Slashdot Mirror
Trump Withdraws US From Iran Nuclear Deal (nytimes.com)
President Trump on Tuesday announced he is withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, a historic accord signed in 2015 that aims to limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against the country. "This was a horrible one-sided deal that should never, ever been made," Mr. Trump said at the White House in announcing his decision. "It didn't bring calm, it didn't bring peace, and it never will." The New York Times reports: Mr. Trump's announcement, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America's relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran. It also raises the prospect of increasing tensions with Russia and China, which also are parties to the agreement.
One person familiar with negotiations to keep the accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump's insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran's nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits. As a result, the United States is now preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord -- and impose additional economic penalties as well, according to another person briefed on Mr. Trump's decision. Despite Trump's decision, President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran would remain committed to a multinational nuclear deal. "If we achieve the deal's goals in cooperation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place. [...] By exiting the deal, America has officially undermined its commitment to an international treaty," Rouhani said in a televised speech. "I have ordered the foreign ministry to negotiate with the European countries, China and Russia in coming weeks. If at the end of this short period we conclude that we can fully benefit from the JCPOA with the cooperation of all countries, the deal would remain," he added.
One person familiar with negotiations to keep the accord in place said the talks collapsed over Mr. Trump's insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran's nuclear fuel production after 2030. The deal currently lifts those limits. As a result, the United States is now preparing to reinstate all sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord -- and impose additional economic penalties as well, according to another person briefed on Mr. Trump's decision. Despite Trump's decision, President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran would remain committed to a multinational nuclear deal. "If we achieve the deal's goals in cooperation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place. [...] By exiting the deal, America has officially undermined its commitment to an international treaty," Rouhani said in a televised speech. "I have ordered the foreign ministry to negotiate with the European countries, China and Russia in coming weeks. If at the end of this short period we conclude that we can fully benefit from the JCPOA with the cooperation of all countries, the deal would remain," he added.
Stop bribing countries not to do things; they will or wonâ(TM)t regardless.
Now they can build bombs bow instead of in ten years.
New York Times Magazine piece where Ben Rhodes explained how he led the administration’s efforts to misrepresent the truth in order “to sell” the JCPOA to the press.
I realize this is a complex issue but I always come back to: Pull out of the region and let them and Israel/Saudi settle their own disputes. Who cares? We can produce all the oil needed domestically now anyway thanks to fracking tech.
I have a feeling that a lot of Trump's nonsense will be corrected once Trump is gone.
I think there is a potential for Trump to be like the Mule in the Foundation Trilogy; in the same way that he's extremely disruptive in the moment, but may ultimately have little effect on the course of history.
The Paris Accord, the Iran deal, the Wall, ... if the rest of the planet just holds shit together until Trump is gone, the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were.
Not that I really expect trump to resign or anything, and we may have several more years of his chaotic nonsense, but he will ultimately have to go and unless America decides to double down and elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho for president... or maybe Ted Nugent, things will probably return to normal pretty quickly.
... because it hasn't got a goddam thing to do with news for nerds or stuff that matters.
But, what the fuck: it's here.
The rest of the world needs to recognize and appreciate that America is becoming a shithole country and move along without the US.
Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.
I hope Iran, Russia, China, and the EU pick up the slack and prosper from trade deals with each other.
America is tainted and tarnished and that's OK. It's what the American people want.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
...Because without this lousy deal we'd have no deal!
It wasn't a legally enacted treaty - never went to Congress for approval as all treaties must.
We were prevented from inspecting numerous locations considered 'military' by Iran's leaders - which is the most likely place to develop a nuclear program.
Even the staunchest supporter of this deal will admit that Iran has a history of lying - yet supporters argue that we have to accept their kids or we have no deal!
As I type this the news on tv is showing me Schumer, Menendez, and other democrats speaking AGAINST the Iran deal in 2015 - who now oddly embrace the deal they were against because Trump ended it.
Ken
Even if he has to destroy the United States to do it.
Who will trust a treaty with the US after this?
It's one-sided in the sense that basically a very large portion of their economy has been cut off, and held in account until they comply with terms.
Imagine if essentially all investments not currently in the US (AKA, most corporate income) were cut off from use by our stock market, until we confirmed that all our nuclear missile silos were confirmed filled with cement and free of any traces of radiation.
We'd go along with that plan pretty quickly if it meant that much of our finances were cut off from us.
He's scrapping that plan.
I'm not saying it's in any way perfect - but it was very much a force for international stability much more than the mushy-mouth concepts coming out of Trump's mouthpieces.
No plan prevents them from getting access to weapons forever, or prevents them from going crazy with a future administration. That's kind of why nuclear disarmament for EVERYONE is a better idea - something not even remotely on the plate for republicans, sadly.
But none of Trump's ideas are actually about improving things - they're the same kind of concepts a psychic on TV puts out - a babble of loose concepts that can be used to take credit for anything good going on anywhere in the world, while dismissing anything not going well as just badly interpreting his words.
But to Trump, anything that gives anyone else potential credit is a bad deal.
The deal gave Iran a get-out-of-genocide card in Syria. The regime could do everything it wanted with complete immunity - first, this was in order to allow the negotiations to happen. Later, since essentially all of the benefits to Iran were front-loaded, we needed to avoid pressuring them and give them more carrots so they stayed in the deal.
Even then, the nuke benefit was extremely limited: Iran would have gotten so much stronger and more advanced*** the world could not have stopped a breakout after the inspection sunset. Worse, since the framing was 'the deal or war', there was a strong interest in reframing the deal to Iran's advantage - which we can see in how the debate evolved these last few days.
*** Centrifuge research was explicitly allowed in deal.
Lies, not kids - autocorrect!
Ken
The idea that Iran, who has lied,
Who hasn't?
The point of the deal is you didn't have to trust Iran because they're subjected to rigorous inspections.
who has claimed to want to destroy entire countries
You mean their blowhard former President once made a comment that sounds like that when translated and taken out of context.
But you can't relate to anything like that.
and it the worlds leading sponsor of terror,
Whether or not that's true is irrelevant. The deal was about Nukes, not missiles, Hezbollah support, or anything else.
would not use the principle of Taqiyya (Shia being much more flexible in its use) to lie about their goals is ridiculous.
WTF? You think the only people on the planet capable of lying are Muslims following your distorted understanding of religious practice? Was it really that necessary to discredit your already dumb argument by demonstrating to everyone that you're an ignorant Islamophobe?
The perfidy of the Iranian government is well documented as is the avoidance measures they took to truly by limited in their goals to become a nuclear power.
Good for Trump.
Yeah, good for Trump. He's destroyed a perfectly good non-proliferation deal and risked a Nuclear arms race in the Middle East because he's too big a wuss to admit that he got suckered by the Fox News/GOP push to smear Obama in the lead up to the 2016 election.
Risking Nuclear war is one thing, but admitting you were wrong??? That's unthinkable!!!
I stole this Sig
Iran's president says if negotiations fail, Islamic Republic will enrich uranium 'more than before ... in next weeks.' This proves that Iran has the enrichment capacity to spin up HEU ("more than before?") as well as the raw materials to do so? But we were told it would take months for them to pull together pre-deal capacities.
Um... or they might be for it because it's working now? There are lots of potential reasons.
-
Trump just played himself spectacularly. He's only against it because Obama negotiated it and Bolton won't rest until he kills more kids than Allbright.
The U. S. Constitution requires 2/3 majority in the Senate for foreign treaties to be legal. This treaty was never ratified. Under U. S. law the "Iran treaty" is no treaty at all, and never, ever, was. Just smoke and mirrors.
61% percent of congress both democrats and republicans said "Nah dawg, no way, no deal" so Obama did it without approval.
Obama made some personal promises to Iran. So what? The United States isn't bound by the whims of one President - only laws and treaties bind the US government. There was never any agreement between the US and Iran. Obama's 'deal' was no more legal than Trump's Tweets - and I dare say that no one wants to treat those as law.
Why did Obama never submit his 'deal' to the Senate to be ratified? Why did this 'Constitutional Scholar' think he could somehow bypass the Constitution?
And all for an agreement that was worse than the one Clinton used to try to prevent North Korea from getting nukes.
Where is the evidence for what you are saying? Every partner in this treaty agrees that Iran has maintained their obligations. So do members of the Trump administration (James Matis). You are just a troll spewing bullshit.
Mr. Benjamin Notayahoo? "I'm not a yahoo!" "Seriously, how could you think I'm a yahoo? It's right there in my name."
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
He's keeping yet another campaign promise.
He's not doing anything these days. He'd be a good negotiator. Him and Kerry.
It wasn't a legally enacted treaty - never went to Congress for approval as all treaties must.
It's not a treaty. It's an agreement. Iran agreed to do a thing, the UNSC permanent members and the EU agreed to do a thing, all within the bounds of their respective executive powers. Congress's approval was not necessary, because nothing in the deal required legislative authority.
We were prevented from inspecting numerous locations considered 'military' by Iran's leaders - which is the most likely place to develop a nuclear program.
False - that is categorically and unquestionably incorrect.
The agreement provided for guaranteed inspection of *any* location the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors deem potentially in violation. Iran has a limited ability to push back - they have a 24-day window to negotiate an alternative, but if we decide we *need* to see it, we will see it or the sanctions will kick back in. 24 days is not enough to hide a nuclear weapons facility from close inspection - particularly not when we have satellite surveillance and can easily see any large movement of equipment and materiel away from the site.
Additionally, a term of the agreement required Iran to accede to the "Additional Protocol", which has even more stringent requirements allowing short-notice inspections of any site by the IAEA - and that protocol will *not* expire with the rest of the agreement.
As I type this the news on tv is showing me Schumer, Menendez, and other democrats speaking AGAINST the Iran deal in 2015 - who now oddly embrace the deal they were against because Trump ended it.
Schumer and Menendez were the *only* two Democrat senators to oppose the deal. A symbolic resolution decrying the bill was passed through the House on party-line vote, and was never formally voted on in the Senate due to lack of sufficient votes. And I have not seen either of them publicly support the deal to this day. I strongly suspect your sources are being misleading on this, as they clearly are on other issues.
"The idea that Iran, who has lied (so has pretty much everybody and often about worse stuff) who has claimed to want to destroy entire countries (so has Israel and the US, and etc) and it the worlds leading sponsor of terror (Saudi arabia is, 9/11, etc) ... (more of the same). Good for Trump"
Fake news or drank the kool-laid.
