WWTBAM Bored

Based on claims of definitive proof (based on intelligence from Israel) that Iran is still pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, and stating that Iran has been meddling in the affairs of other nations with money gained from the lifting of sanctions (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.), and support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. Sanctions will be reinstated and additional ones will be added, including threats to impose sanctions upon any nation "helping" Iran's nuclear program.

earendel wrote:Based on claims of definitive proof (based on intelligence from Israel) that Iran is still pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, and stating that Iran has been meddling in the affairs of other nations with money gained from the lifting of sanctions (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.), and support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. Sanctions will be reinstated and additional ones will be added, including threats to impose sanctions upon any nation "helping" Iran's nuclear program.

1) Iran has already said they will resume their nuclear program once Trump cancels the deal.

2) Only Trump would take something as serious as a nuclear arms agreement and turn it into the equivalent of a commercial for The Apprentice ("tune it tonight when Donald Trump announces whether or not we pull out of the deal...")

3) If North Korea is actually serious about coming to an agreement about its nuclear program, I doubt this is going to make them feel more confident about anything Trump says. On the other hand, if, as I strongly believe, the North Koreans are playing games and stalling for time, Trump has given them all the excuse they need to back out any time they want and blame the U.S.

Don't know what I think of this. Iran made no change to their rhetoric when this deal took place, (Death to Israel and America!) but they gladly accepted the cash that obama gave them. Israel continues to give credible evidence that they are cheating on the agreement anyway, but I also have most of the rational concerns minus the trump hatred that AH has.

Look for oil/gas prices to go even higher.

Good for Trump. Good for the world.

earendel wrote:Based on claims of definitive proof (based on intelligence from Israel) that Iran is still pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, and stating that Iran has been meddling in the affairs of other nations with money gained from the lifting of sanctions (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.), and support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. Sanctions will be reinstated and additional ones will be added, including threats to impose sanctions upon any nation "helping" Iran's nuclear program.

I think the definite proof was that Iran was working on nuclear weapons years ago, so they lied when they said their nuclear program was peaceful. It's hard to prove Iran's cheating now, but they're certainly doing all those other nasty things. Also, Trump threatened any country that helps Iran's weapons program, but not nuclear activity allowed by the agreement.

Considerate of the President to delay his announcement so we could see uly as a Plus One.

jarnon wrote: Considerate of the President to delay his announcement so we could see uly as a Plus One.

Please remember than come November 3, 2020.

BackInTex wrote:Good for Trump. Good for the world.

I'm not exactly sure what part of the world this is good for, other than the hardliners in Trump's inner circle. Certainly not the part of the world that wants to avoid nuclear war, or the part of the world that wants to maintain U.S. prestige and position of leadership. And the deal was popular with a large portion of the public as well.

The one good thing to come out of this is that this will put that inane talk about Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize on the back burner for a while.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Good for Trump. Good for the world.

I'm not exactly sure what part of the world this is good for, other than the hardliners in Trump's inner circle. Certainly not the part of the world that wants to avoid nuclear war, or the part of the world that wants to maintain U.S. prestige and position of leadership. And the deal was popular with a large portion of the public as well.

The one good thing to come out of this is that this will put that inane talk about Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize on the back burner for a while.

The sky is blue, not orange. It doesn't matter how many times you say it.

I'm talking about the entire world, including Iran.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Good for Trump. Good for the world.

I'm not exactly sure what part of the world this is good for, other than the hardliners in Trump's inner circle. Certainly not the part of the world that wants to avoid nuclear war, or the part of the world that wants to maintain U.S. prestige and position of leadership. And the deal was popular with a large portion of the public as well.

The one good thing to come out of this is that this will put that inane talk about Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize on the back burner for a while.

I'm talking about the entire world, including Iran.

After publicly signing a memorandum to violate the Iran nuclear deal by reinstating the “highest levels” of U.S. sanctions against the country, President Trump was asked a very basic question by a reporter who was in attendance at the White House for the ceremony.

“Mr. President, how does this America safer?” she said. “How does this make American safer?”

Trump gathered his thoughts for a moment, then just restated the question in the form of an assertion.

“This will make America much safer,” he said, before getting up for the table on which he signed the memorandum.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-iran-nu ... b75b12305/

I have yet to hear one person outside of Trump's inner circle, the usual crowd of enablers like Flock and Hannity, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who needs a win almost as much as Trump (and whose secret intelligence seems to be the only "source" documenting Iranian violations) who believes this makes the world safer, let alone explained just how we are safer and what's going to happen next.

silverscreenselect wrote:I have yet to hear one person outside of Trump's inner circle, the usual crowd of enablers like Flock and Hannity, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who needs a win almost as much as Trump (and whose secret intelligence seems to be the only "source" documenting Iranian violations) who believes this makes the world safer, let alone explained just how we are safer and what's going to happen next.

