More Bad News for Russia

[Brasscasing]

Well actually YOU are the one who mistakenly brought morality into it. 

Not "mistakenly". I absolutely consider you an immoral individual.

hahaha, so now i'm liked to a 'pedophile or rapist'...it is getting funnier and funnier how extreme you become, when you don't get your way. Sorry but in case you haven't noticed, that isn't the way the world always works, there can be competing ideas and despite your angry proclamations, the person bringing them forth, doesn't necessarily have to be a rapist to do so.

You're the one applying analogies. I'm just using one of my own as well.

Actaully, it has been exactly the way the world has worked. The world does not begin and end with your pathetic trolling. Infact, in the overall scheme of things your propaganda is'nt even relevant. 

Just the other day, you exclaimed on anther thread not dealing with a problem in your household was the way you handled disputes, so now suddenly is not something you never did? How can both statements be accurate? 

[size=78%]Calmissile doesn't really ignore me, but he does often post that he does, right up until you responds to a post of mine!  You on the other hand, just fear that inconvenient truths are brought forth.     [/size]

More false assertions and trolling from you...what I stated was the opposite. I posted I dealt with family issues in a manner that might not be successful in the poster's case.

I should add as a disclaimer. I was never very good with internal family conflicts...I tended to default to "Stop screwing around" which of course left most issues unresolved and simmering for a boil over later.

So whatever your course of action, try to avoid my default course of action. I've learned over the years it's not very successful when it comes to family matters.

So we can ad another exposed lie to your long list of lies you'll never answer to or withdraw, Mr. Russian Troll.

Brass

[fathertime]

More misdirection. What I consider trolling is your activities over the last 5 pages on this topic.

More of your unsupported cowardice and seditious dogma and hypocrisy. You advocate living under the criminal dictators and criminal regimes you advocate and support instead...But you'd be safe and that's all the at counts, right?

...And I'd say this current US administration is the anomaly. Men and women of resolve and morality have mostly found their way to the positions they needed to be in when they are needed. Churchill, Roosevelt, Reagan come to mind.

Criminal sympathizers like yourself seem to crawl out from the shadows when there is weak leadership.

It is you and the criminals you support that is the aberration and abhorrent symptom of the times.

'criminal supporter' 'sedation' 'pedophile' 'rapist', come on you can do better than that!   


Yeah, you are a real credible discussion partner! 




This is 2015, not 1940, what is needed is level headed, fair-minded solutions that takes into account all the nation's beefs. What is not needed is belligerent 'tough guys' on an imaginary chessboard, that are going to destroy the planet for the rest of the people that don't have a dog in the fight.   That is why somebody needs to send you and your type a little set of cowboys and Indians so you can go Bang-Bang, and feel fulfilled. 


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

Not "mistakenly". I absolutely consider you an immoral individual.

I'm devastated!  Thankfully your feelings don't make any difference, but it does go to your inability to discuss an issue without personalizing it! haha. 

Actaully, it has been exactly the way the world has worked. The world does not begin and end with your pathetic trolling. Infact, in the overall scheme of things your propaganda is'nt even relevant. 
 

Me, exposing my viewpoint is certainly relevant to YOU! Thank you. 

More false assertions and trolling from you...what I stated was the opposite. I posted I dealt with family issues in a manner that might not be successful in the poster's case.

So we can ad another exposed lie to your long list of lies you'll never answer to or withdraw, Mr. Russian Troll.

Brass

So dealing with a personal problem by not dealing with a personal problem is a course of action.   OK! 


I'm just saying, at least don't make things up about yourself! Perhaps you do in fact think a course of action is just absent mindedly 'bark an order' and actually think all should obey! 


Fathertime!   

[Brasscasing]

'criminal supporter' 'sedation' 'pedophile' 'rapist', come on you can do better than that!   

Yes I could. Accuracy does count though. I don't want to enter into your realm of completely unsupportable assertions.

Yeah, you are a real credible discussion partner! 

I'm not "discussing". I'm refuting, debunking and exposing your false statements and trolling for what they are. There is a difference.

