Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact

U.S. Sticks It to Enemies: P5+1 Reaches Iran Accord

Enemies working against the United States of America suffered a setback this morning when despite the best efforts to sink a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear question, P5+1 negotiatiors announced a pact↱.

For their part, the Israeli government denounced the accord, and the #GOP47 has yet to release an official statement.
____________________

Notes:

Mitchell, Andrea and Abigail Williams. "Iran nuclear deal: Tehran, US agree to historic pact". msnbc. 14 July 2015. msnbc.com. 14 July 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1HZnMEY

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Enemies posing as friends?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As United States Senators.

I'm just having a little fun with the #GOP47. The larger point is that President Obama just put a stumbling block along the Republican path to war.

I mean, really. The House rejected President Obama's AUMF request against Daa'ish because it didn't start a big enough war. The House also gave the Israeli prime minister a platform to warmonger against Iran in the middle of his election season. Sen. Rubio's campaign slogan is "A New American Century"; and he's taken to quoting Liam Neeson, for something, something, something sake. Gov. Christie wants a war with China. The Republican candidates are pretty much promising Americans a war. Sen. Graham, to the other, is at least kind enough to give us some detail; he wants twenty to thirty thousand troops on the ground against Daa'ish. And to that point I would note his is the only warmongering with a remotely proper context. Because we're already at war. Committing ground troops, whether we agree with the proposition or not, is fair game as a policy argument.

And in the middle of it all, forty-seven Republicans in the United States Senate tried to submarine the P5+1.

This ... is ... insanity.

And, you know, Rachel Maddow↱ had a point tonight that's actually worth passing along. As it happens, we're both forty-two years old, separated by less than two months. And she made the point tonight that the question of war with Iran has loomed pretty much her entire life. And, well, sure. It was during the hostage crisis that my own political conscience happened to begin waking. For my part, I can say it hasn't really set in that this resolution may well be the proper rejoinder to a specter looming over the whole period of my political awareness. But, yeah. She's got a point.

There are still ways for this to go wrong, but it is important to remember that forty-seven Senate Republicans tried to stop this from happening, because they want the U.S. at war.

Except we're already at war.

Sort of.

But House Republicans won't approve it because it's not a big enough war.

They're trying to start a really big war. This seems rather quite significant, and clearly is not in the nation's best interest.
____________________

Notes:

Maddow, Rachel. "Historic nuclear deal puts US, Iran on path to peace". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc, New York. 14 July 2015. msnbc.com. 15 July 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1RxPmxD

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Be careful what you wish for."

anecdote:
Long ago and far away:
At the end of basic training for the army:
We were made to believe that we were at war with China.
"Oh shit", I thought-------"China who could field a soldier for every man, woman, and child alive in the United States------oh shit........".
Then I noticed that almost all of the 1700 assembled in our battalion were jumping up and down with enthusiasm......shouting things like, "Yah,lets kill them", etc...................
and then I thought, "Not only do I have to fight the Chinese, but I get to do it surrounded by idiots"............."OH SHIT",
as I sank down in my seat.
'Twas then that I noticed that at the end of every row of seats was a corporal or sergeant, taking notes. Afterward, I was ordered to see the battalion commander. While waiting, I met the other 5 or 6 "Oh shits"---6 or 7 out of 1700---------less than 1/2 of 1 percent who seemed to have some modest degree of intelligence. When called into the commander's office, I was informed that I had a bad attitude................I'm afraid that my response was a tad less than kind or respectful.

If Christie wants war with China, give the crazy fat bastard a rifle and aim his idiot ass in the general direction of Asia!

 

I think his ass would do more damage.

 

This seems not very helpful for many reasons. In 10 years they can build as many atomic bombs as they want without having anyone watch them or stop them. During that 10 year time period there are ways of building things to make things needed for building bombs and get a 24 day notice before anyone can investigate what Iran is doing. That's like telling a meth maker there's going to be a investigation into what he is up to in his house to which the drug maker will just move everything incriminating elsewhere. Not a very good idea to me but hey this is what they get.

