Trump Withdraws U.S. From ‘One-Sided’ Iran Nuclear Deal

[PeteEU]

Meanwhile Trump takes you all to war while people throw petty pointscoring inanities. He's doing this to shut down the investigations under emergency powers.

Taking bets on the first discussion on a draft... the US needs cannon fodder after all.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Thanks. Are you speaking on behalf of France or Germany? Did you get this insight from Merkel or Macron?

Are you kidding? Germany and France are not ignorant of how the system works in the US. A treaty is not just an American concept.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[late]

This is why you need a good NSC.

You need coordination (like breaking a nuke deal just before you start negotiating a nuke deal).

You need to work with your allies (instead of bullying, insulting and driving them away).

You need a long term plan (instead of tweets).

And you need a Plan B. (We don't have one, that's what Europe has been asking everyone in Washington for days, what's the plan. They didn't get an answer because there is no plan).

Trump does a genius for taking bad situations, and making them a lot worse.

 

[Pedestrian]

The neocons have infiltrated the admin. of just another useful idiot (GWB was the first for 2 wars leveraged with 2 tax rev, cuts)

for war in Iran. The right wing and some 'R' warmongers now have their ruse. Iran is next on their war hit list.


Yet, Iran was just being smart. Iran was eyewitness to (and US desire for hegemony) what happened to Iraq

who didn't have nukes and what hasn't happened to NK...because they do.

 

[Pedestrian]

That is a nonsense statement

It means war.

 

[Pedestrian]

You really do need to update yourself on Israel's abilities.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The Israelis acted totally on their own when they flew their air force to Iraq and blew up its nuke reactors.

Next question.

 

[Pedestrian]

Oh my gosh. Where shall I start? All political parties are ideology driven. If they are not...what's the point? Why have elections? While I agree that the Republican party has not been conservative since Reagan, it has still continued all of this time to claim to be conservative. It votes on a conservative platform every four years. That platform is what they claim to stand for. And while Reagan was excellent at reaching across party lines on common issues, he was not a moderate. Just YouTube and listen to his speeches on the issues. And Clinton only reached across party lines when he had no choice after the democrats tanked in the 1994 midterms. With Obama, it was "My way or the highway".

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

First of all Reagan was a warmongering, Keynesian deficit spender who was a life long democrat,

voted for FDR 4 times, a union leader who out of greed and to use the repub brand to borrow 3 trillion

build up the military. Reagan had to compromise with the the dems, they held the house.

So much like Trump, switched parties, use cold war or racist rhetoric as a demagogue neither of which

...were or are conservative.

This thread is a moderate chooses not to follow the party ideologies, so that parties are ideological...has no influence.

I am independent and do not adhere to ideologies if any...of our current parties.

The 94 midterms were the first glaring examples of repub gerrymandering by Tom Delany in Tex. when he got the state

to do an out of term census. That IIRC, added 5 seats to Tex. and for the first time in 79 years.

the repubs got consecutive majorities in the house. 79 years ? There are obvious reasons for that.

Obama compromised or offered to compromise with the repubs for 8 years and the repubs all...refused to.

Just another partisan post as another supplicant doubling down on what one...wants to believe.

 

[bluesmoke]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html


Sanctions reimposed.
Wonder how this will turn out?
The Iranian economy is cratering, a battle between the moderates and hardliners is now on.
And demonstrations against the regime will be dealt with as previous ones, but more deaths and prison terms including executions

Trump's action can only increase the likelihood of pushing Iran in the direction of nuclear armament. I can only conclude that is what Trump wants.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wrong. The issue isn’t what Israel can do within its own meager airspace or harassing its immediate neighbors. The issue is that Israel has limited refueling capabilities and it’s planes would have to travel more than 1,000 miles through hostile airspace to reach anything interesting. It doesn’t have the right resources to do the job. And we’re not talking about wooden shacks in the desert. Even if some of their planes solve the problem of getting there - we’re talking about heavily fortified installations inside mountains or beneath hundreds of feet of solid granite. They don’t have the munitions to do any real damage.

You really do need to update yourself on Israel's abilities.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Iran learned the lesson of Israel's destruction of the Iraqi nuclear program. Not only could Israel not take out Iran's program from the air, doing so would be a huge challenge even for the US Air Force, which has vastly more heavy capability than the Israelis. It would require a major ground war to take out the Iranian program, which is why it's not going to happen.

 

[Pedestrian]

Still waiting for you to make your point.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

The point is becoming rather obvious...war with Iran, now when they don't have nukes.

War is a good thing. It furthers US hegemony and is 'berry berry' profitable.

WAR is a Racket.