This is 2015, not 1940, what is needed is level headed, fair-minded solutions that takes into account all the nation's beefs. What is not needed is belligerent 'tough guys' on an imaginary chessboard, that are going to destroy the planet for the rest of the people that don't have a dog in the fight.   That is why somebody needs to send you and your type a little set of cowboys and Indians so you can go Bang-Bang, and feel fulfilled. 

Well, "my level headed, fair minded solution" is military intervention to stop your fanatical, criminal hero's aggression and bring to task anyone who would support terrorism and criminal behavior such as yourself.

..."rest of the people that don't have a dog in the fight"...Everyone has a stake in stopping criminality and terrorism. It's only cowards like yourself who turn away when help is needed.

Actually, locking up criminals, pedophiles and rapists was more my game. I could always post your image on a "wanted" poster, I suppose.

Brass

[fathertime]

I'm not "discussing". I'm refuting, debunking and exposing your false statements and trolling for what they are. There is a difference.

Well, "my level headed, fair minded solution" is military intervention to stop your fanatical, criminal hero's aggression and bring to task anyone who would support terrorism and criminal behavior such as yourself.

..."rest of the people that don't have a dog in the fight"...Everyone has a stake in stopping criminality and terrorism. It's only cowards like yourself who turn away when help is needed.

Actually, locking up criminals, pedophiles and rapists was more my game. I could always post your image on a "wanted" poster, I suppose.

Brass

What a mess of a post.  I continue to hold that it is your FEAR and bias that could easily create an unnecessary war.


Nobody is talking about not dealing with genuine 'terrorism' here, that is just you being ignorant, and disingenuous. ...a problem for you is, anything you don't approve of is 'terrorism'.  If it is your side committing the acts, it is not labeled 'terrorism'. 


Now come on, you should be able to do better than merely 'rapist' 'seditious' etc etc! 


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

I'm devastated!  Thankfully your feelings don't make any difference, but it does go to your inability to discuss an issue without personalizing it! haha. 

Again, we aren't "discussing" any issue, I'm simply putting an end to your unopposed (for the most part)lies, constant trolling and propaganda on this forum especially as it pertains to my quotes.

Me, exposing my viewpoint is certainly relevant to YOU! Thank you. 

Indeed, see above.

So dealing with a personal problem by not dealing with a personal problem is a course of action.   OK! 

I'm just saying, at least don't make things up about yourself! Perhaps you do in fact think a course of action is just absent mindedly 'bark an order' and actually think all should obey! 

If I had known you'd pick this statement to troll I would have worded it more carefully. However, using yet another quote of mine to further your trolling won't assist you as I've already debunked your lie up thread.

Brass

 




 



[/quote]

[fathertime]

Again, we aren't "discussing" any issue, I'm simply putting an end to your unopposed (for the most part)lies, constant trolling and propaganda on this forum especially as it pertains to my quotes.

Indeed, see above.

If I had known you'd pick this statement to troll I would have worded it more carefully. However, using yet another quote of mine to further your trolling won't assist you as I've already debunked your lie up thread.

Brass

Well, if you carefully word your posts just to convey an untruth, then that would be lying, so it is probably best that you just say what you need to say..  The main issue is that you made a somewhat contradictory statement later...no big deal, just a little humorous, that is all.   


If you continue to expect your quotes to be taken as gospel and unopposed, you will always be angry! It is actually not called trolling, it is called bringing up a different perspective....something that you can't handle....so I'm sure the labeling helps. 


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

What a mess of a post.  I continue to hold that it is your FEAR and bias that could easily create an unnecessary war.

And it's your cowardice and sedition advocating terrorism, aggression and idolatry of criminal dictators that practically guarantees war.

Nobody is talking about not dealing with genuine 'terrorism' here, that is just you being ignorant, and disingenuous. ...a problem for you is, anything you don't approve of is 'terrorism'.  If it is your side committing the acts, it is not labeled 'terrorism'.

You must be stupider than your posts suggest. You are in absolute support of the largest, most well funded terrorist state on the planet - Iran.  Which is exactly what my questions you simply can't answer pertain to. 

Now come on, you should be able to do better than merely 'rapist' 'seditious' etc etc! 

 My wording is accurate enough as it stands.


Brass

[Brasscasing]

Well, if you carefully word your posts just to convey an untruth, then that would be lying, so it is probably best that you just say what you need to say..  The main issue is that you made a somewhat contradictory statement later...no big deal, just a little humorous, that is all.   

