zydeco

Congressional action is easy in that case. If your business trades with Iran, you don't trade with the US. That's been done before. Sanctions and fines will cost them more than they'll ever get out of trading with the Iranians.

Yeah, that's ok for US companies, but the rest of the world can trade as much as they want....the US isn't the be-all and end-all, ya know. It's only small players that are reliant upon US trade.

Wrong. US trade sanctions can apply to you no matter where your country is headquartered or located. The price they pay for doing business with Iran will be that they cannot do business with the US. Only "small players" rely on US trade? Nut stuff.

Keeping in mind the word "rely", can you name a few big players who rely on US trade?

China. Without the US, China closes shop. And "rely" means dependent on. And here is a British bank that pretty quickly figured out just how dependent it was on being on the good side of US sanctions. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/paying-the-price-for-sanctions-the-customers-with-iranian-links-being-ditched-by-british-banks-9679692.html

"The pressure in Congress on the administration over Iran remained intense, with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying he would move ahead with legislation giving lawmakers a say over any nuclear deal. And 360 House Republicans and Democrats — more than enough to override any presidential veto — sent a letter to Obama saying if an agreement is reached, Congress will decide on easing sanctions it has imposed."

Obama has completely defanged himself and is totally hapless in his attempts to bypass Congress. He's embarrassing himself in front of the world. Here Congress makes it clear that it will do the deciding and that it has enough votes to overcome a presidential veto.

This is Republicans and Democrats alike telling Obama that he is out of control right after Israel told him to get lost. Narcissism isn't pretty.

You are indeed NeverSure. When it's related to elections in Israel, the US has no right to interfere, but when it comes down to Iran, you want the US congress to decide. The world is bigger than the US, and definitely bigger than the US congress. Why dont you and your Republican congress continue to work on teaching American kids about creationism, fight against same sex marriages, and criminalize abortion, and leave the real work (of solving potential threats) to the smart people of this world....

The smart people of the world? Let's see what their solutions have been. The Soviet Union, Mao, National Socialism, European colonialism. BTW, it's easy to cock a snoot at the anti-evolutionary Creationists. But there was a time when social engineers and "smart people" came up with an odious developmental component of evolution, Social Darwinism. Wonder who did more harm, the "smart guys" and Social Darwinism or the hillbillies whose worst offense is believing that Adam and Eve got around in the garden on dinosaurs.

China, Russia and other BRICS countries are moving away from the dollar, preferring to trade among themselves in their own currencies.

Hmmm. Russia tries to sell overpriced oil and gas and what else? Caviar? Brazil? It's corrupt political class just brought out 1.5 million protesters. I hope they didn't get too thirsty, because the news reports I see say Brazilians find it increasingly difficult even to get water pumped into the homes. There's a trading giant for you--can't even pump water. And, then, there's China. Just waiting for the crash. Maybe the Indians can save them.

A second lieutenant is in charge of tourism?

Continued talking about off-topic subject matter will earn suspension. There will be no further discussion about Officer Wilson other than in the strictest context of this topic.

Scott, I have searched for the Darren Wilson Acquittal thread in this forum, and I do not see it. We do seem to have two threads on the Justice Department report. Maybe I missed it, but is there a thread on the Wilson acquittal?

???

Are you Scott?

Continued talking about off-topic subject matter will earn suspension. There will be no further discussion about Officer Wilson other than in the strictest context of this topic.

Scott, I have searched for the Darren Wilson Acquittal thread in this forum, and I do not see it. We do seem to have two threads on the Justice Department report. Maybe I missed it, but is there a thread on the Wilson acquittal?

What's the fascination with head chopping in that region of the world ?

I just don't get it.

Maybe ask Henry VIII

Unreasonable search and seizure? Not in Thailand.

First, they bring us an iPod because the smartphone doesn't have a big enough screen. Now they bring us the postage stamp sized watch screen that anyone over 35 is going to have trouble reading without bifocals.

The reason Mexicans want in is much different than the Chinese. Not saying it is right just the motives are not the same.

The Chinese, says the article, want in to get places for their children at US universities.

The Mexicans, I know, want to get in to get their hands on free stuff; and are prone to drop out of high school.

If I had to choose, I'd take the Chinese.

Read the article again. It says the Chinese couple who were investigated got an 85% discount on birth costs due to them claiming they were unemployed. Despite being rich enough to fly to American and go shopping in luxury goods stores. Who do you think is going to subsidize their discount? Other Americans and foreigners paying full prices for medical treatment

And if I had to choose, it wouldn't be Chinese....Even the Chinese don't want to be chinese !

Well, that is standard. On the border in Texas Immigration often clears an emergency path so Mexicans can come across, go to an American hospital, and get delivery services for free. You don't need to be "unemployed" as long as it is an emergency. The US is a joke on this issue. But, again, if I had to choose, I'd take the Chinese over the Mexicans.

I remember when Reagan was running for president and the Democratic critics universally agreed that his advanced age would make him dangerous on the job. Reagan was 69 when he took office. How old would Hillary, who already seems to be experiencing health problems, be on inauguration day?

The reason Mexicans want in is much different than the Chinese. Not saying it is right just the motives are not the same.

The Chinese, says the article, want in to get places for their children at US universities.

The Mexicans, I know, want to get in to get their hands on free stuff; and are prone to drop out of high school.

If I had to choose, I'd take the Chinese.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did he not call the ISIS actions "a violation of Islam"? And did he not say that the perpetrators must be subjected to those punishments?

How do you believe that that supports your case?

What it says pretty clearly to me is that the so-called moderates themselves accept the same radical tenets of Islam when it suits their agenda. Punishing ISIS with the same barbarity it uses because it is barbarous.

Wait, are you not reading the same thread I'm reading? What he said is hardly any worse than what most of the anti-ISIS posters said on the very first page.

"Whether real Islamic folk or not, they are the arse end of the barrel where humans are concerned and absolutely must be eradicated, girls 'n all."

"They are ALL the same. I want ALL of them gone."

"It will be the "true Islam", if ISIS is not put down and wiped out."

So I assume that those guys all want to use non-barbaric, nice and clean violence and death to wipe out ISIS (and more than just them, apparently), but that the Muslim guy is barbaric for wanted the same thing for the specific perpetrators of tortue and murder.

Western posters call for wiping out an entire group of people, that's cool.

Muslim cleric calls for death for specific torturers/murderers, and that makes him "just like them".

Oh, dear. Just forget it.

Lu is right. The Mexicans do this all the time. And there were feature stories about Indians doing the same thing a few years ago. The US government will do nothing to protect America's borders or assure the integrity of citizenship. Elect Clinton or elect Jeb Bush. It doesn't matter. To each of them, US citizenship should be dispensed with all the restrictions of a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Looks like you didn't read the entire OP.

And while moderate clerics counter the Islamic State group's interpretation point-by-point, at times they accept the same tenets.

Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb — the grand imam of Egypt's Al-Azhar, one of Sunni Islam's most prestigious seats of learning — denounced the burning of the Jordanian pilot as a violation of Islam. But then he called for the perpetrators to be subjected to the same punishment that IS prescribes for those who "wage war on Islam" — crucifixion, death or the amputation of hands and legs.

This turns the debate into one over who has the authority to determine the "correct" interpretation of Islam's holy texts. Since many of the most prominent clerics in the Middle East are part of state-run institutions, militant supporters dismiss them as compromised and accommodating autocratic rulers.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did he not call the ISIS actions "a violation of Islam"? And did he not say that the perpetrators must be subjected to those punishments?

How do you believe that that supports your case?

What it says pretty clearly to me is that the so-called moderates themselves accept the same radical tenets of Islam when it suits their agenda. Punishing ISIS with the same barbarity it uses because it is barbarous.

I have always been a strong and unequivocal supporter of Israel. Until now. Netanyahu has disgraced the nation of Israel, made a mockery of the US political system and disrespected the office of the President of the United States.

My hopes are with Iran that they take full advantage of this political mess created by Netanyahu, that they get the bomb and that they chose the testing ground carefully.

The US should draw all military support for Israel.

My thoughts are with the people of Israel but the next massacre will be one of your own making.

So, because Israel's PM makes a speech before the US congress, you want to give Iran nuclear weapons for which "they chose [sic] the testing ground carefully." Exactly what does this last part mean? Are you insinuating they should "test" their nuclear weapons on Israel? Because of a speech that Obama opposed? With friends like you . . . .

So we're supposed to believe that a few guys with tenure in the Netherlands, California. and Dubai, whose closest encounter with what is going on in Syira, Iraq, and Libya is a textbook, know who is really a Muslim more than the 30,000 to 40,000 ISIS fighters and their millions of sympathizers. Right.

And we're supposed to believe that you know who really is a Sunni Muslim more than the Grand Mufti, the leading Sunni institute of Islamic law, or the vast majority of the populations of the largest Sunni countries?

From early in this thread, multiple posters tried to draw on an Atlantic opinion article by some random American guy to support their "ISIS is the natural product of Islam!" claim.

I refuted that with the very expert the Atlantic writer was supposedly relying on, a letter by 120 prominent Muslim figures, the Grand Mufti, the leading school of Islamic Sunni law, and a poll of the populations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Lebanon.

So why are you talking about "Netherlands, California, and Dubai" right now, when far, far more than that has already been offered? Why not critique the guys who were basing their whole argument on some American journalist and a poll someone made up on social media?

Looks like you didn't read the entire OP.

And while moderate clerics counter the Islamic State group's interpretation point-by-point, at times they accept the same tenets.

Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb — the grand imam of Egypt's Al-Azhar, one of Sunni Islam's most prestigious seats of learning — denounced the burning of the Jordanian pilot as a violation of Islam. But then he called for the perpetrators to be subjected to the same punishment that IS prescribes for those who "wage war on Islam" — crucifixion, death or the amputation of hands and legs.

This turns the debate into one over who has the authority to determine the "correct" interpretation of Islam's holy texts. Since many of the most prominent clerics in the Middle East are part of state-run institutions, militant supporters dismiss them as compromised and accommodating autocratic rulers.

So we're supposed to believe that a few guys with tenure in the Netherlands, California. and Dubai, whose closest encounter with what is going on in Syira, Iraq, and Libya is a textbook, know who is really a Muslim more than the 30,000 to 40,000 ISIS fighters and their millions of sympathizers. Right.