The Iran deal

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2018, 07:11 PM)GMDino Wrote:


https://www.dailywire.com/news/30392/watch-trump-just-shredded-iran-deal-here-are-5-ben-shapiro



That's...just...sad.

Unsurprising...but sad.

Why? you asked for a response. I gave you one.

No response to you is in depth. All you care about is attacking trump for anything.

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 07:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why? you asked for a response.  I gave you one.  

No response to you is in depth.  All you care about is attacking trump for anything.

I asked for YOUR in depth discussion...you shared a post (unattributed) from a right wing website and attempted to pass that off as your own.

Just own it.

[Belsnickel]

(05-09-2018, 07:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: I asked for YOUR in depth discussion...you shared a post (unattributed) from a right wing website and attempted to pass that off as your own.

Just own it.

What is it with plagiarists on here?

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 07:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is it with plagiarists on here?

It's easier to use someone else's thoughts when you only have a shallow knowledge of something and want to appear smarter than you are.

I don't care if people cite the sources they are getting their ideas from, but this is Tommy-level stuff.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2018, 07:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: I asked for YOUR in depth discussion...you shared a post (unattributed) from a right wing website and attempted to pass that off as your own.

Just own it.

There is no in depth discussion with you. You are incapable. All you are worth getting is copy/paste because it’s a waste of time to discuss issues like this with you. You have blinders on to anything except anti trump.

But please keep going on lol.

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 08:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is no in depth discussion with you.  You are incapable.  All you are worth getting is copy/paste because it’s a waste of time to discuss issues like this with you.  You have blinders on to anything except anti trump.  

But please keep going on lol.

This why discussions go nowhere.

I tried to get a Trump supporter to give a real reason and not just spew talking points.  Tried to see if there was any depth to the argument.

Instead this.

Carry on.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2018, 08:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: This why discussions go nowhere.

I tried to get a Trump supporter to give a real reason and not just spew talking points.  Tried to see if there was any depth to the argument.

Instead this.

Carry on.

Lol.... you don’t make a thread unless it’s anti trump. Then when someone does try and have a discussion you get off on an off topic tangent ..... exactly what your doing now. Killing any discussion or sharing on Iran.

But hey keep insisting your all about the discussions.

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 12:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Disclaimer, I'm not an expert on the deal, chances are it's a flawed one, I wouldn't dare say.

But if Trump blows it up today, that would be a severe sign to the world that a contract with the US isn't worth negotiating in the first place. It would mean your political parties stand so fundamentally opposed that one can't reach an agreement with the USA, just with one of your parties. With great chances the other party doesn't respect it, based on facts or just based on principle.

I also would expect this a weakening of Trump's position towards North Korea, because what exactly should Kim fancy about any agreement that might not be worth the time and the paper to begin with. Similar goes for other countries like Europe. Trump would severly insult allies and there just can't be any other reaction as regarding the US as an unreliable player that can no longer be trusted. (The Kurds tell us that for a long time now.) I don't want to overstate things, but I can't see any other reaction.

I'm certain the US can still bully through and be fine, but nevertheless I believe the US would weaken itself for the foreseeable future on the world stage. It would also make the world less safe. For starters, I can't imagine Iran not trying to get the bomb as soon as possible after that one, other countries probably following that path.

In ascending order--it's not clear to me that Iran REALLY wants a bomb. They could have had one by 2005 and then again by 2013, but did not go that direction.  They maintain they have a RIGHT to make one, apparently (and understandably) out of national pride. Breaking the deal, though, has given impetus to the hard liners who wanted the bomb but were held back.

Right now, it is still in Iran's best interest to continue the deal with Russia, China, and the EU reps.  That is made more difficult by Trump's insistence that we will slap sanctions on disobedient European countries if they don't do what we say and re-impose the the sanctions we decide (right now, just "secondary" ones).

This is a very unstable situation since slapping sanctions or France or Germany or other EU countries is not quite as easy as bullying 3rd world states.  Trump et al. seem to imagine individual countries unable to stand up to the US for fear of losing our markets. But Europeans may be thinking that collectively they very well can do that. Or at least that it is worth the risk.  Europeans may be "weak" and not know how to bully any more, but they are smart and know that attempting to push Europe around will produce blowback in the US and European solidarity. They know that Trump is partially manipulable.  Feed Fox the right information. Get it past the gatekeepers--that is the hard part.

