This issue, like so many others during this Administration, has been so wildly politicized by the opposition, it's VERY difficult to know what really is or isn't going on.

Obama haters LOVE to make extreme unsupported claims to the effect that he has singlehandedly destroyed this or that positive aspect of American policy, but since they also include prejudicial insults, wild lies, and exaggerations in their accusations, it's tough to take them seriously, and impossible to trust their judgment.

The "Netanyahu adventure" has been illustrative. He has made all manner of extreme claims, and issued all sorts of warnings and made accusations about Iran and other nations and people who he says threaten Israel, but then he has also turned around and said opposite things as well, whenever political expediency required it.

And the whole situation in the ME is an even bigger mess than it was before we upset the balance of power between Iran and Iraq. Closing your eyes to the entire situation, in order to cater to your emotional hunger to criticize the particular politician or faction you already hate, is irresponsible and worse. it will male things worse instead of better.

poeple are going to hate obarry, the same way the democrats hated bush when he was in office... the same things and worse were said about bush while he was in office, but not one "racist" or "clinton did it" ever came out... just because it bothers you to hear "obummer" or "dimocrat" doesn't change anything or change the message being sent... while i do agree with you that it's not helping, but not thinking for yourself just because you hear is one of the main reasons....

You have a very selective memory. The Bush Administration and or it's pundits and supporters CONSTANTLY blamed Clinton and the Democrats for anything they could.

My favorite episode, was during the time when Bush was President, and both The House AND the Senate were in the hands of the GOP, AND the Supreme Court was majority Republican Justices...

And the Republicans STILL blamed the fact that they kept passing high deficit spending budgets on... wait for it...the minority Democrats.

Now, Ronald Reagan somehow managed to be pleased, and make headway with his Majority Democratic Congress. But the Clinton era Republicans were tragically unable to follow through on any of their "contract with America" promises. None of them. Even though they controlled ALL THREE branches of the government at the same time.


I continue to affirm: I don't care who you like or dislike, if a person indulges in this kind of schoolboy petty name-calling, the only person who will respect ANYTHING they have to say, is themselves.

Not even the people on the same side of the issue, bother to take anything that name-callers say into account.

Name calling is lots of fun, I know. I remember back when I was a kid, and the kids all got together to taunt other people with those stupid insults. We felt sooo clever. But all we ever proved, was that we were little kids.

mysticalview21 stated >>>
I don't believe the GOP are the only ones that Israel thinks stands with them... and the only reason they are saying GOP GOP is because some of their enthusiastic politicians want to Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran...
and really the only one that can do that right now is Israel itself ... this is all politics to make people think the GOP are the only ones who care about them ... and as others have said know damn well that is not true and been are long allies together ... why not try for peace first ... maybe because you don't make any $ that way ... so may be the main reason they do not like Obama's strategy... know $ in it for them ... I don't know... politics can all be... to much speculation right now ... being we have our politicians running for the Presidency...

Marco Rubio: War with Iran is an option

April 19, 2015, 10:36 AM|Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, says all options are on the table when it comes to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon – even going to war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/marco-rubio-war-with-iran-is-an-option/

Nothing says 'CRACKER JACK BOX' for me than hearing a possible GOP lay such a huge egg on national TV like this>>>


This country is so financially indebted up to our elbows for 2 wars that we have ZERO plan to ever be able to get out of; no plan going in and no plan getting out and now we just keep getting pulled back in there - Iraq & Afghanistan both!

And to have this inept man who's been sitting on the outside of his party with no concept of the negotiations that 5 other nations are working through and lay that stink egg out on a major news program --- fool RUBIO is just a real major fool. IMHO

mightymoe stated >>>
a presidential canidate telling people what they wanna hear... how odd

What 'PEOPLE'...no one I know have stated that "we want war with IRAN"...

Nope, nobody in my group of mixed political party humans/no one on the other 2 political forum boards and this was the first I knew that a potential GOP candidate even thought he out to open his mouth and let that out?

mightymoe stated >>>
i'm sure you don't know all 400 million in the US... just about all the Jews in the US would support that, not to mention any Israelis...

did you forget all the times Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Iran should have been turned into an
obsidian wasteland, decades ago.

RockGnome
Iran should have been turned into an
obsidian wasteland, decades ago.

mightymoe stated >>>
anyway, there's someone listening to what he's saying, or he wouldn't be saying it... obarry made quite a few statements in both elections that were just outright lies...so do all political runners, they are trying to collect votes...

And yes, OF COURSE Iran hopes to use agreements with one country to accomplish their goals against another.

Iran was absolutely OVERJOYED when the US was manipulated into destroying their arch enemy Saddam.

If you actually and dispassionately study the true history of that (or any politically active) region, you will find that EVERYONE involved has ulterior motives.

EVERYONE hopes to use the interests and goals of one opponent, to frustrate the interests and goals of another. That is the way all foreign policy is conducted.

Be careful about judging a situation by how broadly your enemies are smiling.

They can, and often do, manipulate you with that fake smile, every bit as dishonestly as they do with their lies about their good intentions.

I can't tell you how many times I dreamt that for Afghanistan and now they've recently found mineral deposits in those wasteland hills too; wouldn't that just have solved a lot of time/effort/mining cost to just have bombed them all 'FLAT' ---
I mean relocation of all those warring tribal factions and letting them dig for minerals would provide a livable income instead of the opium harvest and terror from those jihadist/Taliban/ISIS that use those mountains to hid out in!

Just a reoccurring dream - lost a couple of nephews over there; don't want anymore Americans to suffer!

RockGnome stated >>>
Recently discovered?

Afghanistan has been historically known for the
gemstones found there.

But still, nuke Iran.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the British geological survey were doing resource estimation work in the country. Prior to that work, Afghanistan's exploration activity had been conducted by geologists from the Soviet Union who left good-quality geologic records that indicate significant mineral potential. Resource development would require improvements in the infrastructure and security in Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan

Iran - Contra/Secret Arms Deals >

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[13] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[14]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained