Elk County Forum

by BEN SHAPIRO 14 Jul 2015

The deal the Obama administration cut today with the Iranian terrorist regime signals once and for all that the Obama administration considers both the United States and Israel to be the key threats to peace in the world.

Why else would the American president have lifted sanctions and granted the Iranian mullahs decades of American cover in the face of overwhelming evidence they support anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-Sunni terror across the region and the globe?

President Obama's statements today about the strength of this deal carry no weight, given that he has coordinated with the Iranian regime – which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans over the past few years – in Iraq, has allowed them to prop up Bashar Assad in Syria, has allowed them to continue their subjugation of Lebanon, watched in silence as they flexed their muscle in Yemen, and attempted to cut off weapons shipments to Israel in the midst of its war with Iranian proxy terror group Hamas.

Obama wants Iran to be a regional power, because Obama fears Israel more than he fears Iran. The same day that Obama announced his deal, "moderate" Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted, "To our neighbours: Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the warmongering Zionist regime. #Iran & its power will translate into your power."

Obama's counting on it.

Obama had one motivation in this deal: he believes that any Western attempt to stop Iran's nuclear development with force is more dangerous and less moral than Iran's elevated terror support and even its eventual nuclear development.

America and the West, in Obama's global worldview, are so dangerous that he wouldn't even make minor requests of Iran, such as releasing American prisoners, if that meant the minute possibility of actual Western action on the horizon. Obama doesn't care if Iran is lying. To him, that risk is acceptable when compared with the certainty of Western action, no matter how constrained, against Iran.

Obama consistently posed the choice about his nuclear deal as one between diplomacy and war, as though a military strike against Iran would have precipitated World War III. But this deal is far more calibrated to provoke World War III than any targeted strike by Israel, the United States, or anyone else.

The deal pats itself on the back with wording about ensuring that "Iran's nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful," and how the deal will be a "fundamental shift" in the international community's relationship with Iran. Then it gets to details. And the devil isn't just in the details; the devils in Iran wrote them.

The deal "will produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran's nuclear programme, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy." Those sanctions end on the first day of the deal: "The UN Security Council resolution will also provide for the termination on Implementation Day of provisions imposed under previous resolutions." The EU "will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation."

Money will now move between "EU persons and entities, including financial institutions, and Iranian persons and entities, including financial institutions." Banking activities will resume abroad. Full trade will essentially resume. After five years, the arms embargo against Iran will end. After eight years, the missile embargo against Iran will end.

The deal explicitly acknowledges that Iran is gaining benefits no other state would gain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In terms of its nuclear development, instead of dismantling Iran's nuclear program, that program is now protected:

Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex I, and Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of uranium as specified in Annex I. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years, as detailed in Annex I.

We have no way of knowing what Iran has done additionally, however, since the deal has no provisions forcing them to turn over information about what they've already done. There is no baseline.

So who will implement this deal? A "Joint Commission" comprised of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United States and Iran is charged with monitoring all developments under the agreement – meaning that all the signatories, all of whom have an interest in preserving a deal they signed, will be the "objective" monitoring agents.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will monitor and verify Iran's nuclear program. But not everywhere. Only at key nuclear facilities will the IAEA have access – military sites were not included in the deal in any real way – and even then, the process for access is extraordinarily regulated:

74. Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA. In line with normal international safeguards practice, such requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities, but will be exclusively for resolving concerns regarding fulfillment of the JCPOA commitments and Iran's other non-proliferation and safeguards obligations. The following procedures are for the purpose of JCPOA implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran and are without prejudice to the safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto. In implementing this procedure as well as other transparency measures, the IAEA will be requested to take every precaution to protect commercial, technological and industrial secrets as well as other confidential information coming to its knowledge.

75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.

76. If Iran's explanations do not resolve the IAEA's concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.

77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA's concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.

78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA's original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA's concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA's concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wrote into the deal provisions designed to hamstring Congress and local authorities:

If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

And if Iran cheats, the United States and EU will have to take the matter to dispute resolution rather than re-implementing sanctions, as Obama has lied:

The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions...

Obama is already moving on this front. While calling for an open conversation on the Iran deal, President Obama has already said he will veto any attempts to curb the deal by Congress. So feel free to chat, gang, so long as you don't attempt to do anything.

In brief, the agreement trades enormous amounts of cash for Iran's pinkie swear that they will not develop nuclear weapons now, and the blind hope that Iran's regime will magically moderate over the next five to ten years – a hope made even more distant by the fact that this deal reinforces the power and strength of the current Iranian regime. The West has no interest in holding Iran to an agreement since, to do so, they would have to repudiate the deal they cut in the first place. Anything short of actual nuclear aggression will draw no response from the West. No wonder Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a "historic mistake for the world," explaining:

Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe... One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America.' We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement.

So here's what happens next in the region.

Israel Waits. The chances of an Israeli strike on Iran are now somewhere between slim and none. Obama's deal prevents Israel from taking action without risking sanctions from the European Union and the United States for endangering this sham deal.

Nothing would make Obama happier than to levy sanctions against the Jewish State – and should Israel act in its own interests, undercutting Obama's Epitaph Achievement, Obama will react harshly. Israel will be busy enough handling all the Iranian proxies on its borders who will now see cash and resources flow to them, all sponsored by the West.

Hezbollah and Hamas Are Strengthened. Terrorist groups across the Middle East rejoice today, knowing that the money Iran just gained through lifting of sanctions will end up restocking their rocket supply. Hezbollah has already destroyed Lebanon as Iran's arm; Hamas has already taken over Gaza. Both routinely threaten war on Israel, firing ordinance into Israeli territory.

Now they will not only be emboldened – after all, what happens if Israel retaliates against them, Iran threatens to get involved, and the world, seeking to preserve its newfound magical relationship with Iran, puts pressure on Israel? – they will be empowered. Obama just made the next war between Israel and its terrorist neighbors a certainty.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt Go Nuclear. President Obama came into office touting "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." Given that Iran is months from a bomb, and that there are no real verification techniques and no real consequences for violation, Iran's enemies will quickly seek to go nuclear in order to establish a deterrent, not just to Iran's nuclear capabilities, but to their expanded conventional capabilities.

Iran has the largest active military in the Middle East, along with its massive paramilitary terror groups. They've built that in the midst of heavy sanctions. With Iran getting active on the borders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, those regimes would be foolhardy not to attempt to develop a nuclear capacity – especially given that Obama has shown there are no detriments to doing so. What's he going to do, threaten Egypt's General Al-Sisi? He's been doing that for years already.

Bashar Assad Stays In Power. Remember the time Obama said Syrian dictator Bashar Assad needed to go? That's not happening anytime soon, given that Assad is Iran's tool in Syria. When Obama drew a red line against Syria based on Assad's use of chemical weapons, he apparently meant that Assad should stay forever, and that his sponsor state should be rewarded with billions of dollars in relieved sanctions. No wonder Assad called the deal a "major turning point" in world history, adding, "We are confident that the Islamic Republic of Iran will support, with greater drive, just causes of nations and work for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Iraq Splits Permanently Between Iran and ISIS. Supposedly, the United States opposed Shia exclusionary policy against Sunnis in Iraq, and blamed such policy for the breakdown of security there. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has now taken over the southern half of the country; the new Iraqi Prime Minister is an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, Sunnis, seeking some sort of security against the Iranians and having no secular American-backed regime to rely upon, have been turning in increasing numbers to the barbarians of ISIS. President Obama has made ISIS a permanent feature of the world landscape, and has turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state, just like Syria and Lebanon.

Iran Will Foray Into Iran, Afghanistan. Iran's expansionist ambitions have been increased exponentially by this deal. The deal does nothing to demand Iran stop its military activities abroad, of course, which means that their sponsorship of the Houthis in Yemen and terrorist groups in Afghanistan will continue apace. Al Jazeera has even speculated at sectarian unrest in Pakistan.

Obama's defenders today ask his detractors, "If the deal works, isn't it a good deal?"

Sure. If the Munich Agreement had worked, it would have been a masterpiece of diplomacy.

But promising a unicorn in a diplomatic negotiation isn't quite the same thing as delivering one. And delivering billions of dollars, international legitimacy, and a protective shield around a terrorist regime in exchange for that unicorn makes you either a fool or an active perpetuator of that terrorist regime.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

This article completely ignores the international global picture.  If the US didn't make a deal, the rest of the international community would have acted without us.  Sanctions would have been lifted and we would not have had a seat at the table.  Our interests were to prevent Iran from building a weapon.  We got what we wanted, and the right to inspect.  What did Reagan say, trust but verify. 

Quote from: Anmar on July 21, 2015, 06:14:46 PM
This article completely ignores the international global picture.  If the US didn't make a deal, the rest of the international community would have acted without us.  Sanctions would have been lifted and we would not have had a seat at the table.  Our interests were to prevent Iran from building a weapon.  We got what we wanted, and the right to inspect.  What did Reagan say, trust but verify.