So many openings for Putin here as well. He, not NK, is the first great benefactor of Trump's blunder. If breaking apart NATO and disrupting the EU is your goal, then Trump is worth 10 atomic bombs. And Iran is a multi-billion dollar market. (And Dino just posted a tweet of a Russian response to the expected rise in world oil prices.)

The weakness in EU solidarity might be that Trump is now able to selectively NOT impose sanctions on individual countries and their business entities provided they fill up the suites in Trump tower to lobby for access and exemption. Deals everywhere.

Rather than view busting the Iran Deal as weakening Trump's position (whatever that could be) think of it as strengthening Kim's.  Including China and SK on any US deal, or at least in the process, holds forth two "trustworthy" partners who have earned more deference and are less belligerent. Playing Trump, Kim can speak of "permanent" solutions and hold forth a BIGGER deal than the Iran.  Despite all the bluff, it is not clear to me at all that Trump would "walk away" from a weak deal, if just having a deal can be spun as something no other president was able to do. Trump's supporters do not follow policy details. They follow rhetoric. If the Iran deal was "one-sided" and the "worst ever," then whatever Trump brings back from NK will be the "best ever" and "hardline, that I can tell you."  Pundits who critique factual details can be dismissed by non-readers as "haters."

Still, I think Trump's chances of walking away from such a deal are 60%.

China won't just be a potted plant in the room. On the one hand, their foreign policy horizon is MUCH broader than the US's, and they have a president for life. On the other, they see themselves as a world power and have shown that on some issues (Taiwan) they will absorb tremendous diplomatic hits rather than change a position.  THEY ARE THE KEY to an NK deal based on threat of sanctions, since they exert most control over whatever sanctions are imposed. They will expect concessions for cooperation. They will likely favor reduction of US power in SK, which Trump seems to favor too. (No Trump supporter will see a problem with that.  America first.)  They might be ready to sign a treaty bringing NK under their nuclear umbrella on condition the US leaves the penninsula and Kim really denuclearizes.  But who would trust them to make sure Kim does that? And that would fly in the face of NK juche, which requires total self-reliance.

And as signatories to the Iran Deal, they have just been burned by Trump. After giving up jobs and profits during the sanction years, then trusting US credibility in 2015, now returning to sanctions on Iran would cost them a valuable source of oil and billions in trade again. They might find the EU has their back, though. It is not at all clear how US diplomacy will work on them now, with Trump's one-two punch of threats and no credibility.

A really interesting possibility--After tremendous Trump reality show fanfare the US, China, N and SK sit down to negotiate. It blows up quickly. Trump walks away in storm of threatening tweets and repetitive interviews.  But China and the Koreas remain at the table and work out some deal WITHOUT THE US. Say one which sets NK on a path of normalizing relations between the Koreas, with China as guarantor.  Under any other presidency that would mean tremendous friction between SK and the US.  The US foreign policy establishment would go ballistic.  But I am truly unsure that Trump and supporters would care. How would they see any consequences? In what follows, sanctions become a joke. Russia also borders NK, and what is their incentive for holding to sanctions. At worst Trump would announce more sanctions on Russia without putting them into effect.

Great insight into our division. How CAN you trust us when an election four years from now might trash the agreement you signed today. One party cannot get treaties ratified so all hangs on executive agreements. Back in the 90s, during the Gingrich revolution, I assumed there would be a correction. Party divisions would balance the center. Instead the right just got more extreme. The old radicals--Gingrich, Cocaine Mitch, and Boehner, became "the establishment" challenged by the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus, many of whom are now challenged by the more extreme Trumpsters, who do not learn from political error and little in the way of political memory. "Once-Radicals" Cantor and Ryan gone! Who is next? The center cannot hold.

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 08:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol.... you don’t make a thread unless it’s anti trump.   Then when someone does try and have a discussion you get off on an off topic tangent ..... exactly what your doing now.   Killing any discussion or sharing on Iran.  

But hey keep insisting your all about the discussions.

And what would be there to discuss? You say the deal is worthless because, for some really ungraspable reason, it somehow included a guarantee that Iran wouldn't get attacked while complying with it. I mean, yeah, what a scandal that this was a part of the deal, right. On the other hand, there were 1.000 points made about how cancelling the deal is a bad idea, yet you chose to address none of those. Instead you just say "Obama made a horrible deal because he's so incompetent and vile" or stuff like that and consider it a debate contribution.

