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

Obama negotiates "peace in his time"...

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

  • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

    Originally posted by jet57 View Post
    There has to be give and take in any negotiation.
    Correct. What did the Iranians give?

    ?


    • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

      Originally posted by jet57 View Post
      There has to be give and take in any negotiation. The idea is to woo the general public who are infact not interested in regime politics. The vast majority of Iranians aree young people so a lifting of some sanctions is reaching out to them. The right of course will cryticize anything that they don't do, so in my view they lack credibility here.
      Now you see, I don't see it that way.

      There have been bi-partisan concerns expressed in congress about this deal.
      Israel has expressed concerns about this deal.
      Saudi Arabia has expressed concerns about this deal.

      You just throwing this out as 'the right' and 'no credibility' isn't really 100% of the story, now is it? Ignored for convenience?

      ?


      • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

        Originally posted by Commodore View Post
        Correct. What did the Iranians give?

        Let me help you :

        Deal on Iran sanctions relief strikes good balance, experts say | JPost | Israel News


        But according to Kenneth Katzman, an Iran expert at the Congressional Research Service, the sanctions relief is small potatoes.

        “I personally found the sanctions relief to be extremely modest at this stage,” he said. “I’m even surprised Iran took the deal at all, because I see it as fairly one sided. Iran gave up a lot here.”

        Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian- born scholar who teaches at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, said, “The amount of sanctions lifted as part of the interim deal are by no means sufficient to save the Iranian economy from the downward spiral that it’s been facing for the last year.”.......Whatever the perceived flaws, Javendanfar said, the relief is temporary. None of the legal codification for the sanctions has been removed“.It’s just an interim deal,” Javendanfar said. “Will someone tell the prime minister to calm down?”.


        But I suppose these Israelis have no idea what they are talking about, right ?


        And what they gave ?

        Does putting their nuclear program under international eyes to set the stage for negotiations count ? This deal, as imperfect as it may be, is lightyears better than the situation one year ago. And the nay-sayers have so far not come up with a better alternative :


        http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...eement-q-and-a

        Worst case scenario: The deal falls apart almost immediately in the face of hardliners in Washington and Tehran. A congressional vote now for more sanctions, for example, would almost certainly derail it. Iranian conservatives would see such an act as American perfidy and it would make it extremely hard ever to seal another agreement. Iranian conservatives would be likely instead to accelerate Iranian nuclear development, bringing a conflict closer.

        Best case scenario: The interim deal holds and the comprehensive settlement is negotiated on time, laying to rest the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all. The prompt lifting sanctions leads to an economic boom in Iran, strengthening moderates. The end of isolation would strengthen liberals and weaken the hold of the clerical and military elite.
        Last edited by Voland; 11-28-2013, 09:09 AM.

        ?


        • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

          Originally posted by Voland View Post
          Let me help you :

          Deal on Iran sanctions relief strikes good balance, experts say | JPost | Israel News


          But according to Kenneth Katzman, an Iran expert at the Congressional Research Service, the sanctions relief is small potatoes.

          “I personally found the sanctions relief to be extremely modest at this stage,” he said. “I’m even surprised Iran took the deal at all, because I see it as fairly one sided. Iran gave up a lot here.”

          Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian- born scholar who teaches at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, said, “The amount of sanctions lifted as part of the interim deal are by no means sufficient to save the Iranian economy from the downward spiral that it’s been facing for the last year.”.......Whatever the perceived flaws, Javendanfar said, the relief is temporary. None of the legal codification for the sanctions has been removed“.It’s just an interim deal,” Javendanfar said. “Will someone tell the prime minister to calm down?”.


          But I suppose these Israelis have no idea what they are talking about, right ?


          And what they gave ?

          Does putting their nuclear program under international eyes count ? This deal, as imperfect as it may be, is lightyears better than the situation one year ago. And the nay-sayers have so far not come up with a better alternative :

          Worst case scenario: The deal falls apart almost immediately in the face of hardliners in Washington and Tehran. A congressional vote now for more sanctions, for example, would almost certainly derail it. Iranian conservatives would see such an act as American perfidy and it would make it extremely hard ever to seal another agreement. Iranian conservatives would be likely instead to accelerate Iranian nuclear development, bringing a conflict closer.

          Best case scenario: The interim deal holds and the comprehensive settlement is negotiated on time, laying to rest the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all. The prompt lifting sanctions leads to an economic boom in Iran, strengthening moderates. The end of isolation would strengthen liberals and weaken the hold of the clerical and military elite.
          If this is the case, then why is everyone expressing all these concerns. Do their concerns have merit? Seems that they would. But on the other hand they may just be making noise.

          ?


          • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

            Originally posted by Voland View Post
            Let me help you :

            Deal on Iran sanctions relief strikes good balance, experts say | JPost | Israel News
            ....
            But I suppose these Israelis have no idea what they are talking about, right ?
            There are appeasers in every country. Israel is no exception.

            Originally posted by Voland View Post
            And what they gave ?

            Does putting their nuclear program under international eyes to set the stage for negotiations count ? This deal, as imperfect as it may be, is lightyears better than the situation one year ago. And the nay-sayers have so far not come up with a better alternative :

            Iran nuclear agreement: Q&A
            Iran's nuclear program has already been under international eyes. We know what they are doing and can do. This so called deal doesn't require them to give up any of infrastructure that they've built to enrich uranium, the worst it requires is that they "turn them off". From your own article...

            Could Iran still develop a nuclear bomb under these conditions?
            It would be hard to develop a bomb in secret, particularly because the deal involves some uniquely intrusive inspections, including daily visits to the enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow, and for the first time inspections of centrifuge assembly workshops and rotor production facilities. Those inspections are especially important as IAEA experts would be able to check if any extra centrifuges were being made for an undeclared plant. Because the nuclear fuel cycle is checked by the IAEA all the way along, any yellowcake or uranium hexafluoride that was diverted to a parallel program would be noticed. To escape detection, the Iranians would have to construct an entire covert fuel cycle – which would be very difficult The chances of being caught and the penalties involved would be great.
            The other way to way make a bomb would be to "break out" – to race to build a warhead before inspectors find out and raise the alarm. But by taking away the 20% stockpile and curbing the number of centrifuges, this deal would double the break-out period Iran would need. It would take about three months to make enough HEU for a warhead, but it would take more than that to turn that HEU into uranium metal and shape it into a perfect core for a warhead and then assemble the weapon, let alone test it. Iran would almost certainly be caught before it had made a single weapon.
            Any deal that does not require a dismantling of existing enrichment infrastructure fails to solve the problem. It's just another delaying tactic, one that we've seen time after time in Iraq and North Korea.

            ?


            • Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

              Originally posted by jet57 View Post
              Look again at the BS and consider it in the context of the thread and what the agreements are with respect to why such negotiations were such a necessary obligation on the part of DC, and European countries and also consider that there has been a positive outcome.

              And this bullshit:



              Have you any idea how empty headed and blindly biased a stament that is? Not to mention the right-wing rag that is sourced in order to prove nothing. First you all say Iran is lying and there was no need to negotiate anything, adn that Obama is Muslum lover, and now Iran is to be believed over something that is posted on toilet paper? So, yeah - the poster switched side to Iran we found yet another bullshit statement that happened to trash Obama, when his whole point only further demonstrates how out of touch with reality he really is.

              And you defend him? You say Obama is my messiah while you have no idea what I think about Obama. It's yourself that sounds paranoid. You defend a trash article with a single example and source to back it up! And I'm to take your opinion seriously?

              Your entire post has nothing to do with the topic. And yeah; the poster, because Iran says somethng bad about Obama, takes Iran's side!?! What a ridiculous and anti American thing you are both saying.


