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

What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

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

  • What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

    I am curious to see what people on these boards think this admin should do in regards to Iran, especially in regards to it's nuclear capability.
    I have noticed on these boards that whatever decision has been made by the WH, the loyal opposition deems it to be absolutely the wrong thing to do (which leads to prettty humorous results where Obama is a warmongering appeaser)
    So this is your chance to put in your desires and predictions, and we will see how history plays itself out.
    Last time we played this game it was in regards to Syria where the cons on these boards wanted the WH to do nothing instead of getting involved in a civil war. Turns out that that is what we did, but with the added bonus of getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons (which could have been a security issue for the US). Can't remember many of the cons bringing it back up....
    Here is the way I see it:
    Iran has the following problems: sanctions have really depressed the local economy, it has a very large young 'modern' citizenry that it is very very afraid of. It realizes that it's government was nearly toppled two years ago. It is desperate. It will definitely want to come to the table to get those sanctions lifted.
    The US has the following problem: It does not have the support to go into any military operation in the middle east. And it definitely can not aford in any way shape or form another war in the middle east (bush and iraq have guaranteed that it will be decades before the US will be able to make good on a threat of a full miltary operation in the middle east. So it too definitely wants to come to the table.
    So a truce does seem to be in everyone's best interest.
    Can Iran keep their word is the big question. If they don't that actually gives the US a better hand to work from (it would justify military intervention of some sort)
    and can the US verify properly that Iran is keeping their word It is hard for me to beleive that they can't, but I obviously have no idea how hard it is to do clandestine nuclear work and keep it from being seen.
    So all in all I am pretty hoepful about negotiations, but should Iran fail to meet the requirements, the US will have to do a military strike.
    Dick Cheney being interviewed by stephanopoulos sees war as inevitable.
    What are your guys' thoughts?

  • #2
    Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

    LOL

    Your view of what happened in Syria is interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting. The US administration was desperate to make a case for war in Syria, and Putin punked Obama on the world stage, coming in to play statesman and solve the problem for his client state.

    The Iran deal - which the US is just one player in - may make things better. We will have to see.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

      Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
      LOL

      Your view of what happened in Syria is interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting. The US administration was desperate to make a case for war in Syria, and Putin punked Obama on the world stage, coming in to play statesman and solve the problem for his client state.

      The Iran deal - which the US is just one player in - may make things better. We will have to see.
      I did reduce the Syria issue to just one sentence, when it is indeed a long complicated story. Didn't really mean to reopen that debate. Just couldn't help myself from pointing out that the end result of the Syrian sagga is better than the best course of action the conservatives were advocating (do nothing) on these very boards. When asked what Obama should do in regards to Syria when it looked like war was inevitable, conservatives to a man on these boards said that going into Syria was a terrible idea, and that the US should do nothing. That is exactly what they got, but with the bonus that Syria will get rid of it's chemical weapons. I understand that you do not like the way we got to that result, and certainly there is room for debate on that, but the result is exactly what the right was clamoring for.

      Nice to see you are somewhat sanguine about the Iran deal. I too think that we are starting from a promissing position. I say that I think diplomacy will work here, but that if the Iranians are caught cheating they will have to pay dearly for it (ie bomb the plant). Dick Cheney thinks so to. Though obviously he thinks we should have bombed pretty much everyone in the middle east Dick Cheney ABC This Week Interview. Dick Cheney George Stephanopoulos Interview - YouTube Damn I am glad that he is gone. I will say this for Cheney he is a smart man, expresses himself very well, and is a good advocate for his causes. He clearly is also a despicable take no prisoners type of guy. Check out his advocating for his daughter's campaign at the end of the clip. Damn he is cold

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

        We have had this argument before. There are only so many options left as Iran is still a sovereign nation. Either we can continue down the route of sanctions and isolation for Iran, and to date that did not slow them down all that much. We can try to deal with them with some degree of diplomacy, we seem to be doing this now and it is still in such infancy we cannot know for sure how it will turn out. Or lastly, we can go to war with them (and really confirm to the world the US is the warmongering menace of the past two decades.)