Also, if the same deal came from Trump, it would be the greatest deal ever and you'd ask how liberal brains could be so infected as to not see it's nobel prize worthy. This is all just playing for your red team, and that's all the perspective you have on things. It's just tiresome.

[Dill]

(05-09-2018, 03:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Idc if any US president upsets world leaders.  The lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinions of sheep.

I do care when presidents show weakness.  Which was a consistent obama issue.

What if a lion thinks of other lions as sheep.  Then doesn't concern himself with their opinions.

What then?

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: In ascending order--it's not clear to me that Iran REALLY wants a bomb. They could have had one by 2005 and then again by 2013, but did not go that direction.  They maintain they have a RIGHT to make one, apparently (and understandably) out of national pride. Breaking the deal, though, has given impetus to the hard liners who wanted the bomb but were held back.

Yeah, if they didn't want one back then, I guess this has changed now. I don't think it's just about pride, but also about self-preservation. At least I'd be in a loss of words if that point were made. Atomic bombs threaten the world, but make the country in possession safer, at least in the shorter term.

(05-09-2018, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Right now, it is still in Iran's best interest to continue the deal with Russia, China, and the EU reps.  That is made more difficult by Trump's insistence that we will slap sanctions on disobedient European countries if they don't do what we say and re-impose the the sanctions we decide (right now, just "secondary" ones).

Well, the companies dealing with Iran might face US sanctions. Whch will make it very hard to uphold the deal. But I lack insight to really evaluate the possibilities. Right now, losing some business in the US doesn't look like the scariest thing to me, at least not from a more political standpoint.

(05-09-2018, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: This is a very unstable situation since slapping sanctions or France or Germany or other EU countries is not quite as easy as bullying 3rd world states.  Trump et al. seem to imagine individual countries unable to stand up to the US for fear of losing our markets. But Europeans may be thinking that collectively they very well can do that. Or at least that it is worth the risk.

I sure hope so. I don't mind accepting the US as more powerful and more influential country. But I'm pissed in how within your current admin's position the deal was just called rotten and dumb - which is such a major offense to all the partners in the deal that want to uphold it. I'm not willing to partner up with people who deem our opinions and agreements with us as worthless. Which is exactly what's happening, after it happened with the Paris accord.
I guess we gave Macron his chance, now it's time to choose a more Merkelish approach. Cool it off. No touching. And hope that other countries from China to Iran will show a stronger preference for Europe over the US too. That's the plan :)

(05-09-2018, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Great insight into our division.[/b] How CAN you trust us when an election four years from now might trash the agreement you signed today. One party cannot get treaties ratified so all hangs on executive agreements. Back in the 90s, during the Gingrich revolution, I assumed there would be a correction. Party divisions would balance the center. Instead the right just got more extreme. The old radicals--Gingrich, Cocaine Mitch, and Boehner, became "the establishment" challenged by the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus, many of whom are now challenged by the more extreme Trumpsters, who do not learn from political error and little in the way of political memory. "Once-Radicals" Cantor and Ryan gone!  Who is next? The center cannot hold.

Sorry I skipped a lot, doesn't mean it's not interesting. About this, yeah I see it the same way. Extremes have gotten mainstream, which is used as the counter-argument against said extremism claim. One lie a season makes them huge deals, one lie a day makes them the new normal and those who complain about them blind haters. Goes for lies or whatever.

Also, cocaine Mitch? Am I missing something?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2018, 09:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: And what would be there to discuss? You say the deal is worthless because, for some really ungraspable reason, it somehow included a guarantee that Iran wouldn't get attacked while complying with it. I mean, yeah, what a scandal that this was a part of the deal, right. On the other hand, there were 1.000 points made about how cancelling the deal is a bad idea, yet you chose to address none of those. Instead you just say "Obama made a horrible deal because he's so incompetent and vile" or stuff like that and consider it a debate contribution.

Also, if the same deal came from Trump, it would be the greatest deal ever and you'd ask how liberal brains could be so infected as to not see it's nobel prize worthy. This is all just playing for your red team, and that's all the perspective you have on things. It's just tiresome.