              Designedly so, and it achieved the desired result.

              Thank you.

              Keep ignoring the evidence, the other nations and so forth who are seriously questioning the deal to attack the poster and not the post as you just did.

              ?


              • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                There are appeasers in every country. Israel is no exception.



                Iran's nuclear program has already been under international eyes. We know what they are doing and can do. This so called deal doesn't require them to give up any of infrastructure that they've built to enrich uranium, the worst it requires is that they "turn them off". From your own article...



                Any deal that does not require a dismantling of existing enrichment infrastructure fails to solve the problem. It's just another delaying tactic, one that we've seen time after time in Iraq and North Korea.



                So that post can be summarized as : "Dont know how to respond with facts, but at least I said something that sounds martial"? The Congressional center of research, the (israeli) "Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya" (which is where future israeli leaders are trained ) :

                https://portal.idc.ac.il/en/pada/abo...cherzliya.aspx

                IDC seeks to train the future leaders of Israel and to nurture the business, political, and judicial leadership of the highest caliber. In order to achieve these goals, the IDC provides a unique and innovative interdisciplinary education, combining academic study with practical training. Since its inception in 1994, world-class faculty from leading universities in Israel and around the world have contributed their rich experience to research, develop, enhance, and teach at the IDC.



                , the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz columnists that I linked to and of course the six powers present in Geneva all a bunch of bloody "appeasers" that dont know what they are talking about ? Keep telling yourself that

                2. This "so-called deal", that is an interim agreement actually that sets the stage for the negotiation of a deal ( you understand the difference ?) among other things requires Iran to hand monitoring of its enriched uranium stockpile to the IAEA inspectors. Including 24 hours camera surveillance and DAILY inspections (only requires reading the links). And the linked part in your post basically explains why cheating would at least be extremely difficult and most likely be detected. Which is significantly more than the sabre rattlers have achieved in decades.
                Obviously the interim agreement requires implementation and bears questionmarks. And negotiations can also fail. But to claim that the opportunity of all major powers pulling the same string on Iran for the first time in combination with a new governement in Iran should be squandered since not all maximum goals were achieved at once is simply hilarious.

                ?


                • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                  Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                  If this is the case, then why is everyone expressing all these concerns. Do their concerns have merit? Seems that they would. But on the other hand they may just be making noise.
                  Everyone ? You mean the Saudis and Israelis ? Do you seriously assume that these two ARENT playing their own games that coincide to a lesser extent with the long-term interests of the US or the "West" as a whole but their own ? And that they may be interested in preserving a regional status quo that they have learned to exploit ? Both are f.e. major recipients of many kinds of US "aid" against the "iranian threat" ( in spite of being rich or very rich countries themselves). Especially the "israeli defence industry" recieves multiple american billions annually (which also means jobs and votes of course) that would be in question if US/iranian relations were seriously thawing. Let alone political cover for questionable and destabilizing measures like West Bank settlements.
                  The Saudis for their part are engaged in a centuries old regional power struggle with Iran, Arabs against Persians, Shiites against Sunnites. These struggles go back beyond even the history of Islam, let alone the current iranian regime. The Saudis have in spite of a lamentable human rights record ( executions of Christians, stonings, only country that bans women from driving, popular vote ? Neverever f.e.) managed to organize US support for most of their policies across the region, that have nothing, absolutely nothing to with any imaginary "american" values or the battle against extremism (rather the opposite). Why do you think the US support a rebel movement with extremist ties against a secular dictator ( that the Iranians are backing) in Syria f.e. ? The Saudis now fear that Americas opposition to iranian allies accross the region ( f.e. Lebanon, Syria or Iraq) may not be as natural in the future as in the past and they also fear the (oppressed) Shiites in their own country. A thawing of US/iranian relations would mix the cards of regional power for a new round and also offer opportunities to settle several conflicts. That is why the dictatorian Gulf monarchies, that werent invited to Geneva are watching with scepticism. They fear threats to their own rule.
                  Wether that all happens and works out is a completely different question, but obviously it is predictable that both Israel and Saudi-Arabia will slam ANY deal that the US negotiates with Teheran. That shouldnt cloud sober judgement where Americas (and Europes) long-term interest lie though. Most certainly not as a tail dragged along by the israeli ( or the saudi) dog.

