Trump decides to exit nuclear accord with Iran

[jimnyc]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump plans to follow through on his campaign threat to pull out of the landmark nuclear accord with Iran, according to two people familiar with his thinking, dealing a profound blow to U.S. allies and potentially deepening the president's isolation on the world stage.

It wasn't immediately clear which sanctions that were lifted under the deal might be quickly reimposed, said the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly. Trump has several options, and a limited move could leave him more room to potentially stay in the deal after all if other members agree to toughen it.

In a burst of last-minute diplomacy, punctuated by a visit by Britain's top diplomat, the deal's European members gave in to many of Trump's demands, according to officials, diplomats and others briefed on the negotiations. Yet they still left convinced he was likely to re-impose sanctions and walk away from the deal he has lambasted since his days as a presidential candidate.

The agreement, struck in 2015 by the United States, other world powers and Iran, lifted most U.S. and international sanctions against the country. In return, Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program making it impossible to produce a bomb, along with rigorous inspections.

Rest - https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reveal-iran-deals-fate-amid-low-hopes-041031763.html

[jimnyc]

Trump expected to exit Iran nuclear agreement, Europeans say

WASHINGTON/PARIS (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to announce on Tuesday that he is pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, European officials said, in a move that would raise the risk of conflict in the Middle East, upset America’s European allies and disrupt global oil supplies.

The New York Times reported that Trump had told French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday that he was going to pull out of the international agreement but the French presidency said the U.S. leader gave no indication of a decision on Iran.

In answer to a Reuters question, Macron’s office denied the Times story.

Trump is to make an announcement on the future of the Iran deal at 2 p.m. (1800 GMT) on Tuesday.

Rest - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/trump-expected-to-exit-iran-deal-europeans-say-tehran-defiant-idUSKBN1I90D6

[Gunny]

My question is: What "deal"? Israel already exposed Iran for doing whatever they Hell it wants to anyway. So who are the fools here? Is this like the Emperor's New Clothes? Seems kind of dumb to remain part of some BS that only one side is pretending to adhere to.

[jimnyc]

Trump recognizes they ain't doing shit.

He announced the US withdrawal from this crappy deal, and also the highest level of sanctions signed into effect against the Iran regime.

Great speech thus far!

[jimnyc]

And a great final screenshot, signing the presidential memorandum assigning the sanctions against Iran.

https://i.imgur.com/JsD9M2y.jpg

[pete311]

So Iran is now free to restart their nuke program today? btw, it's an honest question.

[revelarts]

So Iran is now free to restart their nuke program today?

yep.

And I smell Bolton pushing this.

[jimnyc]

So Iran is now free to restart their nuke program today? btw, it's an honest question.

If that's what you took from the speech, so be it. But I doubt that's the case. They have ALREADY been working on their nuke program, and THAT has been the point. They are not doing shit, and actually doing the opposite we find out. So the deal that Obama made was useless and without teeth.

[FakeNewsSux]

yep.

And I smell Bolton pushing this.


What's all this "free to restart their nuke program" shit? What proof do you have that they ever stopped? Bibi presented proof last week that they hadn't stopped but i guess that's an unreliable source.

As for Bolton's fingerprints being all over this announcement, did you forget that this was one of the core promises Pres. Trump made during the campaign? I'm sure that Bolton and Pompeo are in full agreement with the decision but I highly doubt that it took any arm twisting by them to bring the decision about.

[jimnyc]

^^ Yups, and yet another promise now kept as well!

[pete311]

If that's what you took from the speech, so be it. But I doubt that's the case. They have ALREADY been working on their nuke program, and THAT has been the point. They are not doing shit, and actually doing the opposite we find out. So the deal that Obama made was useless and without teeth.

Has any evidence been released about them restarting the nuke program? The netanyahu presentation was weird and offered no actual proof.

[pete311]

What's all this "free to restart their nuke program" shit? What proof do you have that they ever stopped? Bibi presented proof last week that they hadn't stopped but i guess that's an unreliable source.

As for Bolton's fingerprints being all over this announcement, did you forget that this was one of the core promises Pres. Trump made during the campaign? I'm sure that Bolton and Pompeo are in full agreement with the decision but I highly doubt that it took any arm twisting by them to bring the decision about.

The wall of binders and showcase of cds is not proof. It was weird.

[pete311]

I think we're going to war. Iraq 2.0 and likely worse. Iran is much stronger.

[jimnyc]

Has any evidence been released about them restarting the nuke program? The netanyahu presentation was weird and offered no actual proof.

Offered no proof? :laugh: :rolleyes:

But yea, other than that, they are not allowing inspectors and this is a must. That alone makes any current deal garbage. Withdrawing from a "deal" that offers us NOTHING. No point being in an "agreement" that offers pretty much zero in thew department of preventing them from being able to develop nuclear weapons - or nothing at all in the department of addressing their ICBM ability and to place nukes on them.

Any deal that DOESN'T ALLOW for exactly what you're asking, is no deal at all. We DON'T know everything, as they don't really have to comply with jack shit.

[FakeNewsSux]

The wall of binders and showcase of cds is not proof. It was weird.


I have this strange feeling that the bulk of the damning information from this batch was highly classified. Too bad that we aren't on the mailing list to receive our copy, I guess it was just an oversight.

[jimnyc]

I think we're going to war. Iraq 2.0 and likely worse. Iran is much stronger.

Suddenly we are going to war with Iran, because we withdrew from a shitty agreement?

And unless they have nukes, we could easily destroy them and make short work of it. But folks always tie our military's hands and make them missionary peacekeepers instead of the warriors they are. Iran is only strong if we were to pussyfoot around the place, like has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not how you fight a war. Actually, it's NOT fighting a war. But some demand we be nice about certain things, and that changes how we fight wars.

So drop the bombs of proof on me Pete, why are we going to war, and where is this evidence that convinces you that we are on the doorstep of war?

[jimnyc]

I have this strange feeling that the bulk of the damning information from this batch was highly classified. Too bad that we aren't on the mailing list to receive our copy, I guess it was just an oversight.

Some think that all intelligence should be accessible to all at all times. Quite frankly, I think they presented more than enough, Israel that is. But the rest of withdrawal from a deal is - WHY be in a deal to protect from nuclear weapons, when you can't be ensured that they aren't creating nuclear weapons? A grade school child would know better than to make such a crappy deal that was made with Iran. And paid them for that right no less with some nice little ransom money.

[jimnyc]

Pelosi:

"Democrats have no illusions about the Iranian regime. We remain strongly committed to stopping the advancement of Iran's ballistic missile program, its egregious human rights abuses, and its support of terrorism and other nefarious activities in the region. Today is a sad day for America's global leadership," she said in a statement. "The Trump Administration's dangerous and impulsive action is no substitute for real global leadership."

And yet, the "deal" didn't even address Iran's ballistic missile program, and that was part of the point!!!

[FakeNewsSux]

I think we're going to war. Iraq 2.0 and likely worse. Iran is much stronger.

Just like all good liberals assured us that the war mongering cowboy Reagan would lead us into thermonuclear war after calling the USSR the Evil Empire, it proved to be a slight miscalculation and actually resulted in the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Empire.

Just like all good liberals assured us that the lunatic Trump all but guaranteed that vaporization of Guam and Hawaii after calling Kim "Rocket Man", it proved to be a slight miscalculation and actually resulted in the formal end to the Korean War and a commitment to meet next month to discuss denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

Just like all good liberals assured us that the feckless tool of the Bolton led neo-cons would lead us to nuclear Armageddon with Iran after pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, it proved to be a slight miscalculation and actually resulted in ...?

[pete311]

I have this strange feeling that the bulk of the damning information from this batch was highly classified. Too bad that we aren't on the mailing list to receive our copy, I guess it was just an oversight.

Just like Iraq War.

[Abbey Marie]

Just like all good liberals assured us that the war mongering cowboy Reagan would lead us into thermonuclear war after calling the USSR the Evil Empire, it proved to be a slight miscalculation and actually resulted in the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Empire.

Just like all good liberals assured us that the lunatic Trump all but guaranteed that vaporization of Guam and Hawaii after calling Kim "Rocket Man", it proved to be a slight miscalculation and actually resulted in the formal end to the Korean War and a commitment to meet next month to discuss denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

Just like all good liberals assured us that the feckless tool of the Bolton led neo-cons would lead us to nuclear Armageddon with Iran after pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, it proved to be a slight miscalculation and actually resulted in ...?

The question is: do they really believe all their gloom and doom statements, or is it just a political ploy to turn folks against any Republican Leader?

[pete311]

Suddenly we are going to war with Iran, because we withdrew from a shitty agreement?

And unless they have nukes, we could easily destroy them and make short work of it. But folks always tie our military's hands and make them missionary peacekeepers instead of the warriors they are. Iran is only strong if we were to pussyfoot around the place, like has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not how you fight a war. Actually, it's NOT fighting a war. But some demand we be nice about certain things, and that changes how we fight wars.

So drop the bombs of proof on me Pete, why are we going to war, and where is this evidence that convinces you that we are on the doorstep of war?

Iran will restart their program. Sanctions won't work. Then what? Only option is war. If things escalate, you will just sing a tune in line and say it was inevitable and just.

[jimnyc]

Iran will restart their program. Sanctions won't work. Then what? Only option is war. If things escalate, you will just sing a tune in line and say it was inevitable and just.

Pete - how do we know that they haven't already started, unless you can inspect all areas? So if we DON'T know, then the agreement is useless. And again, it DOES NOT even address ICBM's, which also makes it useless. This agreement needs to be re-negotiated, or the sanctions will continue. Sanctions DO work, and it's helping with NK. Will they work overnight? Of course not, and it's not intended to cripple Iran, just large sanctions on folks within the Iranian government.

But we're going to war is a long leap, that I'm sure some will be happy to jump into with you. I personally think the deal wasn't worth the paper it was written on, doesn't address ICBM's and doesn't allow for appropriate inspections. Saying war is the ONLY option is a tad naive.

[revelarts]

What's all this "free to restart their nuke program" shit? What proof do you have that they ever stopped? Bibi presented proof last week that they hadn't stopped but i guess that's an unreliable source.

As for Bolton's fingerprints being all over this announcement, did you forget that this was one of the core promises Pres. Trump made during the campaign? I'm sure that Bolton and Pompeo are in full agreement with the decision but I highly doubt that it took any arm twisting by them to bring the decision about.

http://mynetbox.info/xtras/bibi-iran1.jpeg

The bulk of this evidence was from 1999-2003,
the world has known about this for some time. Other intel assessments since then have expressed high confidence that they STILL had some program. but not until This recent deal has the world had a regular program to Inspect.
http://mynetbox.info/xtras/bibi-iran2.jpeg

I'm not sure how this could be UNKNOWN before either. If they've known this guy was part of Amad back in 1999, then there's NO doubt that the Israelis, the U.K. the Saudi's and the U.S. intel agencies at least have been crawling all over this guys work and personal life for over a decade.
Plus there are many of their Nuke scientist that have been, strait up, assassinated over the same time period. It's assumed it was done by Israeli or U.S. operations.
If Mohsen and his team were making any real headway Bibi probably would have mentioned it... or had them killed long ago.

http://mynetbox.info/xtras/bibi-iran3.jpeg


Iran was enriching Uranium before and I could be wrong but I believe it has to be made with certain specifications of it before it's weapons grade.
And That's what the Deal is suppose to inspect.
As far as Ballistic missile advancements go. If i heard Bibi correctly it's NOT part of the deal.
OK, so why not make a separate deal concerning those?
How is breaking this deal going to help to STOP Ballistic missile advancements?

And finally he repeats "there's an ongoing program" well If you say so. Yes in 1999-2003 it was rolling then.
it slowed to a crawl but they still had "plans" and people oookkk and the world has known that even though the Iranains have been Lying. But now,

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reviewed the past military dimensions of Iran’s program and issued a statement (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/statement-on-iran-by-the-iaea-spokesperson) this week reiterating that there are “no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009.”" cato (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-trust-benjamin-netanyahu-claims-about-irans-nuclear-program)


Right now there are legit Inspectors and an inspection regimen ongoing.
PLUS the Covert spying the U.S., Israel the Saudis and others are doing.

and in October 2017 it's been reported that Iran's inspections are 'World's most robust' nuclear inspection program"

"inside two curved glass towers on the outskirts of this elegant capital, analysts pore over satellite imagery and tests of environmental samples collected from nuclear sites in Iran.
Two thousand miles away, at Iran's main uranium enrichment complex near the city of Natanz, a small team of international inspectors studies information transmitted around the clock by surveillance cameras, online monitors and fiber-optic seals on nuclear equipment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency describes the transcontinental monitoring program it operates as the toughest and most technologically advanced inspections regime put in place to prevent a country from developing an atomic bomb.
"latimes (http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-inspections-2017-story.html)

So i'm not so sure why BREAKING the deal is a GOOD thing.
If Trump and others don't like it why not just ADD to it, rather than outright BREAK it?
Trump is the best deal maker in the world right?



Iran will restart their program. Sanctions won't work. Then what? Only option is war. If things escalate, you will just sing a tune in line and say it was inevitable and just.

If there's NOTHING then they don't have to even PRETEND to abide by ANYTHING.
the Sanctions brought Iran this far do we really want to start that over again.
and WHY should the Iranians trust Any NEW deal with the US if we break this one.
It makes no sense.

I hope there's no war, but Bolton would love that though. he's been pushing for that for years.
But It would give the more extreme portions of Iranian politics just MORE reason to move the rest of the population to be more radical.

[pete311]

Pete - how do we know that they haven't already started, unless you can inspect all areas? So if we DON'T know, then the agreement is useless. And again, it DOES NOT even address ICBM's, which also makes it useless. This agreement needs to be re-negotiated, or the sanctions will continue. Sanctions DO work, and it's helping with NK. Will they work overnight? Of course not, and it's not intended to cripple Iran, just large sanctions on folks within the Iranian government.

But we're going to war is a long leap, that I'm sure some will be happy to jump into with you. I personally think the deal wasn't worth the paper it was written on, doesn't address ICBM's and doesn't allow for appropriate inspections. Saying war is the ONLY option is a tad naive.

Do you think they can start a nuclear missile program in some basement? Do you know what it takes? Inspectors don't need to comb every square inch. Forensic science can tell. Look at the tests North Korea had to do for years. Think Iran is somehow secretly doing those?

North Korea and Iran are so different. Iran is much stronger, more connected and has way more friends. Even Russia supported the deal. When do they ever agree with the west?

[jimnyc]

Do you think they can start a nuclear missile program in some basement? Do you know what it takes? Inspectors don't need to comb every square inch. Forensic science can tell. Look at the tests North Korea had to do for years. Think Iran is somehow secretly doing those?

North Korea and Iran are so different. Iran is much stronger, more connected and has way more friends. Even Russia supported the deal. When do they ever agree with the west?

And yet, that's what the latest intel is, and that's why they have sanctions.

But I'll prep for the coming war.

[Black Diamond]

And yet, that's what the latest intel is, and that's why they have sanctions.

But I'll prep for the coming war.
Well we can have the audacity of Hope that pence isn't Obama. :).

[pete311]

And yet, that's what the latest intel is, and that's why they have sanctions.

But I'll prep for the coming war.

What is the latest intel? Don't quote netanyahu, nothing new there, not evidence. That presentation was for Trump.

[jimnyc]

What is the latest intel? Don't quote netanyahu, nothing new there, not evidence. That presentation was for Trump.

Intelligence secrets aren't my main point. But I don't need to know what they DON'T know, which is the point. The agreement doesn't address the necessary points, therefore the agreement is useless. They need full inspections, they don't have FULL inspections, they simply don't. ICBM's aren't addressed. Many things need to be addressed, and hopefully they can arrange for a real agreement in which there is realistic expectations and full inspections & of course full involvement of their ICBM system.

And you can downplay the Israeli evidence all you like, that's fine, even if not true. Hell, they lied going into the agreement. The foundation of the agreement is based on lies.

Either have a deal that helps both sides, or it's no "deal", hence withdrawal - and finding out they lied didn't help matters.

[jimnyc]

Well we can have the audacity of Hope that pence isn't Obama. :).

Oh please, Obama was a constitutional breaking POS, who never would have made it into office had he not been a black man, and those are the facts. His time is over, his legacy is being overwritten on an almost daily basis.

[pete311]

Intelligence secrets aren't my main point. But I don't need to know what they DON'T know, which is the point. The agreement doesn't address the necessary points, therefore the agreement is useless. They need full inspections, they don't have FULL inspections, they simply don't. ICBM's aren't addressed. Many things need to be addressed, and hopefully they can arrange for a real agreement in which there is realistic expectations and full inspections & of course full involvement of their ICBM system.

And you can downplay the Israeli evidence all you like, that's fine, even if not true. Hell, they lied going into the agreement. The foundation of the agreement is based on lies.

Either have a deal that helps both sides, or it's no "deal", hence withdrawal - and finding out they lied didn't help matters.