 

Confidence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

It really was a remarkable press conference. Steve Benen↱ gushes:

Ordinarily, in response to a breakthrough diplomatic achievement like this one, you might expect to see a president sidestep criticisms and focus on praise and international support, all in the hopes of building public and congressional support. It's typical, and arguably natural, for a president to downplay the role of naysayers.

Obama did the exact opposite. He welcomed criticisms. He literally sought them out. The president seemed eager, if not genuinely enthusiastic, about hearing the very worst critics could come up with. Obama effectively stood at the podium for an hour and said, "Give me your best shot."

Indeed, after calling on specific reporters by name, Obama moved to a freer, more open press conference towards the end, pointing to those who had something negative to ask about the deal, all because the president was looking for critical talking points that he could debunk in real time.

Take a close look in the above clip at what the president does towards the end: he reaches into his pocket, pulls out a note, and says, "I'm just going to look – I made some notes about many of the arguments – the other arguments that I've heard here ...."

In other words, the president, no longer content to debunk the negative arguments raised by the press corps, started playing devil's advocate – to himself – looking for additional negative critiques that he could also discredit publicly.

It conveyed an amazing level of confidence in the diplomatic agreement. Obama made it clear that no matter what anyone asked, argued, or complained, he knew this deal is stronger than anything its (or his) critics could come up with.​

But it's also pretty much true. And, really, what this was about was bludgeoning the #GOP47.

Q So none of this is holding out hope that they'll change their behavior?

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Q Nothing different --

THE PRESIDENT: No. Look, I'm always hopeful that behavior may change for the sake of the Iranian people as well as people in the region. There are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve because of conflict, because of sectarianism, because of poor governance, because of repression, because of terrorism. And I remain eternally hopeful that we can do something about that, and it should be part of U.S. foreign policy to do something about that. But I'm not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do.

Again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an American President is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point Iran says we're going to pull out of the NPT, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. If that happens, that President will be in a better position than what happened if Iran, as a consequence of Congress rejecting this deal, decides that's it, we're done negotiating, we're going after a bomb right now.

The choices would be tougher today than they would be for that President 15 years from now. And I have not yet heard logic that refutes that.

(White House↱)​

The press kind of played along; it wasn't an acrimonious exchange. After all, if a president is going to stand there and keep talking and prod you to prod him, why not?

And it's true. President Obama seems to be having a good day. In the larger political scheme, I wonder if Republicans recognize the magnitude of their contribution to what will become his legend. Republicans played their most desperate cards almost from the outset, and for some reason people tried to read some sort of significance into a Democratic defeat in a Year Six election. Everything the Republicans have been pushing for keeps coming apart, and as we pass through what is supposed to be Mr. Obama's lame duck period, when he gets nothing done, well, where, exactly, did this myth come from? The last two years are when a president can cut loose; President Clinton did some of his most overtly liberal work during those last couple years ... after getting waxed in a Year Six election.

The thing is that for all the gloom and doom Republicans have built up, each of these successes has only grown the president's future legend.

And this? After all that noise? Yeah, President Obama clearly enjoyed taking it to the #GOP47 today.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Obama plays devil's advocate … to himself". msnbc. 16 July 2015. msnbc.com. 15 July 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1I3r1vb

Obama, Barack. "Press Conference by the President". The White House Office of the Press Secretary. 15 July 2015. WhiteHouse.gov. 15 July 2015. http://go.wh.gov/zjXZmq

 

Again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an American President is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point Iran says we're going to pull out of the NPT, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. If that happens, that President will be in a better position than what happened if Iran, as a consequence of Congress rejecting this deal, decides that's it, we're done negotiating, we're going after a bomb right now. ​

'If.'

 

That sounds like too much Fox News Cosmic. This deal has 24/7 monitoring of ALL Iran's nuclear facilities, from mining through product delivery and subsequent usage. The "24 day" provision, and it isn't a notice, it's a process which may take up to 24 days if Iran resists and it only applies to sites we deem suspicious and Iran does not acknowledge as nuclear or nuclear related sites. Two, nuclear processing and handling requires very specialized equipment and trace material is left behind. So 24 days are not, it won't help Iran disguise any nuclear processing it may have conducted. And as President Obama said yesterday, we can don't need to be onsite to monitor any suspicious sites. We have satellite and other ways of monitoring suspicious facilities almost instantaneously. We do it all the time. And this monitoring of Iran's nuclear facilities never ends.

Three, when this is implemented, Iran will be required to surrender almost all of its weapons grade nuclear materials and the centrifuges it needs to refine nuclear material. Without this deal, Iran is only a few days to a few months from developing a nuclear bomb, after this deal Iran will be years away from developing a nuclear weapon. It would need to reacquire the centrifuges, and refine enough nuclear weapons grade material. That takes time. And if Iran is found to have violated any portion of the agreement, the sanctions come back immediately.

You have been watching too much Fox News again my friend. As President Obama said yesterday, there is no scenario in which the US, Israel, or the world is better off without this deal. Yesterday President Obama challenged Republicans to identify that a scenario in which the world was better off without this agreement or produce a better agreement. To date, no Republicans have stepped up to the challenge. And it's not like Republicans haven't known of these discussions. This has been a very long and drawn-out discussion.

 

What monitoring is being conducted in Iran at large? What sensors are in place?

 

The Happeningest Cat in Town

Gentlemen, I am deeply, deeply skeptical here.

I don't have all day, so I'll make it short: The majority of the news around it appears to be the line Tiassa takes above: screw you, 47 GOP senators or whatever the hell it is. As someone with wider interests, I could honestly not really care less about the usual one-upsmanship of American politics except when it causes the rest of the world masses of economic, moral and military suffering and uncertainty, which is pretty much always. You made the questionably bad guys in your nation look questionably bad? Aw: well, you won then. Your legend is secure, sir! No, sir, this is not fawning! You are too smart to be taken in by fawning, sir! And, if I may add, just too sexy. No no, thank you, sir!

Of course, the central problem here is the issue of just setting up alternate facilities, like was done two other times in 2002. Even this quiiite puffy piece in the Economist states the basic fact that Iran has done it before. But have no fear: the UN or the US detected those facilities and warned the world.

Except, of course, it was Iranian dissidents that did that. No one else - well, except maybe the presently out-of-vogue Israelis - had any idea these places existed. So, this is kind of a probably-maybe state: the UN will monitor every scrap of fissile material that Iran gets from anywhere (?) and uses for anything? How, exactly, does the UN then explain Natanz and Arak? What were the Iranians going to build there, snowcones? They seemed pretty confident of their ability to divert materials for those programs. And what, too, was the point of these places? Nuclear power from a pair of secret facilities? Erm. Well. Not too likely, really.

The next logical question is whose regime built Natanz and Arak. Is it - if I may - the the same guy as today? Erm. Well. Kind of is, actually. In that event, I'm left wondering why exactly I should believe that some new era of mutual co-operation really exists here. Godwin Alert: it's a touch like saying that Hitler had reformed in some manner after gobbling up the Sudetenland. Sure, he was a bit radical a few years ago. But he's changed! You know, like the Bushes changed and got more humanitarian. The leopard never changes his spots... until right now! Just look at that spotless leopard! Why, he's so special, he is literally one of a fucking kind: until now, no other religious or secular dictator ever changed his ways and we would, collectively, on the left, have called anyone who thought so stupid or naive. That's how special this cat Khamenei is.

Erm. Well.

When the supposition overwhelms reason, it becomes more reasonable to be skeptical.

 

Except Natanz and Arak were discovered by US intelligence assets, the central problem with your skepticism is that alternate facilities would suffer from the same kinds of problems which allowed the US and other allied powers to discover Natanz and Arak and Iran’s other existing nuclear facilities. It wasn’t like Iran put up big signs readily identifying its nuclear facilities to the world. They were discovered and identified by the same intelligence assets which would discover any “alternate” nuclear facilities should Iran decide to build them. Any alternate nuclear facilities would require new mines to be built, new roads to be built, new processing facilities to be constructed, and the acquisition of new processing equipment (e.g. centrifuges) all of which would be easily discovered by the US and allied powers should Iran go down that path.

The article in the Economist was actually a good article. But it doesn’t say what you need it to say. It says Iran has cheated, and it has. And we know it cheated because of the same intelligence assets which have been and will remain in place indefinitely. As President Obama said yesterday, no one expects Iran to change its colors or to suddenly become trustworthy. That is why the deal expands Allied and UN capacity to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities and if Iran should violate this agreement at any time, all the sanctions by all the parties would be restored in short order. The deal certainly doesn’t diminish the power of the UN or allied powers to monitor Iranian nuclear activities. It expands it.

