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

  • #46
    Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

    While I really dislike the Obysmal Presidency, in this case I believe his administration was correct; only for 1 reason------->they need inspectors in there to see what exactly is going on, and that is part of the deal. While I think 7 or 6 billion is a ridiculous price to pay, (but lets remember it is frozen assets, not actual money out of our pockets) the alternative was a war to stop the Iranians from acquiring nukes.

    It still may happen; this is true, but by nosing around all partys on our side in this matter will have a much better idea on the time table instead of guessing. And to be fair, if it comes to that, the Iranians had to have broken the deal which gives the aggressors some semblance of moral authority.

    I like most all of you do not trust the Iranians as far as I can throw them. I also have the same feeling most of you do that this is going to end badly. Still, with this deal, we should now know when badly is, instead of jumping the gun when negotiation time is left, coming out with mud on our faces yet again.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

      P.S. But for my conservative friends who wish to pursue the debate point that this was a deal that never should have been made, I urge you to take a different tact.

      WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS, is that not the policy? Is not Iran proven the largest enabler of terrorism in the world? Does not our own government say this?

      So then, if this is all true, then once again, Obysmal lied through his teeth, yes; since he DID negotiate with them-)

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

        Originally posted by Danny View Post
        As for Israel..do they have veto power over your foreign policy?
        No, but the same way we have none over theirs...we may do whatever regarding any possible deal, but what if they go attack Iran anyway? Doubt we can stop them.

        Is Bibi your SECSTATE? He can shut the fuck up and worry about his own business.
        No but that is the whole point, this is "their business, so to speak...

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

          Meanwhile, Canada has refused to lift sanctions on Iran. Oh, the irony. OTOH, now Danny has a cause that is actually his business.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

            Originally posted by Chloe View Post
            No, but the same way we have none over theirs...we may do whatever regarding any possible deal, but what if they go attack Iran anyway? Doubt we can stop them.



            No but that is the whole point, this is "their business, so to speak...
            Its certainly more their business than it is our business. They live there and the Iranians have openly threatened them with genocide on several occaisions IIRC.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

              Originally posted by Danny View Post
              I knew there'd be a thread like this on here without even having to visit the forum.

              As Blue Doggy said, congrats are in order to the Obama admin who's foreign policy successes just keep piling up, to the ire of conservatives who once thought it was their sacred ground.
              So, you'd call the Syrian fiasco, loss of face, and loss of standing in the Middle East, the continued perception that Obama is a weak leader a success? I guess we really have different definitions of success then.

              Originally posted by Danny View Post
              So no, I'm not surprised anyone here is attacking Obama because they attack Obama no matter what, all the time, weather they have an argument or not. Doesn't matter how good or bad the deal is. To think they are even trying to insert Obamacare into this is just...I don't know. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate world to describe the absolute ass-hole-ness of someone who would actually do that. For someone to say a deal that Senator Obama said he'd pursue as a candidate, a deal that is a year in the making, after months of secret negotiations, continued even after an Iranian election, with such geo-political implications is just because Healthcare.gov isn't working properly is so profoundly stupid I can't spend any more time on it. It's self explanatory.

              As for the deal itself, it's exactly what needed to happen. Inspectors are sent in, their programs are frozen and they get 6 months to prove they are serious. There isn't a downside here UNLESS, unless you want to attack Iran and stand to profit from it. That the same people who rushed to war in Iraq are so against giving peace a chance in Iran is a tragedy.
              Our allies in the Middle East are not at all that enthusiastic about this deal, because they are going to have to live with a nuclear armed Iran, who already spewed rhetoric about destroying Israel. Soon, they'll have the weapons to do it, no thanks to Obama's unilateral lifting of sanctions. Yeah, quite a win there. Do you really think that this is going to turn out any better than North Korea?

              From what has been reported, the enrichment of Plutonium is not banned. Guess what? Plutonium has but one purpose: Nuclear Weapons. Some deal.

              Originally posted by Danny View Post
              How quickly right wingers forget the toll from the ill-advised war of choice: 5000 dead services members and tens of thousands of critically injured. It's simply incredible that a deal that might actually avert a similar war is quickly dismissed. Those people are not to be taken seriously. They had their chance to prove cowboy diplomacy worked and it didn't. History so far judges that war as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders and strategic mistakes of all time.

              Will Iran finally disarm? Who knows. As of now, it's irrelevant. If they don't, you are back in the same position with a stronger hand because peace was given a chance first.
              I suppose the last what? 10 years of sanctions don't count as giving peace a chance? Give me a break!

              Originally posted by Danny View Post
              And if they do, well you just saved tens or hundreds of thousands of lives by electing Barack Obama who pursued diplomacy instead of the next George Bush who places less importance on diplomacy and soldiers' lives.
              Perfunctory 'hate Bush' statement. Bush didn't and wasn't going to attack Iran. He had 8 years to do so, and never did. I can see in your mind that all the sanctions that Bush put into place, or promoted to put into place just don't count with you. That's prety blind and prety biased right there.

              Originally posted by Danny View Post
              As for Israel..do they have veto power over your foreign policy? Is Bibi your SECSTATE? He can shut the fuck up and worry about his own business. America would never let anyone attack them so this is just fluff.
              Danny, this IS his business. His country IS under threat from a soon to be nuclear weaponized Iran. But you can continue to hold your unfounded positions, and chose to ignore all that doesn't fit your ideology of adoring Obama.

              So just when the sanctions were actually having an effect, Obama unilaterally lifts then? That's as much being cowboy as anything else.

              This isn't a success.
              Last edited by eohrnberger; 11-25-2013, 04:50 PM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                Originally posted by Danny View Post
                I knew there'd be a thread like this on here without even having to visit the forum.

                As Blue Doggy said, congrats are in order to the Obama admin who's foreign policy successes just keep piling up, to the ire of conservatives who once thought it was their sacred ground. So no, I'm not surprised anyone here is attacking Obama because they attack Obama no matter what, all the time, weather they have an argument or not. Doesn't matter how good or bad the deal is. To think they are even trying to insert Obamacare into this is just...I don't know. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate world to describe the absolute ass-hole-ness of someone who would actually do that. For someone to say a deal that Senator Obama said he'd pursue as a candidate, a deal that is a year in the making, after months of secret negotiations, continued even after an Iranian election, with such geo-political implications is just because Healthcare.gov isn't working properly is so profoundly stupid I can't spend any more time on it. It's self explanatory.

                As for the deal itself, it's exactly what needed to happen. Inspectors are sent in, their programs are frozen and they get 6 months to prove they are serious. There isn't a downside here UNLESS, unless you want to attack Iran and stand to profit from it. That the same people who rushed to war in Iraq are so against giving peace a chance in Iran is a tragedy. How quickly right wingers forget the toll from the ill-advised war of choice: 5000 dead services members and tens of thousands of critically injured. It's simply incredible that a deal that might actually avert a similar war is quickly dismissed. Those people are not to be taken seriously. They had their chance to prove cowboy diplomacy worked and it didn't. History so far judges that war as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders and strategic mistakes of all time.

                Will Iran finally disarm? Who knows. As of now, it's irrelevant. If they don't, you are back in the same position with a stronger hand because peace was given a chance first. And if they do, well you just saved tens or hundreds of thousands of lives by electing Barack Obama who pursued diplomacy instead of the next George Bush who places less importance on diplomacy and soldiers' lives.

                As for Israel..do they have veto power over your foreign policy? Is Bibi your SECSTATE? He can shut the fuck up and worry about his own business. America would never let anyone attack them so this is just fluff.
                I'll have to admit, I did get a good chuckle out of that comment. Glad to see you are posting again.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                  Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                  So, you'd call the Syrian fiasco, loss of face, and loss of standing in the Middle East, the continued perception that Obama is a weak leader a success? I guess we really have different definitions of success then.

                  Our allies in the Middle East are not at all that enthusiastic about this deal, because they are going to have to live with a nuclear armed Iran, who already spewed rhetoric about destroying Israel. Soon, they'll have the weapons to do it, no thanks to Obama's unilateral lifting of sanctions. Yeah, quite a win there. Do you really think that this is going to turn out any better than North Korea?

                  From what has been reported, the enrichment of Plutonium is not banned. Guess what? Plutonium has but one purpose: Nuclear Weapons. Some deal.

                  This isn't a success.
                  I wonder if someone could elaborate on who, now, are US allies in the middle east. I for one am confused as what was supposed to happen in Egypt is not what Obama said he wanted, likewise Libya, Iran is NOT an ally, nor is Syria.

                  Saudi Arabia has called this deal based on lies and is going its own way and we know Israel is REAL happy with Obama. So at the risk of sounding petty, but in response to claimed "Success" of your antagonist I have to ask "what allies."