I already told you they don't need to inspect every inch of Iranian soil. The deal wasn't perfect, but it was better than nothing, and now we have nothing. If Iran shreds the deal too then there won't be any inspectors anywhere. How is that better?

[jimnyc]

I already told you they don't need to inspect every inch of Iranian soil. The deal wasn't perfect, but it was better than nothing, and now we have nothing. If Iran shreds the deal too then there won't be any inspectors anywhere. How is that better?

The deal WAS nothing. If you can't inspect ALL sites, then why bother? If you can't investigate ICBM's, why bother?

They need to negotiate a better deal, simply put. And it doesn't matter now, as luckily the decision has been made. You can disagree, or agree to disagree or whatever.

[revelarts]

.....
As for Bolton's fingerprints being all over this announcement, did you forget that this was one of the core promises Pres. Trump made during the campaign? I'm sure that Bolton and Pompeo are in full agreement with the decision but I highly doubt that it took any arm twisting by them to bring the decision about.

Yes, he said he was going to do it but he also said it was a bad idea to attack Syria back then too.
but he's done it twice and apparently increased ground troops. (All unconstitutional btw)

He promised to build a wall to, and he hasn't really done much on that front yet...

If he was really fired up to break this Iranian deal he could have done it earlier,
just like he bailed on the TTP. (Which is a GREAT thing that i 100% support.)

So i guess I couldn't prove it, but I do STRONGLY suspect that Bolton pressed Trump to move on this.
Iran and Russia are on Bolton's MOST wanted hit list, not Trump's

[pete311]

The deal WAS nothing. If you can't inspect ALL sites, then why bother? If you can't investigate ICBM's, why bother?

They need to negotiate a better deal, simply put. And it doesn't matter now, as luckily the decision has been made. You can disagree, or agree to disagree or whatever.

Jim, why do I need to say this for the third time. You don't need to inspect all sites. Investigate ICBM's? Where exactly are they doing these secret missile test launches? In a 20,000 ft cave?

[jimnyc]

Jim, why do I need to say this for the third time. You don't need to inspect all sites. Investigate ICBM's? Where exactly are they doing these secret missile test launches? In a 20,000 ft cave?

Disagree all you like Pete, we obviously won't agree on this issue. Full and unfettered access IS needed, and history has shown things can easily be hidden. Deal is already withdrawn from.

[pete311]

Disagree all you like Pete, we obviously won't agree on this issue. Full and unfettered access IS needed, and history has shown things can easily be hidden. Deal is already withdrawn from.

History shows shit can easily be made up to serve an agenda. Don't you forget that.

[jimnyc]

History shows shit can easily be made up to serve an agenda. Don't you forget that.

Withdrawn, just like Obama's legacy, and ain't neither POS coming back. Deal with it.

[Gunny]

So Iran is now free to restart their nuke program today? btw, it's an honest question.They never stopped. There's a thread around here about it. Israel busted Iran with its hand in the cookie jar.

Be real. We all knew it was a bunch of BS from the beginning.

[Gunny]

yep.

And I smell Bolton pushing this.Everybody not attached to Obama's d*ck has been calling bullsh*t since Day One. And I think Trump is the one pushing it. Long before he hired Bolton on.

I don't care WHO is pushing it. It was a stupid, one-sided deal and anyone that doesn't/didn't think so needs to get some help.

[jimnyc]

They never stopped. There's a thread around here about it. Israel busted Iran with its hand in the cookie jar.

Be real. We all knew it was a bunch of BS from the beginning.

I know that, you know that, the world knows that, but everyone just sticks their fingers in their ears and hopes Iran complies, without knowing if Iran complies. And nothing changes that, no matter the risk.

But it matters not, as they have lied from the get go, end of deal. It benefits us in no way at all really, as written.

[jimnyc]

Goodnight!


Pollak: In Leaving Iran Deal, Trump Ends Obama’s Legacy of Appeasement

President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. is leaving the Iran deal marks the end of what his predecessor, Barack Obama, considered his main foreign policy legacy.

Trump will earn credit from his supporters for keeping his promise. But in truth, the Iran deal was undone by its own terms. It did not stop Iran from enriching uranium; it did not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, eventually; and it did not stop Iran’s global aggression.

In fact, the Iran deal was not even a deal at all.

It was never signed by any of the parties (the U.S., Iran, France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia). It was unclear about crucial subjects like ballistic missiles, because the “deal” was described differently by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and by the UN Security Council Resolutions that were meant to implement it. And, crucially, it was never sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Obama’s disregard for the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution was of a piece with his general disregard for the constitutional constraints on the power of the federal government and the presidency. His refusal to submit the agreement to Senate scrutiny, and his party’s abuse of the filibuster to prevent even a weak Senate vote, deepened the damage that Obamacare — his other struggling “legacy,” in domestic policy — did to American civic culture.

Rest - http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/05/08/leaving-iran-deal-trump-ends-obamas-legacy-appeasement-autocracy/

[Gunny]

The wall of binders and showcase of cds is not proof. It was weird.Get real, Pete. You are being obtrusive, Period.

[pete311]

Get real, Pete. You are being obtrusive, Period.

gunny you pretty much admitted awhile back that you don't even keep up to date on things and don't know who important people in the world are, so wtf do you know about this stuff?

[Gunny]

gunny you pretty much admitted awhile back that you don't even keep up to date on things and don't know who important people in the world are, so wtf do you know about this stuff?Try again. Go look at the ME Forum. I keep very up to date on the ME. Try reading outside your wall of Trump-bashing. I'm not his biggest fan but geez. YOU are a piece of work.

[revelarts]

Everybody not attached to Obama's d*ck has been calling bullsh*t since Day One. And I think Trump is the one pushing it. Long before he hired Bolton on.

I don't care WHO is pushing it. It was a stupid, one-sided deal and anyone that doesn't/didn't think so needs to get some help.


"everybody" said so.
dejaVu, where have we heard that before?

Look, I just don't see the DOWN side of keeping this deal.
and i SEE NO upside to breaking it.

And the IAEA seems to be moving along OK.
Here's what the how the IAEA says things are better.
MORE access Any location
more surveillance
more verification
more days in the field
more seals attached to nuke junk



http://mynetbox.info/xtras/IAEA-iran.jpeg


I had my doubts about the deal initially but
Hey maybe you folks are right maybe it's HORRIBLE and were all gonna die if we DON'T break this deal
some how I doubt that,
But can someone do 2 things for me here to get me strait.
1. point to one completed "great" agreement that Trump alone (without other nations) has made with a hostile nation. maybe he done something i'v missed.
2. Give me the honest pros and cons of keeping the deal vs breaking the deal. (not just partisan venom )
so far all i see are emotional assertions that the deal is ONE SIDED and BAD.
not a very comprehensive analysis.
OH And that the Iranians aren't abiding by the deal.
But if that's the case what's NO DEAL and the potentially "TREMENDOUS" new deal "believe me", going to do to change that?
Seems if they are untrustworthy under the current "one sided" deal then they'll likely caff and cheat even more under a tighter one right?

At this point, i don't see a problem.
Especially since they'll be the ongoing COVERT inspection and surveillance ongoing as well.

So there's a multinational Overt and Covert inspection track ongoing. I just don't see why we shouldn't keep it the deal.
But I'll listen.

[Gunny]

"everybody" said so.
dejaVu, where have we heard that before?

Look, I just don't see the DOWN side of keeping this deal.
and i SEE NO upside to breaking it.

And the IAEA seems to be moving along OK.
Here's what the how the IAEA says things are better.
MORE access Any location
more surveillance
more verification
more days in the field
more seals attached to nuke junk



http://mynetbox.info/xtras/IAEA-iran.jpeg


I had my doubts about the deal initially but
Hey maybe you folks are right maybe it's HORRIBLE and were all gonna die if we DON'T break this deal
some how I doubt that,
But can someone do 2 things for me here to get me strait.
1. point to one completed "great" agreement that Trump alone (without other nations) has made with a hostile nation. maybe he done something i'v missed.
2. Give me the honest pros and cons of keeping the deal vs breaking the deal. (not just partisan venom )
so far all i see are emotional assertions that the deal is ONE SIDED and BAD.
not a very comprehensive analysis.
OH And that the Iranians aren't abiding by the deal.
But if that's the case what's NO DEAL and the potentially "TREMENDOUS" new deal "believe me", going to do to change that?
Seems if they are untrustworthy under the current "one sided" deal then they'll likely caff and cheat even more under a tighter one right?

At this point, i don't see a problem.
Especially since they'll be the ongoing COVERT inspection and surveillance ongoing as well.