Khalid bin Salman wrote:The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fully supports the measures taken by @POTUS with regards to the JCPOA. we always had reservations with regards to sunset clauses, ballistic missiles program, and Iran’s support for terrorism in the region.

Prince Khalid is the son of King Salman, brother of Crown Prince Mohammad, and Ambassador to the U.S.

BackInTex wrote:Good for Trump. Good for the world.

Why?

This question is serious, not rhetorical. As I understand it, there's no evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the deal, so the price the U.S. will pay for this is obvious. It will be much harder for a very long time to get countries to agree to future deals with us, in virtually any sphere, because our potential deal partners can say, "Mr. President, I completely believe that you are sincere and committed to fulfilling the United States's obligations under this deal. But what assurance can you give me that your successor won't pull a Trump?" And of course, we're not doing ourselves any favors with our European allies, and what goes around, comes around. But this, to my mind, is secondary -- I'm much more concerned with America being seen as an unreliable dealing partner, not just during this Administration (that ship sailed a long time ago), but in future Administrations.

So from where I sit, to persuade me this is a good move it's not enough just to say that this wasn't a good deal for the U.S. I want to know why the deal was so bad for the U.S. that it's worth paying the price I've outlined above.

By the way, I don't believe for a second that Donny gave these considerations a moment's thought. I'm quite confident that his primary reason for blowing up the deal was that it was something done by President Obama, and since he's willing to retrade deals and breach contracts left and right, I don't believe he cares one whit about the effect these actions have on our ability to make future deals, even if he has considered the issue. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I'm willing to be persuaded that this is one of those occasions. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Good for Trump. Good for the world.

Why?

This question is serious, not rhetorical. As I understand it, there's no evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the deal, so the price the U.S. will pay for this is obvious. It will be much harder for a very long time to get countries to agree to future deals with us, in virtually any sphere, because our potential deal partners can say, "Mr. President, I completely believe that you are sincere and committed to fulfilling the United States's obligations under this deal. But what assurance can you give me that your successor won't pull a Trump?" And of course, we're not doing ourselves any favors with our European allies, and what goes around, comes around. But this, to my mind, is secondary -- I'm much more concerned with America being seen as an unreliable dealing partner, not just during this Administration (that ship sailed a long time ago), but in future Administrations.

So from where I sit, to persuade me this is a good move it's not enough just to say that this wasn't a good deal for the U.S. I want to know why the deal was so bad for the U.S. that it's worth paying the price I've outlined above.

By the way, I don't believe for a second that Donny gave these considerations a moment's thought. I'm quite confident that his primary reason for blowing up the deal was that it was something done by President Obama, and since he's willing to retrade deals and breach contracts left and right, I don't believe he cares one whit about the effect these actions have on our ability to make future deals, even if he has considered the issue. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I'm willing to be persuaded that this is one of those occasions. --Bob

Why do you ascribe more credit or truth or whatever to Iran over ANY potus? They lie. It's their deal. Deception.

I have yet to hear one person outside of Trump's inner circle, the usual crowd of enablers like Flock and Hannity, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who needs a win almost as much as Trump (and whose secret intelligence seems to be the only "source" documenting Iranian violations) who believes this makes the world safer, let alone explained just how we are safer and what's going to happen next.

Flock you, AH. I guess it's too much to ask of you to actually read what I posted, much less comprehend it.

"Mr. President, I completely believe that you are sincere and committed to fulfilling the United States's obligations under this deal. But what assurance can you give me that your successor won't pull a Trump?

Maybe if Obama had gone through Congress rather than doing it with a phone and a pen, trump wouldn't be able to overturn it with a phone and a pen. I said many times here, that what obama was unilaterally doing with executive orders sounded good to you because you agreed with it. But I warned you he was establishing a precedent that would really bite us all in the ass when someone who we didn't agree with continued that precedent. This Iran treaty should have been a TREATY. Then only Congress could pull out of it.

Hate to say I told you so, bob-tel, but I told you so.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Good for Trump. Good for the world.

Why?

This question is serious, not rhetorical. As I understand it, there's no evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the deal, so the price the U.S. will pay for this is obvious. It will be much harder for a very long time to get countries to agree to future deals with us, in virtually any sphere, because our potential deal partners can say, "Mr. President, I completely believe that you are sincere and committed to fulfilling the United States's obligations under this deal. But what assurance can you give me that your successor won't pull a Trump?" And of course, we're not doing ourselves any favors with our European allies, and what goes around, comes around. But this, to my mind, is secondary -- I'm much more concerned with America being seen as an unreliable dealing partner, not just during this Administration (that ship sailed a long time ago), but in future Administrations.

So from where I sit, to persuade me this is a good move it's not enough just to say that this wasn't a good deal for the U.S. I want to know why the deal was so bad for the U.S. that it's worth paying the price I've outlined above.

By the way, I don't believe for a second that Donny gave these considerations a moment's thought. I'm quite confident that his primary reason for blowing up the deal was that it was something done by President Obama, and since he's willing to retrade deals and breach contracts left and right, I don't believe he cares one whit about the effect these actions have on our ability to make future deals, even if he has considered the issue. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I'm willing to be persuaded that this is one of those occasions. --Bob

Why do you ascribe more credit or truth or whatever to Iran over ANY potus? They lie. It's their deal. Deception.

Because I know that Donny is a liar -- he's proved that over and over again. As for Iran, if they've breached the agreement, presumably we (or our allies) have some evidence of that breach. I haven't seen that evidence. What I've seen is evidence that they lied about past purposes of their nuclear program, but I frankly don't care about those lies because no one believed them at the time.

If you're saying that we should never enter any deal with Iran because the country's leadership can't be trusted, under the current Administration we're in no position to make that argument. And in any event the same argument would apply (with more force) to North Korea.

So what is it about this particular deal that you think justifies the United States demonstrating that it will not honor its international commitments? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Why?

This question is serious, not rhetorical. As I understand it, there's no evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the deal, so the price the U.S. will pay for this is obvious. It will be much harder for a very long time to get countries to agree to future deals with us, in virtually any sphere, because our potential deal partners can say, "Mr. President, I completely believe that you are sincere and committed to fulfilling the United States's obligations under this deal. But what assurance can you give me that your successor won't pull a Trump?" And of course, we're not doing ourselves any favors with our European allies, and what goes around, comes around. But this, to my mind, is secondary -- I'm much more concerned with America being seen as an unreliable dealing partner, not just during this Administration (that ship sailed a long time ago), but in future Administrations.

So from where I sit, to persuade me this is a good move it's not enough just to say that this wasn't a good deal for the U.S. I want to know why the deal was so bad for the U.S. that it's worth paying the price I've outlined above.

By the way, I don't believe for a second that Donny gave these considerations a moment's thought. I'm quite confident that his primary reason for blowing up the deal was that it was something done by President Obama, and since he's willing to retrade deals and breach contracts left and right, I don't believe he cares one whit about the effect these actions have on our ability to make future deals, even if he has considered the issue. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I'm willing to be persuaded that this is one of those occasions. --Bob

Why do you ascribe more credit or truth or whatever to Iran over ANY potus? They lie. It's their deal. Deception.

Because I know that Donny is a liar -- he's proved that over and over again. As for Iran, if they've breached the agreement, presumably we (or our allies) have some evidence of that breach. I haven't seen that evidence. What I've seen is evidence that they lied about past purposes of their nuclear program, but I frankly don't care about those lies because no one believed them at the time.

If you're saying that we should never enter any deal with Iran because the country's leadership can't be trusted, under the current Administration we're in no position to make that argument. And in any event the same argument would apply (with more force) to North Korea.

So what is it about this particular deal that you think justifies the United States demonstrating that it will not honor its international commitments? --Bob

Cause I said so.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

"Mr. President, I completely believe that you are sincere and committed to fulfilling the United States's obligations under this deal. But what assurance can you give me that your successor won't pull a Trump?

Maybe if Obama had gone through Congress rather than doing it with a phone and a pen, trump wouldn't be able to overturn it with a phone and a pen. I said many times here, that what obama was unilaterally doing with executive orders sounded good to you because you agreed with it. But I warned you he was establishing a precedent that would really bite us all in the ass when someone who we didn't agree with continued that precedent. This Iran treaty should have been a TREATY. Then only Congress could pull out of it.

Hate to say I told you so, bob-tel, but I told you so.

This was going to be my response until I saw this. You are correct. Our government was designed to be trusted. Obama went around that design. He was not shy about letting everyone know his disdain for this country, its founders, and those of us who make it run.

Good for Trump. Good for the world.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: Why do you ascribe more credit or truth or whatever to Iran over ANY potus? They lie. It's their deal. Deception.

Because I know that Donny is a liar -- he's proved that over and over again. As for Iran, if they've breached the agreement, presumably we (or our allies) have some evidence of that breach. I haven't seen that evidence. What I've seen is evidence that they lied about past purposes of their nuclear program, but I frankly don't care about those lies because no one believed them at the time.

If you're saying that we should never enter any deal with Iran because the country's leadership can't be trusted, under the current Administration we're in no position to make that argument. And in any event the same argument would apply (with more force) to North Korea.

So what is it about this particular deal that you think justifies the United States demonstrating that it will not honor its international commitments? --Bob

Cause I said so.

I'm asking a serious question here. I don't know the details of the agreement well enough to have a firm opinion. I certainly have no confidence at all in this Administration's judgment and I think Pompeo and (particularly) Bolton are far too willing to resort to military force, but I'm willing to be persuaded (by facts) that Donny happened to get this one right (or at least is close enough to be defensible). --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Because I know that Donny is a liar -- he's proved that over and over again. As for Iran, if they've breached the agreement, presumably we (or our allies) have some evidence of that breach. I haven't seen that evidence. What I've seen is evidence that they lied about past purposes of their nuclear program, but I frankly don't care about those lies because no one believed them at the time.

If you're saying that we should never enter any deal with Iran because the country's leadership can't be trusted, under the current Administration we're in no position to make that argument. And in any event the same argument would apply (with more force) to North Korea.

So what is it about this particular deal that you think justifies the United States demonstrating that it will not honor its international commitments? --Bob

Cause I said so.

I'm asking a serious question here. I don't know the details of the agreement well enough to have a firm opinion. I certainly have no confidence at all in this Administration's judgment and I think Pompeo and (particularly) Bolton are far too willing to resort to military force, but I'm willing to be persuaded (by facts) that Donny happened to get this one right (or at least is close enough to be defensible). --Bob

I guess stay tuned.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Because I know that Donny is a liar -- he's proved that over and over again. As for Iran, if they've breached the agreement, presumably we (or our allies) have some evidence of that breach. I haven't seen that evidence. What I've seen is evidence that they lied about past purposes of their nuclear program, but I frankly don't care about those lies because no one believed them at the time.

If you're saying that we should never enter any deal with Iran because the country's leadership can't be trusted, under the current Administration we're in no position to make that argument. And in any event the same argument would apply (with more force) to North Korea.

So what is it about this particular deal that you think justifies the United States demonstrating that it will not honor its international commitments? --Bob

Cause I said so.

I'm asking a serious question here. I don't know the details of the agreement well enough to have a firm opinion. I certainly have no confidence at all in this Administration's judgment and I think Pompeo and (particularly) Bolton are far too willing to resort to military force, but I'm willing to be persuaded (by facts) that Donny happened to get this one right (or at least is close enough to be defensible). --Bob

You are not a serious person, bob-tel. Your posts here are not based on fact, but your own opinions, and just drip hatred of trump, which overrides everything else.

SSS seems to question how this will make us safer. But he failed to ask that of Obama's deal.

Anyone who thinks Iran is a "nice guy" is a fool. Anyone who thinks that giving Iran $billions of cash did not put us and the rest of the world in more danger is a fool.

The "deal" was signed in July of 2015.
The US Government 2016 report on state sponsors of terrorism

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2016

There is a lot of specific examples, not from Fox, but in this report from our own US Department of State. One can click the link to read them, or not. I don't need to quote them all.

Anyone who thinks that much of the money Iran used to sponsor terrorism in 2016 and 2017 did not come from the $billions Obama sent them is a fool.

Someone said at the time (either SSS or Bob#s) that the money was Iran's and the World Court said so. The gun used by Nikolas Cruz was his, until the government decided him having it was unsafe. He got it back because his father thought "this is his".

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: Cause I said so.

I'm asking a serious question here. I don't know the details of the agreement well enough to have a firm opinion. I certainly have no confidence at all in this Administration's judgment and I think Pompeo and (particularly) Bolton are far too willing to resort to military force, but I'm willing to be persuaded (by facts) that Donny happened to get this one right (or at least is close enough to be defensible). --Bob

You are not a serious person, bob-tel. Your posts here are not based on fact, but your own opinions, and just drip hatred of trump, which overrides everything else.

So I'll count you as another person who's unable to explain what about the deal was so bad that breaking it is worth paying the price of lost American credibility. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:..and just drip hatred of trump,

"just a drip"

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I am not a serious person, Bob. My posts here are not based on fact, but my own opinions, and just drip hatred of all liberals, which overrides everything else.

Fixed it for you