                  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...di-arabia.html
                  Last edited by Voland; 11-29-2013, 01:51 AM.

                  ?


                  • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                    If the U.S. was just a tag along party to this agreement, why is Obama getting so much credit for it? Why do we have a thread about Obama negotiating peace?
                    Perhaps because HE had to go along with it? Afterall the prior sanctions were inflicted by the US or at the request of the US gov't when it comes to our allies.

                    Obama is involved sure, but so are other nations, excluding the Saudis and Israel.

                    I get the idea from listening to FOX that this first agreement reached should have been the first and last agreement with the US getting everything he wants in one fell swoop. I am afraid the world of diplomacy doesn't always work out to where one side capitulates while the other capitulates on nothing at all.

                    Personally the idea of Iran fulfilling their part of the agreement is a long shot, because of how the middle east is in regards to agreements. But if that happens, without the US Gov't personally undermining the agreement to force Iran into doing the same we can say we TRIED. And that would cause many americans including myself into agreeing to and supporting the military action needed to leave Iran in rubble.

                    But to try to force Iran to pay others for their enrichment which is needed for modern reactors should not even be on the table. Forcing any nation into buying an essential material from others is like forcing americans to buy a private sector product like health insurance. There is just something intrinsically very wrong about such things.

                    Since there are great things at stake here, why in the world would republicans try to undermine this effort? Do they love killing and death that much? Do they hold stock in defense contractors, or offense contractors? Are some of the politicians prior top execs of these contractors? Like Cheney was?

                    For any man not to want to give diplomancy a chance, given that much of the problem with Iran is our prior meddling in the affairs of that sovereign nation, creating an enemy in America, if not considered is human ignorance and American arrogance.

                    It is clearly obvious that the madmen on the right side would not want anything that is good for America if Obama has anything to do with it. And this is beyond insanity. Ideologically driven beings are crazy as a bat, and as noticeable as a whore in a church dressed in her street wardrobe. And it you think this has not been supremely noticeable, starting when Obama took that seat of power, you are incapable of objectivity and only see the world through the venetian blinds of ideology. Which means you can only see what you already believe, no matter what you are observing. This stands out so greatly that it is ludicrously absurd. This way of looking at the world is the epitomy of human ignor-ance. The act of ignoring the obvious due to the ideological belief, taken as reality, instead of understanding it is nothing more than ideas created by an imperfect human brain. And it is just as powerful as a religious belief, a belief grounded as a reaction to the demand for security, a security that is an illusion, and has never existed. Yet we still do stupid things as we chase what doesn't exist. Like stripping americans of personal freedoms we enjoyed for so long, in the interest of the illusion of complete security.

                    It seems the right side who many are supposed to be religious people, believing in Christ, obviously think Christ was an idiot as he said blessed are the peacemakers, and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. I truly believe if conservatives were amongst his apostles, they would have left Christ running, because this man taught that the peacemakers are blessed by God. I get the idea that conservatives see peace making as cowardice, a weakness. Being a right side man and extolling his Christianity in the same breath is a contradiction, an incoherence. Insisting that the tree filled with insect infested, rotten fruit is the Good Tree.

                    If men do not work for peace with an enemy they cannot be called peace makers. When has the modern conservative ever been a peacemaker? They see this as a weakness and cowardice. And a man who has that world view will never work for peace. He would rather kill than work for peace.

                    Let us pray that the libertarians in the future take over the republican party and get rid of these fake conservatives who want the US to rule the world as an empire. Modern cons are hardly more than immorality codified into an ideology. A wolf in sheeps clothing. And until they start behaving differently, speaking differently, my opinion cannot and will not change of this group of people. Giving the immorality of the modern liberal, we need a party that at least finds real morality of value and govern from morality. And start believing that the peacemakers are blessed by their God.

                    ?


                    • Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                      Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                      I kind of did. You do understand that the person who titled the thread could read my post just the same as you did, right?

                      In other words, I told them as much as I told you.
                      Lol......you kind of did?

                      Dont be a weasel and deny what your intent was.

                      ?


                      • Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                        Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                        Lol......you kind of did?

                        Dont be a weasel and deny what your intent was.
                        Sigh.

                        I see I gave you too much credit.

                        I'll simplify it for you. I did tell the OP, to the same extent I told you.

                        Now, kindly go hump someone else's leg. Your stupidity bores me.

                        ?


                        • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                          Originally posted by Voland View Post
                          So that post can be summarized as : "Dont know how to respond with facts, but at least I said something that sounds martial"? The Congressional center of research, the (israeli) "Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya" (which is where future israeli leaders are trained ) :
                          IDC seeks to train the future leaders of Israel and to nurture the business, political, and judicial leadership of the highest caliber. In order to achieve these goals, the IDC provides a unique and innovative interdisciplinary education, combining academic study with practical training. Since its inception in 1994, world-class faculty from leading universities in Israel and around the world have contributed their rich experience to research, develop, enhance, and teach at the IDC.
                          the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz columnists that I linked to and of course the six powers present in Geneva all a bunch of bloody "appeasers" that dont know what they are talking about ? Keep telling yourself that
                          Oh, so they are professors. Yeah, professors are totally know for using common sense.
                          Originally posted by Voland View Post
                          2. This "so-called deal", that is an interim agreement actually that sets the stage for the negotiation of a deal ( you understand the difference ?) among other things requires Iran to hand monitoring of its enriched uranium stockpile to the IAEA inspectors. Including 24 hours camera surveillance and DAILY inspections (only requires reading the links). And the linked part in your post basically explains why cheating would at least be extremely difficult and most likely be detected. Which is significantly more than the sabre rattlers have achieved in decades.

                          Obviously the interim agreement requires implementation and bears questionmarks. And negotiations can also fail. But to claim that the opportunity of all major powers pulling the same string on Iran for the first time in combination with a new governement in Iran should be squandered since not all maximum goals were achieved at once is simply hilarious.
                          If your "interim" deal doesn't lead in the direction of the actual solution, the dismantling of it's enrichment infrastructure, then it's no deal at all. Iran came away from this touting they gained recognition of the rich to enrich.

                          ?


                          • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                            Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                            Correct. What did the Iranians give?
                            The Iranians have not only opened the door wider for oversight, but they've also put themselves out a limb infront of the whole world.

                            Why do think N Korea does nothing but wave their swords around?

                            ?


                            • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                              Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                              Now you see, I don't see it that way.

                              There have been bi-partisan concerns expressed in congress about this deal.
                              Israel has expressed concerns about this deal.
                              Saudi Arabia has expressed concerns about this deal.

                              You just throwing this out as 'the right' and 'no credibility' isn't really 100% of the story, now is it? Ignored for convenience?
                              Concerens and comdemnation are tow different things. It's only smart to have valid concerns: we always had valid concerns with respect to the USSR. Valid well thought concerns are valubale in policy and negotiations, but calling the president a liar and disrepecting the position; just because the right-wing doesn't like him is only the height of stupidity merely feeds the foreign opposition.

                              ?


                              • Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                                Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                                The Iranians have not only opened the door wider for oversight, but they've also put themselves out a limb infront of the whole world.
                                That doesn't answer the question. What did Iran give up?
                                Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                                Why do think N Korea does nothing but wave their swords around?
                                Because they seek to extort concessions out of the West, which is exactly what Iran is doing.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X