So there's a multinational Overt and Covert inspection track ongoing. I just don't see why we shouldn't keep it the deal.
But I'll listen.Who gives a fuck what the IAEA says? Yeah deja vu. Saddam doesn't have chemical and bio weapons. Well, aside from the chemicals we sold him and the CIA taught their chemists to refine their mustard gas. Yep. THAT IAEA?

Got anything better? I wouldn't trust them if they told me I was bald. I'd have to go look in the mirror.

Go feast your America-hating eyes on the Netanyahu report.

[jimnyc]

This deal NEEDED to be withdrawn from, it's the worst, and we're all gonna DIE if we follow that crappy deal and don't withdraw.

Ok, now at least the absurd is actually stated. :laugh:

[revelarts]

Who gives a fuck what the IAEA says? Yeah deja vu. Saddam doesn't have chemical and bio weapons. Well, aside from the chemicals we sold him and the CIA taught their chemists to refine their mustard gas. Yep. THAT IAEA?

Got anything better? I wouldn't trust them if they told me I was bald. I'd have to go look in the mirror.

Go feast your America-hating eyes on the Netanyahu report.

OK, well I guess that's it.
....

[Gunny]

OK, well I guess that's it.
....Do you know what the difference between a shia and a sunni is, rev? The shia are headed by the religious leader and his orders are convert or die. Educate yourself on the real world where your boots hit the ground instead of loading your head with a bunch high-minded and useless idealism. You may sit around here wishing and hoping and singing Louis Armstrong. Ever seen a raghead with an AK and he ain't aiming at birds?

Don't tell me my fucking business.

[Gunny]

I got it now @revalarts I should hate a decision I agree with 110% because Trump made it. Brilliant. This country needs more thinkers like you.

When he makes decisions I don't like, I say so.

Secret military trick: You salute the rank not the man. Meaning: I agree with the decision and don't care who made it. YOU, on the other hand, just seem to have your panties in a wad over the man, not the issue.

[revelarts]

Do you know what the difference between a shia and a sunni is, rev? The shia are headed by the religious leader and his orders are convert or die. Educate yourself on the real world where your boots hit the ground instead of loading your head with a bunch high-minded and useless idealism. You may sit around here wishing and hoping and singing Louis Armstrong. Ever seen a raghead with an AK and he ain't aiming at birds?

Don't tell me my fucking business.

yes i do, Shia and Sunni pretty much. familiar with Wahhabi and Sufi a bit as well.
and i didn't "tell you" anything about your "business".
And you didn't tell me anything about the nuke deal either. simply as that.
relax.

[pete311]

Who gives a fuck what the IAEA says? Yeah deja vu. Saddam doesn't have chemical and bio weapons. Well, aside from the chemicals we sold him and the CIA taught their chemists to refine their mustard gas. Yep. THAT IAEA?

Got anything better? I wouldn't trust them if they told me I was bald. I'd have to go look in the mirror.

Go feast your America-hating eyes on the Netanyahu report.

lol, Trump removed the deal because he says they are violating the deal and there is little evidence of that. So, basically this is Iraq 2.0

[revelarts]

hey I've got a question.
is this "DEBATE policy" or is this
"PISS on anyone with a DIFFERENT POLICY or even a questions TRUMP or the the right?".
what's the deal folks?

sheesh.

[jimnyc]

hey I've got a question.
is this "DEBATE policy" or is this
"PISS on anyone with a DIFFERENT POLICY or even a questions TRUMP or the the right?".
what's the deal folks?

sheesh.

The Iran deal, and the future of a nuclear Iran - has nothing to do with Trump or the support of Trump. This should be the case with ANY president. ANY president should ensure that Iran has no nuclear future, that we protect ourselves from the never ending threats of death to america, and death to israel. The deal covered nothing with ICBM's. This IS NOT an issue about president, other than one with the balls to say what needed to be said, and tough enough to say what truly needs to be done.

But yeah, as usual, blame "trump supporters" and how no one can question the right and all that absolute crap BS that's spouted often, when someone doesn't like what the other has to say or their opinion.

But yeah, we're the Trump Nazi Bullies. :laugh: :rolleyes: Kinda pathetic, IMO.

[Gunny]

yes i do, Shia and Sunni pretty much. familiar with Wahhabi and Sufi a bit as well.
and i didn't "tell you" anything about your "business".
And you didn't tell me anything about the nuke deal either. simply as that.
relax.Not even close. Wahabbi's are an extremist sunni sect that arose to offset the radical shia.

What did you think I was doing over there all those times? Working on my tan? I know my shit. The shia are going to take over the world, or destroy it. They have no problem taking themselves out as long as they get you.

And you want to turn a blind eye to what you KNOW is going on over some political bullshit. Anyone that doesn't KNOW I ran is going for nuclear weapons is either stupid or willfully blind, due to politics.

[pete311]

Not even close. Wahabbi's are an extremist sunni sect that arose to offset the radical shia.

What did you think I was doing over there all those times? Working on my tan? I know my shit. The shia are going to take over the world, or destroy it. They have no problem taking themselves out as long as they get you.

And you want to turn a blind eye to what you KNOW is going on over some political bullshit. Anyone that doesn't KNOW I ran is going for nuclear weapons is either stupid or willfully blind, due to politics.

I don't think you read revelarts post properly. He made no claim and yet some how you tell him he's wrong. Wrong about what? Read the post!

[revelarts]

"everybody" said so.
dejaVu, where have we heard that before?

Look, I just don't see the DOWN side of keeping this deal.
and i SEE NO upside to breaking it.

And the IAEA seems to be moving along OK.
Here's what the how the IAEA says things are better.
MORE access Any location
more surveillance
more verification
more days in the field
more seals attached to nuke junk



http://mynetbox.info/xtras/IAEA-iran.jpeg


I had my doubts about the deal initially but
Hey maybe you folks are right maybe it's HORRIBLE and were all gonna die if we DON'T break this deal
some how I doubt that,
But can someone do 2 things for me here to get me strait.
1. point to one completed "great" agreement that Trump alone (without other nations) has made with a hostile nation. maybe he done something i'v missed.
2. Give me the honest pros and cons of keeping the deal vs breaking the deal. (not just partisan venom )
so far all i see are emotional assertions that the deal is ONE SIDED and BAD.
not a very comprehensive analysis.
OH And that the Iranians aren't abiding by the deal.
But if that's the case what's NO DEAL and the potentially "TREMENDOUS" new deal "believe me", going to do to change that?
Seems if they are untrustworthy under the current "one sided" deal then they'll likely caff and cheat even more under a tighter one right?

At this point, i don't see a problem.
Especially since they'll be the ongoing COVERT inspection and surveillance ongoing as well.

So there's a multinational Overt and Covert inspection track ongoing. I just don't see why we shouldn't keep it the deal.
But I'll listen.

still open for rational replies.

[Black Diamond]

still open for rational replies.
Spam it again, Sam.

[revelarts]

Here's something else that's Odd.
Iran is in the Nuke agreement, IAEA inspections the whole 9, but no one really knows about Israels Nukes. They are estimated at 300 i believe.

I don't blame Israel for having them OR for NOT joining the NPT. They are surrounded by enemies.
But it is somewhat hypocritical for Israel to be outraged and demand that others give full accounting but they are completely exempt.

the U.S. has signed and has sorta complied with Nuke agreements/reductions.

[Gunny]

hey I've got a question.
is this "DEBATE policy" or is this
"PISS on anyone with a DIFFERENT POLICY or even a questions TRUMP or the the right?".
what's the deal folks?

sheesh.Answer your own question. Is it DEBATE Policy? Or YOU pissing all over everyone you disagree with? I don't care if you have a "different" policy and I usually let the other person set the tone of the conversation. No one's going to be nice to you when you're being a dick. Abbey might, but no one else is going to.

You're as bad in the other direction. Anyone who agrees with Trump is wrong. I question Trump's decisions all the time. I just figured out how to do it without pissing off every Trump supporter on the board. You want to have an A-HA! moment like you discovered the cure for cancer.

Try discussing the issue and the decision and not the man that made it.

[revelarts]

Answer your own question. Is it DEBATE Policy? Or YOU pissing all over everyone you disagree with? I don't care if you have a "different" policy and I usually let the other person set the tone of the conversation. No one's going to be nice to you when you're being a dick. Abbey might, but no one else is going to.

You're as bad in the other direction. Anyone who agrees with Trump is wrong. I question Trump's decisions all the time. I just figured out how to do it without pissing off every Trump supporter on the board. You want to have an A-HA! moment like you discovered the cure for cancer.

Try discussing the issue and the decision and not the man that made it.

have i been discussing the issue in this thread Gunny?

[Gunny]

have i been discussing the issue in this thread Gunny?Trump is not the issue.

The deal is the issue. The deal is illegal to begin with. We don't have to go so far as the stupidity of it. The evidence has been provided Iran is not adhering to its end by Israel. You won't accept Israel's word, but you will take the word of an incompetent, international organization that has proven itself about as useful as the UN.

You are arguing to be arguing. You cannot come up with a single good reason to keep this illegal deal with the devil that helps either the US or the World.

[revelarts]

Trump is not the issue.

The deal is the issue. The deal is illegal to begin with. We don't have to go so far as the stupidity of it. The evidence has been provided Iran is not adhering to its end by Israel. You won't accept Israel's word, but you will take the word of an incompetent, international organization that has proven itself about as useful as the UN.

You are arguing to be arguing. You cannot come up with a single good reason to keep this illegal deal with the devil that helps either the US or the World.
Ok please help me out here Gunny.
My 1st post I mentioned Bolton. and Agreed with Pete that Iran would be "free to restart their nuke program".

Nothing bad about Trump there Gunny.
my next post I gave my assessment of Bibi's report.
and mentioned reported details of apparently decent work of the IAEA.
and ASK why breaking the deal would be BETTER
I told pete that i hope there's no war but that Bolton wants one, and said Iran would have no reason to trust any new treaty if we break this one.
ALL those comments are about the issue, right?
After all that i did add
--and if Trump and others didn't like the deal why not ADD to it?
--since he's the best deal maker ever.

Is that too much of dig at Trump's own words for the board to bear Gunny?
yes or no please seriously.
But I didn't call Trump a Dick or say he should feast his America-hating eyes on this or that?
I replied to FAXnews comment about Bolton not being a influncene becasue Trump was up for it.
I pointed out 2 thing Trump said he would do that he hasn't and one thing that he did (that i agree with)
and gave reason why it's my GUESS that Bolton did influnce Trump on this issue.

Is that too much for the board to handle Gunny?
then i replied to your "EVERYBODY" saying the Deal was bad except those on Obama's Dick?
C'mon Gunny you know some people did like it.
is it to much to admit that in a debate?
you disagree with dejavu.. Ok no worries.
but i point out some fact the IAEA points out.

ALL ON the ISSUE. right?
no mention of TRUMP at all.
I asked for replies on 2 points to maybe convince me that you and others are right.
1. point to one completed "great" agreement that Trump alone (without other nations) has made with a hostile nation. maybe he's done something i'v missed.
2. Give me the honest pros and cons of keeping the deal vs breaking the deal. (not just partisan venom)
all on topic right?
and again i did add a bit of fun at Trumps Bragging.

So tell me strait up gunny is that joke TOO MUCH for the board to deal with?
in reply
You told me to you didn't give F*** about the IAEA. and to
Go feast your America-hating eyes on bibi's report
so that's not Dickish i guess.
i can call you a name based on what i think of your political views and you'll be cool with that right?
as long as i don't say ANYTHING negative about Trump EVER on the board? that's dickish.

I'm thinking probably my whole post here is Dickish to some.
just becasue I'm trying to get some clarity on what's setting people off.
look I'm boarder line autistic folks, so If you can't tell me what the problem is logically, I'm likely to miss it.
So please What have I said IN THIS thread that's so upsetting about TRUMP exactly?
Or is simply disagreeing with him at all just to much?

[Gunny]

Ok please help me out here Gunny.
My 1st post I mentioned Bolton. and Agreed with Pete that Iran would be "free to restart their nuke program".

Nothing bad about Trump there Gunny.
my next post I gave my assessment of Bibi's report.
and mentioned reported details of apparently decent work of the IAEA.
and ASK why breaking the deal would be BETTER
I told pete that i hope there's no war but that Bolton wants one, and said Iran would have no reason to trust any new treaty if we break this one.
ALL those comments are about the issue, right?
After all that i did add
--and if Trump and others didn't like the deal why not ADD to it?
--since he's the best deal maker ever.

Is that too much of dig at Trump's own words for the board to bear Gunny?
yes or no please seriously.
But I didn't call Trump a Dick or say he should feast his America-hating eyes on this or that?
I replied to FAXnews comment about Bolton not being a influncene becasue Trump was up for it.
I pointed out 2 thing Trump said he would do that he hasn't and one thing that he did (that i agree with)
and gave reason why it's my GUESS that Bolton did influnce Trump on this issue.

Is that too much for the board to handle Gunny?
then i replied to your "EVERYBODY" saying the Deal was bad except those on Obama's Dick?
C'mon Gunny you know some people did like it.
is it to much to admit that in a debate?
you disagree with dejavu.. Ok no worries.
but i point out some fact the IAEA points out.

ALL ON the ISSUE. right?
no mention of TRUMP at all.
I asked for replies on 2 points to maybe convince me that you and others are right.
1. point to one completed "great" agreement that Trump alone (without other nations) has made with a hostile nation. maybe he's done something i'v missed.
2. Give me the honest pros and cons of keeping the deal vs breaking the deal. (not just partisan venom)
all on topic right?
and again i did add a bit of fun at Trumps Bragging.

So tell me strait up gunny is that joke TOO MUCH for the board to deal with?
in reply
You told me to you didn't give F*** about the IAEA. and to
Go feast your America-hating eyes on bibi's report
so that's not Dickish i guess.
i can call you a name based on what i think of your political views and you'll be cool with that right?
as long as i don't say ANYTHING negative about Trump EVER on the board? that's dickish.

I'm thinking probably my whole post here is Dickish to some.
just becasue I'm trying to get some clarity on what's setting people off.
look I'm boarder line autistic folks, so If you can't tell me what the problem is logically, I'm likely to miss it.
So please What have I said IN THIS thread that's so upsetting about TRUMP exactly?
Or is simply disagreeing with him at all just to much?Rev, i didn't join the board yesterday. Not my first rodeo with you. Try the innocent act on someone else. You present an unpopular, non-reality-based argument as gospel. If anyone disagrees you get nasty. Then want to know why you get hammered back? You present no real argument just your "A-HA! factoid sheet" and expect everyone to buy off on it.

When I know what I am going to say is going to piss off some people, I first weigh whether or not it is worth saying, and if I say it anyway, I'm prepared to defend against boarders. I lock and load and have it. But when everyone comes after me I don't go "Oh, golly gee ... can't we all get along?" and wonder why everyone's "being mean to me".

I stand my ground.

The other point as I mentioned before. Know your audience. Which, you do. You're no cherry boy here. You know who you're going to piss off before you hit enter. Either that or you're just dumb. Presenting things the right way to the people you are presenting them to goes a long way.

[Abbey Marie]

Question for Rev and Pete:

Please name the last US President you liked and trusted.

[Black Diamond]

Question for Rev and Pete:

Please name the last US President you liked and trusted.
For Pete it's Obama.

[Gunny]

Question for Rev and Pete:

Please name the last US President you liked and trusted.Liked AND trusted? Ronald Reagan.

[Drummond]

What is the latest intel? Don't quote netanyahu, nothing new there, not evidence. That presentation was for Trump.

Just interested in knowing, Pete: are there any other sources we 'must not consider', in case they, too, detract from your position on this ?

Nothing quite like skewing things in your favour, eh, Pete .. ?

[pete311]

Question for Rev and Pete:

Please name the last US President you liked and trusted.

Rule #1: Never trust a politician.

[pete311]

Just interested in knowing, Pete: are there any other sources we 'must not consider', in case they, too, detract from your position on this ?

Nothing quite like skewing things in your favour, eh, Pete .. ?

CNN, ABC and MSNBC right? I thought so.

[jimnyc]

Just interested in knowing, Pete: are there any other sources we 'must not consider', in case they, too, detract from your position on this ?

Nothing quite like skewing things in your favour, eh, Pete .. ?

Disregard him, there was plenty from Netanyahu, not to mention lies proven. No need to get approval. The right thing was done and that's what matters. Literal liberal crying was to be expected no matter any choice made. They can go visit the new cry closets in Cali.

[pete311]

Netanyahu's info on Iran nukes known to U.S. intelligence for years
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/netanyahu-s-info-iran-nukes-known-u-s-intelligence-years-n870456

"Nothing in Netanyau's presentation suggested that Iran had restarted a secret nuclear program."


Benjamin Netanyahu's Iran Deal Speech Might Have Convinced the Only Person Who Matters
http://time.com/5262607/netanyahu-trump-iran-deal-speech/

"The only experts who matter are the IAEA, he adds.“They’ve never suggested Iran is not in compliance. If Iran is cheating, say so,” Sick pointed out. “This is politics. It should not be mistaken for security policy.”"

[Gunny]

Rule #1: Never trust a politician.Unless that politician is your Commander in Chief. Then you have to trust them to a certain degree. They can get you killed.

