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 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.
If you realize that this is a complex issue then why would you suggest such a simplistic and short-sighted action? Also, we don't produce anywhere near the amount of oil needed to match our consumption.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...
...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
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.
Agreed. The main reason I slashdot is I'm tired of reading main stream news. This was my escape, a way to read interesting articles without all the other noise. Not anymore. Stop slowly killing yourself /.
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.
The US absolutely can not produce all the oil it needs domestically, even with fracking. The US consumes approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day and imports just over half of that. Doubling domestic oil production is just not something that the US can do. Even if it could (it can't) that production would require a huge investment and would be very short-lived.
More to your meaning, the US could probably live without imports from the middle-east (about 2.6 million barrels of oil per day). It would be immensely painful. Certainly, many many countries would like to see the US pull out of the region, but I think US interests in the region have as much to do with the Jewish community's strong connection to Israel as oil interests.
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.
That last bit is an even as dumber idea as the first bit since both Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons, both are run by fanatical fascist lunatics and nuclear fallout does not respect national borders. Oh, and if you really think the future lies in oil, coal and gas I've got some shares in a buggy whip company you might be interested in.
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
Hahaha! Please clarify...it almost sounds like you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
I just don't have any faith in our government to navigate a complex issue like this in a way that would yield a better result that what would naturally occur. My family has been in the oil business since the 70s. That link doesn't reflect available oil only current purchasing patterns. Trust me, the issue isn't supply it is demand. Production companies in the US are sitting on insane reserves and there are.. reasons they haven't drilled yet. Personally I don't want a bunch of new drilling in my backyard and would prefer cleaner alternatives but it is there.
Um... or they might be for it because it's working now? There are lots of potential reasons.
-
61% percent of congress both democrats and republicans said "Nah dawg, no way, no deal" so Obama did it without approval.
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.
Here's a shocking idea: How about we stop consuming a ton of shit for nothing?
Obama did the same thing with net neutrality, and just look at the mess we have now because of that. We had the supermajority in the senate and majority in the house, but he didn't push for a law.
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.
So I saw a TRS-80 at the Smithsonian museum several years ago.
I got mine in February of 1978.
I wrote articles for Kilobaud Microcomputing back in 1980.
How'd you get your start?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
I guess you're not aware of the Green River oil shale that has about 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to run 100% of current US demand for nearly 3 centuries. All it takes is a desire to get it.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It would not be too much for me, but ask the American people.
They have spoken.
So it is written, so let it be done.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
If you realize that this is a complex issue then why would you suggest such a simplistic and short-sighted action? Also, we don't produce anywhere near the amount of oil needed to match our consumption.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...
Um.... Well, to though a few bombs into the fray...
I think we have enough fossil fuels to survive over in our hemisphere. We might have to alter a few things like using more NG than we do now, but we could make a go of it.
That's not to say I'm for letting the middle east just self destruct nor should we arm a couple of proxies over there and let them do it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We tried doing that with Syria, letting them just sort their own shit out. The resulting civil war led to a refugee crisis and the rapid growth of ISIS, and then let Russia expand its military reach into the Mediterranean.
A Saudi-Iran war would result in a refugee crisis bigger than any since WW2, an oil crisis bigger than any since ever, and 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.
Peace, if possible, is a vastly preferable alternative.
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?
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"
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
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
I can answer the question of "why"... Obama was powerless to attract 2/3rds of ANY Senate vote, either way, and he and Kerry needed a LEGACY to show for that 8 years.
Obama put it this way... "I have a pen and a phone" so that's what he used. Unfortunately, Obama's pen and phone doesn't make a treaty with anybody.
"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.
Isolationist
I.e., retracting somewhat from globalism. Compared to the world, the US is hardly isolationist.
America deciding everything for everyone? "Fuck you, America" ...maybe America isnt the problem here.
America not deciding everything for everyone? "Fuck you, America"
nationalist
The US has always been nationalist, retard. Retards like you help validate the nationalists.
Islamophobic
Not any more than most Western countries. There are no laws against Muslims, unlike say, France. Muslims dont form ghettos in the US.
anti-immigration
The US is actually enforcing its existing laws regarding illegal immigration. Come here legally... gee, what a concept. Fuck you, America.
anti-refugee
The rise of conservative parties across Europe show refugees, entering without documentation and from terrorist-ridden places, isnt popular in quite a bit of the Western world.
intolerant of its own people
The US is more tolerant than ever, but reporting has increased exponentially, and it's quality has seen the inverse. But gimme some more of dat juicy 24-hour news feed - I'm so informed.
warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed
Been hearing this for a loooooooong time.
I mean, at least try to insult American well.
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.
Let's face it, USA evangelicals are growing ever more Taliban-like: xenophobic, anti-diplomacy, anti-education, anti-subject-expert, and zealotic.
Table-ized A.I.
