The American Constitution

[RSL]

The other problem, Alan, is that if Iran actually gets close to a bomb, Israel isn't going to have any choice. If they want to continue to exist they're going to have to put a stop to that. At that point Israel's going to HAVE to consider using nukes to eliminate the threat. That's an existential threat to the whole world.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... help him to understand??...

The briefest explanation is: you were reading the lines, I was reading between the lines

Proof? How about directly from the horse's mouth (not that I imply that Rob looks like a horse, God forbid, it is just a saying):

... Alan does not listen...

I'll give you one thing, rabanito. I have an unfair advantage. I've been reading Rob's posts since forever, it seems. I consider him a friend, in spite of the recent divergent political stances. I know his writing style. He is good with a pen (even keyboard). He is a Brit. As the saying goes, Brits are too polite to be honest, and the Dutch are too honest to be polite. Serbs are much, much closer to the Dutch, by the way. When Rob attempts a dig at someone, he will rarely name that someone. But careful reading between the lines, or previous posts, even posts in different threads, will tell you who Rob had in mind.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The agreement was a non-binding deal, not a treaty. Of course, had it been a treaty Donald would have needed senate approval to reverse it. 

Ah, Omer, ruining a perfect mud fight with facts

Here is another example of the difference between agreements and treaties. Bosnia before the recent Bosnian war. Leaders of the three communities in Bosnia met to discuss how to avert a war and share the power peacefully. They were Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats. They agreed. There was a collective sigh of relief in the region. Just a minor detail: the agreement had to be approved by respective parliaments. Bosnian Serbian side and Bosnian Croatian side approved the agreement. Then something happened before the session of the Bosnian Muslim parliament. Someone came to visit them. American Ambassador. Clinton's ambassador.  He told them something. They didn't approve the agreement. The war ensued.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Better we nip it in the bud before they actually get the bomb.

You mean, to start a war in the Middle East?

Cheers,
Bart

[rabanito]

The briefest explanation is: you were reading the lines, I was reading between the lines

As I said in my original posting, I was confused. You didn't answer to that but digressed.
"Reading between the lines" can be also called "speculation"
As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am"

Proof? How about directly from the horse's mouth (not that I imply that Rob looks like a horse, God forbid, it is just a saying):

Proof? Who asked for a proof? It's not THAT important. If you say so it's OK with me.
But you didn't.

There is a kind of people who prefer "being right" than "finding the truth"
Among them are many adolescents. But not only 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The deal allows Iran to start building nukes again in a few years.

Utter nonsense. The deal doesn't do anything like that.

Instead, the deal expires, and a new (similar) deal can be made because everybody was happy about the state of affairs and everybody stuck to the agreed terms. Iran didn't pursue the development of a nuclear capability, and in return, there is trade that will bring prosperity to Iran which keeps the new generation of Iranians happy and less hostile towards 'the West', and its own government.

That's why the US Senate would not ratify Obama's deal and make it a treaty that America and future presidents would have to support.

More nonsense. The Republican-dominated Senate had a formal policy to torpedo any proposal by the Obama administration, even if they did agree with a proposal under a previous Republican administration. That's why it never became a formal treaty.

Put the blame where the blame belongs if you have to blame somebody.

Meanwhile, they're raising the consistency of nuclear materials against the "deal" and promises they made ...

Deal? There is no more deal. The USA unilaterally ended it.

The reason? Saudi Arabia promised to buy more weapons.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

So that tells you what European newsmedia are reporting.

[Alan Klein]

You mean, to start a war in the Middle East?

Cheers,
Bart

Iran with a nuclear bomb will be a much more dangerous adversary. 
Think about what more of a mess the Middle East will be if Iran had a nuclear bomb.

[Rob C]

European news media is available online for all to see, unless like some outlets everywhere, payment is expected. But that's natural: production costs money, just like for LuLa and for me. If the latter bit surprises, ask yourself: does the Internet come for free? Nope, costs contracted money every month with no way to avoid that other than to close down all communication systems one has other than post.

A good one, especially for debates, is France24.com and it also has a vast list of past programmes that can be watched. I've never had to pay a thing to access, so I expect the same applies everywhere.

Rob

[rabanito]

So that tells you what European newsmedia are reporting.

Russ I've read on this issue FAZ, SD, NZZ, Le Monde, The Guardian and the Americans NYT, WP and Foreign Affairs and all say more or less the same. Similar lines
Often the Europeans just cite the Americans.
They are there for anyone to read

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Russ I've read on this issue FAZ, SD, NZZ, Le Monde, The Guardian and the Americans NYT, WP and Foreign Affairs and all say more or less the same. Similar lines
Often the Europeans just cite the Americans...l

Hahahahaha...

Haha...

Ha...

But f course, they cite the ultra-left Americans.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So that tells you what European newsmedia are reporting.

?

Do you mean that Fox news Propaganda doesn't tell you what's actually going on?

Try this for a change:

Saudi Arabia seeks to fight Iran “to the last American,” by luring it into a war with the Islamic Republic

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-behravesh-iran-commentary/commentary-why-trumps-arab-nato-plan-wont-curb-iran-idUSKBN1KZ21C

One might also wonder what Jared Kushner's role in all this is ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And amidst of it all, still no new Secretary of Defense, not even one acting as one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFKNiyNSE24

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Russ I've read on this issue FAZ, SD, NZZ, Le Monde, The Guardian and the Americans NYT, WP and Foreign Affairs and all say more or less the same. Similar lines
Often the Europeans just cite the Americans.
They are there for anyone to read

It's all fake news, Rab. Been that way for decades now. The Clintons can do no wrong. Obama can do no wrong. Algore can do no wrong. Reagan can do no right. The Bushes can do no right. And Trump -- My GOD! He's tearing the country apart. It's all bullshit. Look at the "polls." Trump is behind against Buttiegig? As Sarah Palin would say, "You betcha." The fact, which has been pointed out by a couple people who actually THINK, is that the people who are gonna vote for Trump in the next election won't say so, no matter what kind of poll is asking them the question. Considering the insanity on the left, would you? Of course not. Nobody with an ounce of sense would stick his neck out that far. I just hope the Dem candidates keep up the hubbub. They're looking sillier and sillier by the hour. What would really cinch the next election for Trump would be impeachment by the Dems. Bring it on.

[rabanito]

Hahahahaha...

Haha...

Ha...

But f course, they cite the ultra-left Americans.

The important thing is not whether they are right or left
but whether they are right or wrong.

Agree?

[faberryman]

It's all fake news, Rab. Been that way for decades now. The Clintons can do no wrong. Obama can do no wrong. Algore can do no wrong. Reagan can do no right. The Bushes can do no right. And Trump -- My GOD! He's tearing the country apart. It's all bullshit. Look at the "polls." Trump is behind against Buttiegig? As Sarah Palin would say, "You betcha." The fact, which has been pointed out by a couple people who actually THINK, is that the people who are gonna vote for Trump in the next election won't say so, no matter what kind of poll is asking them the question. Considering the insanity on the left, would you? Of course not. Nobody with an ounce of sense would stick his neck out that far. I just hope the Dem candidates keep up the hubbub. They're looking sillier and sillier by the hour. What would really cinch the next election for Trump would be impeachment by the Dems. Bring it on.

This explains more about your views on street photography than your posts on street photography.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The important thing is not whether they are right or left
but whether they are right or wrong.

Agree?

This sounds too logical. Where's the catch? 

Cheers,
Bart

[rabanito]

This sounds too logical. Where's the catch? 

Cheers,
Bart

No catch
Just my opinion that generalizations like "they are ultra-left Americans" implying something negative per se are not a good basis for intelligent debate.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... generalizations like "they are ultra-left Americans" implying something negative per se...

You betcha.

[LesPalenik]

No catch
Just my opinion that generalizations like "they are ultra-left Americans" implying something negative per se are not a good basis for intelligent debate.

Ultras are almost always wrong.