I would be happy to have a treaty with Iran. We don’t have one now because obama couldn’t get it through the senate.

Just Give me a deal with some teeth. Iran cannot be trusted. They are pretty much one of the lowest of the scumbag nations.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2018, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: What if a lion thinks of other lions as sheep.  Then doesn't concern himself with their opinions.

What then?

Lol. Well a lion should see a lot of sheep, if they are the alpha.

We are the alpha nation. The world is A better place when we are ......

This is part of the reason I think working with Russia would be a positive, they are one of few countries who have the ability to be an alpha country. We should have them close.

[Luvnit2]

Head back in time, Obama could have went the long term way and convinced the Congress the deal was in the best interests of America. But, Schumer, and other Democrats spoke publicly stating it was a bad deal so no shot at getting the votes needed.. This meant the deal was just inked by President and had no long term guarantees, Obama was told that repeatedly as were the allies. Obama probably figured it was safe projecting HRC to be next POTUS so deal would never be dismantled.

I am no expert, but I will use words of Schumer and other Democrats on foreign relation committee. This is a bad deal, we have no power to inspect Iran to insure compliance.

It was a deal Obama chose to circumvent Congress, a risk he took and now he lost. But we lost as he gave Iran billions of dollars in the process. What did we (US) get? Nothing really, our allies gained financially, we did not.

The thing I love about President Trump is understands negotiate through strength, this deal the US had zero strength. But, I have a hunch the Trump team will trigger a better long term deal for the US, be patient,

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 08:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol.... you don’t make a thread unless it’s anti trump.   Then when someone does try and have a discussion you get off on an off topic tangent ..... exactly what your doing now.   Killing any discussion or sharing on Iran.  

But hey keep insisting your all about the discussions.

What the heck...I'll give you one more try:

Do YOU have any in depth reasons why the Iran deal was bad that are not simply copy and pasted from a right wing website without any citation?

Because the ONLY thing off topic is your attempt to pass off a thought as your own by not citing it and not quoting it.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2018, 06:04 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Gotta win districts  To win the numbers,  to win the state.. The masses were all in the same districts so while they had overall # they didn't win the needed electorials.

Rational folks know you cannot change the criteria after the result, but it hasn't stopped folks for the past 1.5 years from hanging on to it. No one has any idea how the popular vote would have came out if that was how we elect POTUS, but it's not. I truly thought the "but the popular" folks would realize how silly their claim is;however,I overestimated them

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2018, 05:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Clinton more votes for than Trump.  

But of course that not what you said, but feel free to change it up.

As to the rest.....folks know. 

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 10:39 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Head back in time, Obama could have went the long term way and convinced the Congress the deal was in the best interests of America. But, Schumer, and other Democrats spoke publicly stating it was a bad deal so no shot at getting the votes needed.. This meant the deal was just inked by  President and had no long term guarantees, Obama was told that repeatedly as were the allies. Obama probably figured it was safe projecting HRC to be next POTUS so deal would never be dismantled.

I am no expert, but I will use words of Schumer and other Democrats on foreign relation committee. This is a bad deal, we have no power to inspect Iran to insure compliance.

It was a deal Obama chose to circumvent Congress, a risk he took and now he lost. But we lost as he gave Iran billions of dollars in the process. What did we (US) get? Nothing really, our allies gained financially, we did not.

The thing I love about President Trump is understands negotiate through strength, this deal the US had zero strength. But, I have a hunch the Trump team will trigger a better long term deal for the US, be patient,

Despite Schumer's misgivings with the deal he understood the importance of working a deal with our allies and the diplomacy it took to get Iran to agree to it.  He also saw after just two years that the deal was in deed working better than he thought it would.

Allow me to add that even if Schumer had voted for it the GOP controlled congress would not have ratified it.  Period.

So citing a democrat who didn't like it doesn't really mean anything other than a democrat didn't like it.

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But of course that not what you said, but feel free to change it up.

As to the rest.....folks know. 

Semantics man strikes again!  Defender of clarity!  

But, if you say so.

"slur"

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2018, 11:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Semantics man strikes again!  Defender of clarity!  

It wasn't semantics, it was two completely assertions:

Person A) More folks voted against Trump than for Trump

Person B) No one got more votes for than against

Person A) Hillary got more votes than Trump

Person B) Well that's not what you said

Person A) SEMANTICS!!