        I'd offer we try to deal with them and see if we can at least slow down their efforts, sanctions and isolation has yet to accomplish this. The last thing we need is conflict with yet another nation in the region.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

          Originally posted by rocheteau View Post
          I did reduce the Syria issue to just one sentence, when it is indeed a long complicated story. Didn't really mean to reopen that debate. Just couldn't help myself from pointing out that the end result of the Syrian sagga is better than the best course of action the conservatives were advocating (do nothing) on these very boards. When asked what Obama should do in regards to Syria when it looked like war was inevitable, conservatives to a man on these boards said that going into Syria was a terrible idea, and that the US should do nothing. That is exactly what they got, but with the bonus that Syria will get rid of it's chemical weapons. I understand that you do not like the way we got to that result, and certainly there is room for debate on that, but the result is exactly what the right was clamoring for.

          Nice to see you are somewhat sanguine about the Iran deal. I too think that we are starting from a promissing position. I say that I think diplomacy will work here, but that if the Iranians are caught cheating they will have to pay dearly for it (ie bomb the plant). Dick Cheney thinks so to. Though obviously he thinks we should have bombed pretty much everyone in the middle east Dick Cheney ABC This Week Interview. Dick Cheney George Stephanopoulos Interview - YouTube Damn I am glad that he is gone. I will say this for Cheney he is a smart man, expresses himself very well, and is a good advocate for his causes. He clearly is also a despicable take no prisoners type of guy. Check out his advocating for his daughter's campaign at the end of the clip. Damn he is cold


          Well, let's deal with the OP first shall we before weighing in on the "promise" bullshit.

          Please tell us, as is suggested in the OP, what else the Obama administration has done other than lift the sanctions and release $800 billion in held funds?

          I have noticed on these boards that whatever decision has been made by the WH, the loyal opposition deems it to be absolutely the wrong thing to do (which leads to prettty humorous results where Obama is a warmongering appeaser)
          "Whatever decision" implies that "other" measures were at least considered but there is no evidence the great White House brains considered anything else.

          Now, while you spew the Obama talking points, just as Jay Carney did, about "promise", could you please expand in more detail exactly how this agreement, which is unenforceable, can lead to an eventual end to Iran's nuke program? If "enforcement" means yet another war, then how the hell can you accuse others of being war mongers?

          And, please inform us why, exactly, the sanctions had to be lifted now? Observers agree that Iran coming to the table showed a softening of their position, a clear indication that the sanctions were working.

          And, if we are to opine about alternatives, please explore for us the alternatives sought, tried or at least discussed by Kerry and "Dear Leader" in co-operation with the partners, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. With that, could you elaborate on this "promise" and how it can come into reality when Saudi Arabia, Israel and others are opposed to it? Please explain why it is, that if this agreement has so much "promise" most NATO countries, including Canada think it's garbage?

          Feel free to hurl invectives about "right wing" and "war monger" and "Tea Party" for that matter, as its clear you are the one who can't have a non-partisan discussion.
          Last edited by FearandLoathing; 12-28-2013, 09:43 AM.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

            Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
            Well, let's deal with the OP first shall we before weighing in on the "promise" bullshit.

            Please tell us, as is suggested in the OP, what else the Obama administration has done other than lift the sanctions and release $800 billion in held funds?



            "Whatever decision" implies that "other" measures were at least considered but there is no evidence the great White House brains considered anything else.

            Now, while you spew the Obama talking points, just as Jay Carney did, about "promise", could you please expand in more detail exactly how this agreement, which is unenforceable, can lead to an eventual end to Iran's nuke program? If "enforcement" means yet another war, then how the hell can you accuse others of being war mongers?

            And, please inform us why, exactly, the sanctions had to be lifted now? Observers agree that Iran coming to the table showed a softening of their position, a clear indication that the sanctions were working.

            And, if we are to opine about alternatives, please explore for us the alternatives sought, tried or at least discussed by Kerry and "Dear Leader" in co-operation with the partners, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. With that, could you elaborate on this "promise" and how it can come into reality when Saudi Arabia, Israel and others are opposed to it? Please explain why it is, that if this agreement has so much "promise" most NATO countries, including Canada think it's garbage?

            Feel free to hurl invectives about "right wing" and "war monger" and "Tea Party" for that matter, as its clear you are the one who can't have a non-partisan discussion.

            Maybe my original post was not as clear as it could have been. So I will try again.

            I was asking people to post what they think the US should do about Iran and what they foresaw as the outcome. Go on record if you will
            Cheers

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

              Iran needs to be addressed but Pres. Obama is not the person to do it.

              Right now I think he should sit in a corner until someone more serious comes along in 2016. However that is needs to pray it's not too late.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                Originally posted by Whipple View Post
                Iran needs to be addressed but Pres. Obama is not the person to do it.

                Right now I think he should sit in a corner until someone more serious comes along in 2016. However that is needs to pray it's not too late.
                By doing what exactly?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                  Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                  By doing what exactly?
                  By being realistic.

                  Sanctions and negotiations haven't worked and they're not going to work until it's accompanied by the real threat of war. Decades of sanctions and negotiations without the threat of war have gotten us exactly squat. Why anyone believes that will change is beyond me. For the time being we should give Israel the green light and some encouragement to bomb every suspected nuclear site. We can work from there.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                    Or lastly, we can go to war with them (and really confirm to the world the US is the warmongering menace of the past two decades.)
                    It's not warmongering to recognize certain people or nations are engaging in extremely illegal and immoral behavior, ask them to stop, then punish them when they carry on with the extremely illegal and immoral behavior. Afghanistan and Iraq were not innocent victims of a maniacal white Christian devil. They were countries harboring terrorists and in violation of international laws on WMD - among many other things. The United States gave both nations every opportunity to comply with law and both wars could have been avoided altogether but both nations refused.

                    Blaming the United States or Pres. Bush because we drew the line at knowingly protecting a terrorist organization who flew planes into our skyscrapers and military buildings is just idiotic.
                    Last edited by Whipple; 12-28-2013, 12:26 PM.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                      Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                      By doing what exactly?
                      One way or the other it will come down to this:

                      129080962326694980 - Copy.jpg

                      The only real question is: how many in Israel and the west will they kill before that?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                        Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                        One way or the other it will come down to this:

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]15019[/ATTACH]

                        The only real question is: how many in Israel and the west will they kill before that?
                        I know they have death to America/death to Israel rallies. But it's all for show. The high ups in Iran are really not that fucking stupid to engage in their own ultimate destruction.

                        Again I know they talk shit but let's not let some minor power provoke us into anything drastic.

                        Choose one's battles wisely.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                          I don't think we would nuke Iran. Israel, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate to turn Tehran into a glass bowl.

                          I doubt Israel has much / any confidence that the Obama administration will back them up or has the gravitas to handle a crisis. And they have nukes and plenty of paranoia.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                            Originally posted by Whipple View Post
                            By being realistic.

                            Sanctions and negotiations haven't worked and they're not going to work until it's accompanied by the real threat of war. Decades of sanctions and negotiations without the threat of war have gotten us exactly squat. Why anyone believes that will change is beyond me. For the time being we should give Israel the green light and some encouragement to bomb every suspected nuclear site. We can work from there.
                            Does not sound very realistic to expect good things threatening Iran with war while giving the "green light" for Israel to bomb Iran at will. But who knows, stranger things have happened over there.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: What do you think Obama should do in regards to Iran?

                              Originally posted by Whipple View Post
                              It's not warmongering to recognize certain people or nations are engaging in extremely illegal and immoral behavior, ask them to stop, then punish them when they carry on with the extremely illegal and immoral behavior. Afghanistan and Iraq were not innocent victims of a maniacal white Christian devil. They were countries harboring terrorists and in violation of international laws on WMD - among many other things. The United States gave both nations every opportunity to comply with law and both wars could have been avoided altogether but both nations refused.

                              Blaming the United States or Pres. Bush because we drew the line at knowingly protecting a terrorist organization who flew planes into our skyscrapers and military buildings is just idiotic.
                              Where did I mention Bush?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X