Nope. That's just you trying more misdirection. What I stated was accurate and the truth in both posts.

Your attempt at further trolling me through yet another lie has failed. 

If you continue to expect your quotes to be taken as gospel and unopposed, you will always be angry! It is actually not called trolling, it is called bringing up a different perspective....something that you can't handle....so I'm sure the labeling helps. 

I've just yet again shown you to be the lying punk you are, fathertime. The only reason you persist with these nonsensical posts is to keep trolling me with deflective garbage. 

Answer the questions if you want to regain some credibility.

Brass

[fathertime]

And it's your cowardice and sedition advocating terrorism, aggression and idolatry of criminal dictators that practically guarantees war.

You must be stupider than your posts suggest. You are in absolute support of the largest, most well funded terrorist state on the planet - Iran.  Which is exactly what my questions you simply can't answer pertain to. 

 My wording is accurate enough as it stands.


Brass

As has already been stated numerous times, all the major powers unanimously voted for the Iran deal, so I think it is pretty obvious that they felt there were some mitigating factors regarding Iran and terrorism.  What is stupid is that you actually buy into what you are saying, when everybody close to the situation is doing something else.  Actions are the key, and that agreement is creating a set of actions, that apparently you don't like, because you feel you know better than everybody else....I don't think so. 


I don't know what questions you are referring to, but I would assume it has something to do with the post that you feverishly link, and I don't click on.  If you have a legit question, I'd be happy to help you,if you were to ask, but it seems you are incapable of doing that. You think you have all the answers, but of course you don't...people like that can be dangerous in positions of power, so thankfully you are tucked away jabbering with me instead of making important decisions.     


Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

Nope. That's just you trying more misdirection. What I stated was accurate and the truth in both posts.

Your attempt at further trolling me through yet another lie has failed. 

I've just yet again shown you to be the lying punk you are, fathertime. The only reason you persist with these nonsensical posts is to keep trolling me with deflective garbage. 

Answer the questions if you want to regain some credibility.

Brass

There are questions you have left unanswered, nobody is obligated to answer a question, especially a loaded question.  Perhaps you should restate the question that has you so upset, whatever it is.  I'm pretty sure whatever it is, it isn't very important. 


Thanks for the new words 'lying' 'punk'...we shall add them to the other list of angry names you substitute in instead of actual discussion!   Meanwhile, you haven't made much of a case for anything important! 


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

As has already been stated numerous times, all the major powers unanimously voted for the Iran deal, so I think it is pretty obvious that they felt there were some mitigating factors regarding Iran and terrorism.  What is stupid is that you actually buy into what you are saying, when everybody close to the situation is doing something else.  Actions are the key, and that agreement is creating a set of actions, that apparently you don't like, because you feel you know better than everybody else....I don't think so. 

Then you shouldn't be afraid to answer the questions then, should you?

I don't know what questions you are referring to, but I would assume it has something to do with the post that you feverishly link, and I don't click on.  If you have a legit question, I'd be happy to help you,if you were to ask, but it seems you are incapable of doing that. You think you have all the answers, but of course you don't...people like that can be dangerous in positions of power, so thankfully you are tucked away jabbering with me instead of making important decisions.     

LOL, Seven pages of trying to avoid those questions and  now you again feign ignorance with you don't know what questions I refer to?!?

Well, let me link the post for the umpteenth time.

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=20119.msg415865#msg415865

We can go another ten pages of your trolling and diversions but that's the post this whole escapade is about. You can either answer or withdraw your comments, it's up to you.

Brass





 

[Brasscasing]

There are questions you have left unanswered, nobody is obligated to answer a question, especially a loaded question.  Perhaps you should restate the question that has you so upset, whatever it is.  I'm pretty sure whatever it is, it isn't very important. 

None of my questions were "loaded". They are simple questions asking you to clarify your assertions.   

Thanks for the new words 'lying' 'punk'...we shall add them to the other list of angry names you substitute in instead of actual discussion!   Meanwhile, you haven't made much of a case for anything important! 

And yet you've continued your trollfest  for 7 pages desperately trying to avoid the "case" I've made. 

For the third time in as many posts...We are not "discussing" anything.  I'm simply putting an end to your unopposed (for the most part) lies, constant trolling and propaganda on this forum especially as it pertains to my quotes.

You're the one posting untruthful assertions (lies). I'm Just calling it as I see it.

Brass

[fathertime]

Then you shouldn't be afraid to answer the questions then, should you?

LOL, Seven pages of trying to avoid those questions and  now you again feign ignorance with you don't know what questions I refer to?!?

Well, let me link the post for the umpteenth time.

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=20119.msg415865#msg415865

We can go another ten pages of your trolling and diversions but that's the post this whole escapade is about. You can either answer or withdraw your comments, it's up to you.

Brass

I have now reviewed your link....You will have to specify what question you are referring to...  it appears your question COULD be:


What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?

but I actually don't know for sure, so I'll await your clarification if this is the question or not...if so it is an easy one to answer.   


Regardless, this thread isn't really about anything important, just that you don't like to be 'argued' with.  GOOD! 


Fathertime! 

[JayH]

You're a tad deluded.

 A "tad"  ??  More like completely delusional full on nut case -- seriously --no one with a vestige of sanity could hold his "opinions"--unless of course you were getting paid  to write such crap.
Of course--maybe boredom at the other place has reached such heights( lows?) that coming over here may "earn" him a bonus!   
All we need(not) is the current forum fool FT to support the ignorance!

NOTE: post was moved from thread where reply was directed ant a Manny post--

[fathertime]

A "tad"  ??  More like completely delusional full on nut case -- seriously --no one with a vestige of sanity could hold his "opinions"--unless of course you were getting paid  to write such crap.
Of course--maybe boredom at the other place has reached such heights( lows?) that coming over here may "earn" him a bonus!   
All we need(not) is the current forum fool FT to support the ignorance!

I expect nothing less than biased ignorance to flow from your keyboard.  You are forgiven, sweetheart.   


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

I have now reviewed your link....You will have to specify what question you are referring to...  it appears your question COULD be:


What "options under the table" do you think the Iranian Commander is alluding to?

but I actually don't know for sure, so I'll await your clarification if this is the question or not...if so it is an easy one to answer.   


Regardless, this thread isn't really about anything important, just that you don't like to be 'argued' with.  GOOD! 

Well, for someone who's just spent 7 pages trolling me and doing everything he could to avoid these questions (and the one you refer to above), seems it was important to you, at least.

I really wound't know what the Senators/Representatives knew beforehand....  I'm not surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not....  I imagine that is part of the reason they were being so heavily sanctioned, especially by the US.

If you're not "surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not." Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?

If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place? 

Perhaps that is in part why the deal was struck, because we knew they had some serious capability, to which the military option just wasn't going to turn out to be very easy, like it has been in other somewhat defenseless nations.

So why then would Obama and Kerry tell the American public and Congress that if the Iranians don't comply the military option is still on the table?

You are suggesting Obama's assurances were untruthful. Designed to give a false sense of security to those that opposed his agreement to get it ratified even though he knew the ability to deal with any non compliance by Iran wasn't going to be as easy as he assured it would be.

Brass

[fathertime]

Well, for someone who's just spent 7 pages trolling me and doing everything he could to avoid these questions (and the one you refer to above), seems it was important to you, at least.
If you're not "surprised that Iran has all sorts of stuff we don't know about or seek our approval for, obviously they don't care if we approve or not." Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?

If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place? 


So why then would Obama and Kerry tell the American public and Congress that if the Iranians don't comply the military option is still on the table?

You are suggesting Obama's assurances were untruthful. Designed to give a false sense of security to those that opposed his agreement to get it ratified even though he knew the ability to deal with any non compliance by Iran wasn't going to be as easy as he assured it would be.


Brass

No.  I don't think these questions are very important, or inditing, like you have making them out to be.  Nevertheless they are questions that you have, so why not discuss them at this point if it will help you settle down.  


Lets see if we can sort out your concerns. One by one of course....


Why would I think that Iran would comply with the agreement, based on prior U.N. resolutions they didn't comply with?    Well what resolutions did Iran agree to before this latest one?  Or did the UN just impose resolutions that Iran was ordered to comply with. Why the heck would Iran feel obligated to comply with what they feel is an unfair order from the UN that they did not trust? 
 This current agreement they have signed onto, so I think that makes it different than the ones imposed on them...and far more likely that they will comply, all things remaining equal.


Ok, your turn...


Fathertime!     

[Brasscasing]

No.  I don't think these questions are very important, or inditing, like you have making them out to be.  Nevertheless they are questions that you have, so why not discuss them at this point if it will help you settle down.  


Lets see if we can sort out your concerns. One by one of course....

Pfft. Faced with the inevitable you now minimize the very reason for your last seven pages of trolling.

Alright, I'll play your game...

Why would I think that Iran would comply with the agreement, based on prior U.N. resolutions they didn't comply with?    Well what resolutions did Iran agree to before this latest one?  Or did the UN just impose resolutions that Iran was ordered to comply with. Why the heck would Iran feel obligated to comply with what they feel is an unfair order from the UN that they did not trust? 
 This current agreement they have signed onto, so I think that makes it different than the ones imposed on them...and far more likely that they will comply, all things remaining equal.


Ok, your turn...

So, your idea of answering my question is posing several more questions trying to defend Iran's non compliance? 

"Why the heck would Iran feel obligated to comply with what they feel is an unfair order from the UN that they did not trust?"

Well, let's start with Iran is a member of the UN. Therefor by virtue of the UN charter, which Iran signed when they became a member, they are obligated to adhere to...

..."Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions"...

http://www.un.org/en/sc/

..."This current agreement they have signed onto, so I think that makes it different than the ones imposed on them"...

Which would be great except the list of UN sanctions I previously posted were as a result of Iran breaking international agreements they'd already signed onto voluntarily.

Brass





 

[fathertime]

Pfft. Faced with the inevitable you now minimize the very reason for your last seven pages of trolling.

Alright, I'll play your game...

 

What game are you playing?  This thread commenced after you objected to me saying "Good" after you stated Trudeau would be less apt to be hawkish, or something of that nature. 

So, your idea of answering my question is posing several more questions trying to defend Iran's non compliance? 

"Why the heck would Iran feel obligated to comply with what they feel is an unfair order from the UN that they did not trust?"

Well, let's start with Iran is a member of the UN. Therefor by virtue of the UN charter, which Iran signed when they became a member, they are obligated to adhere to...

..."Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions"...

http://www.un.org/en/sc/

..."This current agreement they have signed onto, so I think that makes it different than the ones imposed on them"...

Which would be great except the list of UN sanctions I previously posted were as a result of Iran breaking international agreements they'd already signed onto voluntarily.

Brass

So now you are going to whine about the way the 'burning question' was answered!  Haha...It isn't an important question. 


So there are a lot of members of the UN, although very few permanent members in the security council.   Recently we were voted down in a non-binding vote 192-2 regarding our efforts in Cuba, but we didn't cooperate of course.  When something is imposed onto a state like Iran I don't blame them for not abiding. I'm having a hard time believing Iran voted for sanctions on themselves[size=78%] [/size]
 
What list of sanctions did you post?  What international treaty did Iran break?  What was there reasoning for breaking it?  Why did we overthrow their govt?  Lets hear more.   


Fathertime! 

[calmissile]

Is that a bad thing?


I think its a good thing actually. For the last several years I have found the MOB business, along with many of its inhabitants and users, rather odious.

Manny, do you think anyone at RWD gives a shit what you think?

[JayH]

 calmissile
Hero Member
*****
 
Re: Blah Blah Blah Part XIX
« Reply #137 on: Today at 01:06:16 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Manny on Today at 01:02:02 AM
Is that a bad thing?


I think its a good thing actually. For the last several years I have found the MOB business, along with many of its inhabitants and users, rather odious.
Calmissile replied--
Manny, do you think anyone at RWD gives a shit what you think?

What he said!

[Brasscasing]

What game are you playing?  This thread commenced after you objected to me saying "Good" after you stated Trudeau would be less apt to be hawkish, or something of that nature. 

I didn't post "commenced", I posted "reason" for your last seven pages of trolling.

So now you are going to whine about the way the 'burning question' was answered!  Haha...It isn't an important question. 

