of throwing 20 different theories out, many of which are mutually exclusive, then I guess you might be right eventually. You are the only person reading this thread who thinks you are doing well. Which is a tribute to self-delusion, if nothing else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. The academics have always won the war. I don't know who you love more. Obama or the Mullahs of Iran. When you find yourself agreeing with Obama's foreign policy, you aren't winning any argument. You are losing. Clinton was also very good at stopping North Korea's nuclear program. Thats the model. You seem comfortable with it. Terrorists killing terrorists is a win. You are the one who wants to ally with an ideology for whom, "Death to America" is a core tenant. Why do you love people who hate America so much? Why you want to help people who are gassing thousands of people? Bashir Assad is over 100K killed? Why do you want to help him so much? Sometimes you need to at least LIKE your own country more than you hate israel. But I know you can't pull it off. And safe and comfy back home you can think that the Shiittes are "the good american killing terrorists" But there are those with both the education AND the experience to know they are all bad. Riiiiiiight. Because I don't pray at Sylvan's Temple of Strategic Stupidity (STSS), I am: 1) an Obama lover 2) anti-American 3) fully on-board with Obama's policies, and 4) a lover of everything Mullah It's funny you say I'm inline with the Democrats, when it is you who is taking tactics from their playbook. You can't refute the arguments I've made (which have made your points look pathetically foolish), so you switch to Alinsky's tactics of not debating the opposing side's arguments, but instead, using ad hominem attacks. I hope you enjoy rubbing elbows with that kind of slime, because you are demonstrating the type of character necessary to walk squarely among them. I've already refuted all the other bullshit you've posted, so there is no need to go back and re-hash any of it. People can just go back and read the last 10 pages. As soon as you started the personal attacks and stopped debating, you lost the argument. It's ok, I accept your defeat. No need for me to pound my chest and gloat over it. Again, class dismissed. You have refuted nothing. You have repeated various liberal foreign policy talking points verbatim with the notable exception that you can't keep your bullshit theories straight. Iran isn't making a bomb. Iran is making a bomb but US sanctions are going to stop it. Iran is making a bomb and it won't matter. We should ally with Iran to defeat ISIS. Iran doesn't need our help to defeat ISIS. If your argument consists of throwing 20 different theories out, many of which are mutually exclusive, then I guess you might be right eventually. You are the only person reading this thread who thinks you are doing well. Which is a tribute to self-delusion, if nothing else. Since you didn't just quote any of my positions, I'm doing just fine. Continue to intentionally mischaracterize and distort my views though. The strawmen you create are entertaining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:46:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suppose that's better than the "magic stick" bomb detectors they were using that worked on the same proven technology used in water dowsing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm watching Al Jazeera and they're showing how the Iraqi Army doesn't have enough EOD techs to deal with all the IEDs that IS have placed. This Lieutenant is explaining how they are going to clear this village by shelling it with artillery to set off said devices and the camera pans to his guys whomping 82mm mortars into said village for this purpose. Yeah,that should work. There were pics yesterday of them doing that in Baghdad
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:50:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were pics yesterday of them doing that in Baghdad Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm watching Al Jazeera and they're showing how the Iraqi Army doesn't have enough EOD techs to deal with all the IEDs that IS have placed. This Lieutenant is explaining how they are going to clear this village by shelling it with artillery to set off said devices and the camera pans to his guys whomping 82mm mortars into said village for this purpose. Yeah,that should work. There were pics yesterday of them doing that in Baghdad Inshallah. Daemon did EOD training with those guys. good luck with that. Cityslicker did, too. It was bad enough teaching them counter-IED. A complete waste. What was worse is we were giving them highly technical and expensive military detectors then cannot calibrate, operate or maintain when a simply 50 dollar model used by beach combers would have been better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 7:35:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chill y'all. Iran is scared. Noam Chomsky and Mk262 CC faculty advisors say so. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-iranian-official-obama-is-the-weakest-of-u-s-presidents/ some nice tid bits here Oh yeah. Clearly you stand atop the intellectual mountain here. MK262. You are firmly entrenched in the democrat's foreign policy. And you call that, "winning" I'd love to hear you expound on economics. Must be a Krugman fan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chill y'all. Iran is scared. Noam Chomsky and Mk262 CC faculty advisors say so. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-iranian-official-obama-is-the-weakest-of-u-s-presidents/ some nice tid bits here The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon.