The deal is technically an "agreement", not a treaty, so there is no framework for withdraw for non-compliance.
We basically agree to not put on sanctions and they agree to let someone see if they are making enriched uranium.
So, if we "violate" the agreement, presumably they could feel free to "violate" the agreement.
And in one fell stroke Trump handed Iran the win.
The US has never had any material pressure economically against the Iranian regime. We've had sanctions on them for 30 years. The only thing that drew Iran to the table was European sanctions that through the hard work of the Obama administration was able to draw Europe to the table and get them to implement sanctions to drive Iran to a deal. By withdrawing the US from the deal all US pressure is now gone and the deal is directly between Europe and Iran (what Iran wanted from the beginning). The US will implement sanctions, Europe won't and Iran gets what they wanted, the US out of the deal and monitoring regime and Europe on board to maintain the deal and keep sanctions off.
And with the stroke of a pen Trump snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory.
It would be humorous if it wasn't so bloody SAD.
European countries or the EU should take sanctions against the US, for ruining their business and also for that whole dickery of not keeping to their word and threatening a war that only a few crazed idiots, billionaires and bandits want. I doubt that'll happen (the sanctions, not the war). But the US is doing unilateral sanctions, and they're against the EU mostly. You're threatening strategic industries like Airbus, oil and gas, car industry and whatever else you dumb neocon nuts.
Now I don't know what the Europeans will do. They've mostly been pro-US, pro-Israel, pro-Saudi poodles, or slaves.
Short term I think there will only be horrors. Israel is at it, constantly attacking in "self-defense", they are "asking for it" literally, lusting for a missile barrage from Iran they keep on waiting for. That's right, their goal is to get attacked so they can provoke a larger war! Bunch of hypocrites! This is just like that time the Third Reich was attacked by Poland, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Lies, lies and lies. Don't be surprised that everyone hates your country. Although your goal is to be hated so as to stir up war, while simultaneously criminalizing hating you. So I feel pressed to not hate you. Instead I will loath and hate your neocon ideology and tell you, political rulers of Israel, that you are also slaves and poodles, of the US and your own hatred and self-inflicted fears.
To not forget Iran : Iran is "guilty" of keeping to their word, and fighting terrorism for real and helping liberate millions of people in Syria. So what! Is that a reason to want war against Iran, Syria and Lebanon? Go mind your own business.
The deal gave Iran billions of dollars, while ignoring the much larger debt that Iran owed to the US for stealing US-owned equipment, land, kidnapping diplomats, terrorist attacks against the US - all of which were still unpaid claims that Obama ignored. And much of that money went to fund the largest, deadliest terrorist organization in the world - Hezballah.
"The deal cut in half the number of centrifuges that Iran could run!" supporters claim. But at the same time, Iran was allowed to upgrade those centrifuges from 1980s technology to modern tech. The resulting facilities are more than twice as efficient, meaning that Iran was allowed to INCREASE the rate of uranium enrichment.
"Iran was limited in how much Uranium and other materials they could have!" Limits they got caught breaking regularly. Incidentally, the limits were odd - not enough enriched uranium to run any significant number of reactors... but enough to run a moderately sized nuclear weapons program.
"Iran was prevented from working on ICBMs!" Hahahaha! God, that's funny. They never even slowed their missile program. They were caught just months after the deal started running new ICBM tests. But, like North Korea, they claimed it was for their "space program" and Obama sucked it down.
"But we prevented war with Iran!" Except Iran still ran attacks against US troops in Iraq, including using drones to try to drop bombs on US bases and civilian housing. If that's not war, then what the hell do they call it?
You're saying Obama was wrong to capitulate to them. When you disagree with him, you should revisit your position.
Wrong.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/05/08/561079/saudi-arabia-us-trump-jcpoa
Educate yourself, you total bellend!
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/08/donald-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-john-bolton/
Something about that line stinks. I did a quick Google Search to check its veracity. (https://goo.gl/p6ni4E)
... in next weeks’
It looks like "someone" made the claim and every single newsbot out there reproduiced it on their respective sites... and JUST that line.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s president says if negotiations fail, Islamic Republic will enrich uranium ‘more than before
That's it. There are hundreds of articles out there made up of that one line.
Yeah ..... having a 30 day notice of intention to inspect before they are allowed to do any inspection is so "rigorous".
Because ... you know ... they are keeping everything as-is for 30 days and not move the evidence to another place.
So rigorous that if IAEA would want to inspect a military site - they'd need to ask Iran for permission in advance, tell it the location and possibly wait two weeks.
They literally set up a clock dedicating to counting the days until said country's destruction, based on comments from the _current_ supreme leader.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-al-quds-day-protest-clock-president-hassan-rouhani-a7806056.html
(Note that this isn't Fox News, The Independent is very left-leaning)
But it has had the effect of increasing or enabling these activities while preventing pushback since it prevented use of sanctions.
You're right here and other AC is wrong for once.
Note that every other country likely to engage in said arms race opposed the deal. The deal made a Nuclear arms-race *more* likely since it strengthened Iran so much that other countries were tempted to turn to non-conventional weapons.
The sheer force of sucking vacuosity is threatening to disrupt the space time continuum.
The waves of lies after lies are beating down the defenses of the still sane.
He's steering his nuclear-armed bumper car into every obstacle at full throttle, while he races down the track backwards against the traffic.
My slashdot username is truly relevant again. I coined it in the lead-up to the J.W. Bush "weapons of mass delusion" Gulf War.
I could never have imagined a more dumb-ass president than JW. Boy was I wrong.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Wrong first link. Should be this one.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/05/08/561071/iran-us-rouhani-trump-jcpoa
It never was a treaty - President Obama never presented it to the Senate for approval (as must be done for all treaties), so it was a simple "gentleman's agreement" at best. President Trump is right to withdraw on this basis alone - let alone whether or not Iran is violating their agreement. We should not bind ourselves by agreements made dictatorially by a single person.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Trump will be willing to sign the exact same deal he just abandoned, just with his name on it instead of Obama's, which was the whole point from the beginning.
Why is this story illustrated with the EU flag? Neither Iran nor USA are part of EU.
It's almost impressive how many wrong things you can cram into one post.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I have mixed feelings on this. Basically, as an American, I wish America would cut out the regime change and sanctions and whatever and let other countries solve their problems with each other.
While anything that the demoncraps and europeons hate must not be all bad, anything that jewistan and the rethuglicans love can't be all good, either.
Even the staunchest supporter of this deal will admit that Iran has a history of lying - yet supporters argue that we have to accept their [lies] or we have no deal!
The Deal has many many parts, most of which directly involve gathering evidence that Iran is complying.
So, you know less than nothing about this topic: the number of easy to disprove lies that you embrace are greater than the actual true facts you know.
Even if he has to destroy the United States to do it. Who will trust a treaty with the US after this?
This wasn't a treaty... It never got ratified in the senate.. Obama/Kerry were making promises on behalf of the USA that they was powerless to keep.
You could argue that Obama was the one who changed the status quo by relaxing the economic sanctions on Iran BEFORE actually securing and verifying their compliance with the agreement and before getting the agreement ratified by the Senate.
Trump clearly ran on this issue and nearly half the people in the USA still voted for him. He did what he promised in this case, for better or worse, so you've got to admit he's at least trying to do what he promised.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
the money was actually just returning Iranian assets we seized in 1979 + interest, that it was internationally acknowledged we had a duty to repay
Israel claims they have a bunch of evidence and the US intelligence services have confirmed the information. Is that not enough for you?
You want to see a mushroom cloud before you believe the Iranians are building the bomb? Isn't that a bit too late?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
of what America's word is worth when they make a "deal".
Trump will one day be gone, but the USA's untrustworthiness will take much long to repair.
Well now, if there's an uptick in activity against U.S. interests from Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations that Iran has played sponsor to, we'll know why now won't we? With the Iran deal, we gave Iran enough rope to hang themselves -- assuming they weren't going to play things straight up. If they did play it straight, then great for everyone; if not, then we could all say "We tried! But you screwed the deal, you have no one but yourselves to blame, Iran!" and everyone could then pile on them en masse with a clear conscience. But no, Trump had to stick his thumb in the Iranian pie, didn't he? Well, who knows what the hell's going to happen now? Probably nothing good.
...by the terms of (and spirit of) the deal?
Anyone?
The rest of the world needs to recognize and appreciate that America is becoming a shithole country and move along without the US.
Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.
You know what? Screw it.
It doesn't matter how much of our wealth we give away, there will always be someone like you spewing lies and hatred, trying to guilt us into giving more. It will never be enough
We owe you nothing. We owe the world nothing. We sometimes enter into agreements with allies for a common goal, but these one-side giveaways are going to stop. It's not our problem, and we are tired of all the giving.
The US allows about 1.1 million immigrants into the country every year, which is remarkably generous by world standards. We are not anti-immigration, we are anti illegal immigration, and would like to look after the safety of our own citizens by filtering out the criminals.
We are not anti-refugee, but after awhile the refugees need to go home. The [minor] hurricane refugees have been here for 10 years, we're done supporting them, now it's time for them to go home.
Paris accord? We foot the bill. TPP? A horribly one-sided deal. Iran agreement? Billions in aid, which they used to further develop nuclear weapons *and* funneled money to terrorist organizations.
You may not have noticed, but America's beacon has brightened considerably in the last year or so.
Unemployment is down, and the economy is up. ISIS is defeated, the Korean war is over. Jobs are coming back, and we got money back from the IRS.
Presidential approval is up around 50%.
We're doing actually pretty well for a change, despite all the knee-jerk negativity.
Take a look around and see what's happening.
People are starting to feel good about our country once again.
We're done giving away our wealth, we need to look after our own citizens for a change.
We owe you nothing.
Iran stole my bike! That's what I call it. Never heard of that story of bomber drones on US bases.
As for Hizbollah, I don't care about whatever grudges from the 80s or 90s. Get over it. 1983 bombing of barracks in Lebanon? That was an act of war i.e. as justified as any other act of war can be.
Whatever insane war lasting over 20 years there was, I don't know or can comprehensibly understand everything of it but that was decades ago and what I know is for the last few years, Hizbollah has been busy defeating the Islamic State and helping their country and their neighbors survive.
So, they've been "destabilizing" Syria by saving it and killing terrorists you don't apparently want get killed, oh the horror!
For Iran's ballistic missiles : they have developed MRBMs, because their enemies have them too, and their enemies have advanced air forces they can "project" force with (like Israel is busy projecting glide bombs lately). So, you may say, why have a bunch of ballistic missiles only to put old fashioned explosive bombs on them. Because, old fashioned bombs still blow up stuff. As Iran doesn't get F16, F15, F35 etc. from the US for free, or free refueling planes assistance from their grand-daddy the US, they cannot retaliate easily with an expeditionary use of jet fighters. On the other hands, missiles are easy enough to do them on their own.
Is Iran still evil? Why not, the Iran is evil. Oh noes! They hide under Israeli beds and they eat American children.
Well, as they're evil, but the US is the one threatening war against them, I wonder which I will side with. The lesser of two evils? Let's go for that. You don't believe I will choose the US, do you? It's the fucking US we're talking about. Anyway, international law used to say, the country which attacks or threatens the other is wrong.
As for Israel, they're professional crybabies, we need not to listen to them.
No, it was not acknowledged. There were pending suits by the US against Iran, and Iran against the US. The US claims against Iran, due to the massive nationalization of US assets and reparations, were MUCH larger than the claim by Iran against the US.
But NO settlement had been reached for either claim.
Until Obama decided to break the law by giving Iran the money, even though it was not approved by Congress.
Yep, nothing to do with anything except cancelling anything Obama implemented.
It's almost as if that Lion King joke stuck in Trumps craw.
We should not bind ourselves by agreements made dictatorially by a single person.
You do see the irony here right? Trump is ALSO making an executive decision, unilaterally, with potentially severe ramifications. No oversight, no checks and/or balances, and most importantly no debate (neither from inside his cabinet, nor from congress). That is not the hallmark of a democracy.
My god.. to think people were worried about Andrew Jackson acting as if he were king. Imagine if people from that era knew what our last few presidents have been up to.
Israel claims they have a bunch of evidence and the US intelligence services have confirmed the information. Is that not enough for you?
No. It's not enough for Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and CIA, either. In fact, none of the information Israel has is new. We already knew Iran lied about their nuclear program; that's actually part of what led to the Iran Nuclear Deal. What Israel has uncovered is the specific details of Iran's former nuclear program, which explains how they lied. But we already knew they lied, so Netanyahu has dropped exactly zero bombshells with his powerpoint presentation.
While we're on the subject though, I don't believe anything Israel says. Like, literally anything. They deliberately murder journalists to prevent the truth from being heard. That's not a good look.
You want to see a mushroom cloud before you believe the Iranians are building the bomb? Isn't that a bit too late?
We have been inspecting the shit out of them for years and we know the state of their nuclear program in some detail from a combination of direct and indirect intelligence gathering. The nuclear deal has been working, and you fell for Netanyahu's dog and pony show. What a maroon.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
you are correct and all this is bullshit, Iran's enemies are thrilled with the decision and Israel who is the primary target of Iranian aggression is thrilled with the decision. all the teeth gnashing is stupid or aligned with some interest other than the interests Iran's enemies.
You are gnashing your teeth either because you are stupid or because your interests line in Iranian regional power expansion.
If you are of the latter then you are piece of shit but at least you are honest piece of shit, and if you are of the former then whatever dude.
you don't think that's stuff matters? And this has nothing to do with isolationism. It's the exact opposite. We're prepping for a war. How is that isolationist?
As for the Trade Deal, Trump already supports TPP and literally said he wants guest workers to do your jobs to a bunch of supporters at a rally (that went over about as well as you'd expect, but his approval rating still hasn't budged).
America is exactly what it's always been, a global empire by and for our ruling class. Trump didn't change that, but no, we don't want it. Trump I'll remind you didn't win the popular vote. We are not a Democracy
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Iran agreed to stop enriching and allow intrusive inspections.
Too bad the same cannot be negotiated for Dimona.
The deck is stacked.
There has never been a meaningful negotiation.
This won't end well - for anyone.
Obama or any successors don't need the Congress to wage war.
So I would like to think, they can also ignore the Congress to wage peace. Just kidding. I don't know the story of these billions precisely, I thought these were billions from the nuclear negotiations and threats shitfest of the 2000s not old stuff from 1979...
Hmm... where is sexconker's arse kissing this time?
He was so sure about Trump fixing North Korea completely in his life time.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I don't think half the people in the US even voted.
Nobody is going to take US seriously, the only ones that are taking US seriously are the ones that want US in the drain, Israel PM wants US wealth and protection in the west, and Russia wants to make US look bad so Russians can feel better about their corrupt leader.
this personally? That will tell you all you need to know. He doesn't give a single fuck about the country or the world and never has.
Impressive trolling. For everyone, here's what one person negotiating looked like for this deal.
This was an agreement with many stages of negotiating done with multiple countries. If you didn't like it, fine. Making up lies about it doesn't help sell your viewpoint.
Excellent comment. I'd take this one step further - I don't believe anything anyone says without evidence. Feel to operate by 'trust but verify' if that works better for you. Blindly believing anyone eventually gets you snake oil.
I think you are mistaken. The sanctions on Iran were passed by the US congress. They can be waived by the President, but are subjected to be renewed every 6 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So - when was the treaty presented to the Senate for ratification? Short of that - it's not a treaty, just a singular agreement by the President of the US, with no more authority or binding action on future Presidents other than any other statement. In other words - none whatsoever.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So, better to let a dictatorial decision stand, rather than do the proper action which is negotiate an actual treaty and present it to the Senate for ratification? Rule by Presidential Executive Order is OK with you? I'd rather "dictatorially" undo such non-binding actions and go through the proper channels. But hey, I know - Trump!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
As for the Trade Deal, Trump already supports TPP and literally said he wants guest workers to do your jobs to a bunch of supporters at a rally (that went over about as well as you'd expect, but his approval rating still hasn't budged).
It went over fine. Because he said they have to go back. Funny how you omitted that.
Rule by Presidential Executive Order is OK with you?
what part of my post did you interpret as being in favor of rule by executive order. (hint: we probably agree more than we disagree on this issue)
It never was a treaty - President Obama never presented it to the Senate for approval (as must be done for all treaties), so it was a simple "gentleman's agreement" at best. President Trump is right to withdraw on this basis alone -
No. Simply having the power to do something doesn't make it right.
let alone whether or not Iran is violating their agreement. We should not bind ourselves by agreements made dictatorially by a single person.
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about political masturbation.
If you break something you broke it. It doesn't matter whether you think you are justified in doing something based on some bullshit abstract philosophical conceptualization.
It's still broke.
You still broke it.
You still own the consequences of your actions.
Israel claims they have a bunch of evidence and the US intelligence services have confirmed the information. Is that not enough for you?
God you are so fucking stupid. Everyone knew about this shit years ago.
Everyone knew Iran was working on nuclear weapons. NOBODY ever believed or took Iran at their word that they were not doing it. EVER. Not Obama, Not Kerry, not anyone period.
You want to see a mushroom cloud before you believe the Iranians are building the bomb? Isn't that a bit too late?
If the deal dies and the monitoring goes with it and Iran starts enriching up to 90 something percent are the fucking chances of a mushroom cloud more or less? Your so dumb. Do you ever stop and listen to the gibberish you post before you click Submit?
I haven't heard a single argument as of of why the US is suddenly withdrawing this deal. Trump, who most of the time at least tries to mumble himself out of an answer, couldn't even do that over the press conference yesterday.
There seems to be no explanation for this, nor plan moving forward.
So rigorous that if IAEA would want to inspect a military site - they'd need to ask Iran for permission in advance, tell it the location and possibly wait two weeks.
I think that's fine.
Remember that as much as the US distrusts Iran and considers it an enemy Iran distrusts the US and considers it an enemy too, the difference being Iran actually has some damn good reasons. During WWII the Allies invaded and occupied a neutral Iran installing a pro-West ruler, the current Iranian government is around only because the Western influence eventually led to the overthrow of that ruler.
The US then supported Iraq as they invaded Iran in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. This war included the US assisting Iraq in their deployment of Chemical weapons (ie, WMDs) against Iran.
Not to mention how loudly the Neocons were trying to drum up support for an Iranian invasion during Bush II's term.
If you were Iran would you really allow Western inspectors to wander into any military site they wanted to without notice? You'd have a very valid suspicion that the US inspectors were gathering intel for an invasion.
At the same time, it takes big-ass centrifuges to enrich Uranium, centrifuges you can't sneak away in 2 weeks. The 24 day period doesn't give Iran time to cover up a bomb program.
Whom do you mean by "they"? Protesters set up the clock, not "Iran" or the Iranian goverment.
It gives them more money sure, but it doesn't prevent the use of sanctions for their other activities, hell, Trump has literally implemented sanctions against Iran for their missile program.
And one of the bigger benefits of the deal isn't even Nukes, it's laying the groundwork to turning Iran into a regular non-renegade nation. A lot of that has already been achieved, Rhouani is talking about staying in the deal even with Trump dropping out.
The Saudi's and Israeli's are regional rivals for influence and they'd much prefer Iran as a marginalized pariah nation than an economic and political rival for influence. Their best case if a collapse of the Iran deal and a US invasion to prevent a nuke, hell Bibi was practically begging for that.
I'm not actually certain they're all the concerned about Iran getting Nukes. For one, it's unclear that Iran actually wanted to build Nukes. They definitely wanted the ability to build Nukes, ie highly enriched Uranium and the know how to make a bomb on fairly short notice, but they probably didn't want to
I stole this Sig
He's back down on virtually all his campaign promises (didn't punish Carrier for outsourcing jobs, hasn't done his tariffs, supports TPP, DACA and Guest Workers, and his cabinet is full of the same Goldman Sachs people as always). North Korea is playing nice so we don't invade, and it's working. As for Iran, it's entirely possible Hilary would have done the same. A lot of folks voted against her because she's a war hawk.
About the only thing he's done of consequence is that God Awful tax cut. That's going to be used to take Medicare & Social Security away from people under 55, and then the folks under 55 will demand it get taken away from the ones who still have it for fairness. That's a big deal, but OTOH it's not really a Trump thing. The Republican party has been gearing up for that for decades and only the surprise victory of Obama held it off.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and Saddam before that. We've already proven we're not to be trusted. NK is just buddying up with SK and China so we can't invade while there's a warhawk looking for a fight in the Whitehouse.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Uh huh. Who said it was a treaty?
WOW. And they continued lying after the deal was made in explicit contravention of the deal.
And NO, we have no been 'inspecting the shit out of them for years', if you don't inspect military sites when looking for evidence of a military program, how is that 'inspecting the shit out of them'?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html
IF this deal was so great & working well there would be 0 need for 'indirect intelligence gathering' now would there?
The only thing Netanyahu's dog & pony show did was remind the rest of us just how severely Iran lied about their nuclear weapons program in direct contravention of the agreement. Think about it, if you have to go to Youtube to 'remind' yourself that 'everyone knew they were lying' then its dollars to donuts this wasn't widely publicized at the time such that the public could go "Hang on, you made a deal that said they had to come clean, but by your own report you know they didn't come clean and you continued the deal anyway?"...
Trump got around 62mil votes. There are roughly 250 million voting age adults in the US. Around 25% of eligible voters chose him.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
There's no way you have a college education. China is intentionally, willfully, and with decades of planning attempting to be the only superpower and extend their Han-Chinese ethno-nationalism to the rest of the planet. This isn't a secret. It's their public plan. All you have to do is pick up a college textbook and read countless quotes, articles, and books from Chinese officials, military officers, political scientists, and strategists.
Take in what China has done over the last 78 years and compress it down to 5 and you would scream "There's a new Nazi Germany right around the corner! They are at war with us why isn't anyone fighting back!?" Yet since efforts have intentionally been stretched out over nearly a century few notice. But scholars do. Global strategists do. People that read and understand international relations and history do.
And to say that the US rules the world. Absurd.
Absurd to even think the US has ever wanted to. The Marshall Plan is hard evidence that the US has not and does not want to "rule the world" in any sense. NATO and the UN exists because of the disproportionate support of the US. Without that benevolence there would be no global international governmental bodies. There are none today.
Equating the actions of Trump with Obama. When someone steals a bag of apples, do you equally castigate the individual who turns the bag back in?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So what's the concern? One person is undoing a commitment made by another - reversing a unilateral agreement by President Obama. I guess leaving such agreements in place is the best thing to do? How about we do International agreements as we're supposed to do them - with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Here's what will actually happen:
-Iran's economy will go from really bad (google it) to significantly worse.
-Political discontent in Iran will grow.
-Internal politics will create pressure on Iranian leadership to negotiate directly with the US.
-Trump, being Trump, will gladly negotiate.
-A new nuclear deal, or other peaceful bilateral initiative, will occur.
-Bilateral relations will thaw for the first time since the Iranian Revolution.
Commenters are forgetting that America isn't THAT unpopular among Iranian youth. Discontent runs high. Trump has leverage. Trump has leverage in a few different ways, in fact.
Anyway, guess what...looks like we might get a new deal with North Korea and an end to that war. Trump winning isn't that far out of reality.
It's hard to be a good puppet when you've got two masters pulling your strings, and neither one of them likes the other very much.P>
Poor old Don has to find a way to obey both Putin and Netanyahu. That can't be easy. And since he dumped Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, the oil companies that have been writing America's foreign policy in the Middle East for the last few decades probably have their panties in a knot, too.
I guess the temptation to trash another piece President Obama's legacy was just too strong to resist.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Right or wrong, we had a deal. And the law says: bust a deal, face the wheel!
Tina Turner would probably make a better national security advisor than John Bolton.
Armaments industry is half the world's economic activity. Got to keep the pot boiling.
It's apparently not enough for at least one of Netanyahu's predecessors as PM, either.
(BTW... Barak has also served as Defence Minister under Netanyahu, and is quite possibly Israel's most highly decorated soldier, ever. One set of his grandparents were killed in a pogrom in Lithuania, and the other set died in Treblinka. So not exactly a dove-ish sort.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Obama knew he could not sell the Iran deal in the US Senate... so the jerk never even tried. Obama NEVER submitted his Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, and as a result "the deal" was just an agreement between BHO, the man, and Iranian leaders rather than a deal between the USA and Iran. It's been a well-known and well-publicised fact for over two centuries that under US law no international agreement is binding as a treaty without Senate confirmation.
THAT is why Trump is so easily able to get out of the Paris accord, and the Iran deal and is undoing so many other Obama era jokes. The last president was great at snarking his way through the presidency by he stank at actual lawful governance and thus chose not to do it very often even though he had super majorities in both the House and the Senate at the start of his term (something no Republican has had in the past century). All the fluff that's being easily overturned and forgotten is Obama's.
If you want to talk about stupid voters, you should consider that it was the Obama team that repeatedly bragged about how stupid and gullible its voters and its friends in the press were. It's not just the Ben Rhodes (failed novelist acting as nationalsecurity "expert") bragging about decieving Americans to do the Iran deal and bragging that Democrat journalists are stupid parots who will tell the public anything a Democrat administration tells them to say. Jonathan Gruber infamously bragged that the Obama admin passed Obamacare thanks to "the stupidity of the American voter". By their own admission, Democrats get their power and policies on the backs of their stupid supporters.
We already tried Barack Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho Obama.
Next up, the Democrats will probably try Camila Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho Harris - she has all the vital Democrat qualifications: Female, Minority, Lawyer.
It's all about the skin color and the private parts for the party of identity politics.
Even as recent as September of last year IAEA reported failing to routinely inspect facilities and not being allowed access to military facilities. Their own politicians are saying the "military sites are off-limits" and "the US doesn't have any influence in the region".
This isn't anything new, the UN commission doesn't have teeth and everybody knows it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Describe to me the new tech they're using to enrich uranium. Or encryption methods used to communicate between countries. Or laws and embargo that are going to affect tech and equipment. Or at least something interesting.
Otherwise skuttle away to breitbart or huffpost or somewhere else that suits your fancy.
Just because Obama did it doesn't automatically make it right; just because Trump is doing it doesn't automatically make it right either. Go away and do something useful -- like come up with ideas, not just complain, to your mayor or state representatives. Otherwise, like talk radio, we're just wasting each other's time. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, and neither one of us knows what's really going on.
BTW, in the '70s, the world was all "going to soon come to an end" as well. I just wish that this time they'd hurry up and do it before next Christmas so I won't have to shop.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Here's what will actually happen:
Wishful thinking?
-Iran's economy will go from really bad (google it) to significantly worse.
Truish, European sanctions won't return and their economy is probably still recovering from the sanctions being lifted. It's possible they may keep seeing economic growth.
-Political discontent in Iran will grow.
True
-Internal politics will create pressure on Iranian leadership to negotiate directly with the US.
False. Iranian people will be rightly pissed at the US and negotiating with someone who just screwed you over is a huge loss of face, the Iranian leaders won't be able to negotiate with Trump if they wanted to.
Trump just helped but the Iranian hardliners back in power.
-Trump, being Trump, will gladly negotiate.
He'd love to negotiate but he doesn't have much leverage. The Europeans will never re-engage with the sanctions, especially not with Trump in charge. And the US alone can't hurt them enough economically.
-A new nuclear deal, or other peaceful bilateral initiative, will occur.
No new deal is coming. Most likely everyone ignores the US and a somewhat more belligerent Iran keeps trading with Europe. Less likely, Iran drops out and starts working towards a bomb again. And if they ever come back to the table it's with a much weaker deal, otherwise war is the only way to make sure they don't get a bomb.
-Bilateral relations will thaw for the first time since the Iranian Revolution.
They were thawing, not anymore.
Commenters are forgetting that America isn't THAT unpopular among Iranian youth.
Wasn't unpopular, about to get more unpopular. An Islamophobe who screws over your country is not a popular individual.
Discontent runs high. Trump has leverage. Trump has leverage in a few different ways, in fact.
Trump has weak sanctions and a unilateral war, that's about it.
Anyway, guess what...looks like we might get a new deal with North Korea and an end to that war.
Scrapping a deal that the other side was living up to is not a way to build credibility. I suspect Trump just blew his incredibly slim chance of getting real lasting concessions from NK.
Trump winning isn't that far out of reality.
Reality is not your friend.
I stole this Sig
the entire point of kicking them out was that Americans wanted those jobs, and that those jobs would pay better if there wasn't a supply of super cheap labor to drive down wages. Funny how supply and demand gets left out of the equation when it's time to talk about wages, isn't it?
I don't think Trump voters are dumb enough to swallow that line. And judging by the silence at the rally after he said it I'm right. What I _do_ think is that the mainstream, pro-corporate right wing media won't cover it. Just because the media's a little left on social issues don't think they're not hard right on economics. Look who owns them. It ain't the working class, I'll tell you that. So Trump's approval ratings never go down because the sort of folks that voted for him aren't watching The Young Turks, Secular Talk and Bernie Sanders on Youtube. And if you weren't you wouldn't have heard about his back tracking.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're not a lawyer, and if you are you didn't learn much about international law.
It wasn't a treaty under the US constitution. Therefore if Trump abrogates the agreement, then there's no constitutional crisis, and no need for SCOTUS to get involved. However under international law, executive agreements DO count at treaties. Therefore Trump does have some obligations unless there was an escape hatch that allowed him to cancel the agreement with no problems. Even under the Paris climate agreement, Trump had obligations and had to exit from the agreement under the bylaws. He couldn't just say I won't enforce and that's it.
Obama gave them "the win" by shipping them billions of dollars, with no conditions and nothing in return, then inking a "deal" that allows them to build bombs and does NOTHING to restrict them, nor does the deal provide for any verification. The US got NO inspections at all and thus no way to verify anything about the deal. Some of our friends got to inspect certain sites (non-military ones) after giving a month's notice to let Iran clean those sites before inspectors would arrive. The deal was so one-sided that the Obama team were never able to name a single thing the US got from the deal and even the Democrats in the Senate at the time told him to not even bother trying to pass it through as a treaty because it was so indefensible as a policy.
With the deal abandoned, the US loses NOTHING because we got NOTHING from the deal. Not surprising since the same Democrat bureaucrats negotiated this deal for Obama that negotiated the Clinton era deal with North Korea which guaranteed North Korea would never get nukes (whoopsie!) Look it up - Google is your friend.
Oh, and you claim the US never had any material pressure to apply to Iran - interesting given how eager the leaders of Iran were to get the USA to drop the sanctions. As for the Europeans: they can keep trading with Iran, if all that matters to them is Euros. If they prefer the much larger US market for their goods, however, they might want to consider not helping one of America's nastiest enemies, the largest "state sponsor" of terrorism on Earth.
If that deal that guaranteed Iran would go fully nuclear within 10 years of being inked was "victory", I shudder to think of what you would consider a defeat.
Trump and his party are itching for another war. It looks like NK is off the table. Syria's not gonna happen because nobody wants to tangle with Russia. Not that we couldn't win but it would be an actual war. What we want isn't a war but an occupation. Something with minimal casualties, lots of war profiteering and something to galvanize the American public behind Trump & Party so they can keep screwing us over. After all, once war ends folks expect things to start getting better.
We've been at war with Iraq for 17 years now. People are sick of it and want it to end. Isis is beaten. So is Al-Qaida. They can't move that goal post anymore. pretty soon they'll have to stop the wars and answer for them unless they can find a new one.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I was waiting for the WMDs during the prelude to Iraq. Not only did the mushroom cloud fail to materialize, the American public discovered there was nothing to make such a cloud in the first place. Here we are again. I'm more than happy to wait for the fairy-tale mushroom clouds this time around.
By and by please support your claim that the US intel services have confirmed the (under investigation for corruption) Netanyahu's claims. Also remember: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons..." - Netanyahu, 2002
What's this "mental nightmare"?! The Z80 crapped all over the 6502. It is/was a sweet cpu and the days when it was a new cpu were the best days ever.
Yes, BYTE was awesome. Same for Dr Dobbs. We'll never see those times again because the internet steamrolled the lot of them.
The US is now the largest exporter of oil in the world. Let the Europeans try to suck up to the Iranians for their fix even more now. And if they haven't coughed up their NATO dues yet, they'd better get going on it, 'cause anti-missile systems to take down Iranian ICBMs don't come cheap. That is, if the Congress agrees to sell them to them. Maybe Israel will offer to sell.
Of course, they could always cooperate in negotiating a real treaty with some teeth, but...Trump.
How about we do International agreements as we're supposed to do them - with the advice and consent of the Senate.
To do international agreements that way, you'd have to care what Americans want. Consulting the people's elected representatives was never Obama's style.
and there is nothing anyone here can do to change it.
I mean, he can manage to out of everything else.
They deliberately murder journalists to prevent the truth from being heard.
Source/links?
Well, the goal is to inspect for nukes. I don't care for your rationalization of Iranian enmity. Quite a lot of it is plain wrong, or misses important events (like the torture of the entire American embassy stuff). Whatever. If the deal can't get the Iranian regime needs to swallow its fears and allow actual inspections, than the deal is bad. You *can* sneak nuclear technology, it depends on the type. Primitive centrifuges are bulky, but there are technologies (like laser-separation) that are not.
The government kept it there. Also, you must have missed the many direct quotes in the article regarding destruction of certain other country.
Do you think the Iranian regime is stupid? That they'd do a deal to remove sanctions, and then allow the US to turn around and say: "Well, we are reimposing the exact same sanctions we had before for some other reason, oh, and your commitments under the deal still stands despite us finding some excuse to avoid our own". Not being able to reimpose any of the same sanctions as before was Iranian condition #1. Otherwise they'll leave the deal. All that's left is some piddling stuff that can't change behaviour.
Really, are there less executions in Iran (no)? Any let up in the theocracy (no)? Moderation towards neighbours (no and no)? The groundwork being laid here is ignoring and finding excuses for the regime's malfeasance in order to pretend the deal was fine.
Note that what you said doesn't contradict my point - the deal made a nuclear arms race more likely, because Iran's enemies would tech up to match new Iranian capabilities. There was no buy-in in the Middle East for the deal.
Imagine how this reads in the Middle East: "If the Iranians uke you, they'd be marginalized (but you'll be dead)". Note also that we saw for the last 30 years the regime doesn't mind marginalization. Perhaps because its a theocracy ordered by God. Or maybe because they saw they'd always find Western useful-idiots to excuse them.
That is scary indeed, but not necessarily a shady deal.
I carried out the same search you did (only later saw your link ooops) and while the majority of newspapers have articles showing that line (landing pages for paywalls included), there were others with a more detailed narrative. It appears to me that the Associated Press is the primary source, reporting on what went on on Iranian TV where their president did make that statement, obviously with some qualifiers and some outline of his next steps.
Here are two links that use the AP report but actually expand on the clickbaiting headline:
exhibit A
exhibit B
I don't know if these newspapers are distasteful or propaganda machines like RT, Daily Mail and Fox, so sorry if you have to wash your eyes and floss your brain after following the links :S.
It could be that AP has different prices for different access to their reports. Everyone and their dog decided that quoting that headline unchanged was a useful thing (thus contributing to that viral effect that creeped us both out) , but only a subset of news sources went with the full report.
"What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility."
I think this is particularly where the analogy to the Mule is apt.
Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"
America, the nation, has zero credibility
Trump, the man, might be crazier than bat shit, but at the very least, he still has some
A Saudi-Iran war ... if it went nuclear (Israel is a known-but-undeclared nuclear power, Iran and Saudi Arabia are just a serious political push and a year away from building their own nukes), a radioactive crisis when the winds carry it either eastward towards China, or southwestward into Africa.
Just wait a fucking second ...
You mean the wind only blows Eastward, towards, China, or in Southwest direction, towards, Africa, and never blows in the Northwest direction, towards Europe??
If the USA can't be relied upon to agree to pay AND it can't be relied upon to abide by its agreements, then either the international currency will move to Euros or Renmimbi. They will also find it hard to pay for anything because "Shit, we'll take your money AND your goods" isn't a good way to get customers.
But not here... right.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with Iran selling their oil in currencies other than the USD
Yes, a senate that campaigned on making Obama a lame duck president, and it's OBAMA'S fault he didn't work with them... FFS, moron.
USA had sold him the chemical weapons. Everyone KNEW he had them. And everyone knew that he'd had to destroy them previously. So you are HALF right. But it's very much the lesser half.
Also the reason why Saddam;s trial was about such small potatoes was because they had to find a war crime that he did that couldn't be tracked back to the western powers (including France).
Iran was never onboard with this. The US did a bad deal just to get one. You donâ(TM)t do deals with countries who constantly threaten to destroy you.
Yes because cleaning in 30 days all traces of radioactive materials with half-life of billions of years it's an easy task. And doing it so with all satellite surveilance.
If iranians know how to do this we should lift all the sanctions at once and pay them good money for the technology. It will be really usefull in cleaning up the nuclear mess in some places.
Because Obama.
That is literally the only reason. That's how your president 'reasons'.
And you cunts voted that fucking manchild spastic cunt in, because he made the right racist noises. You deserve everything that comes your way now. Dickheads.
No need to clean up all radioactive materials. Just insert enough ambiguity (these radioactives are from the old program! we produced medical isotopses!) to let everyone pretend nothing happened. I mean the alternative is war, right? And everyone is so scared, they already ignored the existing Iranian violations, so what's one more?
May. 3, Juche 107 (2018) Thursday
Illusion and Hope on U.S. "Assistance" Lead to Death
Some days ago, the Cuban Foreign Ministry posted on its website an article titled "The Bolivian president discloses the imperialist nature of the U.S. which made military intervention in the period of war for independence of Cuba."
Its content says that the U.S. made military intervention in the Cuban people's war for independence against the Spanish colonial rule in 1898 under the pretext of "assistance" but its real aim was to take Cuba from Spain, not its independence.
It is an undeniable truth as was disclosed by the history.
120 years have passed since the end of the U.S.-Spain war, but the aggression nature of the U.S. has not changed as it is still keen on making open military interference in the internal affairs of other countries working hard to preserve their sovereignty and maintain territorial integrity.
The Syrian incident is clear proof of it.
The present Syrian situation and the Cuba independence war at the end of the 19th century have lots of differences in terms of their places, the background of times, their motives and nature, but they are same in disclosing the aggressive and ruling nature of the U.S.
Due to the military interference by the U.S., the Syrian incident has been prolonged, cities and villages have been devastated and people are subject to unbearable misfortune and sufferings. The U.S. "assistance" for Syria is forwarded to the anti-government forces of the country, so it aims at expanding the incident.
The U.S. "assistance" is a dangerous weapon which is used for overthrowing the governments of other countries.
The illusion and hope pinned on the U.S. "assistance", military "assistance" in particular, mean just a death. This is a bitter lesson left by the history.
Ri Hak Nam
What about Israel's nuclear weapons program and atrocious record of human rights violations?
Oh right. Iran. The Kardashians. The Super Bowl.
Anything to distract the masses from the truth.
While the deal might not have been as effective as some wished, it was still better than nothing. Trump with his crow bar politics destroyed the last shred of dependability. Any contract with the US is no longer worth the paper it is written on. Either Trump resigns from it or simply ignores it. Other governments will seek more reliable strong partners, most likely Russia and China. Add to that the ridiculously stupid ultranationalistic isolationism that Trump is aiming for and the US will lose out on trade, good will, strategic partners, and above all influence. The sooner we, the people, can rid the US from the cancer that is Trump and his cronies the better it is. Sadly, there are significant amounts of people who fall for all of this....just shows how bad the US educational system has gotten. Six packs, baseball, and an idiot as president still makes people happy. And there we thought Reagan and the Bushes were unmitigated disasters.
again , pulling out another time from a treaty .. everytime americans do so the value of their signature gets lower and lower to the point ANY treaty signed by them worthless junk . that is what it became , worthless junk. carefull with that axe ,, you cut both your legs off , next time , go for the head and just dissolve the USA and rid the world of your evil machinations for the greater good.
Thank God for you AC, no one in Europe ever thought of those things, because everyone else on the planet is a moron.
You have saved this timeline. Please respond with your bank account so we can all send you money.
So really the only sanctions will be against US businesses. One of the main reasons the US made this agreement was that it would have happened without us anyway. All Trump did was spike US gas prices.
There are many other members to that treaty, why should the US divert its own resources to other countries when they have their own share of poverty to deal with internally? If the the countries want to have the treaty and work on enforce it more power to them, two or three large countries such as the UK that agreed to it at the expense of their tax payers should be enough to do periodic lookups. They can tattle on the US if they break the rules and see what action the US would take then.
Those are the same people saying Obama wrote too many EO's. Now that Trump has passed more in his first year than any of Obama's and continues to churn them out they're silent and changing their endless whining now they've been shown to be hypocrites.
Only one country in the middle east has ever directly committed terror attacks against US interests. Israel. I'm thinking they're the ones we need to not have nukes.
Thank you for saying this. This is pure revisionist BS. After his FIRST election they were saying this. They spent 8 years doing nothing but obstructing him at every twist and turn and he still offered to work with them more than he should've. That said, it takes a huge lack of self awareness to say that he had to work with reps that were elected and not realize the president was also elected according to the wishes of the voters.
And Trump took the majority in the electoral college...
In the interest of accuracy, I will in the future say.... "Trump got nearly half the vote." Does that work for you?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ok, Ok.. You knew what I mean.. But in the future I will try to phrase it this way: "Trump got nearly half the vote." OR "Trump clearly took the majority of the electoral college vote." Just so I won't get such posts from folks like you.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Well, the goal is to inspect for nukes. I don't care for your rationalization of Iranian enmity. Quite a lot of it is plain wrong, or misses important events (like the torture of the entire American embassy stuff). Whatever. If the deal can't get the Iranian regime needs to swallow its fears and allow actual inspections, than the deal is bad. You *can* sneak nuclear technology, it depends on the type. Primitive centrifuges are bulky, but there are technologies (like laser-separation) that are not.
It's not rationalization it's understanding, and I didn't iterate Iranian sins because I was trying to explain why Iran doesn't like the US, not why the US hates Iran.
And when the deal came out most arms inspectors were shocked at how good it was. I'll take their opinion over yours.
The government kept it there. Also, you must have missed the many direct quotes in the article regarding destruction of certain other country.
1 quote from Khomeni talking about 2040. It's not a threat it's just angry yelling.
Do you think the Iranian regime is stupid? That they'd do a deal to remove sanctions, and then allow the US to turn around and say: "Well, we are reimposing the exact same sanctions we had before for some other reason, oh, and your commitments under the deal still stands despite us finding some excuse to avoid our own". Not being able to reimpose any of the same sanctions as before was Iranian condition #1. Otherwise they'll leave the deal. All that's left is some piddling stuff that can't change behaviour.
It's less effective, but it's still consequential. And if you get them to re-engage economically some of those secondary sanctions have bigger effects.
Really, are there less executions in Iran (no)? Any let up in the theocracy (no)? Moderation towards neighbours (no and no)? The groundwork being laid here is ignoring and finding excuses for the regime's malfeasance in order to pretend the deal was fine.
Rouhani is a moderate, the deal was a huge win for moderates and nudged Iran in all those directions. Cancelling it empowers the hardliners and makes things worse.
What new capabilities? You're still operating under this fiction that the deal gave them a bomb!
Imagine how this reads in the Middle East: "If the Iranians uke you, they'd be marginalized (but you'll be dead)". Note also that we saw for the last 30 years the regime doesn't mind marginalization. Perhaps because its a theocracy ordered by God. Or maybe because they saw they'd always find Western useful-idiots to excuse them.
You misread that. Iran isn't launching a first strike, they've never been a country that attacks, their objective has always been defensive nukes. It's having those Nukes that marginalizes them.
I stole this Sig
Yes, a senate that campaigned on making Obama a lame duck president, and it's OBAMA'S fault he didn't work with them... FFS, moron.
The President has a responsibility to work with the voters' representatives. Pouting in the Oval Office isn't in the job description.
And now we see what trying to work around the people accomplishes: a bunch of stuff that gets immediately undone when leadership changes.
(Crickets)
From my perspective it's Israel's opponents in the region who are out routinely killing journalists but you are not allowed to say such things.
Israel may not be totally without fault, but the press's continued condemnation of them is without basis. Israel is surrounded on three sides by mortal foes who routinely express their desire to wipe them from the map. Israel is routinely attacked by rockets and suicide bombers yet remains accused of atrocities for doing what it can to naturalize such threats because its neighbors won't control their own territory.
What would *you* do in that situation?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Most of Obamas work was or would be supported by majorities the People some by extreme majorities like sane gun control. The people are no longer in control of the government it is no longer a functional democracy and hasn't been that way arguably for decades!
Unprecedented levels of propaganda are helping the actual rulers sucker just enough people just long enough to get weak and corrupt leaders to power then the system itself has been hacked so those leaders can hardly make government function. It's interestingly similar to how Russian espionage works... which is different than the US style; slower acting, more deadly... Putin didn't need to get directly involved at this point; the cold war damage alone was still slowly killing the USA.
It has nothing to do with Obama being unreasonable or unable to compromise, you have to be quite ignorant or a moron to not have seen how anything that black man touched was poison - and it wasn't all about race; although, far more than people realized and only now after the NAZI and racists have crawled out into the sunlight are people realizing it's worse than they thought. Reality has died; as Karl Rove stated as one of his fundamental principles of his propaganda (aka PR) is that reality is relative and can be created. It's just spread further-- it started in a big organized way with Fox News which was founded by one of the biggest propagandists in modern history; who was also the mentor to Rove's mentor. (GOP TV is what it was called until Murdock bought it under his FOX company. )
Obama put his name on REPUBLICAN plans only to see them shot down; they openly REFUSED to even give a hearing for his supreme court position by completely ignoring the constitution using lawyer doublespeak -- the process lets them reject appointments but they wouldn't even do their job. The argument Obama picked a left wing crazy is bullshit because they had all the power to prove that point and reject the man. This is the SAME behavior they did for everything; including HUGE RECORD setting filibusters the whole time. How one couldn't label it racist I would like to hear because breaking records for their actions/behaviors can't be coincidence with the 1st black man. They somehow managed to get people to shut up from calling them all racists. They should have been attacked with that. Me, I think they would have been almost as bad if he looked white (he's 50% white) because I can make a better argument than I've heard about it not being racism but I still think 20% of it WAS racism; 80% is corrupt dysfunction.
American Democracy has already died; it's just been bread and circuses for a while now. If you disagree, that is OK because you'll eventually wake up. probably. (only a minority still believed Hitler's hype so a small number of people can be fooled 100% of the time. hopefully you are just slow to catch on.)
From my perspective it's Israel's opponents in the region who are out routinely killing journalists but you are not allowed to say such things.
Your perspective includes blinders. And these latest killings are just part of a long tradition.
Contrary to what one might imagine, I'm not a big fan of Palestine. I'm just not a fan of Israel, either. I have little use for religious "logic", or anyone's justifications for genocide. What am I a fan of? Facts. And it's a fact that Israel kills a lot of journalists.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's good to have a reasonable, moderate president like Iran, instead of a crazy right-wing president like the U.S.
You are correct; however, behind the curve. That's ok because sadly, millions are way behind you. The best you can do is probably what you are saying and trying to wake up more people; prevent a civil war by making sure the indoctrinated true believers are marginalized and not significant in number. This isn't extreme talk; you'll get it but others will think it's paranoia because they aren't as aware.
You see, the Bush(tm) proved how dysfunctional the nation is in a big way and that SAME dysfunction was never repaired it was managed so only Bush(tm) took a minor fall, everything that led to that group's power remained completely functional and was refined further while on vacation for only 2 years. It was expected by me and others that a repeat would begin within 2 years and it was. If not for Trump, we'd have Bush #3 for president. Seriously think about it, look at the numbers - he was the stable chosen figurehead and ALL the numbers showed him beating Hillary. Some billionaires wanted a slightly different figurehead, and squeaked out on the momentum of the control system they created even when some quit over the choice of figurehead.
Anyhow, the pretense was WEAK for the Bush years and all the stuff they got away with even got many Democrats who had an idealized view that most voters just needed more facts started to CHANGE to the neo-Republican way of thinking... that people are suckers to somewhat modern tactics; truth doesn't matter. The Democrat stuff slightly changed; behind the scenes higher up the attitudes appear to have significantly altered. (that is those types got more influence, not that it was never there.)
It's kind of enjoyable watching the propaganda backfire; it's too effective and the monster is often threatening it's own creators. Trump and others were supposed to fall for the con-job and give time and money and votes but NOT become actively involved then use their power to chase the engineered mirages.
I'm sure you feel inflamed by the posting of citations which demonstrate the proof of Russian collusion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Now I see you are also an abuser of moderation. You're posting as AC because you have mod points. Abusers are always cowards, so it all makes perfect sense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Israel has a vested interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of its Muslim neighbours. Considering their past of having a long list of rulers try to eradicate them, don't you think they might stretch the truth a little to keep their nuclear advantage?
The whole Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) of somewhat sane governments all DESPISED the Iran deal, because they knew it would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons, funded in large part by the deal itself...
A non-nuclear Iran is a way more peaceful Middle East. It's a shame so few people realize this simple basic fact and how to achieve it, which was not by giving Iran secret plane loads of gold/unmarked bills, and inspecting only what they wanted us to inspect...
Iran itself already admitted this, they just said if the deal falls through they will start massive uranium enrichment in weeks. That would have been impossible if they were actually obeying the deal as it was.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The President has a responsibility to work with the voters' representatives.
No more than Congress having a responsibility to work with the president.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the branches have to play nice with each other. In fact, the system is designed so the branches have ways to reign each other in. This is called checks and balances.
The concept itself, striking a deal with Iran to keep them from working on Nuclear weapons, is itself good.
The execution, however, was terrible. Still is.
For example:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i...
Obama or any successors don't need the Congress to wage war.
The President cannot declare war. Congress declares war.
The President can deploy the military, but cannot unilaterally wage war without a declaration of war.
Any disagreeable or extended action without a declaration of war from Congress, or without an existing agreement calling for US action (such as in Vietnam, Korea, etc., where the US was never at war) will result in Congress having a fit. Congress would then cut funding to the military, impeach the President, etc. to stop it.
There was a bit of rabble rousing from the usual suspects when Trump launched a few missiles recently. Some congress critters were hemming and hawing about how Trump should have gone to Congress for approval before taking action, even though he didn't have to. They groaned about how if he wants to continue action like that he's gonna have to seek their approval so they can make a point about putting him through the ringer, making him kiss the ring, etc. before ultimately letting him do his job and engage in military actions that they and their constituents approve of.
The Deal has many many parts, most of which directly involve gathering evidence that Iran is complying.
Please detail 3. Don't forget to include the part where no one is allowed to gather evidence at certain locations, because they're totally not doing shit over there, nope, nosiree.
Rule by Presidential Executive Order is OK with you?
Of course! As long as it's a BHO executive order. Those DJT executive orders? EVIL! RACIST! TRAITOR!!!