                  Enter Canada, as mentioned, John Baird is less than typically Canadian reserved in his outright criticisms of the deal:

                  John Baird

                  So, if Obamaland wants to add this to Obama's successes, I suggest they are more likely exhibiting desperation in the wake of an administration toileting itself into political oblivion. If Syria, bombing civilian in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Kenya, spying on heads of state who are now pissed as nits, if these are what Obama and company are claiming as successes, Obama is a complete failure and an embarrassment.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                    Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
                    I wonder if someone could elaborate on who, now, are US allies in the middle east. I for one am confused as what was supposed to happen in Egypt is not what Obama said he wanted, likewise Libya, Iran is NOT an ally, nor is Syria.

                    Saudi Arabia has called this deal based on lies and is going its own way and we know Israel is REAL happy with Obama. So at the risk of sounding petty, but in response to claimed "Success" of your antagonist I have to ask "what allies."


                    Enter Canada, as mentioned, John Baird is less than typically Canadian reserved in his outright criticisms of the deal:

                    John Baird

                    So, if Obamaland wants to add this to Obama's successes, I suggest they are more likely exhibiting desperation in the wake of an administration toileting itself into political oblivion. If Syria, bombing civilian in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Kenya, spying on heads of state who are now pissed as nits, if these are what Obama and company are claiming as successes, Obama is a complete failure and an embarrassment.
                    What allies in the Middle East? Yeah, you've got a point there. Obama's leading from behind pretty much pissed them all off, but with a change in presidency, to someone a little bit better briefed, a little bit more knowledgeable, with a little bit of patience, I think the damage Obama has done in the Middle East will be over come, and the allies that we had would come back, if you really consider them as having totally left us, which I don't. I think they've left Obama, not the US. Common national interests will have still remained.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: Obama negotiates &amp;quot;peace in his time&amp;quot;...

                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      you can if it stays midrange and they only pop off a few a piece (which is all you need and all theyre liable to have). (see all those missile tests we conducted that totally didn't infect the world with nu-clear radiation) That's why I said "pretty much only destroy europe". Let europe handle it, they are in the fallout zone. WE are not. LET THEM DO IT FOR THEMSELVES. We need to stop subsidizing their defense. All its gotten us is trouble because stupid people point to their socialism which WE protect and defend and pay for and say "why can't we have that?". Because no one pays for our shit but us. Let them have a taste, guarantee you it shuts them right up.
                      We'll pay for it if Europe gets irradiated. The worldwide economic damage of such a major disruption to the EU would probably spark a new depression.

                      I would love to Europe man up again and contribute significantly on the world stage, but they are further off the deep end economically than we are, and have that much further to go to get back on the right track. Wishing for it won't help.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                        Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                        On a similar note, I have to wonder why Obama (et al) can negotiate and reason with the most intransigent, intractible, violent, terrorist governments ... but somehow cannot make any inroads in any way with Republicans.
                        You unwittingly disparage Republicans with this observation.

                        But I am sure you are too stubborn to realize it.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                          Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                          Including one or more of them nuking one or more of the others? You do know that's where this will all lead, right?

                          If 'we all' are good with a 'small' nuclear war with millions dead... then yeah, that works.

                          If not...
                          lol....oh come on, don't pretend to care about foreign people dying in war.

                          You're a Republican. Act like one.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                            Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                            lol....oh come on, don't pretend to care about foreign people dying in war.

                            You're a Republican. Act like one.
                            Let's comment on the subject, not the poster.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                              Originally posted by Danny View Post
                              I knew there'd be a thread like this on here without even having to visit the forum.

                              As Blue Doggy said, congrats are in order to the Obama admin who's foreign policy successes just keep piling up, to the ire of conservatives who once thought it was their sacred ground. So no, I'm not surprised anyone here is attacking Obama because they attack Obama no matter what, all the time, weather they have an argument or not.
                              Yep. It's amazing they don't see it. But like you so aptly noted, he could get bin Laden and Republicans would still not give him credit for it. Oh wait that actually happened.

                              Originally posted by Danny View Post
                              As for Israel..do they have veto power over your foreign policy? Is Bibi your SECSTATE? He can shut the fuck up and worry about his own business. America would never let anyone attack them so this is just fluff.
                              Right. Israel needs America. America does not need Israel. The groveling for Israel and Bibi especially from Americans, especially those on the right is just embarassing.

                              If anything makes America look like a laughing stock in the eyes of the world, it's how America grovels for this tiny little nation called Israel.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Re: Obama negotiates &quot;peace in his time&quot;...

                                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                                Let's comment on the subject, not the poster.
                                It was a commentary on conservatives in America.

                                It's the same thing you do all the time when you make your comments about liberals.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X