 

Which sat on the information for some time: six months to a year? This is not the century in which I really trust national intelligence directives either.

Possibly: but what detected them in the first place? It doesn't seem to have been the UN, which is going to be the body responsible for regulating now also, apparently. The Iranians appear to have managed to get around them before. I expect that in thirteen years, little will have changed. If the US finds something out, what will prompt them to move on it?

I think what it does is provide a feel of possibly false security. If the UN is really doing the monitoring, my skepticism goes up. It's a fine deal if you're dealing with a trustworthy country and, as Obama has seemingly made clear, Iran isn't. The same Supreme Leader is still calling the shots as in 2002. My suspicion is that this provides the incentive of an economic breathing space which we are probably meant to believe will act as a positive prod for peace. But there's simply no reason to conclude that any such thing will work in a totalitarian country: I raise Iraq as an example here. The better solution is to encourage a real Spring Cleaning, if it can be done, using the power of Iran's young secularists. Otherwise, it's just treating the symptoms rather than the disease. We are essentially in a developing but not dissimilar situation. Another question is Iran's real timeline for bomb creation: was it really two months at this point, or is this another kind of propaganda? If the former, wouldn't they already have the capacity before the agreement can come into place? There are many questions here.

And let's stay off the passive-aggressive "it doesn’t say what you need it to say" nonsense, if you don't mind. It doesn't follow that I require your president or system to be hoodwinked merely because I point out the grey areas in which said hoodwinkery might exist.

 

Just out of curiosity, why would you say that about wider interests immediately before demonstrating your narrow interests?

The #GOP47 needs a good smack because what they did was beyond the pale. Not only was it stupidly clownish, it was also really, really dangerous. You might find this sort of warmongering more important if the GOP actually manages to drag us into another war.

We just took Iran off the list, after failing to find an excuse for forty damn years. This is significant, especially to those of us who have lived with the spectre our entire lives.

And it's really unclear what the detractors want. That is to say, as near as anyone can tell, they want the impossible. They want everything they want and they want it forever. That's not how international diplomacy works.

Furthermore, all our fears of what Iran does in fifteen years require the proposition that the geopolitical situation either remains in stasis or degrades further. We must, in order to allow those fears to possess us, forfeit any thought of improving relations between the United States and Iran.

Consider a swath of land starting at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean. Now run all the way to the western edge of India.

Consider another large area running along the southern Mediterranean coast, from Tunisia down to Ethiopia.

And then throw in Indonesia, just because.

Now imagine the United States of America at war in every one of those countries.

And then try to tell us about your "wider interests".

Because once upon a time there were these guys who came to work for the President of the United States. President Nixon, that is. And they managed to stick around through the Ford administration, and a second lease on political life under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, on up into Bill Clinton's term. They are dualistic, derived from the philosophies of a University of Chicago professor named Strauss, and believe that a nation's strength is so invested in its perception of threat that leaders are obliged to create false appearances of threat for the sake of the nation.

And after all those years in the Beltway, working largely in the Department of Defense, they brought to President Clinton a National Security Strategy for a new era. Having just finished our Cold War with the Soviets, they wanted to start a new one. With every Muslim from the Mediterranean to Indonesia. And they wanted this new Cold War in order to foment a hot war. President Clinton said no, even going so far as to describe the NSS as "barbaric".

These days, we know it by another name: Bush Doctrine.

The Republicans want a war. They want a really big war and they want it really, really badly.

Daa'ish, Iran, Russia, China? Who will it be? The one constant in the early going is that the Republican presidential candidates are virtually promising us a war. And there are forty-seven Republicans in the United States Senate who just tried to do the same.

As to the rest? Oh, look, GeoffP is denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims again. Big fucking surprise. Khamenei can be just as big of an asshole as he always was if he wants; your presupposition that he will destroy Iran in order to get what he wants? He could easily have destroyed Iran in order to get whatever it is he's supposed to want, already.

