Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Iran nuclear deal what next?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    President Trump isnt destroying a treaty, hes only shredding Barack Obamas personal pledge.

    This isn't a big deal ! Unless you ask a liberal ..


    2 & 1/2 years ago, Obama made a bad deal with Iran with no support from Congress. Today Trump is pulling us out of President Obamas personal commitment, and he doesnt need Congresss support to do it, because Congress had nothing to do with authorizing it !

    The Iran "deal" of obamas was only another scam on the American people.

    Done by one of histories most effective scammers, Barack Hussein Obama !

    He did it on his own. He never had the votes in Congress to get it ratified as a treaty. So he did it by executive action. Thats the only reason Trump is able to rip it up the way he has. If this had been sanctioned and authorized as a treaty by the United States Senate, Trump couldn't have done what he did.

    Obama didn't even have support of prominent people in his own party !

    Chuck Schumer, Steve Israel, other liberal Democrats in the House, as well as in the Senate never supported this deal. It wouldn't have passed a treaty vote in the Senate !


    So...

    There never WAS a deal.

    The Iranians never even signed anything.

    This was only Barack Obamas personal policy preferences toward Iran. Its never had the force of constitutional law behind it !

    Julia Frifield of the State Department, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs November 19th, 2015 the Obama State Department, The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran deal, is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document It was the final document.

    The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)' .. what the Iran deal is called is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document, wrote Julia Frifield, State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. The Obama State Department admitted in a letter to then-Congressman Mike Pompeo that the Obama deal is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The Iranians were not required to sign this.

    A page from a website called Human Rights Voices, is reprints of something that was sent to congressional Representative Mike Pompeo. And was seen at National Review. Date - November 24th of 2015.

    headline: State Department: Iran Deal Is Not Legally Binding and Iran Didnt Sign It.

    Quote: President Obama didnt require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not legally binding, his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo, Republican from Kansas.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...inding-signed/

    Then there's the fact that Russia is one of Irans important allies.

    If Russia and Trump colluded to steal the election from Hillary, Trump owes Russia a favor ! Trump wouldn't pull out of this deal !

    But Trump DID pull out of the deal.


    The Russians were building nuclear reactors and infrastructure for the Iranians.

    The Iranians werent paying for it.

    The Iranians didnt have the money, until Obama gave them the $150 billion. Iran took that $150 billion and paid the Russians for some of the nuclear infrastructure they had been building !

    John Kerry admitted that some of that $150 billion would probably be used to fund terrorism !

    This Iran deal of Obamas had a clause requiring us to defend Iran if Iran were attacked, including if they were attacked by Israel !

    Trump was talking about that since 2015 ! It's one of the main reasons he wanted to get us out of it.

    Besides being just another example of Mr. obamas great arrogance & dangerous foolishness of course.

    Other nations of the world take note when - As I said here;

    https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...388#post553388

    They'll also make note of it when another country is too dumb to manage or renegotiate itself out of really bad ideas or agreements. They'll then know that country is run by idiots & fools and/or weaklings.



    Let`s agree to discuss the facts and not make them up ? Shall we ?

    1. You are welcome to demonstrate where the Iran Nuclear Deal gives the country a US backed defence guarantee against Israel or anyone. I am saying this is a lie, but you are invited to prove otherwise by pointing to the relevant part of the text. I am even providing the full content from two different sources to make things easier :


    https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/



    https://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/895803...deal-full-text


    2. The Iran nuclear deal, in legal terms a so-called framework agreement, was negotiated by the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany, Iran and the European Union, represented by Federica Mogherini (Italy). Under mediation by Switzerland in Lausanne/Switzerland over the course of a decade or so. There were many more people around that table than just Obama and they are all rather convinced that they ALL signed it on behalf of their countries :


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Signatures.png


    If the word of a US president is nothing to be counted on ( because that is effectively what you are saying) than you are shredding something far more precious than a treaty : Your credibility, not least among partners. That have negotiated in good faith, that the US now leave out to dry and that you are even threatening with punishment and sanctions, should they not play along. :


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8349611.html


    That is the opposite of partnership, it is the Trump administration effectively demanding subjugation and to have the EUs regional policy dictated by the US. Which is something that neither Trumps chum Macron, nor his frenemy Merkel, nor his lapdog May will offer. Forget about it.
    Europes first step is most likely a reminder of how the EU forced the Clinton administration to back down over sanctioning european companies with representation in Cuba :


    https://www.rferl.org/a/europeans-mo.../29222484.html

    The EUs "blocking" measures made US extraterritorial sanctions unenforceable in the EU, which is why the US dropped them a year later for lack of point.

    To underline that : Even the "harshest" possible sanctions will not bite as much as prior to 2015, because the US alone dont have that economic leverage over Iran. Europe has. China and Russia have ( which means that no, the security council wont reinstate sanctions anyway), Having neither on board ( and the administration has done nothing but humilating the other signatories) means claims about getting a "better deal" are rethorical claptrap.

    3. Noone here is under any illusions that the deal had transformed Iran into a nation of pacifist tree huggers. But it is across the board credited with working reasonably well in having prevented a regional nuclear arms race, while also giving iranian reformers a boost ( that can point to an economic tradeoff and a growing, more open economy--well until recently). The Trump folks have not even bothered to present evidence to the contrary.
    The Trump administration will first have to demonstrate having a better plan (or any plan at all, besides yelling "Obama bad", "Obama foolish").
    Which will be slightly more complicated since Europeans remember the magnificient job that Mr. Bolton and crew did on Iraq the last time they were running the show and what came afterwards (such as the refugee crisis).




    And also israeli security professionals do not all reject the deal. But yeah, Mossad is run by bloody liberals, right ?:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...israel/472767/



    To quote the former head of Israeli Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin: The agreement rolls back the Iranian nuclear program to the point of a breakout time [to produce enough fuel for one nuclear weapon] of one year, reduces the scope of the program, and places it under a verification regime that is much more invasive than the current system and includes access to military facilities. For at least the next ten years, the threat of nuclear armament in Iran has been reduced.....This kind of assessment is not limited to Israels military professionals. Ephraim Halevy, the former chief of Israels foreign intelligence agency, Mossad, issued a similar assessment: I believe this agreement closes the roads and blocks the road to Iranian nuclear military capabilities for at least a decade. And I believe that the arrangements that have been agreed between the parties are such that [they] give us a credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer.






    https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...-the-iran-deal
    Last edited by Voland; 05-14-2018, 03:27 AM.

    ?


    • #47
      Originally posted by Voland View Post




      Let`s agree to discuss the facts and not make them up ? Shall we ?

      1. You are welcome to demonstrate where the Iran Nuclear Deal gives the country a US backed defence guarantee against Israel or anyone. I am saying this is a lie, but you are invited to prove otherwise by pointing to the relevant part of the text. I am even providing the full content from two different sources to make things easier :


      https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/



      https://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/895803...deal-full-text


      2. The Iran nuclear deal, in legal terms a so-called framework agreement, was negotiated by the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany, Iran and the European Union, represented by Federica Mogherini (Italy). Under mediation by Switzerland in Lausanne/Switzerland over the course of a decade or so. There were many more people around that table than just Obama and they are all rather convinced that they ALL signed it on behalf of their countries :


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...Signatures.png


      If the word of a US president is nothing to be counted on ( because that is effectively what you are saying) than you are shredding something far more precious than a treaty : Your credibility, not least among partners. That have negotiated in good faith, that the US now leave out to dry and that you are even threatening with punishment and sanctions, should they not play along. :


      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8349611.html


      That is the opposite of partnership, it is the Trump administration effectively demanding subjugation and to have the EUs regional policy dictated by the US. Which is something that neither Trumps chum Macron, nor his frenemy Merkel, nor his lapdog May will offer. Forget about it.
      Europes first step is most likely a reminder of how the EU forced the Clinton administration to back down over sanctioning european companies with representation in Cuba :


      https://www.rferl.org/a/europeans-mo.../29222484.html

      The EUs "blocking" measures made US extraterritorial sanctions unenforceable in the EU, which is why the US dropped them a year later for lack of point.

      To underline that : Even the "harshest" possible sanctions will not bite as much as prior to 2015, because the US alone dont have that economic leverage over Iran. Europe has. China and Russia have ( which means that no, the security council wont reinstate sanctions anyway), Having neither on board ( and the administration has done nothing but humilating the other signatories) means claims about getting a "better deal" are rethorical claptrap.

      3. Noone here is under any illusions that the deal had transformed Iran into a nation of pacifist tree huggers. But it is across the board credited with working reasonably well in having prevented a regional nuclear arms race, while also giving iranian reformers a boost ( that can point to an economic tradeoff and a growing, more open economy--well until recently). The Trump folks have not even bothered to present evidence to the contrary.
      The Trump administration will first have to demonstrate having a better plan (or any plan at all, besides yelling "Obama bad", "Obama foolish").
      Which will be slightly more complicated since Europeans remember the magnificient job that Mr. Bolton and crew did on Iraq the last time they were running the show and what came afterwards (such as the refugee crisis).




      And also israeli security professionals do not all reject the deal. But yeah, Mossad is run by bloody liberals, right ?:

      https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...israel/472767/



      To quote the former head of Israeli Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin: The agreement rolls back the Iranian nuclear program to the point of a breakout time [to produce enough fuel for one nuclear weapon] of one year, reduces the scope of the program, and places it under a verification regime that is much more invasive than the current system and includes access to military facilities. For at least the next ten years, the threat of nuclear armament in Iran has been reduced.....This kind of assessment is not limited to Israels military professionals. Ephraim Halevy, the former chief of Israels foreign intelligence agency, Mossad, issued a similar assessment: I believe this agreement closes the roads and blocks the road to Iranian nuclear military capabilities for at least a decade. And I believe that the arrangements that have been agreed between the parties are such that [they] give us a credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer.






      https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...-the-iran-deal
      Wow that was an excellent post. Full of well researched facts. A rarity here. I think the US is a lot like the Austro-Hungarian Empire just before WWI An empire in deep decline trying to convince itself that it was still a player in a world that has passed it by. They did precipitate a world war. I guess that is something.It is true the deal didn't offer any guarantees that terrorism would stop and it also didn't guarantee free cable for Kansas. How much can you pack into one agreement?

      ?


      • #48
        The foreign ministers of France, Germany and the UK , the foreign policy head of the European Union, and their iranian counterpart have held talks in Brussels. And the end result openly defies Trump. They have thrown their weight behind upholding the deal and yes, that matters, because without the Europeans the "harshest" possible sanctions will be toothless. The Europeans have also made clear that the threat of hitting them with US sanctions in case of non-compliance with Trumps Iran policy will be responded to and will boomerang back to the US.


        http://www.france24.com/en/20180515-...n-nuclear-deal


        Meanwhile a few thousand miles away, a certain Mr. Kim threatens to cancel a meeting with the US president. Which shows that Kim has watched Trumps handling of the Iran deal and that he is many things, but most certainly not braindead. :


        http://www.france24.com/en/20180515-...tary-exercises




        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by Voland View Post
          The foreign ministers of France, Germany and the UK , the foreign policy head of the European Union, and their iranian counterpart have held talks in Brussels. And the end result openly defies Trump. They have thrown their weight behind upholding the deal and yes, that matters, because without the Europeans the "harshest" possible sanctions will be toothless. The Europeans have also made clear that the threat of hitting them with US sanctions in case of non-compliance with Trumps Iran policy will be responded to and will boomerang back to the US.


          http://www.france24.com/en/20180515-...n-nuclear-deal


          Meanwhile a few thousand miles away, a certain Mr. Kim threatens to cancel a meeting with the US president. Which shows that Kim has watched Trumps handling of the Iran deal and that he is many things, but most certainly not braindead. :


          http://www.france24.com/en/20180515-...tary-exercises



          On June 28 1914 Arch duke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by Serbian nationalists. Austria responded by issuing ultimatums carefully crafted to be so outrageous that there was no way Serbia would accept them. Using the pretext that Serbia didn't respond to an arbitrary deadline Austria started a world war. Could Donald the dummy be playing the same game? Demanding that NK give up their nukes knowing full well that there is no way they are going to do that. OK they won't bend to our will nothing left but a dose fire and fury.which will delight John Bolton.

          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by redrover View Post

            On June 28 1914 Arch duke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by Serbian nationalists. Austria responded by issuing ultimatums carefully crafted to be so outrageous that there was no way Serbia would accept them. Using the pretext that Serbia didn't respond to an arbitrary deadline Austria started a world war. Could Donald the dummy be playing the same game? Demanding that NK give up their nukes knowing full well that there is no way they are going to do that. OK they won't bend to our will nothing left but a dose fire and fury.which will delight John Bolton.
            The artful deal in this case will be convincing enuf voters that "whac-a-mole" will be good for the world, even if it was bad for the world under the opposition party of Obama. Link:
            Obamas legacy, says Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, is clear: endless war. The New York Times Mark Landlernoted in May that Obama had just passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.46d04e3ef19b

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              The artful deal in this case will be convincing enuf voters that "whac-a-mole" will be good for the world, even if it was bad for the world under the opposition party of Obama. Link:
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.46d04e3ef19b
              If history has shown us anything often wars are much easier to start than to stop. Take for example this little guy.https://www.enotes.com/homework-help...ars-war-288866

              ?

              Working...
              X