Topic List |
Page List:
1 |
---|---|
WastelandCowboy 10/13/17 10:38:59 PM #1: |
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/10/13/557616444/trump-threatened-to-kill-the-iran-nuclear-deal-but-the-deal-wins-for-now
President Trump's Iran address creates uncertainty about the long-term survival of the two-year-old nuclear deal. It opens the door to Congress to find ways out of it, even as he threatened yet again to use his power as president to break the deal himself. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
WastelandCowboy 10/13/17 10:39:15 PM #2: |
European diplomats have been lining up to urge the Trump administration to stay in the deal. They're nervous that an anti-Iran current in Congress could eventually spoil the agreement. And they worry that if the U.S. exits the deal, it could try to punish the companies from Europe that are doing business with Iran. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
KevinceKostner 10/13/17 10:42:23 PM #3: |
Lol he seems so wise now to act with caution!
... Copied to Clipboard!
|
Zeus 10/14/17 12:03:36 AM #4: |
Given that it was an awful deal where they gave up a lot and got very little in return, his inability to renegotiate is a little vexing.
--- (\/)(\/)|-| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
darkknight109 10/14/17 12:33:57 AM #6: |
I don't understand Trump's endgame here. I really don't. Then again, maybe that's my fault for assuming he even has one.
The entire point of this deal was to ensure that, whatever other bullshit Iran was up to, they wouldn't have nukes. And the deal does a good job of ensuring that's the case. Given that Trump is (justifiably) flipping his lid about a nuclear-armed North Korea which is rapidly approaching the capability of hitting the US mainland, why is Trump so eager to nix a deal that is preventing Iran from developing the exact same technology? I mean, let's look at this from another angle. What does Trump want from Iran? Presumably, he wants them to stop funding/supporting terrorists, maybe recognize Israel's right to exist, and ideally even tune up their own human rights record. Fine, all grand goals. How exactly does withdrawing from this deal accomplish that? Zeus posted... Given that it was an awful deal where they gave up a lot and got very little in return, his inability to renegotiate is a little vexing. a) Trump can renegotiate all he likes - the US can drop the deal at any time. It would be a really dumb idea to do so, given all the work that went into it, the fact that Iran is complying with it, and the fact that it will dramatically decrease the odds that any other hostile state (like, say, North Korea) will ever sign a treaty with the US (because the next President could just rip up the whole thing in a fit of pique). Hell, even Trump himself seemed to recognize that fully ditching the deal is a terrible idea and if even he's figured that out, you know it's pretty bad. b) Exactly what did the US "give up" in this deal? Because I don't see anything that could even charitably be considered "a lot" and getting Iran to halt its weapons-grade nuclear development is definitely not "very little". --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
Zeus 10/14/17 12:57:18 AM #7: |
darkknight109 posted...
I don't understand Trump's endgame here. I really don't. Then again, maybe that's my fault for assuming he even has one. Given that the deal doesn't adequately prevent that, it doesn't really do much of anything. darkknight109 posted... I mean, let's look at this from another angle. What does Trump want from Iran? Presumably, he wants them to stop funding/supporting terrorists, maybe recognize Israel's right to exist, and ideally even tune up their own human rights record. Fine, all grand goals. How exactly does withdrawing from this deal accomplish that? ...because you can negotiate a new deal, one that includes some of those and better oversights. darkknight109 posted... b) Exactly what did the US "give up" in this deal? Because I don't see anything that could even charitably be considered "a lot" and getting Iran to halt its weapons-grade nuclear development is definitely not "very little". For starters, the deal doesn't give us enough oversight into making sure that they have halted their nuclear ambitions and, in all likelihood, they haven't. Second, what we gave them was ending some massive sanctions (including weapons sanctions) and returning a metric assload of money to them, much of which was then funneled to terrorists. What we got in return? Little more than their word that they wouldn't develop nukes because the oversight is shaky. We didn't get our prisoners back, we didn't even get token assurances in regards to them ceasing funding terror, etc. There's a pretty huge wish list and none of the boxes were checked. --- (\/)(\/)|-| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
darkknight109 10/14/17 2:14:03 AM #8: |
Zeus posted...
Given that the deal doesn't adequately prevent that, it doesn't really do much of anything. It does, though. Literally every signatory to the agreement has verified this and has certified Iran's compliance. Even if you want to assume that Obama was feckless in signing this, are you going to assume that the leaders of the UK, China, France, Russia, Germany, and the EU, along with all their advisors, all somehow missed this oversight which you, in your wisdom, have spotted? Pardon my skepticism, but I trust their word over yours. Zeus posted... ...because you can negotiate a new deal, one that includes some of those and better oversights. a) You could just as easily negotiate a new deal on those things without torching this one. The US is not bound by an "Only one deal with Iran at a time!" clause. b) What are you prepared to give up to make that happen? Do you think Iran is even interested in playing ball? c) Are you seriously suggesting that Donald Trump - the man who hasn't been able to pull his own party together for a successful vote on any of his major campaign priorities, nevermind negotiating with a hostile power - is going to succeed where the aforementioned parties failed? Yeah... good luck with that. For starters, the deal doesn't give us enough oversight into making sure that they have halted their nuclear ambitions and, in all likelihood, they haven't. That's not the US giving up anything. And note that even Trump, who is transparently eager to dump this deal, is unwilling to say that they aren't standing by the deal (the farthest he's willing to go is saying that they're not abiding by "the spirit" of the agreement, whatever he's defining that as). Zeus posted... Second, what we gave them was ending some massive sanctions (including weapons sanctions) and returning a metric assload of money to them, much of which was then funneled to terrorists That's also not the US giving up anything. The US could re-instate those sanctions tomorrow, if it wants, it just has to make them about something other than nuclear non-compliance. And there's no shortage of things to sanction Iran over if the US wants to go down that road. So yeah, you've basically just tacitly admitted that the US gave up nothing in this deal. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me. Zeus posted... What we got in return? Little more than their word that they wouldn't develop nukes because the oversight is shaky. You keep saying this, but it seems good enough to satisfy seven of the most powerful governments/organizations in the world. Why do you think it's insufficient? Zeus posted... We didn't get our prisoners back, we didn't even get token assurances in regards to them ceasing funding terror, etc. There's a pretty huge wish list and none of the boxes were checked. That's not what the agreement was for. Again, if the US wants those things, nothing is stopping them from negotiating for them and striking up another agreement. And, most critically, that's never what this particular agreement was supposed to do in the first place. The goal of this agreement was to stop Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. That's it. Not "get US prisoners back", not "stop Iranian terrorism," not "turn Iran into a democracy" - those things, while laudable goals, were not the priority for those negotiations. You want those? Go continue dialogue. But axing the previous agreement is not going to endear the Iranians to making any more deals (which could just as easily be reneged on the way this one is). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
darkknight109 10/14/17 2:19:01 AM #9: |
Like, I just don't understand the conservative logic here. OK, you want Iran to stop funding terrorism - I completely agree. But axing this deal does absolutely nothing to further that goal; if anything, it makes it harder to achieve, because it pisses the Iranians off and makes them less likely to deal in the future, it takes away stock from a relatively moderate Iranian president and fuels the nutbars like his predecessor, it annoys American allies for ripping up an agreement that took years of coordinated effort to achieve, and it puts nukes back on the table by removing the only limits on Iran's nuclear enrichment program.
That means you're not only back to square one, you're actually further back than that, because now instead of an Iran that's funding terrorism, we have a potentially nuclear-armed Iran funding terrorism. Between the two, the first one is plainly the better choice. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
OhhhJa 10/14/17 2:23:13 AM #10: |
darkknight109 posted...
It does, though. Literally every signatory to the agreement has verified this and has certified Iran's compliance. Eh, the deal is a farce really. It was just a bunch of promises that in the long run won't be maintained. It was just a bunch of empty promises that everyone in the room knew were empty just to appease a bunch of people. If anyone thinks an Iran nuclear deal is going to halt anything they're delusional or uninformed. Terror networks extend beyond country boundaries and it's not like there aren't easy avenues for stealthily acquiring the stuff they're supposed to be prohibited from acquiring ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
darkknight109 10/14/17 2:28:47 AM #11: |
OhhhJa posted...
It was just a bunch of empty promises that everyone in the room knew were empty just to appease a bunch of people. None of the non-Iranian signatories would have any reason to sign onto the deal unless they believed it was genuine. OhhhJa posted... Terror networks extend beyond country boundaries and it's not like there aren't easy avenues for stealthily acquiring the stuff they're supposed to be prohibited from acquiring They're not prohibited from acquiring anything, as far as I know. They're prohibited from constructing more enrichment sites and prohibited from enriching Uranium to nuclear grade. Even with that in mind, I think you're grossly underestimating how difficult it is to obtain weapons-grade nuclear material. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
Topic List |
Page List:
1 |