(05-11-2018, 05:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The problem with that is that countries like Iran and other America-hating countries don't give a shit about peace and talking things out.
WTF?
Iran and the US and several other countries talked things out and we had a plan in place that was keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program.
How can you say they don't care about peace and talking things out? Israel and Iran did not start shooting at each other until Trump scrapped the deal.
Trump is the one who is proving that he does not care about talking things out. He wants to start another war to make some money. He just signed the largest increase in military spending since the first year of the Iraq War under W. That is one of his biggest plans to boost the economy. Military contracts with private companies to sale weapons and defense systems to warring countries in addition to what we use.
So when you talk about other countries "acting stupid" what exactly do you mean? Complying with peaceful agreements to reduce nuclear proliferation? How is that "acting stupid"?
(05-11-2018, 05:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Sarah Sanders was asked about how Obama and the others mentioned are condemning Trump for his statements on Iran and Sarah gives the PERFECT response:
We can't be bullies just to be bullies, but we can't let the rest of the world act stupid!
That's a problem with Democrats: everyone gets a trophy, give everyone handouts, talk things through.
The problem with that is that countries like Iran and other America-hating countries don't give a shit about peace and talking things out.
Take a stand and protect our people!
I'm not a fan of her retort. The best response would have been "They are entitled to their opinion". However, I'm sure when the same folks keep criticizing you over and over again human nature is to get a little snarky. I know I do it here.
(05-11-2018, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not a fan of her retort. The best response would have been "They are entitled to their opinion". However, I'm sure when the same folks keep criticizing you over and over again human nature is to get a little snarky. I know I do it here.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-11-2018, 05:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's a problem with Democrats: everyone gets a trophy, give everyone handouts, talk things through.
Exactly. Democrats can be proud of all those participation trophies they've been handed while Republicans are actually proud of things they've actually earned and accomplished, like being born in America, the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.
(05-11-2018, 05:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Sarah Sanders was asked about how Obama and the others mentioned are condemning Trump for his statements on Iran and Sarah gives the PERFECT response:
We can't be bullies just to be bullies, but we can't let the rest of the world act stupid!
That's a problem with Democrats: everyone gets a trophy, give everyone handouts, talk things through.
The problem with that is that countries like Iran and other America-hating countries don't give a shit about peace and talking things out.
Take a stand and protect our people!
Let me get this straight.
Trump doesn't take advice from the people who started no new wars in the ME, killed Osama bin Laden, and got the world to sign off on the Iran Deal--because of their LACK OF SUCCESS.
But he appoints John Bolton, one of the architects of the Iraq war, as his national security advisor. Does anyone disagree that the Iraq War was the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, an unnecessary war which killed more Americans than 9/11? That was TAKING A STAND TO PROTECT OUR PEOPLE?
Obama "talked thing out" with Iran and got a deal with one of those America-hating countries that doesn't give a shit about peace and talking things out.
Trump broke the deal because THEY don't give a shit about peace and talking things out? Pushing Iran to get a bomb is taking a stand to protect our people?
(05-11-2018, 05:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Iran and the US and several other countries talked things out and we had a plan in place that was keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program.
We can debate the usefulness of the previous deal, but I don't think it could be said that it would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. If they complied with every facet of the deal many of the conditions had a sunset clause. At best the deal was delaying Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Odd, as they've publicly stated that they don't want them.
(05-14-2018, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We can debate the usefulness of the previous deal, but I don't think it could be said that it would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. If they complied with every facet of the deal many of the conditions had a sunset clause. At best the deal was delaying Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Odd, as they've publicly stated that they don't want them.
Why the need for a deal with Iran about developing something they state they don't even want?
I think it's obvious that they were lying in 2012. And yes, the deal had a sunset clause, but stalling until 2031 to give time to hammer out a better deal versus them developing the program now (or in 2015, when the deal was done) makes sense, doesn't it? A deal with a sunset clause is more useful than no deal at all.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-14-2018, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We can debate the usefulness of the previous deal, but I don't think it could be said that it would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. If they complied with every facet of the deal many of the conditions had a sunset clause. At best the deal was delaying Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Odd, as they've publicly stated that they don't want them.
(05-14-2018, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it's obvious that they were lying in 2012. And yes, the deal had a sunset clause, but stalling until 2031 to give time to hammer out a better deal versus them developing the program now (or in 2015, when the deal was done) makes sense, doesn't it? A deal with a sunset clause is more useful than no deal at all.
Yes, they were lying. Stalling didn't work with N. Korea, what makes anyone think it would work with Iran? You and I constantly decry the kicking the can down the road approach to policy. The Iran deal was a rather marked example of this.
(05-14-2018, 04:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: So we couldn't trust Iran under the deal...but we can trust what they say about not wanting nuclear weapons.
Classic!
I think the intelligent observer would come to the conclusion that they can't be trusted at all. I think the same type of person would have gleaned that obvious inference from my post.
(05-14-2018, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, they were lying. Stalling didn't work with N. Korea, what makes anyone think it would work with Iran? You and I constantly decry the kicking the can down the road approach to policy. The Iran deal was a rather marked example of this.
Because it was working with Iran. The JCPOA wasn't kicking the can down the road. It wasn't a permanent fix, but we weren't going to get one at that point in time. What happened was the best deal we were going to get and it opened the door for further negotiations. Kicking the can down the road is doing the same thing over and over, like just imposing sanctions and expecting something to change.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-14-2018, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the intelligent observer would come to the conclusion that they can't be trusted at all. I think the same type of person would have gleaned that obvious inference from my post.
So when you do not trust someone is it better to have them subject to inspections to verify they are complying or not have any inspections at all?
(05-14-2018, 06:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it was working with Iran. The JCPOA wasn't kicking the can down the road. It wasn't a permanent fix, but we weren't going to get one at that point in time. What happened was the best deal we were going to get and it opened the door for further negotiations. Kicking the can down the road is doing the same thing over and over, like just imposing sanctions and expecting something to change.
I think the counter argument would be that, in the meantime, Iran gets full access to funds and financial markets thus setting itself up to weather a new round of sanctions once they ramp up their nuclear program again. All the while using unfrozen assets to fund terrorists groups. I get both sides of this argument, I don't think either is fully correct. I will agree that it would have been better for the deal to have never been signed then to back out of it subsequent to it's being put into effect. I would add that Trump did state he would do exactly this when running for office. As much as some dislike him, he has kept his word on a large amount of campaign promises.
(05-14-2018, 06:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because NK did not agree to inspections by the IAEA.
I'll concede this point. Granted, they did no allow access to all desired locations.
(05-14-2018, 06:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So when you do not trust someone is it better to have them subject to inspections to verify they are complying or not have any inspections at all?
It may have been better not to sign the deal in the first place. Iran is more difficult than N. Korea in one major respect, they are motivated by religious ideology whereas N. Korea is motivated by perpetuating itself. Iran is thus much more difficult to deal with.
(05-14-2018, 07:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So we should not have even tried to slow down their development of nuclear weapons?
How could that have been better?
By not unfreezing their assets and lifting sanctions thus giving them billions of dollars to fund terrorism and build up their military. Not exactly a hard question to answer.
(05-14-2018, 07:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By not unfreezing their assets and lifting sanctions thus giving them billions of dollars to fund terrorism and build up their military. Not exactly a hard question to answer.
I prefer no nukes over a pissed of regime with nukes.
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media1.giphy.com/media/6RXkMDpm1Qppu/giphy.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