The comments by Ali Younesi, senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, come as Iran continues to buck U.S. attempts to woo it into the international coalition currently battling the Islamic State (IS, ISIL, or ISIS). “Conservatives are war mongers, they cannot tolerate powers like Iran,” he said. “If conservatives were in power they would go to war with us because they follow Israel and they want to portray Iran as the main threat and not ISIS.” Younesi took a more conciliatory view towards U.S. Democrats, who he praised for viewing Iran as “no threat.” “We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said. The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon. About the potential for a nuclear deal, Youseni said, “I am not optimistic so much, but the two sides are willing to reach results,” according to an official translation posted online by Fars News. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have adopted a much more pessimistic view of Iran’s negotiating tactics, which many on the Hill maintain are meant to stall for time as Tehran completes its nuclear weapon. Oh yeah. Clearly you stand atop the intellectual mountain here. MK262. You are firmly entrenched in the democrat's foreign policy. And you call that, "winning" I'd love to hear you expound on economics. Must be a Krugman fan. The reason he thinks they should make a deal now is not because Obama is the weakest president ever... it's because oil is slumping below $90 a barrel and Iran's economic position is only going to continue to get worse as the oil price continues to decline. http://qz.com/286377/this-is-the-roadmap-for-closing-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/ But, people like you are happy to eat up Iranian propaganda in an effort to twist it to discredit the current negotiations, because it is your ultimate desire that they fail, which is stupid, because they offer our best chance of actually rolling back some of Iran's program. The Obama administration will be able to use this to their advantage going forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 8:37:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The reason he thinks they should make a deal now is not because Obama is the weakest president ever... it's because oil is slumping below $90 a barrel and Iran's economic position is only going to continue to get worse as the oil price continues to decline. http://qz.com/286377/this-is-the-roadmap-for-closing-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/ But, people like you are happy to eat up Iranian propaganda in an effort to twist it to discredit the current negotiations, because it is your ultimate desire that they fail, which is stupid, because they offer our best chance of actually rolling back some of Iran's program. The Obama administration will be able to use this to their advantage going forward. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chill y'all. Iran is scared. Noam Chomsky and Mk262 CC faculty advisors say so. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-iranian-official-obama-is-the-weakest-of-u-s-presidents/ some nice tid bits here The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon.
The comments by Ali Younesi, senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, come as Iran continues to buck U.S. attempts to woo it into the international coalition currently battling the Islamic State (IS, ISIL, or ISIS). “Conservatives are war mongers, they cannot tolerate powers like Iran,” he said. “If conservatives were in power they would go to war with us because they follow Israel and they want to portray Iran as the main threat and not ISIS.” Younesi took a more conciliatory view towards U.S. Democrats, who he praised for viewing Iran as “no threat.” “We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said. The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon. About the potential for a nuclear deal, Youseni said, “I am not optimistic so much, but the two sides are willing to reach results,” according to an official translation posted online by Fars News. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have adopted a much more pessimistic view of Iran’s negotiating tactics, which many on the Hill maintain are meant to stall for time as Tehran completes its nuclear weapon. Oh yeah. Clearly you stand atop the intellectual mountain here. MK262. You are firmly entrenched in the democrat's foreign policy. And you call that, "winning" I'd love to hear you expound on economics. Must be a Krugman fan. The reason he thinks they should make a deal now is not because Obama is the weakest president ever... it's because oil is slumping below $90 a barrel and Iran's economic position is only going to continue to get worse as the oil price continues to decline. http://qz.com/286377/this-is-the-roadmap-for-closing-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/ But, people like you are happy to eat up Iranian propaganda in an effort to twist it to discredit the current negotiations, because it is your ultimate desire that they fail, which is stupid, because they offer our best chance of actually rolling back some of Iran's program. The Obama administration will be able to use this to their advantage going forward. 
And here is where it all falls apart. what evidence do you have in obama's foreign policy record to indicate he has ever succeeded in forwarding american interests? Any other president (other than carter) and what you say makes sense. But it simply is not possible with the current leadership. they have failed miserably in every foreign policy decision and negotiation since 2009. whether deliberate or simply incompetence is arguable. but the idea that Kerry and Obama are going to negotiate a deal beneficial to the US is simply not a legitimate possibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 8:53:21 PM EDT
[#29]
http://qz.com/286377/this-is-the-roadmap-for-closing-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/
There are several problems with this thinking. 1) If Iran succeeded in building a bomb then the west would have no reason to continue sanctions. We sanctioned India and Pakistan after they went nuclear, then dropped the sanctions since they made no point. To a certain extent Iran can just gut this issue out. 2) That any one group in Iran can safely make a deal with the west. Arafat could not make a deal with the Israelis and survive. If one group trades away Iran's nuclear shield then they could be attacked by the group that wanted to keep their nuclear program. There is the often heard phrase that only Nixon could go to China, but what is less well understood is only Mao could make a deal with the west, because he was a one man cult of personality dictator. Iran is not Mao's china and can not turn on a dime. 3) The mullahs have no reason not to drag out negotiations as long as possible and then back out. 4) Any deal the mullahs make with the west could be overturned by a hostile us congress and senate (secretly the jews run everything) or by some other democratic change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 8:56:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And here is where it all falls apart. what evidence do you have in obama's foreign policy record to indicate he has ever succeeded in forwarding american interests? Any other president (other than carter) and what you say makes sense. But it simply is not possible with the current leadership. they have failed miserably in every foreign policy decision and negotiation since 2009. whether deliberate or simply incompetence is arguable. but the idea that Kerry and Obama are going to negotiate a deal beneficial to the US is simply not a legitimate possibility. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Chill y'all. Iran is scared. Noam Chomsky and Mk262 CC faculty advisors say so. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-iranian-official-obama-is-the-weakest-of-u-s-presidents/ some nice tid bits here The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon.
The comments by Ali Younesi, senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, come as Iran continues to buck U.S. attempts to woo it into the international coalition currently battling the Islamic State (IS, ISIL, or ISIS). “Conservatives are war mongers, they cannot tolerate powers like Iran,” he said. “If conservatives were in power they would go to war with us because they follow Israel and they want to portray Iran as the main threat and not ISIS.” Younesi took a more conciliatory view towards U.S. Democrats, who he praised for viewing Iran as “no threat.” “We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said. The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon. About the potential for a nuclear deal, Youseni said, “I am not optimistic so much, but the two sides are willing to reach results,” according to an official translation posted online by Fars News. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have adopted a much more pessimistic view of Iran’s negotiating tactics, which many on the Hill maintain are meant to stall for time as Tehran completes its nuclear weapon. Oh yeah. Clearly you stand atop the intellectual mountain here. MK262. You are firmly entrenched in the democrat's foreign policy. And you call that, "winning" I'd love to hear you expound on economics. Must be a Krugman fan. The reason he thinks they should make a deal now is not because Obama is the weakest president ever... it's because oil is slumping below $90 a barrel and Iran's economic position is only going to continue to get worse as the oil price continues to decline. http://qz.com/286377/this-is-the-roadmap-for-closing-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/ But, people like you are happy to eat up Iranian propaganda in an effort to twist it to discredit the current negotiations, because it is your ultimate desire that they fail, which is stupid, because they offer our best chance of actually rolling back some of Iran's program. The Obama administration will be able to use this to their advantage going forward.
And here is where it all falls apart. what evidence do you have in obama's foreign policy record to indicate he has ever succeeded in forwarding american interests? Any other president (other than carter) and what you say makes sense. But it simply is not possible with the current leadership. they have failed miserably in every foreign policy decision and negotiation since 2009. whether deliberate or simply incompetence is arguable. but the idea that Kerry and Obama are going to negotiate a deal beneficial to the US is simply not a legitimate possibility. So now you are conceding my approach makes sense, as long as Obama isn't the one to implement it? See, now we are making progress. 
The Obama Administration has the deck completely stacked in its favor in regard to these negotiations. If they dick it up, their incompetence will be regarded as Legen.................... wait for it............... ................. dary! 
But, considering Dalia Dassa Kaye's article, and the excellent points she made, it's now less likely the Obama Admin will give Iran a more favorable deal than was possible even 6 months ago. The leverage and momentum is moving toward a better deal for the United States. Ultimately though, whether the Obama Admin can maintain the discipline to forgo snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, only time will tell. Even if a good deal is made, some will be upset that a deal was reached at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 12:39:41 AM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:51:21 AM EDT
[#32]
Not any details,but
19-year-old Lance Cpl. Sean P. Neal of Riverside, California, died Thursday in Baghdad. http://www.jpost.com/International/First-American-casualty-in-ISIS-war-379760?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:21:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not any details,but
19-year-old Lance Cpl. Sean P. Neal of Riverside, California, died Thursday in Baghdad. http://www.jpost.com/International/First-American-casualty-in-ISIS-war-379760?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter non-combat wounds means one of two things, fucking around gone wrong or suicide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 6:49:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ So now you are conceding my approach makes sense, as long as Obama isn't the one to implement it? See, now we are making progress.
The Obama Administration has the deck completely stacked in its favor in regard to these negotiations. If they dick it up, their incompetence will be regarded as Legen.................... wait for it............... ................. dary!
But, considering Dalia Dassa Kaye's article, and the excellent points she made, it's now less likely the Obama Admin will give Iran a more favorable deal than was possible even 6 months ago. The leverage and momentum is moving toward a better deal for the United States. Ultimately though, whether the Obama Admin can maintain the discipline to forgo snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, only time will tell. Even if a good deal is made, some will be upset that a deal was reached at all. If you would have actually read my article, you would have seen I wrote that an agreement with Iran should be predicated on concrete guarantees on their nuclear program. In the absence of that, which is all but guaranteed that any agree with iran will be as hollow as those with NK 20 years ago, the best course of action is to let them kill themselves as long as possible. You are leaving no option outside an agreement with Iran. When you have already stated you will have an agreement whether good or bad, you are guaranteeing a bad agreement. again. real world versus academia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 7:28:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you would have actually read my article, you would have seen I wrote that an agreement with Iran should be predicated on concrete guarantees on their nuclear program. In the absence of that, which is all but guaranteed that any agree with iran will be as hollow as those with NK 20 years ago, the best course of action is to let them kill themselves as long as possible. You are leaving no option outside an agreement with Iran. When you have already stated you will have an agreement whether good or bad, you are guaranteeing a bad agreement. again. real world versus academia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ So now you are conceding my approach makes sense, as long as Obama isn't the one to implement it? See, now we are making progress.
The Obama Administration has the deck completely stacked in its favor in regard to these negotiations. If they dick it up, their incompetence will be regarded as Legen.................... wait for it............... ................. dary!
But, considering Dalia Dassa Kaye's article, and the excellent points she made, it's now less likely the Obama Admin will give Iran a more favorable deal than was possible even 6 months ago. The leverage and momentum is moving toward a better deal for the United States. Ultimately though, whether the Obama Admin can maintain the discipline to forgo snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, only time will tell. Even if a good deal is made, some will be upset that a deal was reached at all. If you would have actually read my article, you would have seen I wrote that an agreement with Iran should be predicated on concrete guarantees on their nuclear program. In the absence of that, which is all but guaranteed that any agree with iran will be as hollow as those with NK 20 years ago, the best course of action is to let them kill themselves as long as possible. You are leaving no option outside an agreement with Iran. When you have already stated you will have an agreement whether good or bad, you are guaranteeing a bad agreement. again. real world versus academia. I am leaving an option outside of a bad deal with Iran. That option is to let the talks collapse, and to continue to exert pressure with additional sanctions. I'll be honest and admit that this, too, could fail. Iran might react to this by escalating the crisis, removing the current restrictions on their program that they have agreed to, and moving ahead with expansion of their capabilities. Were this to occur, it is very likely the whole world community would be united in escalating sanctions to increase pain on Iran until they were willing to return to talks, or the Iranian economy collapsed. Should things escalate to that point, the survival of the regime would be in jeopardy. Ultimately, it is highly probable that Iran would chose to back down and return to talks with a desire for greater compromise. Dennis Ross, former US Ambassador to Israel and former Obama special adviser on Iran, wrote a good article on our options should talks fail to reach an agreement by Nov. 24th. He makes it clear that we don't have to rush and make a bad deal with Iran. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142219/dennis-ross/how-to-muddle-through-with-iran Negotiations with Iran and sanctions are our only options. (That's two options for those not mathematically inclined). Your fantasy strategy of letting Iran and ISIS kill each other is fucking stupid, and would not work without directly threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east. It is a strategy that would ultimately end up costing more damage to US security than any weak benefit it could provide. This is obvious to even the most casual observer. ISIS must be dealt with and dealt with now. The fact that you refuse to admit this, leaves one to question your motives and your desire to forgo acting in US interests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 8:48:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your fantasy strategy of letting Iran and ISIS kill each other is fucking stupid, and would not work without directly threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east. It is a strategy that would ultimately end up costing more damage to US security than any weak benefit it could provide. This is obvious to even the most casual observer. ISIS must be dealt with and dealt with now. ....and as the clock ticks off hours, days, years, Iran gets closer to building a nuke. There’s no leadership in the world, Obama is an honorary member of the Brotherhood. Last I checked, Netanyahu has made it very clear an Iranian nuclear weapon isn't going to happen. Is there any reason to believe he’s making empty threats? Which is worse for "threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east," Iran and ISIS fighting each other or an Israeli strike on Iran? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 8:59:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your fantasy strategy of letting Iran and ISIS kill each other is fucking stupid, and would not work without directly threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east. It is a strategy that would ultimately end up costing more damage to US security than any weak benefit it could provide. This is obvious to even the most casual observer. ISIS must be dealt with and dealt with now. . prove it. I fail to see how a weakened isis and a weakened iran hurt american interests or american allies in the region. the victory of one over the other would. Isis in a non-stop existential conflict is being dealt with. Do you think sunni extremism stops if for some reason the shias take over the levant? jihadis want to die for allah? i am all for facilitating that desire.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 9:16:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take it here, please http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1679545_Should_the_the_US_ally_with_Iran_to_fight_ISIS.html&page=1&anc=-1 Thanks for trying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:35:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
....and as the clock ticks off hours, days, years, Iran gets closer to building a nuke. Quote HistoryQuoted:
....and as the clock ticks off hours, days, years, Iran gets closer to building a nuke. Iran is not getting closer to a nuke. Through the agreed up Interim Geneva Agreement, Iran has down blended its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to 5%, and is no longer producing 20% enriched material. Iran has also frozen its construction on the Arak heavy water reactor. This is a substantial step back in Iran's nuclear progress, not a step forward. They are not making progress to a bomb at this time. It was agreed Iran could continue to do R&D on centrifuge design, but only those designs they already had in development. No new centrifuges can be created, other than replacements for those that have broken. There’s no leadership in the world, Obama is an honorary member of the Brotherhood. LOL Last I checked, Netanyahu has made it very clear an Iranian nuclear weapon isn't going to happen. Since Netanyahu doesn't have a say in it, his words are meaningless. Is there any reason to believe he’s making empty threats? Lots Which is worse for "threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east," Iran and ISIS fighting each other or an Israeli strike on Iran?
Since Iran is not currently progressing toward a bomb, and since Iran is currently in negotiations to restrict its program, I would say neither are in the cards. A deal will get done at some point, probably not by the Nov. 24th deadline, but somewhere down the road. The parties will continue talking. Israel will not bomb Iran's program, and Iran and ISIS will continue to do battle... the US will also remain engaged in the destruction of ISIS. The end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 10:57:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
prove it. I fail to see how a weakened isis and a weakened iran hurt american interests or american allies in the region. the victory of one over the other would. Isis in a non-stop existential conflict is being dealt with. Do you think sunni extremism stops if for some reason the shias take over the levant? jihadis want to die for allah? i am all for facilitating that desire.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your fantasy strategy of letting Iran and ISIS kill each other is fucking stupid, and would not work without directly threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east. It is a strategy that would ultimately end up costing more damage to US security than any weak benefit it could provide. This is obvious to even the most casual observer. ISIS must be dealt with and dealt with now. . prove it. I fail to see how a weakened isis and a weakened iran hurt american interests or american allies in the region. the victory of one over the other would. Isis in a non-stop existential conflict is being dealt with. Do you think sunni extremism stops if for some reason the shias take over the levant? jihadis want to die for allah? i am all for facilitating that desire.. No, I don't think Sunni extremism will stop if Shi'ites take over the Levant. Nor do I think it is possible for Shi'ites to take over the Levant. If Iran was to destroy ISIS, they would only maintain (and move to consolidate) their traditional spheres of influence, through their traditional allies (the Iraqi government, Assad, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad/ Hamas). Regardless of your desires, it's never going to be policy... so have fun fantasizing about that which will never materialize. No one is going to let savages of that caliber run around lopping people's heads off (US citizens included among them if you have forgotten), and allow them to have a growing army to wreck havoc throughout the middle east. What I have advocated for is currently taking place through Iraqi intermediaries. And the US is better served for it. ISIS needs to be destroyed. I don't want Americans grabbing a slice of pizza in NYC to get blown up because some ISIS shithead with an US passport decided to return "home" and make a name for himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 12:35:22 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for trying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Take it here, please http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1679545_Should_the_the_US_ally_with_Iran_to_fight_ISIS.html&page=1&anc=-1 Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 12:51:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Future Warlord of the M.E.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 8:16:40 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I don't think Sunni extremism will stop if Shi'ites take over the Levant. Nor do I think it is possible for Shi'ites to take over the Levant. If Iran was to destroy ISIS, they would only maintain (and move to consolidate) their traditional spheres of influence, through their traditional allies (the Iraqi government, Assad, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad/ Hamas). Regardless of your desires, it's never going to be policy... so have fun fantasizing about that which will never materialize. No one is going to let savages of that caliber run around lopping people's heads off (US citizens included among them if you have forgotten), and allow them to have a growing army to wreck havoc throughout the middle east. What I have advocated for is currently taking place through Iraqi intermediaries. And the US is better served for it. ISIS needs to be destroyed. I don't want Americans grabbing a slice of pizza in NYC to get blown up because some ISIS shithead with an US passport decided to return "home" and make a name for himself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your fantasy strategy of letting Iran and ISIS kill each other is fucking stupid, and would not work without directly threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east. It is a strategy that would ultimately end up costing more damage to US security than any weak benefit it could provide. This is obvious to even the most casual observer. ISIS must be dealt with and dealt with now. . prove it. I fail to see how a weakened isis and a weakened iran hurt american interests or american allies in the region. the victory of one over the other would. Isis in a non-stop existential conflict is being dealt with. Do you think sunni extremism stops if for some reason the shias take over the levant? jihadis want to die for allah? i am all for facilitating that desire.. No, I don't think Sunni extremism will stop if Shi'ites take over the Levant. Nor do I think it is possible for Shi'ites to take over the Levant. If Iran was to destroy ISIS, they would only maintain (and move to consolidate) their traditional spheres of influence, through their traditional allies (the Iraqi government, Assad, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad/ Hamas). Regardless of your desires, it's never going to be policy... so have fun fantasizing about that which will never materialize. No one is going to let savages of that caliber run around lopping people's heads off (US citizens included among them if you have forgotten), and allow them to have a growing army to wreck havoc throughout the middle east. What I have advocated for is currently taking place through Iraqi intermediaries. And the US is better served for it. ISIS needs to be destroyed. I don't want Americans grabbing a slice of pizza in NYC to get blown up because some ISIS shithead with an US passport decided to return "home" and make a name for himself. Having shia overlords in majority Sunni areas will not destroy ISIS. It will simply ensure it has a different name. Iran in charge won't stop ISIS or any Sunni extremism. That happens through saudi arabia. And the more power iran has, the less inclined saudi arabia will be to change. Your entire argument, like the obama administrations which you mirror, is rife with wrong assumption, flawed logic and a complete lack of understanding of the region born of ignorance of both war and the region. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:12:06 AM EDT
[#44]
Why not just stay out of it, let them kill eachother, and aid the Kurds? Kill any hostile forces within a certain radius of Iraqi-Kurdistan, regardless of if it's Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, or Islamic State.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:22:29 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQassem Soleimani will become a household name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:24:44 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Qassem Soleimani will become a household name. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Qassem Soleimani will become a household name. what could go wrong
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 10:34:05 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Qassem Soleimani will become a household name. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Qassem Soleimani will become a household name. I hope the Jews take him out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 10:58:35 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope the Jews take him out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Qassem Soleimani will become a household name. I hope the Jews take him out. What's the story on Soleimani specifically? What makes him so bad? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 11:27:26 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having shia overlords in majority Sunni areas will not destroy ISIS. It will simply ensure it has a different name. Iran in charge won't stop ISIS or any Sunni extremism. That happens through saudi arabia. And the more power iran has, the less inclined saudi arabia will be to change. Your entire argument, like the obama administrations which you mirror, is rife with wrong assumption, flawed logic and a complete lack of understanding of the region born of ignorance of both war and the region. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your fantasy strategy of letting Iran and ISIS kill each other is fucking stupid, and would not work without directly threatening regional allies and destabilizing the middle east. It is a strategy that would ultimately end up costing more damage to US security than any weak benefit it could provide. This is obvious to even the most casual observer. ISIS must be dealt with and dealt with now. . prove it. I fail to see how a weakened isis and a weakened iran hurt american interests or american allies in the region. the victory of one over the other would. Isis in a non-stop existential conflict is being dealt with. Do you think sunni extremism stops if for some reason the shias take over the levant? jihadis want to die for allah? i am all for facilitating that desire.. No, I don't think Sunni extremism will stop if Shi'ites take over the Levant. Nor do I think it is possible for Shi'ites to take over the Levant. If Iran was to destroy ISIS, they would only maintain (and move to consolidate) their traditional spheres of influence, through their traditional allies (the Iraqi government, Assad, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad/ Hamas). Regardless of your desires, it's never going to be policy... so have fun fantasizing about that which will never materialize. No one is going to let savages of that caliber run around lopping people's heads off (US citizens included among them if you have forgotten), and allow them to have a growing army to wreck havoc throughout the middle east. What I have advocated for is currently taking place through Iraqi intermediaries. And the US is better served for it. ISIS needs to be destroyed. I don't want Americans grabbing a slice of pizza in NYC to get blown up because some ISIS shithead with an US passport decided to return "home" and make a name for himself. Having shia overlords in majority Sunni areas will not destroy ISIS. It will simply ensure it has a different name. Iran in charge won't stop ISIS or any Sunni extremism. That happens through saudi arabia. And the more power iran has, the less inclined saudi arabia will be to change. Your entire argument, like the obama administrations which you mirror, is rife with wrong assumption, flawed logic and a complete lack of understanding of the region born of ignorance of both war and the region. No. It's because you are more concerned about Israeli interests than you are about confronting the most immediate threat to the region. So now your strategy is to suck off and reward the Saudis for their support of Sunni extremism, in a hope they will reign in the Sunni extremism they created? Hmmm... rewarding terror. Interesting strategy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 11:29:01 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the story on Soleimani specifically? What makes him so bad? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Qassem Soleimani will become a household name. I hope the Jews take him out. What's the story on Soleimani specifically? What makes him so bad? http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