That's one of three questions that were asked, neither being "burning" other than you still don't appear to be able to answer them.

So there are a lot of members of the UN, although very few permanent members in the security council.   Recently we were voted down in a non-binding vote 192-2 regarding our efforts in Cuba, but we didn't cooperate of course.  When something is imposed onto a state like Iran I don't blame them for not abiding. I'm having a hard time believing Iran voted for sanctions on themselves[size=78%] [/size]

Actually, this is the 24th year in a row the UN has symbolically condemned the US embargo on Cuba in a non-binding vote.  That means no sanctions and the resolution carries no penalty.

However, we are not talking about the US, we are discussing Iran.

Iran is a member state and legally obligated to abide by UN security counsel decisions. These sanctions were as a result of Iran failing to abide by international agreements they voluntarily signed.

So, the questions are... Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?

And If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place?

No one said Iran voted for sanctions on themselves.
 

What list of sanctions did you post?  What international treaty did Iran break?  What was there reasoning for breaking it?  Why did we overthrow their govt?  Lets hear more.   

Nope, I'm not falling for your make me do all the work ploy. Go to the link I provided wherein there is another link where you can research the questions you've asked. 

You originally entered into a discussion with me arguing these very questions you now asking me to provide you information with. You're now admitting you did not have any knowledge of the topic you tried to argue against the points I was making in.

However, let's see if you can answer the question(s) without any further deflection.

Brass

[fathertime]

I didn't post "commenced", I posted "reason" for your last seven pages of trolling.

That's one of three questions that were asked, neither being "burning" other than you still don't appear to be able to answer them.

Actually, this is the 24th year in a row the UN has symbolically condemned the US embargo on Cuba in a non-binding vote.  That means no sanctions and the resolution carries no penalty.

However, we are not talking about the US, we are discussing Iran.

Iran is a member state and legally obligated to abide by UN security counsel decisions. These sanctions were as a result of Iran failing to abide by international agreements they voluntarily signed.

So, the questions are... Why then do you believe that Iran would comply with the Obama Nuc Deal if they've already failed to adhere to previous UN resolutions forbidding the very ordnance they revealed to the world in those images?

And If their record is such that "they don't care if we approve or not" what could possibly be the motivation for them to sign the deal in the first place?

No one said Iran voted for sanctions on themselves.
 
Nope, I'm not falling for your make me do all the work ploy. Go to the link I provided wherein there is another link where you can research the questions you've asked. 

You originally entered into a discussion with me arguing these very questions you now asking me to provide you information with. You're now admitting you did not have any knowledge of the topic you tried to argue against the points I was making in.

However, let's see if you can answer the question(s) without any further deflection.

Brass

Tsk, tsk, tsk: you made an unsupported statement and refuse to provide a proper link to back it up...not my job to find a supporting link for YOUR statement. 


I've answered your 'question'...but you didn't like the answer....


but now you can see why there will be no point in 'answering your questions'. You must mistakenly think this is a one way interrogation, good luck with that!  [size=78%]  [/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]


 

[Brasscasing]

Tsk, tsk, tsk: you made an unsupported statement and refuse to provide a proper link to back it up...not my job to find a supporting link for YOUR statement. 


I've answered your 'question'...but you didn't like the answer....


but now you can see why there will be no point in 'answering your questions'. You must mistakenly think this is a one way interrogation, good luck with that!  [size=78%]  [/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]

All your quote says is you can't answer or substantiate your assertions. 

The 'supported' statements and link have been provided to you several times. You even stated you'd reviewed the link...

..."The UN Security Council passed a number of resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran, following the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors regarding Iran's non-compliance with its safeguards agreement and the Board's finding that Iran's nuclear activities raised questions within the competency of the Security Council."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

..."The EU supports the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force on 5 March 1970. Iran ratified this treaty assuring the international community that it will use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

In 2003, it was discovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is conducting secret activities with nuclear materials. Iran’s refusal to cooperate proactively with the IAEA and its resistance to report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) led to a diplomatic effort by the European council and its three members France, Germany and the United Kingdom to resolve this issue through negotiations."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Sanctions

Alright, I've provided you with even further information. Will you now answer my questions with no further deflection?


Brass