The part where you don't appreciate the difference between writing shitty executive orders to do stupid shit and writing executive orders that merely cancel said stupid shit.
We can't trust these people and shouldn't. If they are One Bad Boi, we just turn them into glass and they know it.
It still never ceases to amaze me how the only country in the world with a history of using nuclear weapons on defenseless civilian populations -- twice, at that -- thinks that they are best ones to judge who should be allowed to have nuclear technology of any kind whatsoever.
Well, that's America for you. Don't you dare even use tweets to influence our elections, but it's for everyone's good when we establish dictatorships and influence coups in South America and the Middle East. Don't you dare even synthesize medical radionuclides, but it's for everyone's good if we vengefully incinerate millions of innocent farmers and fisherman who have nothing but pointed sticks to defend themselves with.
How fucking long do I have to wait until the rest of the world starts sanctioning the hell out of the United States and Israel for having nuclear weapons? The U.S. has already proven back in 1945 that they can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Israel, being a theocracy comprised of a race that survived a "great fire" (holocaust) are the last fucking people who should even *want* such a weapon, and the fact that they do have them makes Israel as frighteningly hypocritical as their U.S. allies.
Uh huh. Who said it was a treaty?
President Hassan Rouhani - "By exiting the deal, America has officially undermined its commitment to an international treaty."
AC - https://slashdot.org/comments....
pesho - https://slashdot.org/comments....
AC - https://slashdot.org/comments....
AC - https://slashdot.org/comments....
AC - https://slashdot.org/comments....
AC - https://slashdot.org/comments....
pesho - https://slashdot.org/comments....
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about political masturbation.
The Constitution of the United States of America and its treaties with other nations? Mere political masturbation!
-WaffleMonster
Oh, I see. Only the president has any responsibilty, and only when it's a Democrat.
I remember all of this VERY clearly. In 2003 my wife and I were planning a trip to Paris. So in the run up to the war, we were very interested as to whether or not we would have to cancel our trip. We already had tickets booked and everything planned, so I listened to NPR every day on the way to work, and kept a close eye on things. When it was clear that inspectors had not found any evidence of WMDs, I was relieved. I remember EXACTLY where I was when I heard that we were invading anyway, despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever. I didn't want to believe what my country was doing, so I too thought that there had to be something there that they weren't telling us. After 9/11 I remember feeling that "American Pride" as we stood together, and the world stood behind us... and I even thought to myself that Bush's response to it all was surprisingly appropriate. Right up until we set our sights on Iraq, and that sick feeling set in that there was much more to it all. And it was all a boondoggle.
Our trip to Paris went ahead, 4 days after we invaded Iraq. I saw protests in Paris against the US action. Even though we were worried about backlash against us, we got none. It was an interesting dynamic because here in the US we marginalize the people of a country instead of the leadership. What we saw were protests against the actions of the US government, not against the people of the US. It was quite an eye opening time, for many reasons.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"Fuck you, Slashdot, you're fake news and part of the rampant corporate corruption problem." /br
That is all. You may now return to discussing idiocies, when we should be talking about how the rich are murdering the economy and destroying our futures.
Deal collapsed over... "Mr. Trump's insistence that sharp limits be kept on Iran's nuclear fuel production after 2030"
In other words, Mr. Trump felt that it was not acceptable to simply say in another 10 years Iran can restart their nuclear fuel/weapons production. Gee...I have to say, "I kind of agree."
"President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran would remain committed to a multinational nuclear deal."
Interesting, so it seems like Iran is going to capitulate to the disarmament anyways. Why?
One of the biggest questions at play in all of this, is what the hell happened in N. Korea. While U.S. media has repeatedly dismissed Trump's role. South Korean officials have praised his role. To a nation like Iran, that's extremely disconcerting.
And let's be honest. If Trump manages to force Iran back to the table and get far more effectual assurances and other criteria met (perhaps including essentially a cease fire throughout the Middle East hotbed currently being supported by Iran). Then one needs to prepare for Trump term 2.0.
[[[Please don't get me wrong. I do not like the guy. I refused to vote for the guy. I think he is a twit, butthead, and a lot more. But it's going to be very hard for any challenger to take him on in elections if he can basically point to having resolved both the N. Korea issue and the Iran issue, and if the economy is at a positive. Good luck Democrats (which will probably be stupid enough to try to run Hillary a third time).
It's not understanding. Understanding requires knowledge of the subject. North Korea and Iran are similar in that they have an ideology for external consumption and an actual ideology followed internally. Externally, NK is communist-stalinist and Iran is a proud empire. In reality, NK is a racial fascist state and Iran is a theocracy. You're just regurgitating the external script.
For example, earlier you wrote about the history of Western meddling in Iran (you made a few errors but they were uninteresting). The point is that the regime is not angry about that at all. You see, at the time, the choice was seen to be between America and the "godless" communists, and you can guess from that on which side the theocrats and their predecessors were at the time. What you think Iran is angry about has no relation to their actual reasons.
Yeah, you made a scientific poll, right. Let me give you a simple test: People who jabber about 'defensive Iranian nukes' are not the best judges of an inspection regime meant to prevent nukes from ever happening. In order to be able to evaluate an inspection regime one needs to have sympathy to the 'inspected country doesn't get nukes' position.
It's also Iranian troops on Israel's border and a hundred thousands missiles aimed at Israel. And 'angry yelling' by the Supreme Leader, absolute leader of the nation, endorsed by the Speaker of Parliament. You could also check out what the Iranian Chief of Staff said oh last week.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/...
Nope. The previous sanctions were so all-encompassing essentially nothing is left. And worse, the current idea is that Iran is expecting economic benefits in order to stay in the deal. If said leftover sanctions were effective, Iran would just leave! That means you need to find non-hurting hurting sanctions, and that's just an oxymoron too far.
Rouhani is just the same as the others, people called him 'moderate' just because it was convenient politically. The IRGC and other hardlines got oodles and oodles of money from the deal.
Please try reading the terms. The deal also enables imports of military equipments and removed some existing sanctions against missile development. The process of negotiation and the requirement of keeping the deal meant Iran had a free hand in Syria to kill hundreds of thousands (along with Assad and Russia), and will probably keeping getting a free hand from the supporters of the deal. And that is before we get into the nuclear issue...
Now that's just spin. How do you think Iran got to be an empire at all? Why are there Iranian troops on the borders of Israel and SA (thousands of km from Iran)? How did Iran got to control islands in the Persian Gulf (by attacking the UAE and grabbing them), how did it took over Lebanon (by killing the PM), why did the Iran-Iraq war lasted so long (Iran kicked out Iraq by 1982, but Khomeini was determined to export the revolution to Iraq s
Film at 11.
You are forgetting that Iraq had and used nerve agents on its own people and against Iran. Proven 100% true. Iran managed to get samples of the agent.
But keep believing that Iran is just a misunderstood libra.
Oh, Europe does know of that without my meagre help. And Iran knows they know. And they know that Iran knows etc. It's just that they were so desperate to sign the deal ($$$), they thought the risking Iranian nukes was worth it, especially if it happens after the leaders are out of office.
or Nehemiah Scudder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On--
Why should I trust US intelligence agencies, particularly after 2003 (or, for that matter, 1963)? And what makes you think that US-only sanctions would prevent Iran from making nukes? They were working on them before the deal was made, and making some progress.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Republican Party has already foisted George W. Bush on us, and now Drumph. They have a track record of nominating and electing duds. When will this track record really stick with voters?
Note that this goes far beyond ordinary Left versus Right politics. Disputes over what the optimal course in politics have been around forever. No, I'm talking about an institutional blindness to and acceptance of aberration, corruption and turmoil. The Republican Party has become the party of the ineffective, the party of lying, the party of incompetence. They cannot be trusted with positions of power because they cannot help themselves.
Think I'm overstating the case? Candidate John McCain (a worthy nominee) recruited Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, an extremely poor choice who's reputation has only dwindled over time. Even McCain now admits that Palin was a mistake.
Why should I trust US intelligence agencies, particularly after 2003 (or, for that matter, 1963)? And what makes you think that US-only sanctions would prevent Iran from making nukes? They were working on them before the deal was made, and making some progress.
2003? Oh, THAT... Shesh sir. You got to go with the best information you got sometimes, and they were not totally wrong in 2003, WMD's had existed in Iraq, Sadam was saying he still had them and the will to use them, AND we actually detected some in combat, they just where not tactically significant or released when we destroyed Sadam's ammo dumps. This when the UN supposedly removed all of them too...
So... Because they where wrong a couple of times you don't believe them now? Who's never been wrong?
But you don't have to take US intelligence at face value, just listen to the Iranians. They are clearly claiming that they never really stopped their efforts as agreed and you admit that they are working on them still. What value is this agreement if the Iranians don't follow it and we do?
US only sanctions may not stop them, but short of using force, what can the US do beyond that? I say we try sanctions and ask the UN and our allies to participate in them. Couldn't be any worse this way...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You don't know how this whole "President" thing works. When the President give his word, that's as the chief representative of his country.
Congressional approval? Don't make me laugh! This Congress couldn't agree on what brand of coffee to buy for the coffee room. Not to mention that the Republican party admitted publically that they were going to stymie any Obama initiative, no matter what it was, to deny Obama any victories. That's right, the Republicans were quite prepared to turn their backs on necessary national legislation merely to score points. Nor do I just mean the Iranian deal, the Republicans wanted to stymie everything.
Let's say you are correct though, and Obama obtained Congressional approval, and all the niceties were tied up in a bow like you say they should be. Big Giant Orange Head would revoke the agreement just to try to diminish Obama's record. Pure spite.
Patriots and Republicans. They don't make them like they used to.
Rightly or wrongly, the man does do what he says he'll do...
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
The Parent post is so wrong, it is Not Even Wrong. It's larded up with Stupid from stem to stern.
Your argument can be summed up as, "Iran signs deal with parties it does not do business with, containing clauses it does not accept, in order to achieve goals that agreement cannot possibly achieve. It does so by predicting the future with all the reliability of a coin toss."
Congratulations rahvin112, you win the Dumbest Internet Post Of The Day!
Trump and his supporters have a very short list of People Who Are Bad:
- China;
- Iran;
- Obama;
- The Clintons;
- Saudi Arabia (removed from list after they let Trump stroke their glowing balls);
Coming down hard on Iran lets Trump pretend he is a 'very stable genius' with 'all the best words'.