 

[Hicup]

So you are saying the Shah was not a brutal dictator and it was not the US and UK that pushed him into power?

Brutal is subjective in this context. Would you say that Iran is better off now than before? I guess if you're a sharia loving, women hating, infidel hating Muslim, you'd probably like it, but for those that are not, well, I suspect that they don't.

Tim-

 

[Pedestrian]

While it's true that it frees up their ability to pursue nukes, it also frees up our ability to deter them from developing nukes. I like those odds better.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Exactly right. Soon, 'This' (whatever [they] decide) means war.

War is good, war is US hegemony and very enriching.

Plus, the neocons don't do any of the dying. YOU or your kids do.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Why are you telling me what the left needs to "learn"? Tell them.

I do not mean this in an insulting way, however based on your posts, you are certainly more to the left then the right.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Pedestrian]

So you are saying the Shah was not a brutal dictator and it was not the US and UK that pushed him into power?

Well as anyone paying close attention, the repubs are the best at being Orwellian...first change the meaning of words.

Then you revise history.

The US since we had a navy, used the English colonial model without creating vassal states.

The US discovered how a navy can impose much on the world. The US also discovered 1950s how ruthless dictators can control labor/masses.

The US then went all over the world for now over 100 years...to prevent democracy. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Africa, Chile.

WAR is a Racket.

 

[Pedestrian]

You are kidding yourself. Our allies in Europe are only concerned with profitable trade deals in Iran. Nukes are only a distant concern to them.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Dream state

 

[MAGAnificent]

Sure it is. Trump is President now. Did you not already know this?

Okay, the Iran "Nuke" deal was insanely stupid to begin with. So what is Trump (the President) going to replace it with today? You know, that's how the world works. Bad deals are made all the time. What you do is replace a bad deal with a good deal. I haven't seen a shred of evidence today that Trump has a better idea. Nor have you, because he hasn't got a better idea.

A bad deal in regards to a tinpot dictatorship and nukes is worse then no deal at all. We were strangling them with sanctions in the lead up to the deal. All the deal did was to let them off the hook with a plane load of laundered cash to boot. At best the deal kicked the can down the road to the expiration date. Then they are free to fast track to nukes within 12 to 18 months.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[JoeTrumps]

If this is your "go to" then you've lost focus already.

Q: What nation - whether ally or foe - would allow another nation to just walk unto their military installations and look around at-will?

A: NONE!

England wouldn't do for us any more than Russia would. So, why do people expect or insist than Iran should? It's ridiculous!

If you can't check the bases then the deal itself is worthless since a military base is the most likely location for a secret nuclear lab. Jesus, can't believe I have to explain the obvious to you people

 

[vegas giants]

A bad deal in regards to a tinpot dictatorship and nukes is worse then no deal at all. We were strangling them with sanctions in the lead up to the deal. All the deal did was to let them off the hook with a plane load of laundered cash to boot. At best the deal kicked the can down the road to the expiration date. Then they are free to fast track to nukes within 12 to 18 months.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

They are free to fast track and nukes now

 

[vegas giants]

If you can't check the bases then the deal itself is worthless since a military base is the most likely location for a secret nuclear lab. Jesus, can't believe I have to explain the obvious to you people

We can check every base and have already

 

[MAGAnificent]

Oh no, they're much worse. Iran at least has a stable, centralized government which holds all the power. Not like Pakistan where tribal chiefs, the military, and the modern day KGB all compete for a power in a deeply decentralized state.

At least Pakistan is not sitting there shouting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Pakistan is also not financing terrorism all over the middLe east. You think Iran is stable? They have already had to put down one uprising by force. Their economy right now is worse the Venezuela. If their economy completely tanks there is no guarantee that the regime stays in power.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

At least Pakistan is not sitting there shouting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Pakistan is also not financing terrorism all over the middLe east. You think Iran is stable? They have already had to put down one uprising by force. Their economy right now is worse the Venezuela. If their economy completely tanks there is no guarantee that the regime stays in power.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Bin laden was protected by Pakistan

 

[JoeTrumps]

We can check every base and have already

Link?

 

[vegas giants]

Link?

Read the thread

 

[MAGAnificent]

OR...that whatever new leader came to power would assess the merits of the deal instead of responding with a knee jerk reaction.

Not a fair statement. If it was a knee jerk reaction, Trump would have pulled us out of it immediately after taking office rather then giving it reluctant certification twice.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[MAGAnificent]

Sure, they're interested in trade deals but also an Iran without nuclear weapons.

The Europeans at this point are in the same mindset they were in during the lead up to WW2. They simply do not take imminent threats seriously until it's too late. They are probably okay with an imminent nuclear Iran as long as trade is not interrupted.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk