Mikora:


Lol, at least you agree he said it. My comment was very clear, I didn't twist anything out of contest, I simply told you that he actually said those words and you have confirmed it

whatever helps you sleep at night.

Mikora:



Lol, did u guys even watch the video? Had to go and Google it after reading your comment. The truth is he actually said those words. Google is your friend

Here's a link from two credible news sites;

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/25/obama_the_future_must_not_belong_to_those_who_slander_the_prophet_of_islam.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-speech-at-the-united-nations/2012/09/25/4f207d8c-0728-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html?utm_term=.bd52f69f4212

" those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied."

direct excerpts from the same speech from the very link you posted.

taking words out of context also equates to fake news.

now stop wasting my time.

Riversides2003:
Without passing the bill, we have too many depressed and homeless people as a result of drug overdose, just be ready for the results of your actions pretty soon. This is why giving young people leadership position sometimes scares me. This Justin Trudeau guy is a big joke.

bruh, Marijuana has been clinically proven to help with opioid and alcoholic addictions while being much safer than either. if you're gonna criticize something, get your facts straight.

https://herb.co/marijuana/news/cannabis-drug-addiction-mental-health

https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/a19604874/marijuana-prevents-alcohol-drug-addiction-new-study/

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/29/health/medical-marijuana-opioids/index.html
https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/cnns-sanjay-gupta-on-how-marijuana-can-break-opioid-addiction.htm

*sigh* obvious fake news. but of course, nairaland is filled with gullible idiots so I expect a lot of people here will actually believe this crap.

iblawi:


This deal is fucccking expensive.

compared to a lot of other billion dollars weapons deals, it's quite reasonable actually.

aiir2303:
Yeah.. And you proved everything

exactly what didn't I prove?

aiir2303:
Yeah I guess so. Having nothing else to say

more like I'm not sure how to respond to more propaganda and phrases like " The bear would take the world from the rear first, and screw it from behind" *chuckles*

aiir2303:

What is this one saying . You've written nothing here that warrants a response

yes, I understand. logic is quite hard on you. please accept my sympathy.

aiir2303:


Thanks bro... I thought I was the only one who thinks that dude is just unreasonable. Give him answers to some of his questions and he goes right back to ask the same set of questions only this time much more disorganized. He surely loves his delusions

which questions did you actually answer though?
you literally proved nothing.

mysticwarrior:
I stopped responding to that man when I was convinced beyond reasonable doubts, that he was making his points out of unreasonable supposition, I wonder how some people escaped from psychiatric home.

"Ad hominem"

for when you have nothing better to say.

aiir2303:

Sigh
Well it seems I have to respond to the oblivious Empire fan boy that we no longer live in the sixties.
1) Speaking of the capabilities of the S-200 ( not insinuating that it can down on ICBM) but modern cruise missiles is( a goal) on the menu, but my emphasis are on the S-300 imagining what the 200 can do and mind you the S-300 is not operational anywhere in Syria except on Russian military installations (bases).
Secondly waiting for the proof (s) including satellite pics and data about claims of the S-200 downed any missile. I guess you've seen them and labeled it "cheap propaganda".
Now I'll flip this back to you, its agreed that more than 100 missiles were fired that day almost 170+ please kindly prove to us with satellite images and relevant data of the at least 50 different locations that were hit. I think I'm generous I did not require 80 (almost half) of the entire missile barge that was reported to be a hundred percent.


Yes, the S-200 is that good and complementing it with the S-300 (unknown mod) would make it even better. Why put the S-400 the grand master in a brawl when the S-300 would do perfectly.


The Israeli have been making inroads into Syria as the country lacks any form of Air Force that can match the Israelis. But even at these they've been having trouble coming back as some have been downed by the Syrian Air defence.
The IDF command continue to deny such developments until the evidence is all but in our faces

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/10/israeli-fighter-jet-shot-down-by-syrian-fire-says-military

