DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Announces Decision To Withdraw from Iran Deal

The CIA and Military both provided Congress with "slam dunk" intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

unfortunately is was a collaborative effort, bro.

it should be fairly obvious to all why the US won't state Saudi as the #1.

Remember when Trump was running and he'd ramble at every rally about how Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11 (he was correct) and how horrible of a government it was (again, correct) and how repulsive it was that Hillary was friendly with them (correct)?

Then they put his face on a building and next thing you know he's touching the orb and selling ten $110 billion in arms.

i don't take Trump seriously anything related to foreign policy, especially if he mentions hillary.

people forget that all he did was praise her...right up until it was time to make a political run.

Yes because it's obviously not true.

Let's do a back-and-forth with Iran and Saudi Arabia, listing the worst terror attacks committed by each country.

I'll start -

Saudi Arabia:
1) 9/11

OK, now you go.

Iran:
1) ???

Iran forces launch missiles at Israel from Syria, IDF says

Iranian forces based in Syria fired approximately 20 rockets toward Israeli positions in the Golan Heights, the Israeli military said late Wednesday.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said its Iron Dome missile defense system had intercepted "some" of the incoming rockets. No injuries were reported.

"About an hour ago, IDF defense systems identified approximately 20 rockets that the Iranian Quds forces launched at IDF forward posts on the Golan Heights"

-Israeli Defense Forces

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sirens-sound-in-golan-heights-residents-urged-to-enter-shelters/

Let's hear it, 40.



You were pretty adamant when you called Swish "WRONG", so surely this shouldn't be to hard.

Got to admit that was pretty good!


None the less, I agree, it is a bad deal.

I'm clueless cause I don't hate Trump and America and I disagree with anti American countries .....your just a lemming parroting MSNBC .....

What a clueless post.

I think people were calling you clueless for your unfounded comments about Iran being the "world's leading sponsor of terrorism", and because, like Trump, you don't appear to understand even the basic framework of the Iran deal, not because you "don't hate Trump and America".

My Position on the Iran Deal
Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.

Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.

I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.

While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.

In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.

Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.

To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.

Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.

When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.

Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.

Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.

If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.

But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.

-Charles Schumer
United States Senator
8/6/15

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the-iran-deal

There are quite a few Dems that didn't like the deal from jump street. Thats why Obama used his pen instead of Congress.

These left wing loonies flip flop because Trump has the BALLS to tear it up.

Gotta love the Dunning Kruger Clan on this board

Trump always has been and continues to be completely oblivious to even the most basic of facts regarding the Iran deal. The only impetus he had for pulling out is his rage towards and jealousy or Obama.

What about this mindless temper tantrum, exactly, exemplifies "BALLS"?

And also, nothing got "ripped up". Every major world power is still adhering to the deal. The only thing hats happened is the U.S. has withdrawn, which only hinders the U.S.

Another interesting aspect of daytnabacker's blathering nonsense is a very prevalent notion that politics is some kind of zero-sum sports game where there's teams and sides.

Notice the whole "some Democrats opposed the deal" serving as an example of a "flip-flop", as if people are required to take the side of their tribe.

You see it often with "oh, well, what about Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Schumer/Waters?".

When the Trump guys get flustered twisting themselves to defend a boorish racist moron, "what about Obama?" is a frequent go-to...like, Obama was terrible, what does that have to do with anything?

They think everyone is engaged in the same zero-sum tribal event that they're trapped in.

Saudi Arabia follows us imo

I'm wildly surprised and somewhat amused at your use of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Hat tip 2u.

Can you think of a more accurate example of Dunning-Kruger than Donald Trump?

It's a fine example of projection.

For the most part, yes.

But it's more symbiotic than parasitical.

SA is our base of operations for the Middle East. That's precisely what bin Laden cited for his reasoning behind 9/11.

The volatile politics throughout the middle east and much of Africa and Asia makes it damn near impossible to trust any of these actors. Trusting Saudi Arabia who I fully believe was behind 9-11 is tantamount to trusting Putin when he says he had no knowledge of Russian interference in our elections.

The least reliable and most untrustworthy actor in the Middle East is the United States, and it's not even close.

Say what you will about Saudi Arabia, they're at least upfront about it.

Also give it a rest, man. What does any of this have to do with Russia or the election?

I like the comparison, that's what.

You're deflecting.

It's a trait you dislike and disdain from others.

There's no credible or reasonable evidence to suggest Russia or Russian propaganda had a direct influence on the election.

You keep claiming otherwise, with nothing to back your argument.

Explain it. Poop or get off the pot. Don't worm away like 40 or Diam or the rest of the hit-and-run crowd.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Could have swore I just shared this with Arch.

Portland was on the case.
As I was reading his post, I could actually hear POTUS' voice. Funny material



'Peen:

I see it as a deeply flawed deal that was better than doing absolutely nothing.

With the Iran agreement, the primary threat (immediate or accelerated development of a nuclear weapons system) is restrained/curtailed and subject to outside oversight. To date, even Trump's own departments have told him that Iran was in compliance with the conditions of the agreement.

All other crappy side issues aside, the overall reason for having the talks was to attain this objective. Had we or any of the other treaty's signatories held out for The Perfect Deal, no deal at all would have ever been struck. In addition to continuing their role as a state sponsor of regional terror, Iran would still be running all their centrifuges and advancing (unchecked) toward becoming the world's next nuclear state.

A crappy, imperfect deal can always be revisited and adjusted at a later date.
A totally scrapped deal takes away any gains/assurances we garnered.
And consider the message it sends to other potential (pending) talks worldwide (read: NoKo). The new official word is this:

"The US can no longer be trusted to honor their end of the bargains they negotiate."

After almost 3/4 of a century of world leadership, this is unprecedented.
The realization of Trump's 'America First' brand of protectionism is marginalizing us on the world stage. Traditional allies since WWII are now conferring among themselves, and finding themselves increasingly willing to regard us as an outlier. A 'First World Pariah.'

They used to take their cues from US.
WE used to sign their walking papers.
Today? Not so much.

I wonder what could be so different now, than at any time in the past 73 years?

In the past, new US regimes would review standing treaties/policies... and work to tweak arrangements in ongoing talks. But that was when the US had a smooth transition of authority from one admin to another. It also helped that every previous admin actually possessed a working State Department. Until now.

_______________


I see this most recent development as a mere extension of what has happened since the 2016/17 transition:
45* came into office with his simplistic, undisciplined, unprepared, binary-brained self... and set policy that all his appointees were to follow: "If it's got some Obama in it, on it, or around it- it's getting thrown out."

So... you now have/had Rex Tillerson, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos and others TOTALLY GUTTING AGENCIES under the premise that they are being manned by 'Obama holdovers.' Here's the pity behind that: In agencies like FBI, State, Interior, Ed, EPA, etc. the lion's share of career employees are apolitical in their job performance, because they have worked for multiple administrations.

45's populist/protectionist 'Us v. Them' approach has weakened us on the international stage, because international diplomacy doesn't operate on a "Sharks v. Jets" level. His 'micropopulist agenda' has weakened us on the domestic front, because 60% of the country is actively opposed to the domestic policies he wishes to enact.

And that means the US will continue to recede from the world stage for as long as this populist/protectionist/isolationist political amateur is running the country with his coterie of 'yes men' making his ill-informed, intellectually bankrupt s# happen.

Bottom line: The rest of The First World is going to treat the USA the way 60% of the USA treats Trump and his followers... until Trump is gone. And that has very real 'Real World' consequences for us, going forward.


Hiring Trump for this job will haunt/frack us for at least 1/2 a generation.

.02,
Clemmy

Why, yes...
Yes- I can.

In fact, I ascribed a 'Dunning Kruger University' T-shirt to one of our esteemed board mates just a few short weeks ago. Total ownership.

Trump isn't the D/K poster child.
His sycophants are.

Trump truly and honestly believes with all his heart that when he steps up to a media pool and says "I'm a really smart guy and know all the best words" that Maggie Haberman will write about how he's intelligent.

I get your point - he's a simple con man duping his easy marks.

But Trump tries to work that same square peg into round holes beyond the hooting rubes duped into idolizing him, and that's where I feel the D-K example is textbook.

When Trump says stuff like "I'm a very stable genius", I think in his heart of hearts he believes "this will show them that I'm smart". He's earnestly blindsided when no one with half a brain buys it.

That's why many of these threads last for pages and pages and pages.

*LOL* U guys just aren't SEEING the GENIUS of Trump. U R too simple 2 get it. *ROTFLMAO*!"

Imitating Diam made me realize he types like Prince if Prince were a racist blowhard with no discernible talent or insight.

You started the Dunning-Kruger references? Well that explains that.

I see that a lot on here too. I'll say something the other side thinks is 'smart', next thing you know they are saying it to someone... Thanks for shedding light on this Clem I was almost gobsmacked to see that in a daytnabacker post.

They same organizations that said Russia altered the election. Funny, they infallible in that sense, but when it comes to something you don't like, they are liars and cheats. . . .

Unlike Iraq, there’s actually indictments being dropped on the Russia topic.

Oops.

yet none of those deal with Russia and the election.

opps

Again, the legitimate concern isn't that Russia influenced or changed the election outcome.

It's that Trump - an easily swayed simpleton - is massively in debt and by all evidence most likely owes it to Russian oligarchs.

I think they're forcing themselves to cling to the election narrative as a cudgel against the reality unspooling everyday that Trump is an incompetent who couldn't even handle the most basic of money laundering and quid pro quo.

When the president of the United States is relying on foreign powers to pay his prostitutes hush money because he can't afford it...that's alarming.

Jc

Surprise surprise, Russia is swooping in to make trade deals with Iran now that they believe he sanctions will force the Europeans to withdraw.

...

They started doing deals before the ink was dry on the original AGREEMENT ...

Its was another part of O’s complete and utter SHAM ...

Some Iranian general that was a terrorist wasn’t suppose to travel to Russia as part of the sanctions ... well while Kerry was playing a doormat at the raping (your guys definition of negotiations in this case) the terrorist general was in Russia setting ballistic missile and air defense systems deals up ...

WE IGNORED IT along with a bunch of other HUGE RED FLAGS during the raping ...

U know the missiles being launched at Isreal right now from Syria ... wonder where they came from and how Iran aquired them ... even u can connect those dots ... ...

What does their missiles have to do with the NUCLEAR agreement?

My god use your damn brain. You’re sitting there acting as if the agreement was suppose to cover all weapon systems, or anything OTHER than their development of nukes.

This is why I roast you and others on the regular. You’re completely oblivious to how the world works.

What’s worse is that you honestly think you’re right and said something witty.