oh really? this is nothing but par for the course in terms of middle eastern policy tbh. is allowing Iran to get armed with a nuke they wont fire better or worse than handing a massive amount of guns, ammy, weapons, and vehicles to a rebel group you know is going to attack someone the next day? i'd rather hand Kim an active nuke than give 1 single gun to Kurds, thb.

Two of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's closest aides have resigned, an official confirms to CNN. One of the aides house-hunted for Pruitt and asked about obtaining a used Trump hotel mattress.

Uhhhhhhh.....

Its a fair question. A high powered weapon that will not be used or a pile of smaller arms that will 100% be used

Pornado hit the news again stormy has another suit this time for lawyer collusion which seemed inevitable from some of the stuff released over the last few months

So essentially something else to get in the headlines for some more airtime to release unrelated dirt about whatever avenatiavenger got sent by the gravediggers

Surprised he's been able to pull it off so long you would think competent lawyers on the other side would be able to get that legally tightened up a bit by now

drumpf colluded with the lawyer of the stormy who quit on her to collude with ‘russia’ she says

Not be used yet. I pray youre right because thats quite the gamble

Arming rebels is always a gamble too

But unlike nukes (no one had used one since we did) arming rebels always ends in deaths of someone. U just hope its who u want to die.

I haven't read the last few pages, has there been any discussion of Alice Johnson on here?

The Kurds

Look beyond Iran. Nuclear proliferation often occurs because states are insecure (I.e. Why you don't see many European states trying to build nukes).

Saudi Arabia is terrified of Iran so much so that their entire foreign policy revolves around containing it. The Saudis don't trust American protection (rightly so, Obama was about to cut them loose), are they next on the nuclear bandwagon?