Which rolling back on topic ... something to ponder .... Trump is not THAT hard to figure out. What I don't see here is maybe he's just looking for a better deal? Seems to be the way he rolls. Draw a line in the sand and wait and see what's offered.

Personally, if he takes the agreement into the head and uses it to wipe with the same way Obama used the Constitution, I'm fine. F*ck Iran.

[jimnyc]

"yawn"

Give it up, the deal is rightfully been withdrawn from. Complaining now is fruitless for anyone. What should be discussed going forward, is WHAT should be in any renegotiated deal, what do we need to ensure the best for the USA and the world. There was a LOT LOT in the last agreement, and many changes need to be made if they want sanctions released and a peaceful future for all.

It's actually simple. Build off the last one. Fill in the gaps and cover the holes. Sit down with authority in Iran and negotiate something we can all live with. Make a peaceful path, not an agreement filled with holes and continued "death to america". They should get it right, if at all possible. But I'm not sure that'll ever happen with Iran. I believe folks tried years back, and they of course lied through their teeth and got an agreement.

[Gunny]

"yawn"

Give it up, the deal is rightfully been withdrawn from. Complaining now is fruitless for anyone. What should be discussed going forward, is WHAT should be in any renegotiated deal, what do we need to ensure the best for the USA and the world. There was a LOT LOT in the last agreement, and many changes need to be made if they want sanctions released and a peaceful future for all.

It's actually simple. Build off the last one. Fill in the gaps and cover the holes. Sit down with authority in Iran and negotiate something we can all live with. Make a peaceful path, not an agreement filled with holes and continued "death to america". They should get it right, if at all possible. But I'm not sure that'll ever happen with Iran. I believe folks tried years back, and they of course lied through their teeth and got an agreement.I know the current deal does not address Iran's continued work in ICBMs. The delivery system is as, if not more, important than the payload.

Support for Hezbollah and al Qaeda and al shabaab and whoever the f* else.

I'd nail them to the wall or f*ck 'em.

The drawback is pushing Iran into Putin's waiting arms.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

President Trump pulled out of the obama Iran deal that was never approved by congress or ratified by the senate, and Iran immediately burnt an American flag and chanted death to America.

Obama is a muslim, and he made a deal with a muslim nation that benefited them because muslims stick together, as he was also advised to do by all the muslims he surrounded himself with in his cabinet, ie, one IRANIAN woman, his TOP adviser, Valeria Jarrett. Muslim obama then went on to give Iran $150,000,000,000.00, not to mention the hundreds of millions in hard cash he had flown in on pallets under the cover of darkness.

The obama iran deal was a FARCE from the beginning, and the iranians have been enriching uranium all along pushing forward with the nuclear bomb program as fast as they can, period. The deal was one of the worst deals ever made in history, which is par for the course when it comes to the America hating muslim dog turd obama. Iran is greatest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.

President Trump put us back on track to make iran either suffer, or give up the nuclear crap, as we should be doing.

[jimnyc]

I know the current deal does not address Iran's continued work in ICBMs. The delivery system is as, if not more, important than the payload.

Support for Hezbollah and al Qaeda and al shabaab and whoever the f* else.

I'd nail them to the wall or f*ck 'em.

The drawback is pushing Iran into Putin's waiting arms.

That's why I keep bringing up the ICBM's, as I know what that work constitutes and what can be done with it.

[jimnyc]

So Iran's leader says to Trump "you can't do a damn thing". I'm pretty sure he just did, fucktard, and that's why your sorry muslim ass is angry! And the US flag fire and Death to America was IN PARLIAMENT, not kids outside. And they've been doing this forever. Sorry if folks don't trust them at their word and just hope that they are doing the same in all locations, or that their ICMB's are "peaceful".

Can you imagine if members of our Congress came into the congressional building, and lit the Iranian flag on fire and chanted "death to Iran"? The feedback in America alone would be crazy, let alone what other countries may think or feel. But Iran does it all the time, and no one blinks an eye.

And if he says there are lies, I'm all ears. Tell is which ones, open up your ENTIRE country and prove everyone wrong. Yeah, didn't think so.

--

Iran's top leader, lawmakers lash out at US on nuclear deal

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader chastised President Donald Trump on Wednesday over his decision to pull America out of the 2015 nuclear deal, while lawmakers lit a paper U.S. flag on fire inside parliament, shouting, "Death to America!"

The government backlash reflected broad public anger in Iran over Trump's decision, which threatens to destroy the landmark agreement. While Iranian officials, including the parliament speaker, say they hope Europe will work with them to preserve the deal, many are pessimistic.

In comments before school teachers, Khamenei told Trump: "You cannot do a damn thing!" The exhortation from Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, follows a pattern of Iranian leaders declaring their nation's ability to resist foreign pressure or interference.

Khamenei described Trump's speech as having "over 10 lies," without elaborating on them. He also said Trump's remarks threatened both Iran's people and its theocratic government.

Earlier Wednesday, the lawmakers, including a Shiite cleric, held the flaming flag alight as their colleagues joined their chants. They also burned a piece of paper representing the nuclear deal and stomped on the papers' ashes.

Rest - https://www.yahoo.com/news/iranian-lawmakers-set-paper-us-flag-ablaze-parliament-050726931.html

[Gunny]

That's why I keep bringing up the ICBM's, as I know what that work constitutes and what can be done with it.Completely agree. The weapon's no good if you can't deliver it.

You'd think Mr "War Hero, Naval Officer" former Secretary of State would know that :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Completely agree. The weapon's no good if you can't deliver it.

You'd think Mr "War Hero, Naval Officer" former Secretary of State would know that :rolleyes:

I've been pointing them out non-stop, and folks don't want to hear it. They are just as important as eyeballing their nuclear intent.

[Gunny]

I've been pointing them out non-stop, and folks don't want to hear it. They are just as important as eyeballing their nuclear intent.I say blow the whole place off the map. Been my stance since 1979 and isn't likely to change today. That's MY idea of a "deal".

The delivery system (missiles) have been mentioned, I just don't think they have been give the importance they should. You are correct in that everyone is too focused on a single point to a broader issue. No delivery system is like having a box of bullets and no gun.

[pete311]

I say blow the whole place off the map. Been my stance since 1979 and isn't likely to change today. That's MY idea of a "deal".

The delivery system (missiles) have been mentioned, I just don't think they have been give the importance they should. You are correct in that everyone is too focused on a single point to a broader issue. No delivery system is like having a box of bullets and no gun.

Sure, why not, worked in Iraq...

[jimnyc]

Sure, why not, worked in Iraq...

IMO, the biggest problem in Iraq, which is the biggest problem in pretty much anyplace we send our military folks - they don't let them fight the way they were taught, they expect them to be UN peacekeepers at the same time. Let them actually fight and destroy, and it would have been done in short order. Same with Iran.

[Gunny]

Sure, why not, worked in Iraq...I was against invading Iraq for the very result we got which was predicted in 91 when pondering going in then. It would create a vacuum which it did. I supported winning once we were there. End of that.

I didn't say a thing about invading the place. I said blow it off the map. Literally. When your grandkids are forced to wear towels on their heads tell how well your appeasement BS has worked.

[pete311]

I was against invading Iraq for the very result we got which was predicted in 91 when pondering going in then. It would create a vacuum which it did. I supported winning once we were there. End of that.

I didn't say a thing about invading the place. I said blow it off the map. Literally. When your grandkids are forced to wear towels on their heads tell how well your appeasement BS has worked.

Just to be clear you are calling for killing 37.2 million people? And... somehow you square that with your stance against North Korea and Iran. How are we any better if we committed genocide and level a country? Your brain ain't right Gunny.

[pete311]

IMO, the biggest problem in Iraq, which is the biggest problem in pretty much anyplace we send our military folks - they don't let them fight the way they were taught, they expect them to be UN peacekeepers at the same time. Let them actually fight and destroy, and it would have been done in short order. Same with Iran.

It's so simple! Why didn't any military experts just think of this. Too bad they didn't listen to you. It's not so simple Jim. The biggest problem was we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Gunny]

Just to be clear you are calling for killing 37.2 million people? And... somehow you square that with your stance against North Korea and Iran. How are we any better if we committed genocide and level a country? Your brain ain't right Gunny.I am presenting a solution to a problem. A problem that has erupted every couple of centuries. The only thing that has stopped the Persians/muslims is to kill them and beat them back into their cage.

Don't like the solution? Too bad. History supports it.

[pete311]

I am presenting a solution to a problem. A problem that has erupted every couple of centuries. The only thing that has stopped the Persians/muslims is to kill them and beat them back into their cage.