So here's a challenge for your wider interests: Try putting as much effort into thinking of a better solution as you do complaining.

No, seriously, it's a pleasantly pretentious rant, but hardly useful.

 

There's a lot to address in this post, Tiassa, so I won't hit on everything, but will try to cover the highlights.

Not entirely sure what you mean here, but there's no need to try to force this thing back to the absurd bi-party centrality. No one in the larger world cares about that, Tiassa.

The ... 'spectre'?

I think we're about the same age here, and while I can recall some spectres haunting our horizons - nuclear war with the USSR, or China, or that SPECTRE organisation from the James Bond movies - I don't remember 'war with Iran' as being one of them. And moreover, it just isn't possible.

Right now, the US can't even get into Syria: there is really absolutely zero chance of a full-scale war against Iran with the possible exception of some anti-shipping strikes and the odd air-to-surface/surface-to-air skirmish. That's it. The Iranians are well-armed and organized and playing on their home field. The maximum that American forces could achieve would be to beat their military - or the field portion of it, anyway - and reduce the country to chaos... which the Americans are not going to do for a long, long time. World mood against the American policeman - and I did believe in it at one time - is at a higher peak than oil. No one is going to put up with it, not again. Iraq has demonstrated the complete fallibility of such an approach. You have not 'lived with the spectre [your whole life].' It's a recent push; and while it cannot possibly work, it at least is less co-operative with a pack of nutty theocrats. I suspect this is the plan that Republicans are pushing; facing off in skirmishes as power realpolitik. And as an approach, it can hardly be less questionable than 'Obama's International Legacy'. I get it, you love him. But he's a politician, and that means no free passes.

If the plan works, great. It's just that it seems extraordinarily doubtful; same regime, different outlook? And there's no need for this massive complaint about those nasty 47: this is your democracy and civics at work here. Administrations are binding unto those that wrote them, and that's a fact.

Well it sounds to me like they want to keep facing off militarily with the Iranians, largely through low-intensity conflicts in Iraq. That's not a great plan either. How international diplomacy also works is status quo ante. That is, you're not obliged to do something that probably won't work in order to do something, or - as you're leaning towards - establishing your legacy. Isn't that a Patton Oswalt line?

Furthermore, all our fears of what Iran does in fifteen years require the proposition that the geopolitical situation either remains in stasis or degrades further. We must, in order to allow those fears to possess us, forfeit any thought of improving relations between the United States and Iran.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, in defense of the bad ministers under your revised emperor's tale, your whole system is a little dualistic. I don't think the Repubs' threat is false so much as confrontational. You're placing what I suspect is their dialectic in a story that doesn't ring true: how does false appearances fit into that?

Great for them. But making a silly deal and claiming that Obama suddenly has new clothes - which, going by what you've written thus far, is what it's mostly about - is ridiculous and worse still to try to tie me to a strawman and drag me into it. By all appearances, it's a good plan for a trustworthy government that intends to honour all its clauses implicitly, may elongate the window of Iranians nuclear arms development (which I think we were told was so remote anyway that it wasn't worth mentioning; how did that happen, anyway?) and will make Obama look good to his supporters. I think it achieves one or maybe even two of those objectives, with the practical first being wildly up in the air.

Oh look! You're going on about mean ol' Geoff dehumanizing human beings from Iran again: you know, those average, everyday human beings from Iran that have direct access to the big red button, and which also control Iranian policy in a theocratic dictatorship. I know you don't care how stupid you get to look in these debates, but is that really the best thought you have about this? I have a funny thought experiment here that we could try.

Imagine a country. It's bounded by some water, maybe a gulf or so, and several fairly unstable republics of a-somethin'-er-other on either side.



Now, imagine that this country has a sketchy human rights record and a recent record of destabilizing local governments. With me so far?

Now, let's imagine that this country wants nuclear weapons, and that it's ruled by a bit of a despot who is sincerely down with the above. Let's further imagine that he's already tried to get some built, but got caught doing so. His nation has been sanctioned for it

And now country B - notable for liking oil and ice cream - wants to free up some cash for this nation, and allow them to carry on with their nuclear energy program, while taking away much of their equipment and fissile material, keeping in mind that they already tried to build nuclear weapons and do appear to have made a few funny comments about their erstwhile benefactors during the process.

