Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hst2

Trump to "decertify" Iran deal

110 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, mcorioles said:

Everyone if begrudgingly admits Iran will get the bomb and this deal just delays it.

 

Trump is right on this....,,we get nothing in return.

Iran came to the table because the international sanctions were killing them. The idea behind this deal is to reintegrate Iran into the world economy. When the deal expires, they will have a choice to make. Pursue nukes again and risk returning to economic isolation or continue to be an integrated member of the world economy. In buying time, it also creates the admittedly slim possibility that the domestic situation in Iran could dramatically change.

Will this actually work? I don’t know. I think it is unlikely. I think it’s worth trying though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

Iran came to the table because the international sanctions were killing them. The idea behind this deal is to reintegrate Iran into the world economy. When the deal expires, they will have a choice to make. Pursue nukes again and risk returning to economic isolation or continue to be an integrated member of the world economy. In buying time, it also creates the admittedly slim possibility that the domestic situation in Iran could dramatically change.

Will this actually work? I don’t know. I think it is unlikely. I think it’s worth trying though.

Iran has kept to the terms of the treaty, i.e. not pursuing nuclear weapon development.

Mattis and Tillerson have advised not to decertify, as have the other signatories. So why is Trump dead set on this?

Easy. Obama cooties. Like the birth control thing. He can't create any successful legislation so he soothes himself by undoing Obama things.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

My comment made perfect sense.  You just need to take off those powder blue glasses through which you too often view the world.  

 

hst2 whined about the failure of the Bush and Trump administrations to resolve the mess in the ME, skipping completely over the 8 long years between the two.  I merely posted about my interests in those years.

I was referring to Bush's approach to North Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mcorioles said:

Except you I and HST already said they are getting nukes regardless of the deal.

You know this already.

Actually, I did not say that. It's possible, but not inevitable, however, there are plenty of hardliners in Iran, Trumo's counterparts, if you will, who would like to scuttle the deal and move forward with theira nuke program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but do prattle on.

It does because NK may be less likely to make a deal with us on nukes if they see a President will just blow up a deal made with another country on nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

What's really sad is that they will be angry with him because he is making them do their job.  

What we really need is a President rude enough to hold Congress' feet to the fire, while using the political charm of an Obama to make them enjoy the heat.

This is insane. These issues are important and complex. We already know that Congress is dysfunctional and ineffective. Why blindside them with this?  And they are of the same party! 

A real leader would meet privately with leadership about this and give them an opportunity to produce an alternative that might get popular support. He has just thrown them under the bus.

So now we have not only aneed international situation that could spiral out of control, but also an inner-party squabble that threatens the party. Trump seems to want to blow up the party. This raises the question, which side are you on? The Trump side that is promoting psychotic morons, like the president himself and the likes of a Roy Moore, or the party leadership of McConnell and Ryan. Admittedly, the choices are both unpleasant, but the answer should be obvious. 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

Iran came to the table because the international sanctions were killing them. The idea behind this deal is to reintegrate Iran into the world economy. When the deal expires, they will have a choice to make. Pursue nukes again and risk returning to economic isolation or continue to be an integrated member of the world economy. In buying time, it also creates the admittedly slim possibility that the domestic situation in Iran could dramatically change.

Will this actually work? I don’t know. I think it is unlikely. I think it’s worth trying though.

I appreciate your well thought out opinion.

The best explanation I've heard for it.

I agree also ...it's very unlikely to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

I appreciate your well thought out opinion.

The best explanation I've heard for it.

I agree also ...it's very unlikely to work.

 

Less likely to work with Trump's psychotic meddling and sabre-rattling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hst2 said:

Less likely to work with Trump's psychotic meddling and sabre-rattling.

That's always the excuse.

Kick The can down h road and Blame " the other guy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hst2 said:

It does because NK may be less likely to make a deal with us on nukes if they see a President will just blow up a deal made with another country on nukes.

If you think NK is going to give up its nuclear capability, you’re even less connected to reality than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hst2 said:

I was referring to Bush's approach to North Korea.

Sure you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

If you think NK is going to give up its nuclear capability, you’re even less connected to reality than I thought.

I didn't say they were. You sound like Trump, simplifying a complex issue. Mcorioles is the same way. Let's throw everything away because we don't feel like things are getting resolved fast enough. This is music to the ears of hardliners among our adversaries. Like your average totalitarian leader, Trump foments chaos by preaching quick action and change. You guys fall for it.  We appear to have the leadership we deserve.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hst2 said:

I didn't say they were. You sound like Trump, simplifying a complex issue. Mcorioles is the same way. Let's throw everything away because we don't feel like things are getting resolved fast enough. This is music to the ears of hardliners among our adversaries. Like your average totalitarian leader, Trump foments chaos by preaching quick action and change. You guys fall for it.  We appear to have the leadership we deserve.

LOL.....what's your excuse going to be when I'm right?

 

I already know the pre programmed response......it's Trumps fault.

Even though Iran has been the 1 sponsor of terrorism and chant death to America for 40 plus years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

LOL.....what's your excuse going to be when I'm right?

 

I already know the pre programmed response......it's Trumps fault.

Even though Iran has been the 1 sponsor of terrorism and chant death to America for 40 plus years.

Please define you're being "right".

You are already wrong on Iran being the number sponsor of terrorism. I get that it's fun to fall in with Trump. He's for action and chaos, which is gratifying. But it is profoundly irresponsible.

"Trump’s demonisation of Iran is dishonest. The instability of the region is not in any significant measure the consequence of Iranian actions. To blame Iran for terrorism in the region is misleading at best – most terrorism there, and most of the Islamist terrorism worldwide, is inspired by extreme versions of Sunni Islam, not by the Shia Islam of Iran and the Iranian regime."

Link

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcorioles said:

LOL.....what's your excuse going to be when I'm right?

 

I already know the pre programmed response......it's Trumps fault.

Even though Iran has been the 1 sponsor of terrorism and chant death to America for 40 plus years.

Saudi Arabia, not Iran, supports the most terrorism worldwide 

And Iran has good reason to hate the US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

It does because NK may be less likely to make a deal with us on nukes if they see a President will just blow up a deal made with another country on nukes.

Any chance of NK making a deal with the US on nukes probably went out the window when they saw how the US treated Ghaddafi after he voluntarily gave up his nukes.  That was under our former "expert" SOS.  And with Trump's unpredictability they certainly aren't about to give it up now unless they commit a catastrophic mistake that wipes out their facilities and leaves them no choice.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Saudi Arabia, not Iran, supports the most terrorism worldwide 

And Iran has good reason to hate the US

That may be true about Iran ......even more reason the deal was a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

Please define you're being "right".

You are already wrong on Iran being the number sponsor of terrorism. I get that it's fun to fall in with Trump. He's for action and chaos, which is gratifying. But it is profoundly irresponsible.

"Trump’s demonisation of Iran is dishonest. The instability of the region is not in any significant measure the consequence of Iranian actions. To blame Iran for terrorism in the region is misleading at best – most terrorism there, and most of the Islamist terrorism worldwide, is inspired by extreme versions of Sunni Islam, not by the Shia Islam of Iran and the Iranian regime."

Link

Really?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

50 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Saudi Arabia, not Iran, supports the most terrorism worldwide 

And Iran has good reason to hate the US

Nope 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/index.html

 

And we gave millions back to them that the Obama Admin. conceded would be used for terrorism.

Awesome.

 

And please....stop with the " it was their money schtick"

We kept it for decades ,no need to give it back.

Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

... And please....stop with the " it was their money schtick"

We kept it for decades ,no need to give it back.

It was their money, end of ...

Jesus! Where do you get your morals from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

Nope 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/index.html

 

And we gave millions back to them that the Obama Admin. conceded would be used for terrorism.

Awesome.

 

And please....stop with the " it was their money schtick"

We kept it for decades ,no need to give it back.

The State Dept report is not based on facts

For example, Saudi Arabia, not Iran, has been linked to the 9/11 attacks yet they are not on the State Sponsor list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WKDWZD said:

It was their money, end of ...

Jesus! Where do you get your morals from?

 

Just now, WKDWZD said:

It was their money, end of ...

Jesus! Where do you get your morals from?

LOL now I know you are whacked.

Morals?

Like detaining innocent people for a year?

Being the #1 sponsor of terrorism?

Chanting death to America 

 

Those kind of morals?

Then the Obama Admin. acknowledges the money will probably be used to fund terrorists?

Wow talk about trying to defend the indefensible............and not even a good attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mcorioles said:

That may be true about Iran ......even more reason the deal was a bad idea.

In the context of preventing Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities it wasn’t a bad idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soulflower said:

The State Dept report is not based on facts

For example, Saudi Arabia, not Iran, has been linked to the 9/11 attacks yet they are not on the State Sponsor list

Wow ,ok.

I guess you know more then they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soulflower said:

In the context of preventing Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities it wasn’t a bad idea

Speculation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0