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 shouldn’t 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 &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

    Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
    I have not one interest in either the Democrats or Republicans.

    My problem with this deal is a lengthy list. It begins with the fact Israel was not at the table, the "six" that were have no right to dictate to any nation on issues of security, which is what they have done vis-a-vis Israel.

    Two, the sanctions were universally lifted and the funds held released and restored. Iran has no reason to comply and the history of US dealings with them is more than a suggestion they will ignore Obama stomping his little feet in protest.

    Three, once again, the Obama administration has outright lied about the content.

    Four, nations who know Iran much better than the US, such as Canada who is STILL paying dues for hiding American spies during Carter's similar strategy with Iran, are extremely wary of the deal, openly suggesting it is unenforceable.

    Five, the Obama administration's record on foreign policy is a mutant disaster, its policy on the middle east a trail of debris from Egypt to Syria to Pakistan to Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan. In the wake of Obama's hopelessly stupid plan on Syria, it is inconceivable that anyone in the White House has moe than a two brains cells available for the middle east.
    I can appreciate every bit of this, in some ways even agree.

    Bottom line this conversation though. We do not want Iran to have nukes, they clearly want them. At a minimum this "unenforceable" deal defers their intentions for a while (or, puts the whole thing under ground for Iran to obtain nukes and stay in compliance with this deal.) I believe just about anyone can go through this deal and pick out that either side can walk away from the deal at anytime, even thought there might be international consequence. What would be enforceable anyway outside of military occupation? Just going back to sanctions would be similar in effect to what has not worked to date thus far.

    I'm still back to the same point. Economic sanctions have not really worked, using harsh language has not really worked, going to the UN is as useless as pissing in the wind, threatening them (even passively) has not really worked. What is left? Either we try this deal to keep our foot in the door or we use military force to get another sovereign nation to see things our way.

    What I am after... still... is the opposition to this to give me a plausible alternative. It is a reasonable request given what I suspect is the usual partisan response. If I am wrong on that point so be it but even this issue seems to be going right down party lines. I fear that will have its own consequences. But, if we do not have an alternative then so be it. Lets just admit that. However, it seems to me when considering alternatives in dealing with Iran our options really are limited. Why not try the deal and spy on Iran like we do Germany, France, UK and our own citizens looking for Iran to break this deal? Again, what is a plausible alternative?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


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

      This "deal" gives Iran's nuclear program "legitimacy" and will force Isreal to be the "bad guy" by forcing them to protect themselves in spite of an "international" agreement that Iran can make nukes. Without 0bama's endorsement, Iran would be seen as more of the aggressor if it comes to a strategic strike by Isreal. Once again, 0bama is throwing our allies under the bus. Our next president will have his work cut out for him on dealing with world diplomacy and Iran will be harder to deal with when they ramp up support for terrorism.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

        Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
        You're actually advocating genocide of an entire nation of people, that we're not even engaged in a war with.

        And all for Israel right....so it never happens to them again.

        Wow......
        Some Genos Need to Be Cided

        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

          Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
          I can appreciate every bit of this, in some ways even agree.

          Bottom line this conversation though. We do not want Iran to have nukes, they clearly want them. At a minimum this "unenforceable" deal defers their intentions for a while (or, puts the whole thing under ground for Iran to obtain nukes and stay in compliance with this deal.) I believe just about anyone can go through this deal and pick out that either side can walk away from the deal at anytime, even thought there might be international consequence. What would be enforceable anyway outside of military occupation? Just going back to sanctions would be similar in effect to what has not worked to date thus far.

          I'm still back to the same point. Economic sanctions have not really worked, using harsh language has not really worked, going to the UN is as useless as pissing in the wind, threatening them (even passively) has not really worked. What is left? Either we try this deal to keep our foot in the door or we use military force to get another sovereign nation to see things our way.

          What I am after... still... is the opposition to this to give me a plausible alternative. It is a reasonable request given what I suspect is the usual partisan response. If I am wrong on that point so be it but even this issue seems to be going right down party lines. I fear that will have its own consequences. But, if we do not have an alternative then so be it. Lets just admit that. However, it seems to me when considering alternatives in dealing with Iran our options really are limited. Why not try the deal and spy on Iran like we do Germany, France, UK and our own citizens looking for Iran to break this deal? Again, what is a plausible alternative?
          Could you cite some that harsh language that Obama has spoken? Obviously the economic sanctions were at least an annoyance as they are touting the lifting of them while bragging that they gave up nothing in return.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • If You Only Fight on Paper, You Are a Paper Tiger

            Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
            It's just saber rattling. I use to be just like you.

            It's almost funny that a 3rd world country can make citizens of America the Superpower become so rattled. Did you ever notice Ahmedinjad always had a shit eating grin on his face when he talked. It's almost like a game to them and they think it's funny.

            Just remember the Iranian military is no match for the US military. The theocracy knows that. Iranians definitely know that. They do not want war with America. I have known quite a few Iranians in my day. They were actually very nice people and trust me, they don't want America bombing Iran. They know Iran is not winning that war.

            The theocracy is playing the classic 3rd world dictator game of talk shit to the superpower to make themselves look good to those masses of people who will believe it. People who fall for the "us vs them" way of looking at things.

            Sometimes the best route is not let yourself get antagonized.

            It's called choosing your battles wisely.
            First of all, by appeasing them we are acting like we are the ones with a third-rate military. When some weakling gives us some lip, it is our duty to remind him that he is a weakling. Only by asserting our power and making the Iranians feel every bit of it will we hush them. These weaklings must know that they can't even talk tough without getting punched in the mouth.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Nuking Mecca Will Prove to Them That Allah Does Not Exist

              Originally posted by Commodore View Post
              Even nukes would not change the final outcome of a nuclear conflict with Iran, other than the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dead civilians on either side.
              Nope, only on one side. Unless of course, we continue to allow these screecher preachers to inspire "free-lance" terrorists to attack America.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • The Wall Street Kremlin

                Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                Well, it's too bad that buisness wants your parents to hurry up and die.

                We're tanking because contributions to social security and payroll taxes have been eviscerated. Fedneral income has not been able to keep up with demand because the markets have left everyone for dead as in late 2007. If your banka coount charges you a percentage each month and you stop contributing to your balance inorder to avoid the fees, then after while the fees are going to take all the money in your account.

                That's been part of plan: Wall Street wants to privatize every nickle that passes through this country so that they can skim 2 % of it right off the top. If you don't that ponzi scheme commin, then you need glasses.
                Exactly. Capitalism is Communism for the rich.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Nuke till they puke

                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  20 seconds after Iran gets a working nuke, Israel knows about it. That's if one of their agents didn't actually arm the nuke, but didn't get it placed on a missile quite yet. -Then, an Israeli missile with a small nuke arrives at the site 20 minutes later. Game over. The Ruskies and Chinese would like to express outrage, but their intel shows Iran was breaking rules which they agreed to. Neighboring Muslim countries do express outrage, but make sure the issue goes away after a few weeks. Secretly, they are delighted someone sent a nuke up the Ayatollah's arse.

                  The casino belongs to Israel. They'll let Iran play to show off for that fancy whore (nuclear weapons) in the next seat, but they won't let them win real money.
                  And bunker busters won't work. Their installations are too deeply underground. However, the technicians down there have to breathe air from the outside. When that air is full of radiation, they will all die.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Chamberlain's Chamberpot

                    Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
                    I have not one interest in either the Democrats or Republicans.

                    My problem with this deal is a lengthy list. It begins with the fact Israel was not at the table, the "six" that were have no right to dictate to any nation on issues of security, which is what they have done vis-a-vis Israel.

                    .
                    Why should Israel have been at the conference? Czechoslovakia was not at Munich when they carved it up in 1938.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • For Starters, the West Should Assassinate 300 Imams to Get Even for Thermopylae

                      As for the Iranian politicians just talking tough for the home crowd, we have to remember that these fanatics were once a practically disarmed teenage mob following clerical geezers and facing a well-equipped and vicious army of the Shah. With that in mind, these dangerous and bloodthirsty criminals believe that Allah will protect them no matter what the odds.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        Could you cite some that harsh language that Obama has spoken? Obviously the economic sanctions were at least an annoyance as they are touting the lifting of them while bragging that they gave up nothing in return.
                        It was a figure of speech, this issue did not start with Obama being in office and it could be argued well harsh language will not lead to anything anyway. The point is still the same thing, what is the alternative? Or are you saying we should just go back to sanctions and hope they work this time.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                          Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                          It was a figure of speech, this issue did not start with Obama being in office and it could be argued well harsh language will not lead to anything anyway. The point is still the same thing, what is the alternative? Or are you saying we should just go back to sanctions and hope they work this time.
                          I'm saying that making life easier for them will accomplish nothing. It seems to me that this administration has simply resigned itself to the fact that Iran will soon become a nuclear power.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                            Originally posted by reality View Post
                            You have entirely too much trust in mossad and you underestimate by far the iranians capabilities. This isn't a game. You don't play. You don't bet.
                            Yes, I know mossad isn't under every Iranian bed. They still own the casino, and they won't let Iran win serious money.

                            The end game: Iran gets nukes, uses them on Israel (or the US) and assuming they have capable missiles- takes out a city or two. Israel (and/or US) makes them a wasteland in very short order, with no return. Iran is destroyed, while her target is merely debilitated.
                            No country defends them (arguably less than North Korea in that respect), no country defends their demise, they conquer no one, they get nothing, and make no point.

                            Israel wants the sanctions because it makes Iran marginally weaker; the sanctions don't do anything to prevent the country from getting a nuke if they really want one. Israel knows this, but won't discuss that point in public. Worth repeating; Israel wants a slight advantage that sanctions provide, but knows they don't deal with the nuke issue.

                            To stop the nuke issue, there are two options: The graduated lifting of sanctions, while allowing Iran to save face and scale back their program, restricted to power plants. If they try nuclear weapons exchange, Israel pulls the trigger. One nation definitely ceases to exist and is definitely partitioned by others in that case: Iran. Israel might also cease to exist, but that assumes Iran hides it's program, gets enuf capable missiles and actually delivers on target. Chances are slim to none.

                            The other option: Invade Iran. That goes over poorly; more like a flaming turd in the punch bowl, just to make sure people at a distance from the problem are equally offended. Neighboring countries that would otherwise love to see Iran calm down or die, are now obligated to defend her from another infidel invasion in the region. On the map, it looks like a B-movie rendition of Alexander the Great: where does the US stop, people will ask, ...India maybe? China and Russia will be less than thrilled with a rival's puppet state on their underbelly. Of course, that will not be our intention, but we will be the only ones who actually believe that. On top of that, we find empty missile silos and no nukes. Repeat of Iraqi "intelligence" reports, anyone?

                            No thanks. Israel won't like it, but we can throw in a few of our own intelligence resources to boost their confidence. Let them handle the heavy lifting, which most likely will never come to more than a quiet, but very real threat, to Iran's existence. If by some very small chance Israel is destroyed, the US and Russia partition Iran and have permanent, military colonies on her remains. Knowing that is the most likely outcome (under the most optimistic scenario), Iran's leadership won't go there.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              Yes, I know mossad isn't under every Iranian bed. They still own the casino, and they won't let Iran win serious money.

                              The end game: Iran gets nukes, uses them on Israel (or the US) and assuming they have capable missiles- takes out a city or two. Israel (and/or US) makes them a wasteland in very short order, with no return. Iran is destroyed, while her target is merely debilitated.
                              No country defends them (arguably less than North Korea in that respect), no country defends their demise, they conquer no one, they get nothing, and make no point.

                              Israel wants the sanctions because it makes Iran marginally weaker; the sanctions don't do anything to prevent the country from getting a nuke if they really want one. Israel knows this, but won't discuss that point in public. Worth repeating; Israel wants a slight advantage that sanctions provide, but knows they don't deal with the nuke issue.

                              To stop the nuke issue, there are two options: The graduated lifting of sanctions, while allowing Iran to save face and scale back their program, restricted to power plants. If they try nuclear weapons exchange, Israel pulls the trigger. One nation definitely ceases to exist and is definitely partitioned by others in that case: Iran. Israel might also cease to exist, but that assumes Iran hides it's program, gets enuf capable missiles and actually delivers on target. Chances are slim to none.

                              The other option: Invade Iran. That goes over poorly; more like a flaming turd in the punch bowl, just to make sure people at a distance from the problem are equally offended. Neighboring countries that would otherwise love to see Iran calm down or die, are now obligated to defend her from another infidel invasion in the region. On the map, it looks like a B-movie rendition of Alexander the Great: where does the US stop, people will ask, ...India maybe? China and Russia will be less than thrilled with a rival's puppet state on their underbelly. Of course, that will not be our intention, but we will be the only ones who actually believe that. On top of that, we find empty missile silos and no nukes. Repeat of Iraqi "intelligence" reports, anyone?

                              No thanks. Israel won't like it, but we can throw in a few of our own intelligence resources to boost their confidence. Let them handle the heavy lifting, which most likely will never come to more than a quiet, but very real threat, to Iran's existence. If by some very small chance Israel is destroyed, the US and Russia partition Iran and have permanent, military colonies on her remains. Knowing that is the most likely outcome (under the most optimistic scenario), Iran's leadership won't go there.
                              The fact that you ignore is that those who would fire missiles at us or Israel are zealots who believe that dying for their cause is an admirable thing. The who theory of mutually assured destruction only applies to those who fear being destroyed, not those who embrace it. I understand, that is hard for us to comprehend but it is not for them.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


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

                                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                                The fact that you ignore is that those who would fire missiles at us or Israel are zealots who believe that dying for their cause is an admirable thing. The who theory of mutually assured destruction only applies to those who fear being destroyed, not those who embrace it. I understand, that is hard for us to comprehend but it is not for them.
                                I dunno oldman, It very well might be hard for Iran to commit suicide, even if they think by doing so it helps speed up the endtimes. It is one thing for a few insane muslims to volunteer to commit suicide in order to kill others, but quite another to have an entire population with leaders at the top who seem to like being in their position of power. These men in Iran love their position of power just as much as an US politician loves their position. Would they commit suicide and lose that power? You say sure, but I am not so sure.

                                Of course we had the kamikazes of ww2, but we didn't have the emperor and his court doing it against the enemy. You always convince others to give up their lives for you. LOL.

                                I know many in the west think Iran would commit suicide with nukes if they had them, but you know what? I can't buy that hook line and sinker. It isn't a "given". It is nothing more than an opinion.

                                It seems more obvious that Iran might want nukes to insure they are not attacked, that they are a great power in the middle east and other nations around them might be less likely to mess with their national security. Less chance of being invaded. Afterall this is one respect that all nations at some point in time worry about and for good reason given the history of humanity on this planet. We have tended to invade and conquer and to take what the other has. That is man's history. Anyone with a brain would be concerned about such things. Especially in that part of the world where Iran was invaded by Iraq not that long ago. Muslims fighting muslims, sunni and shite.

                                That we should stay out of religious conflicts would be an intelligent thing to do, but we have a very poor record since ww2 of being intelligent. And we have of course to reap what we sow. Even the great nation of America is not exempt from what some called karma. That we think we should be is the real absurdity here. LOL.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X