Oh, and now let's imagine that he's Muslim.

And you really think - really, now - that it's at this point that I have a problem with this history? Really? Before you go off on actual defamation again: could you please link the existence of Iran's citizens as Muslims with the ethics and outlook of the upper chamber of Iran? That should be an easy one. Go on.

All right, I'll offer you a sucker here: do you understand that I'm not particularly keen on the Bush Doctrine either? Do you get that? Your struggle to push me into this support for the 'spectre' of total war with Iran - again, where is this total war argument, anyway? - is kind of a parallel to what your legacy President just tried to browbeat his detractors with: because I don't particularly believe in his plan doesn't mean I have taken up with the #GOP47 or whatever the hell it is. (And you try to complain to me about dichotomy? Get real.) Look, I'm sorry that if you took my first post a little to heart, there, but you have to admit from your own contributions that the thing seems mostly to be about a little fawning and winning this interior civil war of yours (by which I mean the United States'). What the rest of the world objects to is how the policy - which inevitably fucks up, or has since about 1960 or so - affects everyone else. Haha we gotcha stupid Republicans is not a good reason to expect big things out of process. Your two parties are like a pair of squabbling brothers whose constant shouting reverberates around the whole house and who then expect to get invited out for ice cream and someone else's oil. Is there no way in which the two of you might grow up and reconcile your differences before inflicting them on the rest of us? We don't care what action figure you just got, he still doesn't seem to be making any sense and if you really think that he is then maybe it's time we visited Doctor Mobeeni again, okay? Because little Jimmy seems to need a ritalin shot.

I'll try to use a small response here so you can follow: no, so that he will build nuc'ular weapons on the side, like he already tried to do. What follows from there is a series of wider guesses, but includes power projection and increasing domestic controls. Remember that time when we didn't like nations to get nuclear weapons and we had a list of reasons why not that didn't consist of the sole entry 'he's a-gonna shoot 'em off, yessir'? Remember when we had the word nuance? I remember those halcyon days. I think Luke Skywalker fought for them.

Anyway, given the regime in Iran, what exactly are the good odds on this plan? Essentially, it's a complete unknown; but it does free up some capital for them. I think the most that can be hoped is that if the money gets used for domestic relief that some of the secular youth element will remember it - but the circumstances thereof are still likely to produce a bit of disgruntlement. The essential hope is increasing secularlization ('there goes thet'n Geoff agin, a-beatin' up on the liberal bilateral process whut'n created th' Islamic Republic') that somehow, somehow trickles up to the higher ranks of government.

 

Oh, hells! Uh... uhhh... I just have no idea! And it's such a critical element of the dialectic where you return to your usual farcical slagging-off of your opponents' personality in the pursuit of purportedly higher goals - like pantsing Republicans - that I come up with a better suggestion to an action that I neither created nor had a personal stake in! And especially so in that I know President Obama is such a devoted fan of my posts, you know, reading them every single day to get his marching orders so that he can relay those to Congress and the Senate! It is literally, literally true here that if I don't think of a better idea than Hope They Change, that we are all completely fucked. And I was only two weeks from retirement! Goddamnit!

Gee, I don't know, umm, uhh, off the top of my head, uhhh - how about: staffing the entirety of the project with vetted or Western engineers paid from the proceeds of the sanction lifting so that Iranian totalitarian political interests can't influence the diverting of material by putting pressure on the social and political future workers while providing a kind of human shield against Israeli unilateral action, slowly replacing those workers with re-education plans corresponding to (hopeful) liberalization trends in Iran and the Iranian establishment? After all, free and peaceful energy was the whole point of getting that sweet frozen-asset cash back, right? So there can hardly be a problem in them paying Western engineers to come in and run it for them until they decide to be nice normalized members of the ice cream line. So pay up, suckers.

Now, where's my fucking sanction cash, you supercilious twat?

 

Hint: When you find yourself on the same page as Bobby Jindal, think it through again.

 

I love the rush to remediation rather than a discussion of the proposed solution (expired contemplation time: 2.5 seconds). Also interesting was the character defamation and libel - which, because it comes from a mod, cannot be punished, of course.

Any thoughts?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!