There is no deal yet and a bad deal with no negotiations for inspecting at any time of all facilities is a bad thing.
If the deal does go through it leaves a very explosive situation for the Arabs and the Israelite's.

Syria is threatening to take out Israel as late as today. And the Arabs are threatened as well.

One or the other may very likely take action before Syria starts rolling in all those billions of dollars.

We can only sit back and wait and see.

President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a "non-nuclear" issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama's brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no effective ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely "called upon" to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.

The old text of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), reads (emphasis added):

...Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities...

The Iran deal, as formalized by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), reads (emphasis added):

Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

In his press conference last week, President Obama claimed that he had insisted, and won, an eight-year concession from the Iranians:

But what I said to our negotiators was, given that Iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran's activities, let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that.

We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles.

Yet since the deal was passed, Iranian leaders have claimed that it agreed to no restrictions on ballistic missiles, or that the UN Security Council resolution did not apply to its missile programs, since they are ostensibly not related to nuclear weapons.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is closer to the truth than what President Obama has been telling the American people and the world.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/obama-lied-there-are-no-ballistic-missile-restrictions-in-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Secretary of State John Kerry said this week that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's vow to defy U.S. policies in the Middle East despite a deal over it's nuclear program is "very disturbing."

http://thehill.com/policy/international/248632-kerry-iran-leaders-vow-to-defy-us-very-disturbing-if-its-policy

Quote from: ROSS on July 21, 2015, 06:38:28 PM
There is no deal yet and a bad deal with no negotiations for inspecting at any time of all facilities is a bad thing.
If the deal does go through it leaves a very explosive situation for the Arabs and the Israelite's.

Syria is threatening to take out Israel as late as today. And the Arabs are threatened as well.

One or the other may very likely take action before Syria starts rolling in all those billions of dollars.

We can only sit back and wait and see.

Syria is in no position to threaten anyone.  The syrian government won't last another year.  You think money from Iran is going to help the Syrian government win the war?  Did money help us in Vietnam?  Iraq?  Money doesn't win wars. 

Look, you have to understand something about middle eastern politics.  Just like we have a right wing and a left wing, so does everywhere else.  Just like our politicians have to keep people happy, so does everyone else.  You may be saying  "well Anmar, they don't have democracies so there are no elections to worry about."  Thats true, and thats even more reason why those leaders have to keep their people content.  If They piss off the people too much, the revolt.  And as we've seen in the middle east the last 5 years, the arab people are serious about overthrowing their governments. 

So, in order to placate the right wingers of their populace, the leaders have to say shit like "death to Israel."  Does that mean they're actually going to invade Israel?  Of course not.  Israel has the strongest military in the region AND they are the only country in the area with nuclear weapons.  Nobody is attacking Israel. 

Look at the comments from the Ayotollah guy.  He's talking about defiance of the Americans, how Iran will stand up to the great satan, blah blah blah.  You see, Iran is actually a democracy, and just like us, they have to get the agreement through their parliament.    Put Tom Cotton in your mind.  They guy is an idiot, and a sell-out to the arms industry.  In order to neutralize him, Obama has to make statements that are tough in Iran.  Guess what, in Iran, they have to do the same thing so they can get the agreement ratified by their parliament. 

Its political posturing, you need to look deeper than the headlines you're being fed by your chickenhawk news media sources.  We let those people talk us into war in Iraq, don't let them do it again.

Quote from: Anmar on July 22, 2015, 09:40:57 AM

Its political posturing, you need to look deeper than the headlines you're being fed by your chickenhawk news media sources.  We let those people talk us into war in Iraq, don't let them do it again.

Did you really write that?  I agree with it even if you did.

Ha!  Yes I wrote it.  I try to quote my source if I copy and paste. 

I think the deal is a good deal for the US.  The reason the right wing is so opposed to the deal is because their campaigns have been paid for by the pro-Israel lobby.  Its time we started doing whats best for us, instead of doing what Israel wants us to do. 

I don't think it's a good deal for US.  But it's very possible the Republicans will go along with it as they do much of Obama's/Democrat's stuff.  Democrats and Republicans are very much alike.

Whether it fails or not, the Democrats and the Republicans will continue their quest for the New World Order - worldwide socialism.  And they'll have us in another war to "fight evil" and/or "defend Democracy" too.  What's patriotic about their socialistic ways?

Quote from: redcliffsw on July 24, 2015, 05:12:23 AM
I don't think it's a good deal for US.  But it's very possible the Republicans will go along with it as they do much of Obama's/Democrat's stuff.  Democrats and Republicans are very much alike.

Whether it fails or not, the Democrats and the Republicans will continue their quest for the New World Order - worldwide socialism.  And they'll have us in another war to "fight evil" and/or "defend Democracy" too.  What's patriotic about their socialistic ways?

Why do you think its not a good deal?

by JOEL B. POLLAK 23 Jul 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew are making the rounds on Capitol Hill in an effort to sell the Iran deal. Their appearance at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday did not go well, as the three men struggled to answer basic questions and objections to the substance of the deal, as well as the process through which it had been rushed to the UN Security Council before coming to Congress. There were several new revelations at the hearing. Here are the 5 most important.

1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will likely rely on Iran to test its own military sites. According to one of the two secret "side deals" between Iran and the IAEA, tests at military sites will be conducted by Iran itself. Kerry said that he could not confirm that, as it was classified, but he said that the IAEA was satisfied that it could obtain the information it needed. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)4%
suggested that was like setting a fox to guard the henhouse. A better analogy might be: it is like asking O.J. Simpson to find the killer.

2. The Iran deal does not retain ballistic missile sanctions for eight years–it relieves them immediately. Menendez pointed out to Kerry that this week's UN Security Council Resolution 2231 merely provides that Iran is any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons" for eight years, while Resolution 1929, which it replaced, said that Iran "shall not" do such activity. Kerry had no answer, but claimed the U.S. fought hard for the (meaningless) eight-year extension.

3. The Obama administration contrived the deal's 90-day delay as a propaganda trick. Kerry claimed that the Iran deal, as codified by the UN Security Council, would only be implemented after a 90-day delay so that Congress would be able to complete its 60-day review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (the "Corker bill"). However, Resolution 2231 is not contingent on Congress's approval and the administration will not ask for a Security Council re-vote if Congress rejects the deal–nor could it, because others wield a veto.

(My note: Obama turned our authority over to others bypassing our laws ans our elected officials in congress.)

4. The administration does not plan to re-authorize existing U.S. sanctions on Iran when they expire in 2016. This was a sticking point for Menendez, who noted that the Iran deal prevents the U.S. from re-applying existing nuclear sanctions once Iran complied with the deal. Surely, then, we would want to extend the existing sanctions until Iran complied? If the snap-back provisions of the Iran deal are to be effective, surely they must snap back to...something? The administration is evidently prepared to concede yet more ground to Iran.

5. John Kerry does not think Israel's government (or opposition) knows what it is talking about. Kerry cited–and the State Department's Marie Harf tweeted–a blog post about a former Israeli intelligence official who likes the Iran deal, adding that Israelis "who know what they are talking about" support it. Kerry was questioned about his source, as well as the claim itself. Did he not think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows what he is talking about? Kerry deflected, saying only that Netanyahu knows his own fears.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/23/5-crazy-facts-from-senate-hearing-on-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Quote from: Anmar on July 24, 2015, 10:37:33 AM
Why do you think its not a good deal?

There are no good deals from Washington or Iran.  How can you trust Republicans, reconstructed Democrats and Iranians? 

Do you prefer to defend liberty or do you want more entanglements and War?  Every new law passed in this country is a freedom lost.

First, I'd like to point out that Brietbart.com is not a reliable news source.  Its opinion journalism with an agenda.  They are more interested in purporting a viewpoint instead of reporting the facts.  That being said, lets look at what you don't like about the deal...

Quote1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will likely rely on Iran to test its own military sites. According to one of the two secret "side deals" between Iran and the IAEA, tests at military sites will be conducted by Iran itself. Kerry said that he could not confirm that, as it was classified, but he said that the IAEA was satisfied that it could obtain the information it needed. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)4%
suggested that was like setting a fox to guard the henhouse. A better analogy might be: it is like asking O.J. Simpson to find the killer.

There is no factual basis for this allegation.  The deal allows the IAEA to conduct the tests, wherever it wants in Iran.  This is just conjecture based on unfounded rumor.

Quote2. The Iran deal does not retain ballistic missile sanctions for eight years–it relieves them immediately. Menendez pointed out to Kerry that this week's UN Security Council Resolution 2231 merely provides that Iran is

"called upon" to refrain from "

any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons" for eight years, while Resolution 1929, which it replaced, said that Iran "shall not" do such activity. Kerry had no answer, but claimed the U.S. fought hard for the (meaningless) eight-year extension.

Iran already has ballistic missiles that can reach its middle eastern neighbors, including Israel.  Furthermore, an American ban on the import of such missiles in Iran is pointless, because the Russians and Chinese will gladly sell them to Iran anyway.  In fact, the Russians probably already have.

Quote3. The Obama administration contrived the deal's 90-day delay as a propaganda trick. Kerry claimed that the Iran deal, as codified by the UN Security Council, would only be implemented after a 90-day delay so that Congress would be able to complete its 60-day review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (the "Corker bill"). However, Resolution 2231 is not contingent on Congress's approval and the administration will not ask for a Security Council re-vote if Congress rejects the deal–nor could it, because others wield a veto.

(My note: Obama turned our authority over to others bypassing our laws ans our elected officials in congress.)

If the republicans really wanted to block this treaty, they screwed up.  Think of the house resolution in terms of the trade authority.  Essentially what congress did was abscond its burden of ratification prior to the agreement.  Under the constitution, any treaty that is not self executing must be ratified by Congress.  Here, Congress has tentatively approved the deal even before it was agreed to.  Now instead of voting to ratify the treaty, congress has to vote to NOT ratify the treaty.  Obama doesn't have the constitutional authority to make that change.  Its questionable if congress can even do so.  But make no mistake, it was Congress (democrats AND republicans) that changed the process here,  not Obama.

Quote4. The administration does not plan to re-authorize existing U.S. sanctions on Iran when they expire in 2016. This was a sticking point for Menendez, who noted that the Iran deal prevents the U.S. from re-applying existing nuclear sanctions once Iran complied with the deal. Surely, then, we would want to extend the existing sanctions until Iran complied? If the snap-back provisions of the Iran deal are to be effective, surely they must snap back to...something? The administration is evidently prepared to concede yet more ground to Iran.

This is one of those "duh" moments.  Of course we're going to lift sanctions.  Do you expect Iran to give up nuclear weapons out of the goodness of their hearts?  No.  This is a deal, a trade-off.  They get what they want and we get what we want.  Our part of the bargain is lifting sanctions.  The snap-back sanctions are easy to impose.  If Iran doesn't comply, you vote to re-introduce sanctions.

What the article fails to acknowledge is that those sanctions were going to be lifted with or without us.

Quote5. John Kerry does not think Israel's government (or opposition) knows what it is talking about. Kerry cited–and the State Department's Marie Harf tweeted–a blog post about a former Israeli intelligence official who likes the Iran deal, adding that Israelis "who know what they are talking about" support it. Kerry was questioned about his source, as well as the claim itself. Did he not think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows what he is talking about? Kerry deflected, saying only that Netanyahu knows his own fears.

Some people in Israel support the deal, some don't.  Its pretty obvious, and has been widely reported around the world (even in Israel) that Netanyahu has grossly exaggerated Iran's nuclear capabilities for political gain.  After all his antics over the last few years, I don't understand why anyone would trust a word coming out of Netanyahu's mouth.

Now, Instead of copying and pasting someone else's opinion, lets hear what YOU don't like about the deal, not what some political hack posing as a journalist doesn't like.

So do you think the Republicans will support the deal?  They probably will as they'ver done in the past with most socialist stuff.  They'll go for it.  Republicans have been leaders of socialism for 150 years and they'll never change.  To think that Republicans are conservative is silly.

As the Repubklicans have been leaders participating in the removing of Confederate flags and monuments, they're standing for the socialism and New World Order that they favor.  No surprise there from the Republicans.  Republicans are more like Obama than they'll ever admit.  They're socialists.

How's that for facts?

I think that most Republicans do support the deal, because they don't want to be responsible for another Iraq.  Deep down, they all know that the Iraq war was a HUGE mistake, and they recognize that the same people who took us to war there are pushing for war with Iran.  Iran has much more difficult geography, is much larger, has a  more advanced military, and actually has allies.  You can say what you want about the Iraq war, but the fact is that after over 10+ years in Iraq, we have nothing to show for it.  Iran will only be worse.

Republicans politicians know this, but publicly still oppose the deal.  Why?  Israel.  The most powerful lobbying groups in D.C. are the pro-Israel lobby.  American Israelis donate to campaigns like no other group.  In order to get that campaign money, American politicians fall over themselves trying to do shit for Israel. 

So Republicans will publicly oppose the bill to grandstand to their base, and to ensure they satisfy the Israel lobby so they can get their elections paid for.  But at the end of the day, I think they will do whats best for t he country, and ratify the treaty. 

I think the treaty is a good idea.  I hope Iran complies, and we should give them the opportunity to comply.  If they don't, then we can put sanctions back in place with the backing of the UN.  Without the treaty, we have no more options.

Iraq was based on a lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found.
Iran is not a lie.
Iran says frequently death to America.
Kerry told them it is stupid to chant that.
Their reply:Death to America.
Iran laughs at Obama as a fool.
Iran says Obama is lying about the deal.
The muslims have started colonies here in the us. Cops are afraid to enter them.
They have started Sharia Law and courts here in America and said they will kill all Americans.
ISIS - alQuida all the same to me have recruited American Citizens to perform Jihad.
They have brought their war to our shores, to our cities.

Why would they comply?

Once they get the money watch them fall into non-compliance.
Once they get all thse billions they won't care about the sanctions.

They don't care who they kill.

I argued that Iraq was a mistake before we went, but I feel this is very real and very bad.

I pray for peace but I don't see it happening with lies on the part of all parties involved.

Quote from: ROSS on July 31, 2015, 03:29:26 PM

Iraq was based on a lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found.
Iran is not a lie.
Iran says frequently death to America.
Kerry told them it is stupid to chant that.
Their reply:Death to America.
Iran laughs at Obama as a fool.
Iran says Obama is lying about the deal.
The muslims have started colonies here in the us. Cops are afraid to enter them.
They have started Sharia Law and courts here in America and said they will kill all Americans.
ISIS - alQuida all the same to me have recruited American Citizens to perform Jihad.
They have brought their war to our shores, to our cities.

Why would they comply?

Once they get the money watch them fall into non-compliance.
Once they get all thse billions they won't care about the sanctions.

They don't care who they kill.

I argued that Iraq was a mistake before we went, but I feel this is very real and very bad.

I pray for peace but I don't see it happening with lies on the part of all parties involved.

You read to many bullshit articles...

Quote from: Anmar on July 31, 2015, 04:41:24 PM
You read to many bullshit articles...

Perhaps I do, But it stiil smells bad.
I try to get a well rounded view but heck I don't think any of the media can be trusted to provid acurate information all the time.

What is a person to do trust just one or two of the media and ignore everything else.

You got that right!

Quote from: ROSS on August 01, 2015, 05:57:06 AM
Perhaps I do, But it stiil smells bad.
I try to get a well rounded view but heck I don't think any of the media can be trusted to provid acurate information all the time.

What is a person to do trust just one or two of the media and ignore everything else.

I have a feeling you only read/trust anything from conservative viewpoint, and ignore anything from the center or the left.

Quote from: Anmar on August 02, 2015, 02:45:40 PM

I have a feeling you only read/trust anything from conservative viewpoint, and ignore anything from the center or the left.

You can bet, I don't buy the liberal left's story even if I read them.
Who has the center?
And doesn't the center just mean flip-flop?
Center to right  and center to left when ever it is handy?

I believe in a secure country and that is not left or center.

That's me through and through. A Real American Patriot. A Vietnam Veteran. A Concerned Citizen. A Registered Voter. A Taxpayer.

Flip-flop is such a bullshit thing to say about someone.  Can't a person change their mind?  The conservative hero, Reagan would have been called a "flip flopper" in today's political culture.  You can say the same about Trump, but he's leading the pack.  Hell, I remember here on the forums, when I was one of a very small few who spoke out against the Iraq war, you people called me a traitor.  Now here we are and you all are saying the war was a mistake.  Guess that makes you all flip floppers too.  I'm still waiting for some apologies. 

Flip flopper was a term some politician made up to make another politician look bad.  Give me a flip flopper over an extremist any day.  When facts, evidence, and circumstances change, I want my leaders to change their minds too. 

It was Lincoln, the first republican president, who said the he always wanted to be right.  As soon as he noticed that he was on the wrong side of an issue, his goal was to change his position so quickly, that people would never know he was wrong.  Guess that makes him a flip flopper too.

Quote from: Anmar on August 03, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
Flip-flop is such a bullshit thing to say about someone.  Can't a person change their mind? 

The term has been in use for a very long time in politics and I quote, "In the archives of The New York Times, which go back to 1851, the earliest unequivocal mention of "flip-flop" as a change in someone's opinion, is in an October 23, 1890, report of a campaign speech in New York City."   I was not directing the term flip flop at you but at Liberals in general.

Quote from: Anmar on August 03, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
The conservative hero, Reagan would have been called a "flip flopper" in today's political culture.  You can say the same about Trump, but he's leading the pack.  Hell, I remember here on the forums, when I was one of a very small few who spoke out against the Iraq war, you people called me a traitor.  Now here we are and you all are saying the war was a mistake.  Guess that makes you all flip floppers too.  I'm still waiting for some apologies.

I wasn't on the forum at that time, I was still living in the Seattle, Wa. area.
I would not have called you a traitor over a difference of opinion. That is very strong language.
But, actually I would have agreed with you, because I was against retaliation without knowing who or what the enemy is. So I would definitely not have called you a traitor.