Yep, nothing to do with anything except cancelling anything Obama implemented.
It's almost as if that Lion King joke stuck in Trumps craw.
The US absolutely can not produce all the oil it needs domestically, even with fracking. The US consumes approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day and imports just over half of that. Doubling domestic oil production is just not something that the US can do. Even if it could (it can't) that production would require a huge investment and would be very short-lived.
More to your meaning, the US could probably live without imports from the middle-east (about 2.6 million barrels of oil per day). It would be immensely painful. Certainly, many many countries would like to see the US pull out of the region, but I think US interests in the region have as much to do with the Jewish community's strong connection to Israel as oil interests.
Our total net imports is between 3 and 4 million barrels per day. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wttntus2&f=4
We can close this completely by moving our trucking industry to natural gas with engines that are better for the environment now. There would be short term pain with higher prices until the world rebalances but we can certainly do it.
I hope Iran, Russia, China, and the EU pick up the slack and prosper from trade deals with each other.
Iran? Nope. Too much fundamentalism. Russia? Nope. They've been empire-building since before the USA was even a thing. China? Nope. They'd like to rule the world, too. They're not going to play nice with Russia.
Truth is, America is still the world's most benevolent superpower. If China or Russia were where we are, things would be even worse. That doesn't mean don't fix the problems with America, but it does mean have some perspective.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The US absolutely can not produce all the oil it needs domestically, even with fracking.
Not only can it (see sibling comments) but it doesn't need to, either. We have more than enough unused land (crappy land, too, not the good stuff) to produce 100% of our transportation fuel from algae feedstocks with current technology. That accounts for 71 percent of our oil consumption...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.'"
He also appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC, albeit not to lead it. It's almost like Democrats didn't give a shit about net neutrality, and were just paying it lip service so that people wouldn't realize they're sucking corporate cock as voluminously as they can manage.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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/
It's a complex issue where all sides act like utter novices. They may not be utter novices but it's how they act. If they're not so stupid, then there are sinister motives behind the actions that continually keep the heat up. Anytime it seems like things might be slightly cooler, someone says something to inflame it all again, or builds new settlements, or shoots off a rocket, or invades someone, or assassinates the person advocating for peace, etc.
And why is the US even in it at all? Why are we screwing up other countries when we can't even manage to figure out our own?
Oh I wouldn't ever assume that we couldn't do it. I believe that this country can literally do almost anything when properly motivated. But when it comes to giving up a lot of comforts and cheap goods for our complete withdrawal from middle east affairs? I think that's an impossible sell.
As I mentioned to another poster. I don't think the US populace is willing to make this kind of sacrifice just so we can extricate ourselves out of middle east affairs. I also feel that a lot of people here wouldn't do it based on moral and religious grounds.
I don't think half the people in the US even voted.
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.
Yep, and watch the GOP primaries (hell, even the Democrats are at, it now that they understand the formula) and observe the authoritarian bitches who come out at the other end.
It's what Americans want. They want to be great again because they know goddam well they aren't great now.
Say hello to the 1950s, Cold War and all.
However, in keeping with Opposite Day, America will have the Iron Curtain.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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)
I did assembly on the Z80. It was a mental nightmare. I never ran across the 6502 but I do recall the religious wars back then.
BYTE was awesome and 80 Micro.
You know: Radio Shack (Tandy) had no idea what their computer could do.
Same for the Apple I.
Hobbyists from all over were schooling those companies.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
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.
I'll quote Nassim Taleb here: "Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).
The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right."
IYI, by the way, stands for Intellectual-Yet-Idiot.
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
This again. Di you know anything about oil shale? Hint: it's not the same thing as shale oil. Oil shale needs to be mined and economically accessing the Green River Formation requires 'in situ' technologies that don't even exist yet... and that's just the start: oil shale is a horrible, inefficient mess like oil-bearing tar sands.
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?
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.
produce 100% of our transportation fuel from algae feedstocks with current technology.
No. Fuel from algae is no where near commercial viability. Current costs are about $35 per gallon, a factor of ten too high, and little progress is happening.
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!
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.
Did you read the page I linked? It includes costs and techniques to extract that oil. Seriously - give it a read, you might learn something!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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.
It was *not* unconstitutional.
It was not ratified as a treaty, because it wasn't one. Countries--the US included--can and do make agreements that aren't treaties all the time.
(In this case, the countries involved included the US, Iran, the EU, and all 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. Oddly enough, every single one of them wants the agreement to continue, except one. But of course, anything Donald Trump says is automatically right, and therefore the leaders of most of the world's other leading nations are all wrong. *facepalm*)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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/
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/
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.
Did you read the last sentence of the first paragraph, which suggests the detailed techniques do not exist. If you read something, read it all, not just the parts that agree with your opinion.
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.
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.
In the mid-20th century and earlier, America would have been described by people like you as the above (with the possible exception of warmongering). The America that was a first-world country, the "old" America that you apparently thought was great, that wasn't a "shithole country", that was 90% white (which was EXACTLY what the founding fathers and the founding stock of America had intended). Or do you really think the Americans of, say, 1900 would have been:
- Keen in foreign political involvement?
- Not having national pride?
- Wanting Muslims to immigrate into their country?
- Wanting Mexicans to immigrate into their country?
- Wanting large numbers of third world refugees to immigrate into their country?
- Completely tolerant of everyone else in America?
- Free of high-level political corruption?
So can we just hear it from you, officially: you think America was a shithole country for its entire history with the exception of ~50 years between the 60s and now, during which the idea of America being some kind of multiculti globalist open-borders state was successfully promoted as normative?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
LOL no you are not.
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.
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.
Well said, Ivan. You have earned your vodka today.
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.
Did you read the page I linked?
Hell, no;you did and look at the nonsense you were spouting, (BTW, folks, that was the requisite 2-space gap after the period though I highly recommend larger gaps just before the period... and never make eye). contact).
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
No. Fuel from algae is no where near commercial viability. Current costs are about $35 per gallon, a factor of ten too high, and little progress is happening.
That's only what it costs if you try to do it the frankly dumb way, where you do it in sealed reactors with bioengineered algae. The smart way is to do it in open ponds, and let nature colonize them. They figured this shit out at Sandia NREL in the 1980s . They had a program to study breeding superior strains of algae, but they got outcompeted by random colonization every single time. The total volume of lipids produced is higher when you just let some strain nature has already produced do the work. As a side benefit, everything that's not a lipid can go into the ABE process for making Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline which we would already be able to buy if BP and DuPont's company Butamax hadn't sued GE Energy Venture's GEVO to prevent them from selling it to us. (To save you time: The lawsuit was on the basis of a patent which should have been rejected for obviousness, which was furthermore developed at a public university, and therefore partly with our tax money.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I believe you are correct. Like it or not, we are involved in the middle east and our national interests are in keeping things stable as best we can.
However, the policies that best accomplish stability in the region may not be exactly intuitive or clear given the complexities of government, religion and economics of the place. Where I'd prefer to take a hands off approach, concentrating on providing transportation security while staying disengaged in local issues, this may not be possible all the time.
I think there will be times when we won't really have a choice but to intervene with force. Iran clearly is the biggest risk here, and although it could be argued we caused this problem by eliminating Iraq and ending the economic sanctions, we may need to step in. I sure hope not, it could be a bloody mess, but somehow I think our two forays into Iraq tells me it would be quick and decisive should it be necessary.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You talk about perspective and American "benevolence"?
Compared to Russia or China? Look at how they treat their own fucking people for a quick glimpse into how they'd treat the world. You think the USA treats its own citizens badly? I mean, sure, it does. But China and Russia do much worse. People are always banging on about our prison populations, and yeah, they're offensive. But look at how many people China executes. And Russia? People are still trying to get the fuck out of there. Even up here in bumfuck I've met Russians who bailed out when Putin came to power, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
Yes, a SINGLE geophysicist's opinion piece in Slate magazine claims it doesn't work; let's ignore all the other references in that section that say it can, the dozens of others who say it can and even include cost projections to get it working.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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 is at it [...] just like that time the Third Reich was attacked by Poland
Nothing to see here. Move on.
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
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.
How many of those words apply to Iran, Russia and China? DOH!
Just another day in Paradise
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.
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
How do you know that?
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.
I have read around the issue in the past. A single geologist's opinion is being quoted on Wikipedia, but many share that opinion. The suggestion that it is exploitable may eventually be true, but it's probably only economic if oil is over $100 a barrel in current dollars. It may not even be capable of producing more energy than it takes to extract, in which case it would be useful only as a store of excess energy from other sources (wind, hydro, etc.) for niche transportation requirements, compared to electric, or as a source of chemical feedstock. Whether you are talking oil, or renewables, it is wise not to be too panglossian.
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).
Apparently it can be economic at $50/barrel. The reality is - we do have the ability to meet 100% of our own petroleum needs for a few centuries, we choose to use oil from predominantly Canada, Mexico, and ourselves (we get very little from the Middle East; most of that goes to Europe and Asia). But we do have the resources here, already.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
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
Rightly or wrongly, the man does do what he says he'll do...
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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.
No, just the prevailing wind patterns. Wind will blow wherever the hell it wants to, but for nuclear fallout planning purposes, it's normal to use prevailing winds.
I'm breaking the rule of not applying to AC since you make a valid point: how do you know it's not the intellectual equivalent of leftwingers yelling 'racist'? The answer is in the statistics: the Nassim-labeled IYI has a long history of getting complex things wrong (which is why he listed them).
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.
Apparently it can be economic at $50/barrel.
That's shale oil, not oil shale. Different things.
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.
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