Please be specific about where I am supposed to disprove the existence of leprachauns.
You made the claim that the deal has "many many parts" and that "most" of them "directly involve gathering evidence that Iran is complying".
I asked you to detail 3 of those parts.
You made the claim. Put up or shut up.
I also asked you to include the part of the deal that prevents inspections ar certain locations.
Why? Because even if you went and pulled some language from the deal, you would invariably miss the giant loophole. No one is allowed to "gather evidence" at locations Iran doesn't want them to. Hint: Iran will not let people inspect locations where they're developing nukes.
I am not interested in racing with your moving goalposts. You talk about wanting three examples but leave yourself a giant loophole to claim sites are building nuclear weapons by just handwaving. I noticed what you did there.
I hate to be repetitive, but here's what will happen:
-the Europeans will pressure Iran to make concessions and a new deal.
-Britain, France, Germany don't want to lose any access to US markets nor suffer any economic consequences of dealing with Iran if the US decides to limit business.
-Iran, in simplest terms, has much more to lose than the US does
----US right satisfied Trump kept promise
----Iran undergoing political turmoil, lots of popular unrest
----US economy won't be hurt
----Iranian economy will be hurt
---Trump's "America First" thing was specifically about not getting the US into pointless wars, stationing troops abroad
----That means if he does anything it will be to drop a bunch of bombs strategically, probably not much else
----That's a real small "investment" and it will not be even a small challenge for the US military, but tangling with the US will cost Iran much more - no matter the outcome
----So, if Trump does anything it will be tactical military strikes.
----Iran does not want tactical US strikes. It has few ways to retaliate short of long-term war with the US.
--------Counterinsurgency and terrorism are possibilities, which would suck for the US...and Iran. Mostly Iran.
Trump has the leverage.
The old deal is gone, now he is going to negotiate from a position of strength for a new deal.
It will be a better deal.
Why is this not obvious to you?
I hate to be repetitive, but here's what will happen:
-the Europeans will pressure Iran to make concessions and a new deal.
They'll likely try to get Iran to do something pointless and symbolic to give Trump his win so he comes back on board "WITH THE GREATEST DEAL EVER!!!" But Iran won't bite, and the Europeans are not going to re-impose their sanctions unless Iran chooses to pull out of the deal, and maybe not even then.
-Britain, France, Germany don't want to lose any access to US markets nor suffer any economic consequences of dealing with Iran if the US decides to limit business.
You're confusing countries and businesses. European companies will still do business with Iran, they'll just be smaller companies who can afford to ignore the US for the opportunity to get big Iranian contracts.
----So, if Trump does anything it will be tactical military strikes.
----Iran does not want tactical US strikes. It has few ways to retaliate short of long-term war with the US.
--------Counterinsurgency and terrorism are possibilities, which would suck for the US...and Iran. Mostly Iran.
Trump has the leverage.
The old deal is gone, now he is going to negotiate from a position of strength for a new deal.
It will be a better deal.
Why is this not obvious to you?
I don't know if you've met many people before, but Iranians are people, and like most people they don't operate according to the assumptions you're laying out.
Imagine you're trying to make a deal with Bob. Now you don't like Bob, you don't think you should have to deal with Bob, but Bob is really screwing you over and won't stop until you agree to do some things you really don't want to do. But, with great reluctance, you make the deal and uphold your end faithfully.
Then Bob says a bunch of nasty things about you, insinuates you're not upholding the deal, and then breaks the deal and threatens to beat you up if you don't agree to an even worse deal.
Do you really think you're going to accept that even crappier deal with Bob? No, you're going to tell him to ****-off and you're probably even willing to take a beating from Bob because you know you're in the right. It's only once Bob holds a gun to your head that you actually take the worse deal, and then you'll never trust Bob again and stab him in the back the first chance you get.
Trump is using the same strategy he used in the business world, giant company bullies tiny company and tiny company acquiesces out of survival. His problem is that strategy doesn't work on the International stage, as strong as the US is, the power imbalance isn't extreme enough, and both the US and the President are subject to too many constraints to throw their weight around effectively enough to pull it off.
Trump has leverage, but less than Obama, and not enough to get a better deal.
I stole this Sig
I haven't moved any goal posts. I'm asking you to backup your original claim. You won't, because you can't.
You said "many many parts", so I asked for 3.
I'm pointing out the fact that the loophole exists in the deal. It's not my loophole - it's literally in the fucking deal.
This is the "death to america" country.
Whatever your opinion of US foreign policy, its hard to pretend Iran is an honest actor. I think most people knew Iran was lying from the start. The loosey goosey agreement they signed was a big red flag.
Those that mourn the loss of this agreement, it was never real in the first place. All that is happening is that we're acknowledging a fiction for what it always was.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Does he have the authority to do that?
Silly me. When has a lack of law or constitutionality kept this president or any recent president from doing what he wants?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
You go with the information you've got, and if you're rational you will be wary of extreme decisions based on shaky intelligence. It was pretty obvious in 2003 that the evidence that Saddam actually had WMD was shaky. (We know he'd had them earlier; we kept the invoices.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In this case the question is who do you choose to believe? Who do you find the most credible? Who has the most information?
IF the US intelligence services are saying Iran is lying and the IAEA is saying they are in compliance (while we know full well the IAEA hasn't inspected places we know about)... Who ya going to pick? You going to believe the guys who you KNOW don't have all the necessary information or the guys you suspect may not have the necessary information?
The US intelligence services have access to everything the IAEA has, PLUS likely additional sources of information. Unless you are alleging malice on their part (which you simply cannot prove), you've got to see why I pick the US intelligence services over the IAEA as they are better informed. Could they be wrong? Sure. However, it only makes sense to go with the opinion of those with the most information.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not only does this damage the U.S.'s international standing, but this will likely also hurt the Iranian moderates whom had to negotiate the nuclear deal while trying to overcome opposition from hardliners in their own government. This may strike a blow against those moderates in the Iranian government, whom now, to the hardliners opposed to diplomacy, will be more vulnerable to criticisms from within their government, which does no good when the international community needs level heads from all the sides.
For the U.S., as many have aptly pointed out in the comments, this bit of petty backtracking does not bode well for future diplomatic processes with states like North Korea, with their own share of hardliners, whom may be more reluctant in making overtures diplomatically; hopefully those talks continue productively.
Dumb and ignorant people think that the only evidence of nuclear work involves radiation.
Intelligent people know that 99% of the evidence somebody is dealing with nuclear material involves the production / usage of parts specifically designed to deal with the radiation. Parts that can be easily move to other places during the "grace period".
and bullshit nobody's buying. Wages are low. Nobody's feeling like unemployment's low because of that. Wages aren't increasing. Whoever told you that is lying (or you made it up). Google it. Wages have been stagnant. Economists have been debating why because you're not allowed to say the reason is the rich are hording all the money. Companies didn't hand out bonuses. Unions fought for wage increases, lost, and took small one time bonuses as a consolation prize.
Your narrative is objectively false. If you believe in it please stop. You're hurting yourself and everyone around you. If you're lying in the service of the ultra wealthy then they will turn on you. You are not one of them, nor will you ever be. You can be one of us. But if you stand against us then we'll all be cut down by their scythes or made chattel.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You mean Israel who still do not acknowledge that they have nuclear weapons are complaining about Iran not being completely clear about their nuclear program before the deal? All that information in Bibi's presentation was old hat - from around 2008 I believe.
And look, building a nuclear bomb is not actually difficult. A chap in the US recreated the Nagasaki bomb perfectly from file photos, in his backyard. The hard part is enriching the uranium and the equipment to do that is not portable. The radiation is not easy to mask, either, and does not dissipate quickly. So military sites can be inspected with a 3 week lead time, but that's not enough to move a centrifuge or for evidence of high radiation levels to disappear.
And Iran do not want a war. Their current adult generation is the one that lived through a time where the oldest class at school were pulled out, given guns, and sent to the front in the Iran-Iraq war, then next month the next oldest class were sent - a war where the US backed the Iraqi invasion and helped the Iraqis deploy chemical weapons. They do not want to do that again and their leadership does not trust the US at all. This is not going to help that situation at all
Frankly, after the Russian annexation of Crimea and meddling in Donbass, no country in the world is ever going to give up nuclear weapons again. Ukraine did it in exchange for security guarantees from the UK, US and Russia - Russia invaded and annexed territory and the other signatories shrugged and said "Oh, it was a memorandum, not a treaty so, you know, tough luck". Now NK have nukes and are being treated like real boys. What message is that sending out?
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Sounds more like something President Trump would say, doesn't it?!
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Except that I don't have to pick one thing or another to believe whole-heartedly. I can be uncertain. Wars of conquest should not be started over doubtful information.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How's this become a "War of conquest"? All we are currently doing is withdrawing from a non-binding agreement based on the intelligence we have. This is NOT the same as a war.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Once again, you are making stuff up to support your dumb ideas. I am perfectly capable of meeting that bar, and you know it. I choose not to because it is tangential to your main contention, so you obviously are not going to budge an inch if I comply. You are displaying the classic troll gambit of making a fantastic claim, and then asserting that somebody else has to jump through hoops with evidence before you will deign to display a little honesty.
tl;dr -- If you actually have an evidence-based argument, the burden is on you to provide it. Adults understand that.
I am perfectly capable of meeting that bar, and you know it. I choose not to because
LOOOOOOOOOOOL!
Why even come back with that shit? I had already forgotten about you and your stupidity, yet you keep showing up and replying to remind me of how dumb you are!
You can't even follow a simple sentence to understand that you made a claim and can't back it up.
"because they're totally not doing shit over there, nope, nosiree."
What's this? Oh, it is a claim that you claim you never made. You have just been proven wrong.
But, of course, you are too cowardly to even think about your own words, just like I expected.
The Constitution of the United States of America and its treaties with other nations? Mere political masturbation!
-sexconker
I don't understand the basis for this. Why are you dismissing the constitution and its treaties as mere political masturbation?
The basis is that someone pointed out to you that it wasn't a treaty, and you followed up with "Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about political masturbation.".
But I think you know that. And you've known it for the past 4.5 days that it took you to come back with your response (which is to merely to quote my post and turn it on me). Anyone and everyone can read the chain of comments showing your stupidity.
I was thinking of the 2003 war. Backing out of the Iran agreement has less severe consequences, true.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes