nonailsleft
joined 2 years ago
In which world getting thousands of Hezbolla operatives unwittingly keeping a bomb in their pocket would not be a good use of resources for Israel?
we all knew a fair chunk of the voters
You guessed it: Not allowed
I'm not saying it's as annoying to read as some 'dance around the issue' 'articles' from 'the other side', but the need to inject a truckload of related bagage into every sentence just devalues the entire effort.
Like, yes Kevin, we know this is bad. We know it doesn't spark joy in the hearts of Haitian children. But just act like you're half a journalist and give us a clear cut of the cold dry facts. Wrap up your emotional shit in a closing paragraph if it helps you convince yourself
Like sleeve of wizard
I can agree that it's debatable whether it was a good idea, but how is it 'nonsense' that the fact that sunset clause makes the deal very awkward? Why do you think the Iranians wanted it in, if not for the freedom to just develop nukes later?
Also the Iranian regime think they have a good shot at going to paradise because they allow men to rape their child brides, amongst other horrific shit. I can see the case we don't want these kind of people with the power of nuclear weapons.
They just shifted their resources to the missile development side of the puzzle, and the deal itself would only limit their uranium enrichment for 15 years. It just kicked the can down the road to 2031 for Iran to have their nukes 'legally'.
He'll write them some firm words on the bombs
Tbh the idea under Obama to bait the Iranians to drop their religious nuclear nutjobbery with money was naive at best. Even under the agreement, they were doing everything they could to advance towards nukes.
I wouldn't suggest anyone to get into politics that can't come to terms with collateral damage
Of course, this was going to clash with his cuddledaddy image sometime