Quote from: Anmar on August 03, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
Flip flopper was a term some politician made up to make another politician look bad.  Give me a flip flopper over an extremist any day.  When facts, evidence, and circumstances change, I want my leaders to change their minds too. 

If they have facts --- I agree. But with today's government the truth is very difficult to come by. The truth is very elusive! I don't believe in extremisms, but I don't change my values because some group says so.

Quote from: Anmar on August 03, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
It was Lincoln, the first republican president, who said the he always wanted to be right.  As soon as he noticed that he was on the wrong side of an issue, his goal was to change his position so quickly, that people would never know he was wrong.  Guess that makes him a flip flopper too.

I'd like to read where you found that, "It was Lincoln, the first republican president, who said the he always wanted to be right."

I know, Lincoln was at odds about slavery, but he still believed the Constitution that all men are created equal. I also know, that it was the Rebels under the Rebel flag that Lincoln said, that all slaves in the rebel slaves were free. He also said according to history that blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Here is a very interesting web site on that matter:
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

"
Quote from Anmar:
Now here we are and you all are saying the war was a mistake.  Guess that makes you all flip floppers too.  I'm still waiting for some apologies.

Not so fast there, Hoss. I for one still think that scum bag, Saddam, had WMD's. Hell, we gave the lad a year to move them to Lebanon, Syria and probably Iran. Last I heard several reliable sources had seen them but for some unknown reason it was swept under the rug. Even Ambassador John Bolton said there were some taken to Bekaa Valley---and I put a hell of a lot more stock in what he says then 90% of those worms on capitol hill.
If Saddam didn't have them I bet the last thing he thought before his neck looked like a giraffe's was an old Bee Gee song," I Started a Joke "

by PAM KEY                          4 Aug 2015


Last week in Miami at Mt. Zion Baptist Church, Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan said he was looking for "10,000 fearless men" to "rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!"

Farrakhan said "I'm looking for 10,000 in the midst of a million. Ten thousand fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny. Death is sweeter than continuing to live and bury our children while the white folks give our killers hamburgers. Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400-year-old enemy. Death is sweeter. The Quran teaches persecution is worse than slaughter. Then it says retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain. So if the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!"

The official newspaper of the Nation of Islam, founded in 1979 by Minister Louis Farrakhan, "The Final Call," published the sermon excerpt as part of its "Justice Or Else" theme of the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March event set for October 10, 2015, in Washington, D.C.


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/04/farrakhan-we-must-rise-up-and-kill-those-who-kill-us-stalk-them-and-kill-them/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


Hon. Minister Farrakhan | The Nation of Islam Official Website |
www.noi.org/hon-minister-farrakhan/
Nation of Islam
The Nation of Islam under the leadership of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is the catalyst for the growth and development of Islam in America. Founded ...

Quote from: jarhead on August 03, 2015, 03:16:24 PM
Even Ambassador John Bolton said there were some taken to Bekaa Valley---and I put a hell of a lot more stock in what he says then 90% of those worms on capitol hill.

John Bolton is a big part of the worms on capitol hill - Lindsey Graham, John McCain et al.
And Obama too.  These guys are into the New World Order.  They're all headed in the same direction, the issue is how do we get there.  John Bolton is a neocon, certainly not a true conservative.  The joke was started long before there ever was a Saddam in Iraq.

Quote from Anmar:
Now, Instead of copying and pasting someone else's opinion, lets hear what YOU don't like about the deal, not what some political hack posing as a journalist doesn't like.

I do agree with you that "the deal" was going down, with or without the USA. Does oil and greed ring a bell ? I would personally never, ever make any deal with a country that is run by habitual liars and those who cry death to America and Israel---but that's just me. The worst part of any deal is to give the scumbags a 24 days heads up before we are allowed to do an inspection---what a crock. The sad part is, if that yellar bellied Carter would have been a real CiC back in 1979 we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

About right for sure.  However, why should Israel take the perceived precedence over the uSA and our Constitution?  Nothing patriotic about that - is there? 

And why is the USA allowing immigrants unlike us into the USA?  The multi-culturalists think it's great just like the ethanol proponents use the government to force the mixture of ethanol into gasoline.  How about the wind farm business?  That's just another government mandate too.

Tyrants? 

ON CAPITOL HILL
'Despite endless arm-twisting and enormous political pressure from White House'
Published: 6 hours ago

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he's impressed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and grateful for the Democrat's rejection of President Obama's Iran nuclear deal.


"Thank God for Sen. Schumer and his opposition to this reckless nuclear deal with Iran," Huckabee said in a statement. "While I disagree with Sen. Schumer on most things, I applaud him for putting peace in the Middle East above partisan politics. Despite endless arm-twisting and enormous political pressure from the White House, Sen. Schumer chose statesmanship over partisanship."

The former Arkansas governor said he hopes the decision will inspire other high-ranking Democrats to follow.

What's next? Find out in "Showdown with Nuclear Iran."

In recent weeks, two powerful Jewish Democrats in the House, Reps. Steve Israel and Nita M. Lowey, also from New York, announced their opposition to the nuclear agreement.

"Sen. Schumer's opposition to the agreement sends a signal to every pro-Israel Democrat in Washington that they don't have to 'walk the plank' for President Obama – they can stand for peace and reject this bad deal. And I pray that they will," said Huckabee.

Schumer, the likely future Democratic leader of the Senate, announced his decision to oppose the deal on Thursday.

"Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their points of view that cannot simply be dismissed," Schumer said Thursday night.

"This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval," he said.

"To me, the very real risk is Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great," added Schumer.

Congress is currently within a 60-day window for reviewing the Iran deal's intricate details, and will vote for a resolution either approving or disapproving the agreement next month.

Schumer's move hurts Obama's push for congressional approval of the deal.

Huckabee's fellow Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz,R-Texas, also praised Schumer's decision during a gathering of journalists Saturday at the RedState Gathering, a convention of conservative activists, reported CNN.

"There used to be a long tradition of Democrats who were willing to stand up and defend our national security. Sadly, that has become almost an endangered species in Congress," said Cruz. "I hope that Chuck Schumer carries through and doesn't just oppose this deal, but that he helps lead the fight to rally his fellow Democrats to stand together."


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/huckabee-thank-god-for-chuck-schumer%e2%80%8f/#0Oma5aVhQz2FEGFF.99

Oh boy, where to start on all this crap.  First, an apology is in order. 

Ross, I'm sorry for insinuating that you were one of the people who attacked me.  I was treated poorly here because I spoke out against the war.  At the time, this forum was filled with a bunch of people who just backed up the Bush administration no matter what.  These people supported the patriot act, they supported the expansion of government, borrowing money to pay for wars, etc.  Rather than debating positions, they used personal attacks against anyone who didn't agree with them.  You were not one of those people, and I'm sorry for including you in that group.

Now, We have one of those people poking up his head here in this conversation.  Jarhead here still thinks Iraq had WMD.  Of course there is no evidence to that point.  In fact, a lot of the people who took us to war, including rumsfeld, bush, and powell, have all admitted they were wrong.  The only thing Jarhead has to say in support of his argument is that John Bolton says so.  Bolton is an idiot.  Just as Red says, he's a neocon hack, and has zero credibility.  Did Bolton go run around the desert and find some shit that nobody else knows about?  Or is it more likely that Bolton is a neocon, zionist hack who just wants to drive the U.S. to war with everyone Israel doesn't like.  Think about it.

Ross, you next quote some Farrakhan shit.  To be honest, I wasn't sure why you were posting that here, but then it hit me.  You don't know the difference between Islam, and the nation of Islam.  One is the worlds second largest abrahamic faith, the other one is a racist cult that only exists in America.  I don't want to spend a lot of energy here trying to explain the many differences, but I suggest you do some research.  Hopefully you will understand that Farrakhan is not actually a "muslim" in the same sense that people in the middle east are muslims.  I do wonder if the author knows the difference, or if he is purposefully trying to paint a picture to scare people.

Finally, I'll turn back to the Iran deal.  Last week I thought it would push through.  After Schumer came out against the deal, I'm not so sure.  Obama only needs 34 senators not to vote against the deal.  Right now he has 16-18.  He gave an interview recently that was pretty interesting.  Rather than copy and pasting, I'll just give the link.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9130371/obama-iran-deal-jewish-groups (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9130371/obama-iran-deal-jewish-groups)

I know I'm asking you all to read a lot, but reading a lot of material with an open mind is the best way to understand an issue. 

The most important point in this whole thing is that the world has already accepted the deal, whether congress does or not.  If congress fails to ratify the deal, America has three options:  do nothing, sanctions, war.  Doing nothing and sanctions have the same effect.  The rest of the world is now open for business with Iran.  The deal will go on without us.  We would lose any right we had to participate in the inspections.  In fact, without us, the world may just give up on inspections all together and allow Iran to get nukes.  Do you really think that Russia cares if Iran has nukes?  They'd probably love to sell Iran some nukes.  The only thing stopping that from happening today is American participation.

The third possibility is War.  After 13 years in Iraq and 14 in Afghanistan, we are still in those countries fighting and the situation in each is much worse than when we started.  On top of that, we still haven't even paid for 1/3 of what we spent in those wars.  Iran is much larger.  Iraq has about 25 million people, Iran has 80 million.  Iraq had soviet era weaponry, the taliban and isis have rifles and IED's.  Iran has modern weaponry, drones, anti-airecraft missiles, and their own munitions manufacturing plants.  We can't beat the Taliban living in caves, or the Iraq insurgents hiding in the open, how are we going to win a war in Iran?  Even if we do win, what happens next?  Do we leave and let some new muslim extremist take over, like what happened in Iraq?

Lets get real about this, we need this deal.

We really ought to get the socialists/neocons out of the Federal government.   

Frankly...I tho k we should go to war with Iran! Well...not so much war as we should destroy them completely! They are the world's biggest supporter of terrorism and pose an immediated danger to us and our allies. We should under no circumstances enter into a "deal" with them, we don't need to! We have these things called B2 bombers that we should use to insure they never have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons. The only problem is that our current gutless, no balls having administration won't do it.

and then what?

Quote from: Varmit on August 14, 2015, 02:34:29 PM
Frankly...I tho k we should go to war with Iran! Well...not so much war as we should destroy them completely! They are the world's biggest supporter of terrorism and pose an immediated danger to us and our allies. We should under no circumstances enter into a "deal" with them, we don't need to! We have these things called B2 bombers that we should use to insure they never have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons. The only problem is that our current gutless, no balls having administration won't do it.

I hope you're joking....

Nope, he isn't. He wants to kill' em all and can't think beyond that.There would be a multiplier effect that would be worse than any James Bond film. He doesn't seem to have the ability to predict the response of others. Too many comic books?

Anmar, First I'll admit all the names associated with Islam Terrorism such as:

1. alQuida
2. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
3. Boko Haram the jihadist group
4. ISIS
5. Kataib Hezbollah
6. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force supporting terrorist groups
7 .Haqqani Network
8. Pakistani Taliban
9. Turkistan Islamic Party
10. Quetta Shura Taliban
And many others to many to post all of them.

All the names and groups of terrorists can be confusing but none the less they allappear to be calling for the Death of America. What happens if they all merge?

And the fact that Obama has aided possibly more than one group to grow immensely is and was the means to an end that failed and back fired on him.

The beheadings,
the execution of civilians,
the burning alive,
the drownings of men in a metal cage in a swimming pool,
the raping and
the forcing women and girls as young as 11 years old
into prostitution and sex slavery is just plain wrong.
Even as they wave their Quaran around as proof that their god Allah approves of these activities, it is still wrong.

The fact they are recruiting terrorist here, with-in the U.S. and that Obama seems to be making it very easy for Islamic terrorists to enter the U.S., places you and me and everyone else in harms way.

The fact that they keep shouting death to Israel and America should be enough to convince anyone something needs to be done, but what? It also proves they have no intention of honoring any kind of deal or treaty. If there is anything legit about the deal or treaty there should be no reason for secrecy form "We The People". But the secrecy is there and secret side deals are there. Which simply adds up to wrongdoing, in my opinion.

Some say drop a nuclear bomb on them and destroy all of them, of course, because these terrorist groups are such a very strong threat, that line of thinking is sort of rational. But I can not agree with that. It would kill far to many innocent people, which is referred to as collateral damage.

We have, what is known as bunker buster bombs two of them one right after the other, at various locations could destroy all their centrifuges and other nuclear related equipment, such ICBM's.
We could put boots on the ground and take the oil fields away for them as it is their major source of financial support. We could have Obama stopped from providing financial and other non-financial support.

I don't know the answers, but I do agree, it is a very serious problem and needs the proper attention. We as a nation have a very viable threat to deal with. And not just for us, but for the innocent people being slaughtered and raped and forced into sex slavery in ther countries.

Apparently the original meaning of Jihad is: (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒiˈhæːd]) is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere.

But the apparent meaning of Jihad today is: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty and an opportunity to kill the infidels or non-belivers of Allah.

This is the best, I can do Anmar.

We only have the news media to get information, and we have a Federal Government we can not trust.


But unlike Diane, I am not calling anyone names and attempting to put anyone down, because they have stated their feelings.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 14, 2015, 03:20:50 PM

and then what?

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 15, 2015, 08:24:21 AM

Nope, he isn't. He wants to kill' em all and can't think beyond that.There would be a multiplier effect that would be worse than any James Bond film. He doesn't seem to have the ability to predict the response of others. Too many comic books?

You can delete these posts now, Diane, I have them quoted right here.

Obama is removing the only aircraft carrieir we have in the Persian Gulf.

And suddenly the US is pulling our Patriot Missiles from Turkey.

These have been there as deterants to the Islamic State.

It makes no sense what so ever to make such a massive stratigical error.

Unless of course it is one of the secret side deals Obama has made with Syria and ISIS to further aid their's and his cause.

Ross, I'll start with your last point first.  Obama is withdrawing the patriot missile from Turkey because Turkey screwed us in the fight against ISIS.  It has nothing to do with helping anyone.  ISIS doesn't have missiles anyway, so there's nothing for the Patriots to shoot down.  The only people out there with missiles that have any animosity towards Turkey is Syria, and they won't use them against Turkey.  Syria has enough problems on their own without a full blown war against Turkey.  I haven't heard anything about a carrier, but if true, I am not surprised.  Its time the Arabs start dealing with their own problems.  They have the means.  We have been trying to help the middle east solve problems since the end of wwI when woodrow wilson tried to convince the British and French to let the Arabs govern themselves.  The only thing we've learned is that we are very good at making enemies.

Speaking of enemies, you listed a bunch of groups, and said you're worried about them uniting.  Don't worry, they never will.  Every one of those groups is ideologically different than the next.  And there's a funny thing about extremist wackos, they don't get along well with other people. 

I'm glad you recognize that dropping nukes is not a solution.  After 15 years of this endless war against "terror" I think people are starting to realize that the only thing we are accomplishing is creating more people who hate us.  Arabs are like that.  You kill one guy, now that guy's brother and kids and cousins now all want to kill you.  Its a culture of revenge.  Eye for an eye.  Going to war without first understanding your enemy is stupidity, and one of the worse mistakes a nation can make, but thats what we did.  Thanks Neoconservatives and sell out politicians. 

In my mind, the best solution is to withdraw, and let them figure it out.  We should stop trying to put ourselves in everyone else's business.  Lets secure our borders, focus on our economy, pay down our debts and fix our crumbling infrastructure.  We've made a lot of mistakes, lets stop making them.

Anmar and Diane...the answer to your very simplistic questions is a simple one. The "and then what?" Question is answered by simply crushing any group that threatens our country and the sovereignty of our best ally, Israel. As for Muslims wanting to continue to wage war on us that is something that will never change. America is a country that was founded on Christian values and that is something that Muslims will never understand and never leave in peace. The "leave them alone and they will leave us alone" approach simply will not work. Why on earth would we want to allow a group that would slaughter children that refuse to convert to Islam to exist? Iran and those Muslims that are in control of Iran and the terrorists they support should be wiped out completely. To believe peace is possible with people like that is both naive and dangerous.

Quote from: Varmit on August 16, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
Anmar and Diane...the answer to your very simplistic questions is a simple one. The "and then what?" Question is answered by simply crushing any group that threatens our country and the sovereignty of our best ally, Israel. As for Muslims wanting to continue to wage war on us that is something that will never change. America is a country that was founded on Christian values and that is something that Muslims will never understand and never leave in peace. The "leave them alone and they will leave us alone" approach simply will not work. Why on earth would we want to allow a group that would slaughter children that refuse to convert to Islam to exist? Iran and those Muslims that are in control of Iran and the terrorists they support should be wiped out completely. To believe peace is possible with people like that is both naive and dangerous.

For the first 150 years or so of our country's existence, Muslims and that Arab world didn't give a damn about US.  They only started paying attention after we started meddling with their affairs.  For example, propping up dictators, stealing land, stealing oil, assassinating and torturing people, etc. etc.

I don't think they will leave us alone.  But I do know that what we are doing, and have been doing, is only making it worse.

I can't disagree with you.  Meddling in others' affairs and business.  Isn't that what neocons, liberals and socialists do?   

It was Lincoln who sent the U. S. troops into the Southland - the Confederate States of America.  Bush and Obama are not much different than Lincoln - are they? 

"We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms."
  President Jefferson Davis, CSA, 29 April 1861

Confederate First Sergeant... Union cavalry surrounded a lone Confederate soldier who had no horse and whose clothes were dirty and tattered. A Union officer said to him that it was obvious that he had no wealth and not the means to own slaves. The officer asked: "Why are you fighting this war?" The Confederate answered: "Because you are here."

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth". It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
- H L Mencken


Who is the greater threat to our American liberty - those elected politicians and un-elected bureaucrats in Washington DC or the threats of Iran?  Just asking . . . .