Your F-16 s were apparently shut down bruv, and after being hit the Israelis changed tactics
Hint ***
There's an unwritten rule on ground in Syria where by actors are weary of hitting by mistake Russian or US jets hovering over Syria cause they are actually the only ones with such right (might). This is in a bid to prevent the two power from coming to blows directly as what operating now is a war through proxies and we also know that by international law the US isn't meant to be there except Russia and Iran who are there on invitation. With that in mind info in mind, after being hit numerous times by the poor out of shape Syrian Air defence forces, decided to take different routes while attacking and also changed their transponder codes to mimic US jets. Now that the gig is up now there's a potential danger and likelihood that US fighters can be shot at mistaking it for an Israeli one
http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70594

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/20573/lets-talk-about-this-rumor-that-israeli-f-15s-mimicked-us-jets-to-strike-at-iran-in-syria?source=dam

1) bruh, don't tell me to "imagine". give me something solid. what are the official stats of the s200?

as for proof that all missiles hit, well as they say, the proof is in the pudding.
>all targets were completely destroyed . we actually have satellite images of this.
> the targets were either involved in creating or storing chemical weapons
>any such center would have to have been constructed with reinforced concrete and steel rebars. again, they are producing an storing WMDs. such a building would be next to a bunker in building strength and that's not mentioning the size of the structures.
>to accomplish that would require at the barest minimum, several dozens of cruise missiles to hit. ESPECIALLY given that the u.s. used subsonic cruise missiles (i.e. far less destructive that their super sonic counterparts but far more precise and less prone to jamming).
>just think about it. there is literally no way a subsonic cruise missile could do that level of damage except in fairly large numbers.

and to put the icing on the cake, I'm gonna use your own propaganda against you.
the Syrians claimed that the over 50 cruise missiles the u.s. sent against its air base did minimal damage and couldn't penetrate their harden hangers.
so except the buildings used to store Syrian WMDs are far less smaller and grossly structurally deficient... you see were I'm going with this right?
you really need to develop some critical thinking.


oh yes, an f16, one of the oldest planes with virtually no stealth feature or jamming capabilities got shot down.
whatever will we do? *eyeroll*.

aiir2303:


Even in Iranian positions in Syria, there are no S-300 and the Iranian presence in Syria has been largely exaggerated by the MSM in the west.
Iranian presence include some military advisers and personel instructors and support hardware and they have next to few installations.
According to your response you said Israel wasn't puffing and ranting, so why are they giving us warnings Now that the S-300 is going to be involved in the proceedings.
Simple, try and be spotted by theyS-300 then you'll know for a fact that "there's no time for games " indeed.
"if the Russians have balls, why don't they try shooting down an isreali just with that s300. let's see what happens."
Let's flip it this way also, the Israelis have not hidden their desire to kill Assad, if they have the balls please just drop a grenade in the presidential palace. Let's see what's happens also

3) For you to open your mouth to mention the S-400 with no regards makes me believe that you simply want to remain in your self induced delusions. The System that countries are lining up to buy and are also willing to defy the Mighty Zionist controlled regime of the US. Bruv, go ask Turkey (NATO member), Pakistan, Indian, Qatar, China and even Saudi Arabia has signified an interest in purchasing the system and this is a country hopelessly hooked on buying US made weapons.
The Use of SAED isn't a new phenomenon and we no longer in the sixties where it held a slight advantage in tuning targets into sitting ducks. Nowadays almost every advanced countries use it and have one form of deterrence against such menace... I'm so lol
Modern armaments have since been built to counter such suppressions with different countries having different levels of superiority in such spheres and Especially EW where the Russians have taken poll position.
Try your SAED integrated missiles on an S-300 and a combo of the SA-22 Greyhound /pantsir S-1 system and hang around abit within reach and see if you wouldn't be brought back to reality.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-400-the-ultimate-weapon-kill-us-fighters-bombers-25318?page=show

https://thedefensepost.com/2018/05/01/russia-syria-electronic-warfare/amp/


Bruv, shut the eff up. In terms of missile defense tech and EW, bro the Empire hasn't even started. The S-500 would be the last nail in the coffin.
Your SM3 hasn't seen any direct combat use

let's get this over with.
1) proof that there are no s300s in the Iranian positions in syria. actual proof please. not your speculation.

also proof that Iranian presence in Syria is "over exaggerated".

2) why wouldn't Isreal give Russia fair warning? they aren't at war with Russia and they actually have diplomatic ties with Russia. thus an attack without fair warning wouldn't be appropriate.
it's bad enough I have to school you on weapons system. do I have to also educate you international relations too?
emmm... where have you gotten the idea that the isrealis want assad dead? if they really wanted him dead, they could have bombed him to oblivion at the first stages of the civil war. they only get involved to deter and contain Iran. seriously, educate yourself.
3) I didn't mention the s400 without "regard". please stop crying. in fact, I stated in another thread that the s400 is the best air defense system in the market (though mostly cause u.s. doctrine emphasizes air superiority and expedition rather than air defense).
but what you fail to realize my good friend is that even the best weapon system has limits.


you are right. this isn't the 60s. SEAD tactics have developed also. I suggest you keep up.
even a site you linked mentioned several strategies for taking down the s400.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-400-the-ultimate-weapon-kill-us-fighters-bombers-25318?page=show

you should listen to yourself more often.

also you apparently don't seem to understand the meaning of a saturation limit. pity.

"hang about within reach"
this nigga ever heard of long range attacks?

having limited EW success against an adversary whom:
a) is present in an extremely limited role
b) isn't even trying to actually target you

doesn't equate to "superiority".

4) look at this brother?

>tells me the s500 will be the last nail in the coffin
>tells me the SM 3 (which is already all the s500 was hyped up to be) has never seen combat.

remind me comrade. how much combat has the s500 or even the s400 seen?

aiir2303:

Snap out of that delusion, cut that your loop and unplug back to reality from your programming.
I know you couldn't bear the thought that those things exist so do your over lords (keep doubting bro)
https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/29072799.html

Please know now that they exist so that when you see em in combat the shock wouldn't be too much to bear
Forget that M. A. D doctrine. The bear would take the world from the rear first, and screw it from behind

The Boss Speaks aka (The Tiger on the banks of the Amur River)

"We have started development of new strategic arms that do not use ballistic flight paths, while moving to targets, which means that the missile defense systems are useless in struggle against them."

'Nobody Listened to Russia Before We Created New Weapons Systems, They Will Listen Now'

cool story bruh. (:])

aiir2303:


What would be the point then point then with all the thousands of nukes you wouldn't be able to get a single hit. Go ask the guys in Syria they've been intercepting western cruise missiles with common S-200 (a late 60s tech).. Now you should be at least be informed that the Israeli's started to puff and rant when they got wind of the info that the Kremlin is stepping things up by bringing in the S-300 with unknown modifications.
Now don't let us go to the S-400 which is the grand master of all air defence weapons which can engage multiple targets at up to 400 km away and ABM at more than 60km. And don't forget the S-500 system which would be operational by 2020 which has the ability to bring down targets at orbital or near space heights.
And don't forget also the Kremlin is not all about defense you've got the KINZHAL high precision hypersonic aero-ballistic missile which can't be defended against as its faster and can't be intercepted and has all but turned all massive jet carriers into sitting ducks..(research more)
Also do yourself a favour by researching on this hypersonic glider missile "Avangard "
Do your self a favour and brush yourself up to speed by having an in depth knowledge of this" Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System" before coming to naira land talking about the number of basses as if that can determine anything other than giving you a terrible logistical problem for a major engagement like facing the bear head long and remember this isn't Vietnam even there you lost. This is just few of the ones unveiled this year and some of them are already in the field.

*sigh*
guess its time for another lecture. pay attention kid.
1) first off, the moment you compared intercepting a cruise missile to intercepting an ICBM, you lost all credibility you might claim to have.

secondly, I remember asking for actual proof including satellite pics and data from the s200 to prove that any missile was shot down. all I got in return were pics of a few scraps that my local panel beater can make up easily.
you might be easily fooled by cheap propaganda but not me.
if the s200 was so good at intercerpting the most advanced cruise missile in the market, then why threaten at all to install an s400?
how come the Israelis have been making bombing raids all over syria, destroying Iranian military installations and murdering military personnel with ordinary f16s which doesn't even have a stealth design?
why weren't they shot down?
the f16 is a 1970s weapon btw.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

please use logic.



2) s300? doesn't Iran have s300s also *checks* yep, they do.
wouldn't stop them from bombing Iran if it bleeps up.
as for Syria , isreal wasn't puffing and ranting. they didn't even oppose it deployment. they simply made it clear that if their planes got attacked in anyway, they would destroy it (the s300). simple. no time for games.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/would-israel-attack-s-300-air-defenses-syria-25561
if the Russians have balls, why don't they try shooting down an isreali just with that s300. let's see what happens.

3) s400? I have said it before they should bring it so we can finally know how far.
have you heard of S.E.A.D.? how about "saturation limit"?
Google those two terms. I'm gonna assume you'll be smart enough to understand where I'm getting at i.e. if the s400 threatens the u.s., it will be taken out swiftly.
s500 has the ability to bring down targets at orbital or near space heights?!
omg. I'm so proud of the Russians. they are finally close to replicating technology the u.s. has mastered decades ago. thats so cute.
Introducing the SM 3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

capable of exo- atmospheric kills, uses kinetic projectile (by far more effective than traditional missile defense technology that uses close range detonation), compatible with the aegis combat system and unlike the s500, has actually been throughly tested for over a decade.

even your darling Russia can't deny it's prowess.
http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/october-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4438-us-sm-3-interceptors-can-take-down-ballistic-missiles-at-initial-flight-stage.html


so bruh, please do better.

4) I m gonna do you a favor and assume that all the weapons you mentioned actually exist as described and are not just propaganda by putin (as opposed to what most if not all experts think and the fact that no other country seems to be expressing interest in these "super weapons".
Google the term "M.A.D".
consider it a take home assignment.
anymore questions, you know how to reach me.

Vianna:

As a CNN and Fox brainwashed american fanatic, I dont expect you to believe that.

https://americanmilitarynews.com

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/americanmilitarynews.com/2018/03/russia-test-fires-invincible-icbm-satan-2/amp/

1) I don't even watch fox news. disgusting.
2) wtf does CNN have to do with one's knowledge of military technology? why do people keep bringing up CNN ?
what kind of amateur would get information on weapons from CNN ?

3) lol. lord master putin said it, so it must be true. you realise the world knows better than to take the boasts of a man obviously trying to compensate for something.

Vianna:

Anytime you make statements like this , just remember the Russians have the most powerful weapon of mass destruction in the world.

THE SATAN 2 ICBM

You know the scarier part? Its invincible to missile defence system.

>invincible to missile defense system?
>a ballistic missile
lwkmd.

do yourself a favor, stop eating up everything you hear.

making a more powerful nuke is child's play for any industrialized nation.
it's a question of utility i.e. why would I need one powerful nuke when I have thousands of them in various corners of the globe?

Vianna:

yep. toy boat. who uses a ski jump in the 21st century? primitive beings.

Vianna:
The kuznetsov Series Aircraft carrier

Owomida1 hope you won't call the Russian kuznetsov an american KittyHawk 1 CVS
These brainwashed american fanatics sef.

calling this toy boat an air craft carrier is an insult to actual air craft carriers.

mysticwarrior:
If the Russians targets all the US military bases at the same time and then lunch an attack on all of them at the same time, they would be no need for further strikes, that was what I mean by a "single strike" and I expect a man of your kind to understand that.

Every one knows that the hiroshima bomb was dropped from a plane making it a light weapon compared to a nuke almost the size of the plane which dropped the hiroshima bomb, the hiroshima bomb was an atomic bomb and a nuke is a self propelled nuclear weapon with warhead, making its destructive capabilities much more devastating and deadlier than ("little boy" the hiroshima bomb) and even a five year old child is aware of this, am shock you cant see any difference.

once you are hitting multiple targets, then it's no longer a "single strike".

I'll leave you to your dreams of Russian grandeur. putin even if he is high on the most potent weed would not dare launch a single missile at a u.s. base.
don't make boasts your man can't live up to.
on another note, how was the history lecture? hope you've gone to retrieve your school fees.

mysticwarrior:
and we would appreciate it if you could point out the wrongs with substantial evidence and acknowledgeable references.

ehhhh... I've got a bit of free time. might as well give a brief lecture. let's go point by point.
1) " the Americans may have thousands of military bases around the globe but the Russians can obliterate them all with a single strike"


Really bruh? annihilate hundreds of military bases scattered around various continents of the world in one strike?
smh. if you can't see how silly such a thought is, then there really is no saving you.

2) " read about the Cuba missile crisis of 1962, how the Russians planted just two nukes in Cuba"


there were much more than two nukes. in fact, there were over a 100 tactical nukes involved among other nuclear medium range ballistic missles.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/10/cuba-almost-became-a-nuclear-power-in-1962/

3) " each of those nukes was 10 times more powerful than the hiroshima bomb"

source?

4) " one of them was targeted at Washington and the other was to hit New York"

none of the nukes were targeted though. they were simply there to deter an invasion of cuba. Furthermore, it would make no strategic sense to further provoke the u.s. by ACTUALLY targeting them with a nuke.

5) "believe me every living organism in America was thrown into panic, their caurage and bravery was put into test"

sure there was panic (there isn't any nation in the world whose citizens wouldn't panic at the thought of nuclear warfare), but there wasn't chaos.

6) " and their generals were urinating on their pants."

damn. nice fan fiction. the generals weren't "urinating on their pants". quite the contrary, they wanted and were willing to go to war had Kennedy not urged a bit of patience.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis

to quote the above
" Some advisers—including all the Joint Chiefs of Staff—argued for an air strike to destroy the missiles, followed by a U.S. invasion of Cuba"


7)" John F Kennedy was forced to initiate a diplomatic intercurse"

JFK wasn't forced. he chose diplomacy. big difference. read the above link.

" find a solution through negotiations."

it was the Russians that offered a solution though. the u.s. was already prepping for war (they were at DEFCON 2). the Russians blinked first.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-missile-crisis

again to quote the above.

" On October 28 Khrushchev
capitulated, informing Kennedy that work on the missile sites would be halted and that the missiles already in Cuba would be returned to the Soviet Union. In return, Kennedy committed the United States never to invade Cuba."

it's also important to note that the Cuban missle crisis ended up such an embarrassment for Russia that their leader , Comrade Nikita lost domestic support and eventually power due to it whereas JFK became a renowned hero. basically the Russians played themselves.

9) " if the Russians could be a threat to the US as at then, they are still a threat to the USA even as you read this post"

anyone with a nukes is a threat to any nation in the world. that's just fact.

10) " when it comes to weaponry and military technology the Americans are no match for the Russians."

lwkmd. proof?

mysticwarrior:
I dont take an exception to spell out corrections to an ignorant man, this thread is talking about heavy weapons are you are taking about number of military bases, the Americans may have thousands of military bases around the globe but the Russians can obliterate them all with a single strike, go and read about the Cuba missile crisis of 1962, how the Russians planted just two nukes in Cuba and each of those nukes was 10 times more powerful than the hiroshima bomb, one of them was targeted at Washington and the other was to hit New York, believe me every living organism in America was thrown into panic, their caurage and bravery was put into test and their generals were urinating on their pants. the Americans were so disturb and there was heavy national concern, John F Kennedy was forced to initiate a diplomatic intercurse and find a solution through negotiations. if the Russians could be a threat to the US as at then, they are still a threat to the USA even as you read this post. when it comes to weaponry and military technology the Americans are no match for the Russians.

so much wrong in one post, it's sad. hope you didn't study international relations in college cause you might want to get your money back.

OLAADEGBU:


Wake up and smell the coffee, it's a new day!

I guess bob corker is also a democrat.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382663-corker-tax-cuts-could-be-one-of-worst-votes-ive-made

the tax cuts is literally the very definition of "eating tomorrow's yam" (great poem btw, you should read it). it's short term miniscule gains for long term pains.
once another recession occurs (which will be very soon given that this administration is pretty much butchering all checks previously put in place by the Obama administration to prevent a repeat of the last great recession), the government won't have to funds to support affected industries, inflation will rise and the sum gained by those "tax cuts" will become worthless.
not that I expect you to understand the complexities of macro economics though.

Hujosi:

CNN kid spotted. The american military is strong but not as strong as they are portraying it to the world. Those people dey spread propaganda. As the say, an empty barrel makes the loudest noise. China can stand those people 1 on 1, even India can. They have nukes and IBMs. Not to talk of Russia. Asides Russias IBM's their defence system is also incomparable. And the good thing is they don't talk too much. They just look and laugh.

>talks to me about empty barrels and "propaganda"
>remind me again the nation with such a fragile ego, it has to conduct military parades. *hint* it's russia.

the fact that we are talking military equipments and you mentioned CNN for any purpose is quite embarrassing.


as for the rest of your post, it's so laughable, it doesn't even warrant a reply.

*sigh* too many kids on NL these days.

let me guess, he's running as a Republican.

CriticMaestro:
We need to get an upgrade of Marcos Alonso, Moses, Courtois, Morata and Giroud, Fabregas, Bakayoko...we need at least 6 good signings to compete next season.....

Anyway like for Naija share for Chelsea

we don't need 6 signings. three quality signings is more than enough. we need to sell Willian and Pedro. then look to the academy. we have crazy talent in there. the likes of hudson-odoi, due on sterling, ampadu, mosounda etc. are good enough.

we need to become smart with our spending especially with a new stadium coming up. follow the real madrid model.

OLAADEGBU:

Do you think Samantha Bee should be fired?

>racism and antisemitism >being compared with a vulgar (but commonly used) word
*sigh*

my Samsung s3. godawful battery life. like seriously, it drains from 100 percent charge in 5 minutes (or less). I practically had to permanently attach it to power bank. even my friend told me that my phone was on life support.

the worst part is that it will never drain to below 33 percent. once it reaches 40 percent, practically every app on the phone (even to make simple phone call) becomes impossible. at 33 percent, just open the phone and remove the battery to restart it else, you are on a long thing.

I can't help but feel Xi jiping had something to do with this. notice that things started to go south with regards the summit after he met with kim.

obviously peace between north Korea and south Korea isn't in China 's best interest. I ll bet some assurance were made to Kim.

very very stupid thread.

ocelot2006:


The European Union is not going with the Americans on this one because the Iran Nuclear deal has been proven to be effective as confirmed by the IAEA and was ratified by the UN Security Council. The EU spokesperson has already confirmed that the United States is on its own as Europe fully intends to stick with the deal. The US basically just isolated itself.

nah. Europe will cave sooner or later. however they are probably having a rethink about their relationship with the u.s. which is in itself, a bad omen.

there is no "feasible" way to impose "the strongest sanctions in history" on Iran for the following reasons;

1) as powerful as the u.s. is, it is impossible to impose effective sanctions without the full co-operation of china. China has no incentive to go along with sanctions cause it supports the Nuclear deal and probably knows that if it caves to the u.s. unilaterally renegade of the deal, it would hurt their credibility in terms of their long term goal as an effective alternative to the u.s.
2) Russia also has no incentive to go along with the sanctions. the Russians really couldn't give a flying Bleep about Iran 's ballistic missile program and it's "support of terror". quite the contrary, they see Iran as an effective means of frustrating u.s. middle eastern goals (the u.s. inept strategy only makes matters worse)

3) the European Union will have no choice but to go along with the u.s. but in the long run, it's poor strategy to cause such monumental embarrassment to allies where it can be avoided (as is the case here). even the Europeans acknowledged that the deal had flaws but most republicans seem to have suffered a case of short term memory coz I can still remember the time before the deal when even a hint of Iran's nuclear program had the world on edge. the deal at least removed the biggest threat Iran posed. the fact that trump chose to renegade on the deal despite public pleas from his allies hurts u.s. credibility with same allies in the long run. it's quite possible (in the absolute worst case scenario) that we could see the rise of political movements in Europe seeking to severe ties with the u.s. . the fact that there is even a chance of that should be frightening.

4) perhaps the most frightening reason why the "strongest sanctions in history" can't be imposed on Iran is due to the fact that the strongest sanctions in history were ALREADY imposed on Iran. by the Obama administration. more specifically, Obama through hillary Clinton, actively lobbied all the economic powerhouses in the world (i.e. G7+) to also impose similar sanctions on Iran in a united front. Obama was able to do this by playing on the ONE FACTOR that truly terrified every nation on earth. the possibility of a nuclear iran. that was why the nuclear deal focused solely on nuclear weapons. it was the sole factor that truly united the world. now that that's been effectively shredded, no one is going to want to come back to the table to renegotiate a common problem which they already solved.