(05-09-2018, 10:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.
Obama could Barely get Obamacare through when he had 60 in the senate and the house. He was a terrible president, who couldn’t make a deal to save his life. He went the executive way and it’s cool, until someone comes behind to drop your legacy like a bad habit.
(05-09-2018, 10:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.
No way to enforce the deal. They can delay inspections for weeks at a time and never had to tell us what they have been doing up until the deal. It would have been. Nice to get an update on their progress while we had them agreeing on a deal.
We gave them the money and sanction relief too early.
Don’t worry Trump will get a better deal once he puts an end to the Korean War.
(05-09-2018, 11:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No way to enforce the deal. They can delay inspections for weeks at a time and never had to tell us what they have been doing up until the deal. It would have been. Nice to get an update on their progress while we had them agreeing on a deal.
We gave them the money and sanction relief too early.
Don’t worry Trump will get a better deal once he puts an end to the Korean War.
Er, Lucy. Iran took the deal because it wanted to end sanctions. The threat of restarting sanctions was the way to enforce the deal--along with intrusive and unannounced inspections. Five other countries, Israeli intel, and the IAEA also agreed the inspections were adequate to the job. It was working just fine for three years. Even Trump certified Iran was holding to its bargain.
Who disagreed? Netanyahu, Trump, the Republicans and Saudi Arabia. Not the most credible group.
I think you have not read the JCPOA. You haven't, right? You read some articles on the Daily Wire and listened to a Trump speech.
Why would the impatient and ignorant Trump get a "better" deal? Why would Iran work with a deal breaker? Isn't it MUCH more likely he will bluster until he commits us to yet another war in the Middle East, against a country three times the size of Iraq and not divided between Shia and Sunni?
(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,
If you have been paying attention to US politics during the last 10 years then you know that Republican Senate was not "convincable" and that had nothing to do with the viability of the Iran Deal. Obama took the risk that enough in Congress would see the deal was working, and would understand that breaking deals harmed US credibility. He was wrong.
Shumer's claim there was no power to inspect and insure was just parroting Netanyahu. And now you are just parroting Shumer. You cannot judge JCPOA was a "bad deal" if you don't know what the US gained and what the alternatives were.
1. 2013--China and Russia said they were no longer going to to enforce sanctions if the US did not get a deal. That meant by 2015 an Iran with no effective sanctions and no inspections, and ALL its centrifuges and enriched plutonium.
2. Iran's breakout time was 6-8 weeks in 2013, when negotiations began. Then in 2015 it destroyed two thirds of its centrifuges and gave up over 200 kilos of enriched plutonium. They willingly destroyed their own track to the bomb. Now breakout time is well over a year. incalculable, really, since they have to replace all those 15,000 centrifuges they destroyed. Why is this "getting nothing"?
3. The inspections regime was the most rigorous and intrusive in history. China, Russia, the E 3, and the IAEA agreed. Effective and working. No bomb since 2015 and none in sight for the next decade while we had the deal.
4. Iran took a risk. It listened to its own moderates. Empowered them to make the deal. And when it went through and opened their economy, it set the country on a track away from hardliner control. Now the moderates are discredited. The hardliners want Iran on a road to the bomb, and they are determined to get there regardless of sanctions. Moderates still have enough power to keep open plan B--continue deal with the remaining responsible powers. If that fails, then control and iniative fall back to the hardliners; it is hard to see how anyone can prevent a run for the bomb--short of an invasion. ZERO incentive to cooperate with the US. And every incentive to get a bomb.
US "strength" was our ability to pull all these different, powerful, independent countries together at the last minute for a deal that helped everyone but Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia. People who believed Trump bluster empowered him to throw all that away. Ntanyahu knew that and played to Trump's base with his timed "expose" of Iranian lies. Why would ANY of the former deal partners want to help Trump while he threatens them with sanctions too?
How do you ever imagine the ignorant and blustery Trump can do anything to influence Iran now but turn to war, which would have little effect on Iran without a ground invasion. "Negotiate through strength" Trump style means The Iraq war, only in a country three times the size of Iraq and undivided by sects. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia, who would help the US? How does this fit anyone's goals except the Likud? We have a huge base in Qatar, across the street from Iran. How do US "allies" up and down the Gulf view the prospect of a war which makes them targets? They are not Trumpsters. They see an erratic deal breaker, not a deal maker. An erratic, authoritarian leader, more like the Arab dictators they all hate than a steady Clinton or no drama Obama.
(05-10-2018, 01:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Er, Lucy. Iran took the deal because it wanted to end sanctions. The threat of restarting sanctions was the way to enforce the deal--along with intrusive and unannounced inspections. Five other countries, Israeli intel, and the IAEA also agreed the inspections were adequate to the job. It was working just fine for three years. Even Trump certified Iran was holding to its bargain.
Who disagreed? Netanyahu, Trump, the Republicans and Saudi Arabia. Not the most credible group.
I think you have not read the JCPOA. You haven't, right? You read some articles on the Daily Wire and listened to a Trump speech.
Why would the impatient and ignorant Trump get a "better" deal? Why would Iran work with a deal breaker? Isn't it MUCH more likely he will bluster until he commits us to yet another war in the Middle East, against a country three times the size of Iraq and not divided between Shia and Sunni?
You dismiss trump again and again yet he Keeps winning. According to this board the world should have ended about 9 times over.
I have read up on the Iran deal. The Iran deal was the reason the rocketman was acting up, he thought we were Going to allow him to keep his nukes plus get pallets of cash. Iran should take notice of what’s happening in Korea. They will need to give up their nuclear ambitions or face military action. The ME coalition trump admin has been working to bring together will be critical for the region.
Then we can finally bring the military back to handle our Central American problem.
(05-10-2018, 03:49 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You dismiss trump again and again yet he Keeps winning. According to this board the world should have ended about 9 times over.
I have read up on the Iran deal. The Iran deal was the reason the rocketman was acting up, he thought we were Going to allow him to keep his nukes plus get pallets of cash. Iran should take notice of what’s happening in Korea. They will need to give up their nuclear ambitions or face military action. The ME coalition trump admin has been working to bring together will be critical for the region.
Then we can finally bring the military back to handle our Central American problem.
What you call "winning" the rest of the world calls breaking deals.
I don't "dismiss" Trump. He has ruined years of work and our relations with our allies.
I wonder if you will tell me what you have read about the Iran Deal. What are your sources? Where did you learn what "rocketman" wants? Looks like he has learned the US breaks deals. If Trump can no longer maintain sanctions on Iran, there is hope he can't maintain them on NK. The only real safety is in keeping nukes. So far it looks like Kim is winning. He is the first NK leader to get a US leader to the table, where he is setting the agenda.
What sort of "military action" do you think could be applied to NK?
What "coalition" is Trump bringing together in the ME? There is no discernible policy in place.
Still hoping for war with Mexico. After we defeat Iran and NK?
And you never responded to my point--you claimed we had no way of enforcing the Iran deal when we clearly did. Why would you repeat an untruth like that?
Final question: What is the lowest bar you would set for a successful NK deal? What does Trump have to accomplish to get a "win"? Anything short of Kim giving up his nukes? Are you ok with something less--like a promise to get rid of nukes in 10 years, or AFTER the US removes all troops from SK? Is it still a "win" if Trump walks away without a deal?
(05-10-2018, 02:54 AM)Dill Wrote: If you have been paying attention to US politics during the last 10 years then you know that Republican Senate was not "convincable" and that had nothing to do with the viability of the Iran Deal. Obama took the risk that enough in Congress would see the deal was working, and would understand that breaking deals harmed US credibility. He was wrong.
Shumer's claim there was no power to inspect and insure was just parroting Netanyahu. And now you are just parroting Shumer. You cannot judge JCPOA was a "bad deal" if you don't know what the US gained and what the alternatives were.
1. 2013--China and Russia said they were no longer going to to enforce sanctions if the US did not get a deal. That meant by 2015 an Iran with no effective sanctions and no inspections, and ALL its centrifuges and enriched plutonium.
2. Iran's breakout time was 6-8 weeks in 2013, when negotiations began. Then in 2015 it destroyed two thirds of its centrifuges and gave up over 200 kilos of enriched plutonium. They willingly destroyed their own track to the bomb. Now breakout time is well over a year. incalculable, really, since they have to replace all those 15,000 centrifuges they destroyed. Why is this "getting nothing"?
3. The inspections regime was the most rigorous and intrusive in history. China, Russia, the E 3, and the IAEA agreed. Effective and working. No bomb since 2015 and none in sight for the next decade while we had the deal.
4. Iran took a risk. It listened to its own moderates. Empowered them to make the deal. And when it went through and opened their economy, it set the country on a track away from hardliner control. Now the moderates are discredited. The hardliners want Iran on a road to the bomb, and they are determined to get there regardless of sanctions. Moderates still have enough power to keep open plan B--continue deal with the remaining responsible powers. If that fails, then control and iniative fall back to the hardliners; it is hard to see how anyone can prevent a run for the bomb--short of an invasion. ZERO incentive to cooperate with the US. And every incentive to get a bomb.
US "strength" was our ability to pull all these different, powerful, independent countries together at the last minute for a deal that helped everyone but Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia. People who believed Trump bluster empowered him to throw all that away. Ntanyahu knew that and played to Trump's base with his timed "expose" of Iranian lies. Why would ANY of the former deal partners want to help Trump while he threatens them with sanctions too?
How do you ever imagine the ignorant and blustery Trump can do anything to influence Iran now but turn to war, which would have little effect on Iran without a ground invasion. "Negotiate through strength" Trump style means The Iraq war, only in a country three times the size of Iraq and undivided by sects. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia, who would help the US? How does this fit anyone's goals except the Likud? We have a huge base in Qatar, across the street from Iran. How do US "allies" up and down the Gulf view the prospect of a war which makes them targets? They are not Trumpsters. They see an erratic deal breaker, not a deal maker. An erratic, authoritarian leader, more like the Arab dictators they all hate than a steady Clinton or no drama Obama.
We have 3 branches of government for a reason. I see hypocrisy for you and other praising Obama for circumventing 2 branches, then Trump does the same and since you disagree with his decision you bash him.
Hopefully a better deal is negotiated and then goes through Congress to be passed this time, the right way and only way for it to stick. Hopefully President Trump does does not follow the Obama rogue technique moving forward so long term results achieved and locked in versus a rogue President ignoring the will of Congress.
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
(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.
Discuss :)
The political leaders knew up front this deal could be short lived as not endorsed the proper way by Congress. So, I respectfully disagree, the POTUS can't make rogue deals and not be held accountable when they are undone the same way they were done, by circumventing Congress.
I remember the articles when it was signed, the EU and Iran were warned this agreement was not done correctly to not be easily undone (stroke of a pen method Obama used to sign it in first place).
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
I wonder if the Trump supporters here see the irony of saying Obama was "weak" for negotiating a deal with Iran using our allies but Trump is "strong" for trying the negotiate with NK using China.
Trump is doing the same thing Obama did except his fans think he's an "alpha" because of it. That's funny.
Side Note: If a byproduct of this egomaniac's admin is we have less war and more peace I am all for it. Not sure how his ers who were counting on weapons sales will feel.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-10-2018, 09:01 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The political leaders knew up front this deal could be short lived as not endorsed the proper way by Congress. So, I respectfully disagree, the POTUS can't make rogue deals and not be held accountable when they are undone the same way they were done, by circumventing Congress.
I remember the articles when it was signed, the EU and Iran were warned this agreement was not done correctly to not be easily undone (stroke of a pen method Obama used to sign it in first place).
To be honest, though, there was no deal Obama could have worked out that would have passed Congress. They would have opposed a treaty that dismantled everything nuclear forever in Iran and had Iran acknowledging Israel's place in the world simply because Obama did it.
None of that matters to the fact that the deal was preventing Iran from continuing their nuclear weapons program until 2031, but pulling out of the deal means there is a risk of them restarting the program now. The way the deal was done doesn't change the fact that by all accounts Iran was complying with all of the requirements of the JCPOA and so pulling out in this way is illogical.
"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
(05-09-2018, 11:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No way to enforce the deal. They can delay inspections for weeks at a time and never had to tell us what they have been doing up until the deal.
The deal was working, so it was being enforced.
You can't take down a nucear weapons facility and rebuild it in a couple of weeks. So even with delayed inspections we kept them from starting a weapons program.
LOL at the people who think NK is just going to completely dismantel their weapons program forever and comply with unlimited inspections without getting anything for their side.
They say Obama could not make a deal, yet Trump has done nothing better yet.
(05-10-2018, 09:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: LOL at the people who think NK is just going to completely dismantel their weapons program forever and comply with unlimited inspections without getting anything for their side.
They say Obama could not make a deal, yet Trump has done nothing better yet.
I thought NK was coming to the table because of a massive disaster and failure and super contaminated site
(05-10-2018, 09:01 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The political leaders knew up front this deal could be short lived as not endorsed the proper way by Congress. So, I respectfully disagree, the POTUS can't make rogue deals and not be held accountable when they are undone the same way they were done, by circumventing Congress.
I remember the articles when it was signed, the EU and Iran were warned this agreement was not done correctly to not be easily undone (stroke of a pen method Obama used to sign it in first place).
I came across that point, it sure isn't a moot one. It doesn't really change things much from an outsider's perspective. There are still two Americas, and we can reach deals with one America, but the other America is likely to not respect that, yes is even more likely to tear up agreements that came from the wrong America just because of that very fact.
As a result - and also what you're saying is: The USA can be somewhat reliable only in times where House, Senate and presidency is in the hand of the same party. If not, just don't even bother to negotiate anything long term with the US. That's it, right? How could a conclusion be any different. It seems impossible to find an agreement both of your parties would accept. Especially when democrats are in power.
The republican congress would have never approved any Iran deal, and at least to me it seems like this has little to do with Iran or the deal itself. It's about Obama and democrats and republicans being fundamentally opposed to pretty much anything coming from there. I feel safe to put it that way because that was the agenda Mitch openly gave out from the beginning: Whether sun or rain, if it comes from Obama we're fundamentally opposed.
As world, what we I guess in the end inevitably need to learn from that is, unreliable partner, don't trust them. One wouldn't trust any company that's run that way either. Change of management, so all past contracts are null and void? I get you want it that way, I get that's how your system runs or can be run if that's desired, you don't seem to get that this is not the way to work together and rely upon each other. This is not just about Obama, there's more at stake than just American partisanship and I figure Europe and others are getting tired of the attitude. Guess that's the reaction republicans label as "butthurt".
(05-10-2018, 02:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I came across that point, it sure isn't a moot one. It doesn't really change things much from an outsider's perspective. There are still two Americas, and we can reach deals with one America, but the other America is likely to not respect that, yes is even more likely to tear up agreements that came from the wrong America just because of that very fact.
As a result - and also what you're saying is: The USA can be somewhat reliable only in times where House, Senate and presidency is in the hand of the same party. If not, just don't even bother to negotiate anything long term with the US. That's it, right? How could a conclusion be any different. It seems impossible to find an agreement both of your parties would accept. Especially when democrats are in power.
The republican congress would have never approved any Iran deal, and at least to me it seems like this has little to do with Iran or the deal itself. It's about Obama and democrats and republicans being fundamentally opposed to pretty much anything coming from there. I feel safe to put it that way because that was the agenda Mitch openly gave out from the beginning: Whether sun or rain, if it comes from Obama we're fundamentally opposed.
As world, what we I guess in the end inevitably need to learn from that is, unreliable partner, don't trust them. One wouldn't trust any company that's run that way either. Change of management, so all past contracts are null and void? I get you want it that way, I get that's how your system runs or can be run if that's desired, you don't seem to get that this is not the way to work together and rely upon each other. This is not just about Obama, there's more at stake than just American partisanship and I figure Europe and others are getting tired of the attitude. Guess that's the reaction republicans label as "butthurt".
True.
Republicans used to be different, and a LOT more respectable.
(05-10-2018, 09:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder if the Trump supporters here see the irony of saying Obama was "weak" for negotiating a deal with Iran using our allies but Trump is "strong" for trying the negotiate with NK using China.
Also, when it comes to Russia there's the claim that sanctions are ineffective and pointless.
When it comes to Iran, now the claim is we need sanctions, sanctions, sanctions to affect them.
(05-10-2018, 02:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, when it comes to Russia there's the claim that sanctions are ineffective and pointless.
When it comes to Iran, now the claim is we need sanctions, sanctions, sanctions to affect them.
Sanctions might not matter.
This move by Trump just emboldens Israel and they want to destroy Iran. I'm more afraid of them going to war than us.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-10-2018, 04:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sanctions might not matter.
This move by Trump just emboldens Israel and they want to destroy Iran. I'm more afraid of them going to war than us.
Sure they might not, but that's still the initial point. Withdrawing from the deal happens through implementing sanctions, and that's the promoted course of action.
Also, sure we're nice enough to say "withdrawing". If there were a regime change in Iran and they left the deal, we'd call it "violating". But sadly that's beside the point.
I'm also worried about a war. Sure. And it's not just Israel worrying me, but also John Bolton and the history of John Bolton-like figures and policies within the republican party. We already witnessed a hawk-led US invading a country and then sending in private companies close to politicians or donors to profit in the aftermath. Nothing indicates to me that can't happen again.
We already got a president waving around misleading intelligence proof, just this time it doesn't raise that much attention because that's just Trump being Trump and people love him for that flaw. But the parallels are clearly there.
(05-10-2018, 04:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm also worried about a war. Sure. And it's not just Israel worrying me, but also John Bolton and the history of John Bolton-like figures and policies within the republican party. We already witnessed a hawk-led US invading a country and then sending in private companies close to politicians or donors to profit in the aftermath. Nothing indicates to me that can't happen again.
Overall I can agree with a lot of what you are saying here, as there seems to be moves being made to set up another war. But I disagree that it would be coming from policies within the Republican Party. But would be more from the 'military industrial complex' that includes the CIA that would be in favor of another war like they generated in Vietnam and Iraq.
Below Ike, a Republican, warned the American people during his farewell address of the 'mic' around the 8:40 mark.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