Uh, Red, this one isn't about the Civil War is it?  ;) Metaphor and allegory is a fine thing, but what about what's happening now?
   I see Ross thinks he needs to protect you from me. That's mighty funny. Apparently he doesn't bother to read the shots you take at me, too. He just has to stir that pot and try to keep people up against each other, doesn't he? Put on those antlers and play elk!  You take your own part without any help, just fine.  You poke me. I poke you, so what? We still post about issues too.
Isn't the problem in the middle east still primarily about the oil? Who has it, who controls it and who wants it? At least oil is a material thing.It can be touched and used.These religious things aren't material. Sure they are important, but The Rules are changed and tweaked and massaged by humans to suit whomever is in power at the time.That is why where are so  many different religions world wide. Right?
The Muslims are not going to take over this country.The Muslims that are here living in peace don't want to. They love the freedoms they have here, but do worry about ignorant people here treating them badly. Especially those who don't know a Muslim from a Hindu and that is scary!
  Many Muslims who aren't uneducated, otherwise unemployed, have their teeth, and are not easily controlled, don't want that uproar in their lives. Of course the radicals do and that is a problem.
   Varmit, IMHO, there is no such thing as "simply'' crushing them.  It's been tried before...read the history of those who thought they would add them to their collection of conquests.It did work for awhile but WWII ended that. (Britain,France.)
  Do you understand how big and modern Iran is as compared to Iraq? Do you know how quick other countries might jump in if we do try to blow them all off the map as suggested? Some are having their own economic crises right now, but they are still watching. 
Do you know the real public cost of these wars? How about the personal costs? Unless the draft is re instituted, where will the military keep coming from...in huge numbers. Yes, I know there are families with military histories that go back many generations. They will continue to go I'm sure, but the same people are being redeployed over and over. That does and is taking it's toll.
Do you really understand the number of military who are coming home with terrible brain injuries spinal injuries and missing limbs? Modern medicine saves them now, but then what? The costs of caring for these brave people physically and mentally is gigantic, and still it isn't enough. There needs to be much more.  Just the idea of a homeless vet makes me sick!  But just mention raising taxes and people go ballistic.
It's all a very complicated and very touchy subject, but we need to be smarter than rising to sword rattling.
Do I have the answer? Of course not, but it's definitely not "simple" to my way of thinking. Are we to expose at least three more generations to never knowing the US not at war with someone? Regardless of which party is in Washington?
I still think letting them restore their own tribal lands would help settle them internally.

Look the answer is a simple one...We should notbabe making deals with those that are sworn enemies of Isreal, period! As far as the rest of the world is concerned or how modern Iran is, frankly I don't care. I know that God is watching over His people and always will. What concerns me is how the U.S. is slowly abandoning our best ally in order to appease the Muslim world. Another concern is how that same Muslim world is pushing for sharia law in the U.S. (real estate laws in Portland for example). The simple fact of all of this is that we are engaged in a holy war. You do not compromise in those.

No sense in trying to reason with someone who actually believes that Israelis are for some reason a "chosen" people.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
Uh, Red, this one isn't about the Civil War is it?  ;) Metaphor and allegory is a fine thing, but what about what's happening now?
   I see Ross thinks he needs to protect you from me. That's mighty funny. Apparently he doesn't bother to read the shots you take at me, too. He just has to stir that pot and try to keep people up against each other, doesn't he? Put on those antlers and play elk!  You take your own part without any help, just fine.  You poke me. I poke you, so what? We still post about issues too.

No dearie, I don't need to protect Redcliff from you. That is your imagination working overtime again. You must be communicating with your imaginary friends again.

It is you dearie stirring the pot. There was some real communicating go on here until you showed up.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
Isn't the problem in the middle east still primarily about the oil? Who has it, who controls it and who wants it? At least oil is a material thing.It can be touched and used.These religious things aren't material. Sure they are important, but The Rules are changed and tweaked and massaged by humans to suit whomever is in power at the time.That is why where are so  many different religions world wide. Right?

Sure it;s all about oil, Diane! Never mind the beheadings, and drownings, and excutions of christians or the rapes of very young girls and selling women into slavery. None of that means anything, does it Diane?

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
The Muslims are not going to take over this country.The Muslims that are here living in peace don't want to. They love the freedoms they have here, but do worry about ignorant people here treating them badly. Especially those who don't know a Muslim from a Hindu and that is scary!

Of course you can guarantee that Diane ?
We are not discussing anything other than radical Muslims!
Apparently you haven't kept abreast of the news about Sharia Law spreading across our country, have you?
Or the Muslim terrorist camps, right?  Or area's of some cities where radical Muslims love and the police are afraid to enter, right, you haven't bothered keeping up have you?

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
Do you know the real public cost of these wars? How about the personal costs? Unless the draft is re instituted, where will the military keep coming from...in huge numbers. Yes, I know there are families with military histories that go back many generations. They will continue to go I'm sure, but the same people are being redeployed over and over. That does and is taking it's toll.

What price do you put on your FREEDOM Diane?

And the reason for being re-deployed so frequently lies on the shoulders of our Muslim Commander in Chief for weakening our military.

We re-deployed every six months during Vietnam, not anything new.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
Do you really understand the number of military who are coming home with terrible brain injuries spinal injuries and missing limbs? Modern medicine saves them now, but then what? The costs of caring for these brave people physically and mentally is gigantic, and still it isn't enough. There needs to be much more.  Just the idea of a homeless vet makes me sick!  But just mention raising taxes and people go ballistic.
It's all a very complicated and very touchy subject, but we need to be smarter than rising to sword rattling.
Do I have the answer? Of course not, but it's definitely not "simple" to my way of thinking.

Of course Diane most people with just a glimmer of common sense understand this all to well.
I was once a homeless veteran, but I worked hard and brought myself back up. But the homelessness does not only happen to veterans, my heart goes out to anyone that is homeless. It is a tough world we live in, these days.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
Are we to expose at least three more generations to never knowing the US not at war with someone? Regardless of which party is in Washington?

That is just plain liberal speak, it can't get any plainer than that!

It is not about a choice of war or not to war. If it is brought to you, you deal with it.
Or would you prefer that girls as young as eleven continue to get raped and the same goes for little boys.
Do you just ignore all the beheadings and the setting on fire of Christians, is that the answer. Do you sit and wait for them to come ashore here in the US? Well guess what, they are here. And Obama is bringing them in by the hundreds and thousands. Ask yourself  WHY doesn't Obama want our boarders secured?

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 17, 2015, 08:04:39 AM
I still think letting them restore their own tribal lands would help settle them internally.

Wishful thinking Diane just plain wishful thinking.

Who do you think the radical Muslims are killing and raping and forcing into sex slavery? Those people that lived on the tribal lands and they are becoming part of the Caliphate against their will.


Good night if you can sleep with the thought of young girls and women being raped and sold into sex slavery.
And all the other atrocities performed on the people. the people

I can because I pray for them.

Oh Ross, you're so lost.  I just don't have the energy to point out all the faulty logic in your post, nor do I think it would do any good.  I'll just say nobody gave a damn about any of that BS you posted 10 years ago.  Nobody cares about it when our allies do it, no matter what race or religion they are.  You only care about it because the republican party, fox news, and other fake conservative pundits told you to.

Quote from: Anmar on August 17, 2015, 08:15:30 PM
No sense in trying to reason with someone who actually believes that Israelis are for some reason a "chosen" people.

All a person needs to do is look at isreali history to understand that they are. From a military viewpoint they should have been beaten many times, the only logical explanation for their continued existence is divine intervention.

So Israel does not need our assistance.  The U S Fed's and its military are not divine intervention although many nowadays think the government is their god in just about everything.

There is a lot difference between understanding the myths perpetrated by some and the facts of a situation. Sometimes it is hard to dig out what is really going on anywhere because of the need for competitive news coverage 24 hours a day now. Some aren't particularly concerned about their fact checking either. Something that does happen with some radical extremist sects suddenly becomes the norm for all? Is it wise to accept that? 
Do all religious sects handle poisonous snakes? No, but a few do. Do all reject medical care? Some do but that is hardly the norm. Is there a Bris held for every baby boy?  No, not at all.  Are there some who choose not to salute the flag en masse at school? Yes, but only some...can't make a general statement about it.      That's part of the freedoms we do enjoy. We have choices!  But a modern civilized society can't just throw all the rules to the wind. If so, how soon would it be before we were back living in fortified castles, scared of the mobs coming through preying on everyone they can. That means no freedom of any kind for anyone...back to the dark ages.
A couple of you keep barking about Socialism. How ya gonna beat up on the Muslims without "The people.''paying for it. Where would the money come from? Our taxes pay for all that. That's socialism! How else would it be done. I don't think we can have pay as ya go tanks, personnel carriers, and helicopters, where ya all empty out yer pockets, put in $500.00 in change and then go.  ;) The spending is so much more efficient by pooling resources, which actually saves tax money.
As far as foreign affairs, there is much that goes on that cannot be made public for security reasons.
As an example, look at all the materials that are just now being declassified after WWII. A far as I'm concerned the cheap shots, and making things public too soon are a form of treason!
If some of you still want to bring down the Gov't, you will create a vacuum, and you can't promise what would take its place and by what means it would happen. Be very careful what you wish for.