Don't like the solution? Too bad. History supports it.

ah got it, thanks for clarifying that you want to mass murder 1.8 billion people. You're not a tyrant or anything.

[NightTrain]

Sure, why not, worked in Iraq...


Yes, it most certainly did.

No more efforts by Iraq to build nukes. No more state sponsored terrorism by Iraq. No more genocide committed by Iraq. No more invasions of neighboring countries by Iraq.

Despite your snarling, Iraq has been fundamentally transformed for the better.

The only issue arisen from Iraq is squarely 0bama's fault by withdrawing and allowing ISIS to get started.

Fortunately, Trump has corrected that failure by eliminating ISIS. Problem solved.

[Gunny]

ah got it, thanks for clarifying that you want to mass murder 1.8 billion people. You're not a tyrant or anything.I'm not. I'm a pragmatist.

You remind me of people that keep snakes for pets. You can think it's cool, treat it like a king, and it's STILL going to bite you. The guilt trip doesn't work on me by the way. I can turn my emotions off in a second and handle an issue.

As I said, history supports my stance. Your leftwingnut, Dr Feel Good emotions are all you have and they never accomplish anything.

[jimnyc]

It's so simple! Why didn't any military experts just think of this. Too bad they didn't listen to you. It's not so simple Jim. The biggest problem was we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Ummm, no. But if and when you send in the United States armed forces - you should let them do as taught, not change their positions and risking their lives at the same time. You let them fight to win, which is what they do best.

And they did think of it, but got slammed at every turn by the liberal left with demands and expectations and wanting us to fail.

[Gunny]

It's so simple! Why didn't any military experts just think of this. Too bad they didn't listen to you. It's not so simple Jim. The biggest problem was we shouldn't have been there in the first place.We were already there, Einstein.

[Black Diamond]

ah got it, thanks for clarifying that you want to mass murder 1.8 billion people. You're not a tyrant or anything.
Let's start with the gays and trannies.

[jimnyc]

Let's start with the gays and trannies.

Liberals, THEN the gays and trannies. :)

[revelarts]

Question for Rev and Pete:
Please name the last US President you liked and trusted.

At the time I liked Carter and voted for him against Reagan
Then i discovered that Reagan wasn't a monster and voted Reagan the 2nd term.
and have only a few regrets there.
I liked W Bush... Until after 9/11

Since then no one.

looking back concerning TRUSTWORTHINESS i'd have to say Carter tried to do what he said, and to my knowledge didn't run side games, even if he was not successful on various fronts.
I've felt more betrayed by Reagan and W Bush. As they both, to different degrees, moved away from their stated "christian" "conservative" "constitutional" and "small govt" principals.

[pete311]

Liberals, THEN the gays and trannies. :)

Deplorables first, then liberals, gays and trannies

[jimnyc]

Deplorables first, then liberals, gays and trannies

Works for me, us deplorables have guns and ain't afraid to use them! Gays and trannies, well... and liberals claim to hate them. So yeah, I'll take my chances with an AR, couple a shotguns and even a 22 pistol that has dead on aim! Used to love bringing that sucker to Clark's for some target practice when we were in Virginia.

[Black Diamond]

Works for me, us deplorables have guns and ain't afraid to use them! Gays and trannies, well... and liberals claim to hate them. So yeah, I'll take my chances with an AR, couple a shotguns and even a 22 pistol that has dead on aim! Used to love bringing that sucker to Clark's for some target practice when we were in Virginia.
Are you afraid of people with vaginas on their heads ?

[jimnyc]

Are you afraid of people with vaginas on their heads ?

Ummm, well I don't want to have nightmares about those weird bastards.... but nah, just making the target a little bigger. Aim for the center of the vagina, I mean target!

[Black Diamond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11397&stc=1

[revelarts]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11397&stc=1

So how does it make it BETTER NOT to have a deal, with inspectors there, when they are chanting "death to America" no matter what?
That's the part that i'm not understanding.
I'm not not trying to be "nasty" here I'd really like a know.

no one said the deal was going to make them love us right?

[jimnyc]

So how does it make it BETTER NOT to have a deal, with inspectors there, when they are chanting "death to America" no matter what?
That's the part that i'm not understanding.
I'm not not trying to be "nasty" here I'd really like a know.

no one said the deal was going to make them love us right?

Because I think a deal gives off the idea that they are fully cooperating, and that this agreement was worthwhile to all sides, and that this agreement encompassed all activities and ways of delivering a possible nuclear weapon, and of course working to prevent/ensure that will never happen.

The only way that ever happens, IMO, is a new renegotiated deal, that is worthy to all sides, including Iran. Things can pretty much remain as is if that's what makes them happy, but then cover the remaining glaring loopholes and things simply not covered. Since that wasn't happening, GTFO of the deal. Short for leave the deal if anyone doesn't know that acronym. This doesn't mean that the USA isn't willing to negotiate a new deal at this very moment, and work with Iran - but that deal was worth jack shit and worthless as is. This way shows them we ain't playing BUT we are willing to work towards a better direction.

But is Iran REALLY gonna stop being a state sponsor of terrorism? Will they let the investigators into ALL sites, including the military installations and what not they won't allow right now? And anyplace that allows them to "inspect themselves" in any way, is also unacceptable. Will they allow involvement in their ICBM capabilities, and what they can carry? There are many things, that with the current agreement, makes said agreement worthless without their inclusion and/or their willingness to cooperate 100% without question.

[revelarts]

Because I think a deal gives off the idea that they are fully cooperating, and that this agreement was worthwhile to all sides, and that this agreement encompassed all activities and ways of delivering a possible nuclear weapon, and of course working to prevent/ensure that will never happen.

The only way that ever happens, IMO, is a new renegotiated deal, that is worthy to all sides, including Iran. Things can pretty much remain as is if that's what makes them happy, but then cover the remaining glaring loopholes and things simply not covered. Since that wasn't happening, GTFO of the deal. Short for leave the deal if anyone doesn't know that acronym. This doesn't mean that the USA isn't willing to negotiate a new deal at this very moment, and work with Iran - but that deal was worth jack shit and worthless as is. This way shows them we ain't playing BUT we are willing to work towards a better direction.

But is Iran REALLY gonna stop being a state sponsor of terrorism? Will they let the investigators into ALL sites, including the military installations and what not they won't allow right now? And anyplace that allows them to "inspect themselves" in any way, is also unacceptable. Will they allow involvement in their ICBM capabilities, and what they can carry? There are many things, that with the current agreement, makes said agreement worthless without their inclusion and/or their willingness to cooperate 100% without question.

would it be possible to EDIT the CURRENT Deal, rather than start all over from Scratch?
Or create more or separate deals that cover the "loopholes" you assert are there?
Using this deal as steeping stone or maybe baby step to more?

IMO it looks like the deal does do some good. It's open the door wider at the least. glass half full.
It doesn't make sense to me to scrap it and start over if it's not absolutely necessary.

And i think most countries are grown up enough to know that Iran ...and the US... can't be trusted to be PERFECT. (no ones perfect right?) "trust but verify" right?

And 100% compliance? OK, but can that be built toward?
I just don't get the idea that we think any nation, much less an "enemy" will do EVERYTHING we want "without question".
That seems a bit unrealistic.
I mean, Heck Saudi Arabia is an "ally" but they fund terror as well. So does UAE and Turkey, and Turkey's in NATO!

Seems to me this deal is better than nothing and getting them BACK to the table would be HARDER after backing out of this one.
Would you want to deal with someone who just backed out of one deal?
What guarantees would they have that the next president won't change the rules again?

[Gunny]

would it be possible to EDIT the CURRENT Deal, rather than start all over from Scratch?
Or create more or separate deals that cover the "loopholes" you assert are there?
Using this deal as steeping stone or maybe baby step to more?

IMO it looks like the deal does do some good. It's open the door wider at the least. glass half full.
It doesn't make sense to me to scrap it and start over if it's not absolutely necessary.

And i think most countries are grown up enough to know that Iran ...and the US... can't be trusted to be PERFECT. (no ones perfect right?) "trust but verify" right?

And 100% compliance? OK, but can that be built toward?
I just don't get the idea that we think any nation, much less an "enemy" will do EVERYTHING we want "without question".
That seems a bit unrealistic.
I mean, Heck Saudi Arabia is an "ally" but they fund terror as well. So does UAE and Turkey, and Turkey's in NATO!

Seems to me this deal is better than nothing and getting them BACK to the table would be HARDER after backing out of this one.
Would you want to deal with someone who just backed out of one deal?
What guarantees would they have that the next president won't change the rules again?Why not start over from scratch? Why are you and others so intent on saving a bad deal?

It is not in our, nor the rest of the Middle East's interest. Nothing in it is. Too bad we can't get back the cash Obama gave them. And the 13 scum he traded for a traitor.

I don't negotiate with snakes. I shoot them.

[Gunny]

Hey, Iranians are on TV right now burning the American flag in Tehran. Kind of loses its shock value when you do it every other week:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

May 9, 2018
By Yara Bayoumy and Brian Love
WASHINGTON/PARIS (Reuters) – Dismayed European allies sought on Wednesday to salvage the Iran nuclear deal and preserve their Iranian trade after President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the landmark accord and ordered sanctions reimposed on Tehran.
“The deal is not dead. There’s an American withdrawal from the deal but the deal is still there,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said.
But Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who helped engineer the 2015 deal to ease Iran’s economically crippling isolation, told French counterpart Emmanuel Macron in a phone call that Europe had only a “limited opportunity” to preserve the pact, the Iranian Students’ News Agency reported.
“(Europe)… must, as quickly as possible, clarify its position and specify and announce its intentions with regard to its obligations,” ISNA quoted Rouhani as telling Macron.
Macron, who like other European leaders had lobbied Trump to keep the agreement that was struck before the Republican president took office in January 2017, urged Rouhani to keep respecting the deal and consider broader negotiations.
Trump said on Tuesday he would revive U.S. economic sanctions, which would penalize foreign firms doing business with Tehran, to undermine what he called “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made”.
On Wednesday, he said Iran would now either negotiate or “something will happen.” It was not immediately clear what actions he was suggesting would take place.
The White House said later that Trump was preparing to impose new sanctions on Iran, perhaps as early as next week, but gave no details.
Iran has drafted a “proportional” plan to cope with the U.S. withdrawal, the official news agency, IRNA, quoted government spokesman Mohammad Baqer Nobakht as saying. He said without elaborating that budgets had been drawn up to handle various scenarios.
The fruit of more than a decade of diplomacy, the nuclear agreement was clinched in July 2015 by the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China and Iran.
It was designed to prevent Iran developing a nuclear bomb in return for the removal of sanctions that had crippled its economy, not least by Washington threatening to penalize businesses anywhere in the world that traded with Iran.
Trump complained that the deal, the signature foreign policy achievement of his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program, its nuclear activities beyond 2025 or its role in conflicts in Yemen and Syria.
His decision raises the risk of deepening conflicts in the Middle East, puts the United States at odds with European diplomatic and business interests and casts uncertainty over global oil supplies. Oil prices rose more than 2 percent, with Brent touching a 3-1/2-year high. [O/R]
The U.S. pullout could also strengthen hardliners in Iranian politics at the expense of moderates like Rouhani who had pinned their hopes on the deal to boost living standards in Iran, with limited success so far.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a hardliner, said: “Mr Trump, I tell you on behalf of the Iranian people: You’ve made a mistake. … I said many times from the first day: Don’t trust America.”
‘REGION DESERVES BETTER’
Le Drian, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) all said Iran was honoring its commitments under the accord.
“The region deserves better than further destabilization provoked by American withdrawal,” Le Drian said.
Later on Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought to allay concerns that Washington had alienated itself from close allies with Trump’s decision.
“We will continue to work alongside our allies and partners to ensure that Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon, and will work with others to address the range of Iran’s malign influence,” Mattis told a U.S. Senate hearing.
“The president could not affirm as required that this agreement was being lived up to,” Mattis said. “We now have the opportunity to move forward to address those shortcomings and make it more compelling.”
The European Union said it would ensure sanctions on Iran remain lifted, as long as Tehran meets its commitments.
The Kremlin said Russian President Vladimir Putin was “deeply concerned” by the withdrawal, the RIA news agency said.
Merkel said that while the existing deal should not be called into question, there should be discussion of “a broader deal that goes beyond it”.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke of a “follow-on agreement,” but said it was up to Washington to come up with concrete proposals. Macron said he wanted a broader discussion with all relevant parties on the development of Iran’s nuclear program after 2025, when key elements of the current deal start (http://www.oann.com/trump-to-announce-decision-on-iran-nuclear-deal-european-allies-on-edge/#) to expire, as well as Iran’s ballistic missile program and wider Middle East issues.
Iranian officials will next week meet counterparts from France, Britain and Germany. Khamenei appeared skeptical whether they could deliver: “I don’t trust these three countries.”
The chances of saving (http://www.oann.com/trump-to-announce-decision-on-iran-nuclear-deal-european-allies-on-edge/#) the deal without Washington depend largely on whether international firms are willing and able to keep trading with Iran despite the threat of U.S. sanctions.
In a sign (http://www.oann.com/trump-to-announce-decision-on-iran-nuclear-deal-european-allies-on-edge/#) of what may be in store, Trump’s ambassador to Berlin tweeted within hours of taking up his post that German businesses should halt activities in Iran at once.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said the United States should not consider itself the world’s “economic policeman”.
Britain, France and Germany said they would do all they could to protect their business interests in Iran, yet it was unclear how far they would be able to shield firms from U.S. sanctions.
Brussels has a “blocking statute” at its disposal that bans any EU company from complying with U.S. sanctions and does not recognize any court rulings that enforce American penalties.
But the statute has never been used and is seen by European governments more as a political weapon than a regulation, because its rules are vague and difficult to enforce.
British Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman made the limits of potential action clear: “UK businesses may wish to consider the implications for their business activities in Iran and, where necessary, seek appropriate legal advice.”
European companies including carmaker PSA <PEUP.PA>, plane manufacturer Airbus <AIR.PA> and engineering group Siemens <SIEGn.DE> all said they were watching the situation.
A senior French diplomat said businesses would ultimately be forced to choose between their Iranian economic interests and their potential U.S. interests, adding: “Generally, that decision is quickly made in favor of the U.S.”
‘DEATH TO AMERICA!”‘
Hardliner lawmakers in Iran’s parliament burned a U.S. flag and a symbolic copy of the deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), chanting: “Death to America!”
Rouhani, who could be weakened by a blow to Iran’s economy, struck a more conciliatory tone in a televised speech, saying Iran would negotiate with EU countries, China and Russia.
“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 will remain,” he said.
The Trump administration kept the door open to negotiating another deal, but it is far from clear whether the Europeans would pursue that option or be able to win Iran over.
Abandoning the pact was one of the most consequential decisions of Trump’s “America First” policy, which has led him to quit the global Paris climate accord, come close to a trade war with China and pull out of an Asian-Pacific trade deal.
It also appeared to reflect the growing influence of Iran hawks such as new national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who arrived in Pyongyang on Wednesday to prepare for a summit that Trump hopes will secure North Korea’s denuclearization.
COMPLYING WITH DEAL
Iran denies long-standing Western suspicions that it tried in the past to develop atomic weapons and says its nuclear energy program has been for peaceful purposes.
Senior U.S. officials themselves have said several times that Iran is in technical compliance with the nuclear pact.
Renewing sanctions would make it much harder for Iran to sell its oil abroad or use the international banking system.
Iran is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’s third-largest member, pumping about 3.8 million barrels per day of crude, or just under 4 percent of global supply. China, India, Japan and South Korea buy most of its 2.5 million bpd of exports.
Iran’s rial currency plunged to a record low against the U.S. dollar in the free market, after sliding for months because of a weak economy, financial difficulties at local banks and heavy demand for dollars among Iranians who feared that renewed U.S. sanctions would hit Iranian exports hard.
Among the few nations to welcome Trump’s decision were Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s arch-foes in the Middle East, regarding it as a political victory.
(Graphic showing Iran’s nuclear facilities https://tmsnrt.rs/2K9tVRX (https://tmsnrt.rs/2K9tVRX))


http://www.oann.com/trump-to-announce-decision-on-iran-nuclear-deal-european-allies-on-edge/

[aboutime]

If Iran was being honest about their nuclear intentions....WHY would they need to be angry about the U.S. withdrawing? They (Iran) should be applauding Trump for what he did. But then...Obviously....they are upset because THEY COULDN'T FOOL TRUMP, and he knows what they really are up to. ISRAEL intelligence EXPOSED IT ALL last week.

Otherwise. IRAN should simply shut up. If they have nothing HONESTLY to hide...why cry about it??
It's a great exhibit of International Hypocrisy in Action...IMO.
http://i60.tinypic.com/21dop43.jpg
https://pics.me.me/just-because-the-leader-of-iran-is-leading-chants-of-10378266.pnghttp://www.ahwazmonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hypocrisy-.png
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fnAEKiPy-E8/hqdefault.jpg
http://www.bookwormroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Iran-Obama-Death-to-America.jpg