Give is not got. But you knew that.
-
-
Replying to @davidharsanyi
If someone gave nukes to them, but they don't have nukes, where'd the nukes go? Loose nukes are major international security crisis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @davidharsanyi
Thank you. By the way, you could easily go with "Sorry for the confusion. No one gave Iran nukes. 'Give' was the wrong word."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @davidharsanyi
Obama gave weapons to Syrian rebels, and now those weapons are in Syria. Trump gave weapons to Ukraine, and now those weapons are in Ukraine. Obama gave nukes to Iran, and... where are they?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @davidharsanyi
I teach them to use precise language, and that there's nothing wrong with admitting and correcting mistakes, especially relatively small mistakes involving imprecise language. What do you think the word "give" means?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Oh, I doubt it. But there was no mistake. Agreements can "give" people and entities things in the future.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidharsanyi
In this case, "give" is a poor word choice. JCPOA kept Iran in NPT, and didn't hand over nukes in present or future. It allowed Iran to enrich uranium in 2030, creating the possibility that Iran would break its NPT obligations in 12 years if no one stopped them. That's different.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Also, hat tip for the back-and-forth. Way too many people on this site cower behind blocking in response to disagreement. I don't, and I'm glad to see you don't either.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.