You're not one to research the facts or is it your dumbed down education that you are depending upon?

Well now,that was useful. >:(

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 18, 2015, 09:04:09 AM

If some of you still want to bring down the Gov't, you will create a vacuum, and you can't promise what would take its place and by what means it would happen. Be very careful what you wish for.

It is not a matter of taking down the government, its a matter of stopping the corruption and the overstepping their purpose. The government is suppose to be working for us not against us.

The government has no rights to violate the consitioution. Everyone that works in the government has taken an oath to uphold the constitution, not to violate it.

If you think otherwise, please think again.

Billions and Billions of tax dollars have simply disappeared, enemies have beenprovided with weapons and monetary support. If you think that is right of our government, think again.

I don't believe anyoe is talking of taking the government down in the sense that you may mean. But perhaps that the government had become a monumental monstosity.

It has got to the point that State Governments are rebelling against the Federal Government.

Think Again.

So we should just stand by and do nothing? Meanwhile, Iran is able to acquire Soviet weapons, money, no economic sanctions, all while funneling money to Isis via Hamas and hezbollah that allows them to continue to slaughter innocent Christian men, women, and children by the hundreds. Not to mention anyone else that doesn't agree with their false religion. YEr should just stand by and allow Isreal to face enemies on all fronts and from all sides without our assistance? Do they need it? No! But to stand by and do nothing is the same as agreeing with it.

Quote from: Varmit on August 19, 2015, 08:53:08 PM
So we should just stand by and do nothing? Meanwhile, Iran is able to acquire Soviet weapons, money, no economic sanctions, all while funneling money to Isis via Hamas and hezbollah that allows them to continue to slaughter innocent Christian men, women, and children by the hundreds. Not to mention anyone else that doesn't agree with their false religion. YEr should just stand by and allow Isreal to face enemies on all fronts and from all sides without our assistance? Do they need it? No! But to stand by and do nothing is the same as agreeing with it.

Its going to happen, whether we let it or not.  Just  like the crusaders, you don't realize that the world doesn't revolve around one country, no matter how great it is.  You have something to learn about history.  Rome, The Golden Horde, the Ottomans, the British.  All had empires larger and stronger than our current empire.  All believed they could control the world, all were wrong, and crumbled because of it.

There is one solution, stop making enemies and learn to live with people who are different than you.  People would probably like us a lot more if we stopped screwing their countries over.  Yeah Iran hates us, but any student of history knows that they have a pretty damn good reason.  The Arabs hate Israel, but again, considering the history, can you blame them?

In both conflicts, we continue to bomb, kill and destroy because we think we can control the situation by doing so.  Why are people surprised to discover that we've only inflamed their anger?  Pure stupidity.

The Fed's seem to want to control the world just like they do the Americans at home - by force.  New world order.

Obama and the Republicans continue to change America and beyond.  Things won't be getting any better.

So you advocate a "live and let live" policy with terrorists?? Wow! At no point during your reply did you offer anything that could be taken as a coherent thought nor did you offer up anything resembling common sense or give even the slightest impression of intelligence. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul!

Quote from: Varmit on August 20, 2015, 08:47:12 PM
So you advocate a "live and let live" policy with terrorists?? Wow! At no point during your reply did you offer anything that could be taken as a coherent thought nor did you offer up anything resembling common sense or give even the slightest impression of intelligence. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul!

You're handing out points now?  I'm really not posting here for your benefit.  I try not to spend too much time on people who ignore facts.

Quote from: Anmar on August 22, 2015, 12:20:07 AM
You're handing out points now?  I'm really not posting here for your benefit.  I try not to spend too much time on people who ignore facts.

Beheadings and burning  and drowning of men and rapes of children and women and forcing and selling women and children into sex slavery are not facts?   Approving of men having sex with young boys is not facts?
The religion as stated by ISIS and or ISIL are not facts ?

Well, then I don't have any facts.

That ISIS and or ISIL have grown from a Varsity League (as Obama called them) to a major force is encompassing much of the land is not a fact?

Well, then I don't have any facts.

The videos and all the stories by both main stream and underground media are apparently lies.

So, I don't have any facts.

The middle eastern countries, and their violence just happens to be a few hundred years, or less, later than our own violence. They are way behind the times in many ways.
Not that other countries, including our own, have anything to brag about. Explorers were horrible to the people they encountered, as we were to our own native peoples. We dropped diseases on them that they had no resistance to, deliberately killed off the bison to destroy the plain's Indians food and source of clothing, etc. slaughtered women and children and on and on.
Why did the Church of England start? and the burning of churches, the need for Priest holes and all that.... why? What were the crusades were really about, and how about how violent they were?
   Violence hidden behind "religion" is very old.
Today we have predatory Priests right here, and nasty coaches, and yes, even teachers, cops, and firefighters.
Who are we to be sanctimonious and cast the first stone? What the terrorists do is terrible, but who did they learn from? Perhaps they are just catching up. They sure know how to push the buttons of more "civilized"countries.
Except for our military, I have no sympathy for people who go "there" for some cause or other.They know the risks. Others should never be put at risk trying to free them if they are arrested.
Where are we when girls are sexually mutilated? When some countries are committing genocide? A small response, if any at all. Why? No oil or anything we want. We are very picky about our outrage.
The Isis leaders are slowly being killed off. Perhaps they will eventually fall apart.
Regardless, I want our troops back home. It's too costly in lives and money! Others have failed before us and this has been going on much too long!  Let Saudi Arabia deal with their own problems. Stop blackmailing us with oil as a carrot!
Down off soap box. :angel:

Quote from: ROSS on August 22, 2015, 05:45:45 AM

Beheadings and burning  and drowning of men and rapes of children and women and forcing and selling women and children into sex slavery are not facts?   Approving of men having sex with young boys is not facts?
The religion as stated by ISIS and or ISIL are not facts ?

Well, then I don't have any facts.

That ISIS and or ISIL have grown from a Varsity League (as Obama called them) to a major force is encompassing much of the land is not a fact?

Well, then I don't have any facts.

The videos and all the stories by both main stream and underground media are apparently lies.

So, I don't have any facts.

Isis constitutes some tens of thousands of people in Northern Iraq and parts of Syria.  What does that have to do with the deal with Iran?

Also,  that list you posted, thats all happening here in the US too, by christians.  Just doesn't make the news as much.

But, but, but, isn't MY violence more righteous than YOUR violence? ???  ;)
Unfortunately humans are potently very violent creatures....all the way back to primitive and not so primitive man ... human and animal sacrifices of all stripes, cruel torture, rape, incest and on and on.What makes anyone think we can do anything "over there" to make it change?
Iran is a totally different place. Ross, what do you plan to do about it all except complain?

Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 23, 2015, 01:14:24 PM
Iran is a totally different place. Ross, what do you plan to do about it all except complain?

Sure Russia was a different place too !
And Japan was a different place as well !
So was Korea !

Diane I would support actions against ISIS/ ISiL which president Obama help to build.
I'd prefer something was done before they acquire more power, possibly Nuelear power to strike us with from long distance.

Have you not heard the cries of death to America?
Have you not noticed haww large they have become?
Do you think they should be permitted to continue raping 11 year old girls, and young boys?
Do you think they should be allowed to continue unopposed to sell young girls and women into sex slavery?
Do you think they should be allowed to continue to sneak into the US of A ?

Do you have any answers Diane except for the liberal way?

No I don;t have the answers either !

But I would support a coalition of governments shouldering equal responsibility to go in and take every last one of the bastards down. No I would not support war games and dragging it out for years. But do the job and get it over with.

What can I personally do Diane ! Well I have served my country in military service from 1966 -1976 yet if they would allow me at my age i would do it again. Does that answer your question?

Freedom is not Free !

Patriotism is not easy!


I don't like war any mre than the next person. I realize people die on both sides, I also realize familys on both sides suffer losses. None of which is good of appealing.

But do you choose to sit back and ignore the evolving situation until you are unable to do anything
about it ?

Do ou brain wash your children with propaganda in school about their so called religion using Common Core?

Check the post I am about to make under the Common Core topic.

The Republicans and Obama are responsible for IS.  Republicans and Obama are working together for the New World Order even if they don't agree how to accomplish it.

Republicans and Obama see anything Confederate as evil.  Have we ever stopped to think that it could be the Republicans and Obama who are are the evil ones?

The Republicans and Obama have been changing America for years and they want us to think that the problem over there is IS, Russia or whoever they choose, and here at home it's the constitutionalists, Christians, Confederate flag et al.   

Wow, another form of brain washing.How exciting. Let's see, who shall I let indoctrinate me today. On second thought, I guess I'll think for myself.
Those who keep listening to themselves say that public schools teach religion are soooo wrong. There is a huge difference between teaching about religions and teaching a religion. Even then it should covered be in the upper grades, so kids can understand the history behind the many religions, some extremely old and some relatively new.That's not suitable for young kids.
  Red, you surprise me. Poor old Obama is such a lame duck now he couldn't accomplish anything huge even if he wanted to.  (You do know he is not Republican?)
You are also exaggerating tremendously about the modern confederate line being universally considered evil. You know better than that. In places where it is used to enforce racist, anti minority thinking, yes that is evil. Otherwise,no.
  Ross, of course I see the anti American chants...right in front of a TV camera! They are paid to do that! Of course I don't support the bad stuff that is done "over there." Let's clean up the same things that are happening here first!
A second cup of coffee is calling me.

24 Aug, 2015

Only a pinheaded liberal professor could maintain that we shouldn't get all upset over the fact that ISIS terrorists are using rape and sexual slavery as a weapon of war because the U.S.A. had also slavery 150 years ago, but that is exactly what Bloomberg columnist and Harvard professor Noah Feldman said recently.

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/leftist-professor-excuses-isis-sex-slavery-and-terrorism-because-the-usa-had-slavery-150-years-ago/

John Hawkins | Aug 25, 2015


How did our politicians get so stupid?

When I say our politicians are stupid, I'm not talking about ideological differences, I'm talking about stupid in a turkey-is-drowning-while-it-looks-up-in-a-rainstorm kind of dumb. Of course, that's a myth. Turkeys don't actually drown themselves to death that way – but, can we say the same for Joe Biden, Barack Obama and John McCain? I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the staffers who carry their umbrellas and remind them to look down during rainstorms.

Now at first glance, saying that our politicians are stupid doesn't seem to hold any water. After all, these are successful people and many of them come from the best universities.

Yet, look at what they actually do.

Barack Obama cut a deal with Iran to supposedly stop it from getting nukes. Setting aside the fact that it doesn't do that, Iran is holding four American hostages. Obama didn't even bother to demand that they be freed before he began releasing billions of dollars to Iran. He also allowed Iran to inspect its own nuclear sites. Think about that. We think Iran is working on nuclear weapons; so to prove that it's not, we're going to let Iran inspect its own sites and say, "Nope, there's certainly nothing nefarious going on here. Take our word for it, Great Satan!" To top it all off, Obama admits the money we're releasing to Iran will be used to fund terrorism. I know that Obama thinks that whole "war on terrorism" thing is passé, but should we really be funding terrorists who hate us now? Is there ever a good time for that?

Oh, and did you hear about the massive hack of the United States Government that apparently allowed China to get its hands on the private data of over 22 million Americans? If you're wondering how something like that could happen, rest assured that a towering level of stupid was involved.

Some of the contractors that have helped OPM with managing internal data have had security issues of their own—including potentially giving foreign governments direct access to data long before the recent reported breaches. A consultant who did some work with a company contracted by OPM to manage personnel records for a number of agencies told Ars that he found the Unix systems administrator for the project "was in Argentina and his co-worker was physically located in the [People's Republic of China]. Both had direct access to every row of data in every database: they were root."

Speaking of technical projects, the Obamacare website may have been the single worst website rollout in the history of the Internet. There were months of delays, glitches and general incompetence that drove millions of people up the wall. The cost of that disaster? It was 2.1 billion dollars, which is more than four times the 500 million dollar cost of Facebook. Just to up the ante on the level of stupid involved here, the Obamacare website failed every test right before it went live. The website couldn't even handle 200-300 people at a time without crashing and it was STILL released to the public because, you know, what could go wrong?

Even that is smarter than the way we handle illegal aliens in this country. Did you know that when the government catches illegal aliens, it frequently just releases them and asks them to show up for a deportation hearing? Unsurprisingly, as many as 90% of illegals that are caught don't show up so they can be deported. But don't worry, the Department of Homeland Security is on the case!

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security reiterated all those caught crossing the border after Jan. 1 are a top priority to have their cases decided in immigration court and to track down those who've disappeared.

If it's top priority to find the illegal immigrants who didn't show up to be deported, maybe they shouldn't have released them in the first place? Hey, aren't these the same people that are protecting the country from another 9/11? Sleep well tonight!

Incidentally, it's tempting to pin all of this on the Democrats, but the Republican Party leadership in Congress is just as stupid. Keep in mind that Mitch McConnell's favorite negotiating tactic is to declare that Republicans won't shut down the government right before he starts telling Obama what he wants. Even Obama, who's about as sharp as a bowl of spaghetti, knows all he has to do is wait until he gets close to the deadline for a shutdown to get everything he wants.

McConnell's counterpart in the House, John Boehner, is just as habitually incompetent. His idea to stop Obama's illegal immigration policy was to refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security until Obama gave in. Then, when Obama refused to give in, Boehner immediately caved because the Department of Homeland Security is important and he couldn't risk defunding it. Before you laugh at Democrats for voting people like William Jefferson and Marion Barry into office, remember that the two most powerful Republicans in America today are John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Choosing these two idiots as leaders is every bit as embarrassing as selecting a mayor who smokes crack or a congressman with bribe money in his freezer.

The average manager working the afternoon shift at Wendy's could do a better job of negotiating than McConnell, Boehner or Obama. We could go grab some half-drunk girl out of a club and even she could tell you that if you let people who commit crimes go, they're not going to show up for the court dates. There are literally tens of millions of Americans who could have come up with something that outperformed healthcare.gov if you gave them 2 billion dollars to work with ("Hey, Google, I'll give you 500 million dollars to build this website and then I'll keep the other 1.5 billion for myself....bwahahahaha....what? Oh, that laugh? Sorry, you must be hearing the TV show I'm watching in the background.")

This is the tragedy we live with in America. We have such a great country, we have so many great people, but our whole nation is being dragged under by legions of arrogant Cletuses in D.C. who're convinced they're geniuses because they're surrounded by aides who tell them how wonderful they are all the live-long day. Our country is headed full steam toward an iceberg and the people steering the ship are imbeciles. God help us all.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/08/25/the-dc-idiocracy-remember-the-really-dumb-kids-in-school-theyre-now-in-charge-of-your-life-n2043283/page/full

We're several generations into the government school indoctrination.  The government's people are running the show and most of us support that kind of stuff.

Shall we all stand now and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

Can we not just copy and paste bullshit articles here please.

Just post the link if you have to, but I don't need to see stupidity.

Quote from: Anmar on August 27, 2015, 12:02:28 AM
Can we not just copy and paste bullshit articles here please.

Just post the link if you have to, but I don't need to see stupidity.

Well I just read stupidity in two lines.

Thank you Donald.

They supposedly came to Britan as Moderates.

A must see video at: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/09/votd-islam-britain-coming-world/#


Three Muslim Immigrants
Spend Hours Beating
a Christian Man
to Death
in Portland, Maine

27 Aug, 2015
by Warner Todd Huston

Portland, Maine has been shocked by a monstrous crime perpetrated by three Muslim immigrants who spent hours beating a Christian man to death after being invited to his home for a party.

The three Muslims were at the home of Freddy Akoa when at some point they decided to slowly murder him by spending hours kicking him, punching him, and hitting him with a piece of furniture until he finally died from his grievous injuries.

A judge on Monday unsealed the court documents of a grisly murder of a Christian man, allegedly at the hands of three Muslim immigrants in Portland, Maine.

In those documents, which had been sealed since the three men were charged Aug. 11, police said they found the brutally beaten body of Freddy Akoa lying on the living-room floor in his apartment. He was the victim of a savage attack that took place over several hours.

According to the autopsy report, he had cuts and bruises all over his body, with the fatal blows coming to his head.

...Akoa, 49, apparently knew his assailants, but police have not commented on the nature of their relationship.

He had been beaten and kicked in the head, and bashed in the head with a piece of furniture in an assault that continued relentlessly for hours, police said in the arrest affidavit.

...Of the three Muslim assailants, at least two have common Somali names – Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31. The third suspect is Abil Teshome, 23.

There were several other people in the apartment when the altercation broke out, Vogel told WND. But how many of them understood what was being said is in question, since the arrest affidavit states that the words being exchanged between Akoa and his assailants were not in English.

Naturally, the local police are refusing to say that this is a hate crime perpetrated by Muslims who hate Christians.

And who is to blame for this? The U.S. Government who has been resettling Somali Muslims in Portland since 2002.

Some point to things like this and the growing terrorist community in Minnesota–another place where the government has imported thousands of Muslims–and have asked if it is time to stop importing Muslims from other countries?

http://rightwingnews.com/democrathttp://rightwingnews.com/democrats/three-muslim-immigrants-spend-hours-beating-a-christian-man-to-death-in-portland-maine/s/three-muslim-immigrants-spend-hours-beating-a-christian-man-to-death-in-portland-maine/

Seriously, those articles are off topic.  We get it, you hate muslims.  This is about the Iran deal.  You're killing the debate.

I personally don't hate anyone.

I don't appreciate radical muslims that want to bring their Sharia Law into the US instead of accepting the laws of our land.

I don't appreciate appreciate radical muslims that don't want to become Americans but want to live here on welfare hoping to turn us into a muslim country.

I don't appreciate appreciate our President who will not control our boarders and enforce our laws.

But that is a far cry from HATERED !