Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-25-2019, 03:04 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Perhaps you could expand a bit on your "very likely" with some solid evidence? By chance, were any torpedo boats involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
No, it was explosives......
Ask your parents about Tonkin Bay.
  #102  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:13 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Ask your parents about Tonkin Bay.
Why would I? I was alive then myself. Did you have a point?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #103  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:16 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
What other things that are not part of a contract agreed upon do you think are valid reasons for not honoring said contract? And why should anyone enter into any agreement with you, given that kind of reasoning?

ETA: Can I stop paying my mortgage because of Wells Fargo's transgressions?
You don't seem to get the difference between a treaty and an agreement. So, to answer this (again), basically if it's not ratified by Congress the US isn't bound to it or to honor it. In fact, it's NOT a contract. And it's not legally binding.

Now, if you can convince Wells Fargo that your mortgage isn't a legally binding contract, well, more power too you. Personally, I would make sure you have a backup plan that doesn't send you to jail, but let me know how it works out for you.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #104  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:18 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think your point is wrong. Getting out of the deal helped no one except those in Iran who want nukes and those in both countries who want war. It doesn't matter the justification when the move is so colossally self damaging - it's like debating the justification for stabbing one's self in the hand.
Where did I say that getting out of the deal was a good thing? If that's what you got out of my post, I'm unsure how you can say my 'point' (whatever that means to you) was or is 'wrong'.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #105  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:19 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's best to avoid use of words like "innocent," as they are loaded with bias and highly subjective. No, Iran and North Korea aren't innocent, but neither is the US. All countries have interests. The great responsibility that we all have is to do what we reasonably can to avoid armed conflict. The framework clearly reduced that risk and Trump's confrontational foreign policy dramatically escalates the risk.
Good grief. Seriously guys...read what I write. I SAID the US gets the lions share of the blame. Not sure how to be clearer on this.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #106  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Where did I say that getting out of the deal was a good thing? If that's what you got out of my post, I'm unsure how you can say my 'point' (whatever that means to you) was or is 'wrong'.
You implied that there was some sort of legitimacy or justification to Trump's move to abandon the deal. You even said that there wasn't "zero justification". When abandoning the deal hurts America and helps no one but extremists, there is no such legitimacy or justification, not even the littlest bit. There is indeed "zero justification" for abandoning the deal. There's no defense of Trump's actions, not even the littlest bit.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-25-2019 at 06:24 PM.
  #107  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:24 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You don't seem to get the difference between a treaty and an agreement. So, to answer this (again), basically if it's not ratified by Congress the US isn't bound to it or to honor it. In fact, it's NOT a contract. And it's not legally binding.
And yet, there we were abiding by the agreement... until we saw an unrelated reason to stop? That's your position: it's okay to stop doing something you've agreed to do, for any reason whatsoever?

That's not likely to prove a popular position for potential agreements or those who would make them.
  #108  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:26 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You implied that there was some sort of legitimacy or justification to Trump's move to abandon the deal. When abandoning the deal hurts America and helps no one but extremists, there is no such legitimacy or justification, not even the littlest bit. There's no defense of Trump's actions, not even the littlest bit.
These are two different things. I SAID I thought it was a bad idea for us to back out. But there are also legitimate points that the US could use to justify backing out...also, we don't actually need any at all, as we can see wrt Trump. That's the thing with non-binding agreements...they aren't binding. The next President down the road can just reverse course if that's what he chooses to do. And that's what he chose to do.

Again...I've said, multiple times, I think it was a mistake. I think on this as on many things, Trump was wrong...and was an idiot. I would have stuck with the agreement and applied pressure in other ways. But I would have applied that pressure, as what Iran was and is doing is not in the US's best interest in the region. They have and are supporting proxy terrorist groups and actions all through the region and that needs to stop.


Of course, here is some free advice since apparently 'dopers as well as perhaps these countries are confused...get a treaty ratified by Congress if you are making a big concession. If North Korea is smart they will actually give up their nukes...but they will only do so with a ratified treaty, not on the say so of the idiot in the White House.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #109  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:31 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
And yet, there we were abiding by the agreement... until we saw an unrelated reason to stop? That's your position: it's okay to stop doing something you've agreed to do, for any reason whatsoever?

That's not likely to prove a popular position for potential agreements or those who would make them.
*sigh* Again, you are talking about several different things. What difference if they were abiding by it wrt legally binding? It wasn't legally binding. The next president down the line, or the one after that could do exactly what Trump did for reasons....or no reason at all.

MY position is not that it's OK. I think that folks are incapable of understanding that what my opinion on this can be different than the reality of the situation. I'll say it again...I disagreed and disagree with what Trump did. That doesn't mean that what he did was illegal or that any president couldn't have done it. As to popularity, I don't give a flying fuck if it's popular...again, it's reality. If you are a country negotiating with the US and it's vitally important, then hold out for a ratified treaty. Or take your chances. This has always been the case throughout history.

Let me ask you a question. If Trump made some agreement with some country that every Democrat disagreed with, would you feel that the next Democratic president to be elected should be bound by it? Disconnect yourself from this specific instance and THINK about what that implies. Should the next Democrat elected go along with it, even if that president and the party feel it was bad and not in the US's interest? Your answer will be telling...can you decouple yourself from a partisan mindset and from emotion on this specific issue to understand the reality...or not.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #110  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
These are two different things. I SAID I thought it was a bad idea for us to back out. But there are also legitimate points that the US could use to justify backing out...also, we don't actually need any at all, as we can see wrt Trump. That's the thing with non-binding agreements...they aren't binding. The next President down the road can just reverse course if that's what he chooses to do. And that's what he chose to do.
With zero justification, zero legitimacy, zero good reasons. Why defend such an awful and harmful decision? That's what you're doing -- providing some defense, even along with your criticism. There's no reason for such a defense. This was total dereliction of duty, at the expense of US national security. A colossally stupid decision, and worthy of no defense at all. It doesn't matter if the next president can change it -- this is always true. Every president can choose to do catastrophically stupid things... that doesn't justify it in any way at all.

Quote:
Again...I've said, multiple times, I think it was a mistake. I think on this as on many things, Trump was wrong...and was an idiot. I would have stuck with the agreement and applied pressure in other ways. But I would have applied that pressure, as what Iran was and is doing is not in the US's best interest in the region. They have and are supporting proxy terrorist groups and actions all through the region and that needs to stop.

Of course, here is some free advice since apparently 'dopers as well as perhaps these countries are confused...get a treaty ratified by Congress if you are making a big concession. If North Korea is smart they will actually give up their nukes...but they will only do so with a ratified treaty, not on the say so of the idiot in the White House.
There was no chance of Obama getting the deal ratified by the Congress he was dealing with. That's no defense of abandoning the deal, which helps no one but extremists, and does great harm to the US.

I don't understand why you'd want to lend Trump this bullshit bit of justification. There is zero justification for his actions. This hurts America and helps extremists. There's no justification for purposefully hurting America and helping extremists, even if it's through ignorance and incompetence.
  #111  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:35 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
*sigh* Again, you are talking about several different things. What difference if they were abiding by it wrt legally binding? It wasn't legally binding. The next president down the line, or the one after that could do exactly what Trump did for reasons....or no reason at all.

MY position is not that it's OK. I think that folks are incapable of understanding that what my opinion on this can be different than the reality of the situation. I'll say it again...I disagreed and disagree with what Trump did. That doesn't mean that what he did was illegal or that any president couldn't have done it. As to popularity, I don't give a flying fuck if it's popular...again, it's reality. If you are a country negotiating with the US and it's vitally important, then hold out for a ratified treaty. Or take your chances. This has always been the case throughout history.
Who said it was illegal? It was colossally stupid, and you're partially defending this colossal stupidity.

Quote:
Let me ask you a question. If Trump made some agreement with some country that every Democrat disagreed with, would you feel that the next Democratic president to be elected should be bound by it? Disconnect yourself from this specific instance and THINK about what that implies. Should the next Democrat elected go along with it, even if that president and the party feel it was bad and not in the US's interest? Your answer will be telling...can you decouple yourself from a partisan mindset and from emotion on this specific issue to understand the reality...or not.
Depends on whether abandoning the deal would greatly hurt America and help extremists. The only principle here is not doing things that hurt America and help extremists. There's no defense for such decisions.
  #112  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:36 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
With zero justification, zero legitimacy, zero good reasons. Why defend such an awful and harmful decision? That's what you're doing -- providing some defense, even along with your criticism. There's no reason for such a defense. This was total dereliction of duty, at the expense of US national security. A colossally stupid decision, and worthy of no defense at all. It doesn't matter if the next president can change it -- this is always true. Every president can choose to do catastrophically stupid things... that doesn't justify it in any way at all.



There was no chance of Obama getting the deal ratified by the Congress he was dealing with. That's no defense of abandoning the deal, which helps no one but extremists, and does great harm to the US.

I don't understand why you'd want to lend Trump this bullshit bit of justification. There is zero justification for his actions. This hurts America and helps extremists. There's no justification for purposefully hurting America and helping extremists, even if it's through ignorance and incompetence.
Because you can't seem to grasp that he didn't need justification, and that pointing out reality doesn't mean I endorse the decision. I agree, it hurt the US.

See, this is what happens when folks allow their idiotic emotions to rule them and vote for....OR DON'T FUCKING VOTE...a populist idiot, instead of gritting their teeth and picking the less bad choice.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #113  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:38 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
These are two different things. I SAID I thought it was a bad idea for us to back out. But there are also legitimate points that the US could use to justify backing out...also, we don't actually need any at all, as we can see wrt Trump. That's the thing with non-binding agreements...they aren't binding. The next President down the road can just reverse course if that's what he chooses to do. And that's what he chose to do.

Again...I've said, multiple times, I think it was a mistake. I think on this as on many things, Trump was wrong...and was an idiot. I would have stuck with the agreement and applied pressure in other ways. But I would have applied that pressure, as what Iran was and is doing is not in the US's best interest in the region. They have and are supporting proxy terrorist groups and actions all through the region and that needs to stop.


Of course, here is some free advice since apparently 'dopers as well as perhaps these countries are confused...get a treaty ratified by Congress if you are making a big concession. If North Korea is smart they will actually give up their nukes...but they will only do so with a ratified treaty, not on the say so of the idiot in the White House.
It sounds like you are blaming the GOP led congress who refused to ratify the agreement as a treaty to make it binding, is this correct?
  #114  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:39 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Because you can't seem to grasp that he didn't need justification, and that pointing out reality doesn't mean I endorse the decision. I agree, it hurt the US.

See, this is what happens when folks allow their idiotic emotions to rule them and vote for....OR DON'T FUCKING VOTE...a populist idiot, instead of gritting their teeth and picking the less bad choice.
Of course he needs justification for his actions! He's the fucking President. If he does something stupid for a stupid reason, it shouldn't be defended in any way. Are you saying the President can do anything he's legally allowed to do and he shouldn't be criticized for it? If not, what the hell are you saying? None of us are saying that it was against the law, just that the President did a colossally stupid thing, with zero justification, and that you shouldn't provide even the slightest bit of defense for it.
  #115  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It sounds like you are blaming the GOP led congress who refused to ratify the agreement as a treaty to make it binding, is this correct?
Yeah, or I suppose the Iranian's for not holding out for a treaty. Basically, if it were me and I was the leader of a country negotiating with the US I wouldn't settle for anything short of a full Congressional ratification...assuming I was in a position TOO hold out, of course.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #116  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:59 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Of course he needs justification for his actions! He's the fucking President. If he does something stupid for a stupid reason, it shouldn't be defended in any way. Are you saying the President can do anything he's legally allowed to do and he shouldn't be criticized for it? If not, what the hell are you saying? None of us are saying that it was against the law, just that the President did a colossally stupid thing, with zero justification, and that you shouldn't provide even the slightest bit of defense for it.
Really? What justification did he have? Are you saying he wasn't legally 'allowed' to do what he did?? If so...well, he's in jail then, right? Or being or been impeached???? I must have missed that...do you have a link? I actually have a bottle of VERY good tequila I set aside (this is a MAJOR sacrifice for me btw) for when the guy is impeached and going to jail, so please, post that link!
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 05-25-2019 at 06:59 PM.
  #117  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Really? What justification did he have? Are you saying he wasn't legally 'allowed' to do what he did?? If so...well, he's in jail then, right? Or being or been impeached???? I must have missed that...do you have a link? I actually have a bottle of VERY good tequila I set aside (this is a MAJOR sacrifice for me btw) for when the guy is impeached and going to jail, so please, post that link!
What? I just said he was legally allowed to do it! He needs justification because he's the President and he has to justify every single major fucking decision he makes. It's a big job and every damn decision needs justification. Not "legally" needs, but needs because that's the standard we should demand. And you shouldn't be providing a defense in any way.
  #118  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:05 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What? I just said he was legally allowed to do it! He needs justification because he's the President and he has to justify every single major fucking decision he makes. It's a big job and every damn decision needs justification. Not "legally" needs, but needs because that's the standard we should demand. And you shouldn't be providing a defense in any way.
I don't understand your point then I guess. Obviously, he could do it. That's kind of it. I'm not sure why you think he needs some elaborate justification to do what he did...you just admitted it's within his abilities.

I believe the fairly weak justification he used was some vague bullshit about how Iran wasn't doing...something. That seems to have been good enough. I am, again, not defending anything. Reality IS. It's what it is. He could do it, and he did it. Hell, he said he was going to do this in several of his campaign speeches and his ridiculous tweets during the Obama administration about it being a bad deal, blah blah blah. It was militantly unsurprising that he did this in fact, or that his 'justification' was basically some horseshit that no one bought.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 05-25-2019 at 07:05 PM.
  #119  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I don't understand your point then I guess. Obviously, he could do it. That's kind of it. I'm not sure why you think he needs some elaborate justification to do what he did...you just admitted it's within his abilities.

I believe the fairly weak justification he used was some vague bullshit about how Iran wasn't doing...something. That seems to have been good enough. I am, again, not defending anything. Reality IS. It's what it is. He could do it, and he did it. Hell, he said he was going to do this in several of his campaign speeches and his ridiculous tweets during the Obama administration about it being a bad deal, blah blah blah. It was militantly unsurprising that he did this in fact, or that his 'justification' was basically some horseshit that no one bought.
Then why are you defending him? He did a colossally stupid and harmful thing, hurting America and helping extremists. He should be criticized harshly every day for it, as should his supporters and enablers. It doesn't matter that he could do it -- there's plenty of things that he could do but shouldn't.
  #120  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:13 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Then why are you defending him? He did a colossally stupid and harmful thing, hurting America and helping extremists. He should be criticized harshly every day for it, as should his supporters and enablers. It doesn't matter that he could do it -- there's plenty of things that he could do but shouldn't.
Well, I'm defending him because he's a great American and a great President, and he's got huge, enormous hands!! At least, that seems to be what the XT in your head is saying. You don't seem to be listening to the one posting in this thread, so hopefully the one in your head is drunker than I am at the moment. Man, what I REALLY hope is the one in your head is drinking that really excellent tequila and smoking a fine Cuban cigar while Trump is being lead off to jail in an orange jumper! Now that would be really good...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #121  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, I'm defending him because he's a great American and a great President, and he's got huge, enormous hands!! At least, that seems to be what the XT in your head is saying. You don't seem to be listening to the one posting in this thread, so hopefully the one in your head is drunker than I am at the moment. Man, what I REALLY hope is the one in your head is drinking that really excellent tequila and smoking a fine Cuban cigar while Trump is being lead off to jail in an orange jumper! Now that would be really good...
No, the XT in my head is providing a minimal defense that there's somehow more than "zero justification" for abandoning the deal, and somehow the fact that he's legally allowed to do this is relevant or important even though no one implied that he wasn't. And you shouldn't be providing even this minimal defense, since there is zero justification for helping extremists and hurting America.
  #122  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:25 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No, the XT in my head is providing a minimal defense that there's somehow more than "zero justification" for abandoning the deal, and somehow the fact that he's legally allowed to do this is relevant or important even though no one implied that he wasn't. And you shouldn't be providing even this minimal defense, since there is zero justification for helping extremists and hurting America.
Seriously man, one last time. I'm not defending him. I disagree with the decision. It's one of many things that, to me, indicate the guys is clueless and an idiot and completely out of his depth. I'm not defending him. I'm not defending him. I'm not defending the decision.

I could write that again 20 more times if it will sink in, but I'm not sanguine it will.

This all has dick all to do with whether he could do this or not. Pretty obviously, he could. He DID do it. And his justication, such as it was, was weak and pretty much just pro-forma. Iran wasn't, at least as far as I've read, breaking any of their agreements wrt the limits set on their nuclear program. They were doing other things, of course, but as the eagle eyed up thread noted, they weren't part of the agreement. Trump chose, probably because he felt he could force them to renegotiate a deal (hell, it might have even been EXACTLY the same deal...look at his NAFTA deals with Canada and Mexico) so that he looked strong and in charge. And he could legally do it because it wasn't a ratified treaty and it was within his power to do...just like it was within Obama's to do it in the first place, despite not having Congressional support.

It would be nice if you could see my point...hell, I'm so drunk atm I'm not sure I see it anymore. But I'm fairly sure you are going to come back with something about me defending Trump on this again, so I'll just wander off unless something more interesting than me having to say for the...well, not sure how many times now, but more than I can count on both hands...that I disagreed and disagree with the decision and think it was the wrong move.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #123  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Seriously man, one last time. I'm not defending him. I disagree with the decision. It's one of many things that, to me, indicate the guys is clueless and an idiot and completely out of his depth. I'm not defending him. I'm not defending him. I'm not defending the decision.

I could write that again 20 more times if it will sink in, but I'm not sanguine it will.

This all has dick all to do with whether he could do this or not. Pretty obviously, he could. He DID do it. And his justication, such as it was, was weak and pretty much just pro-forma. Iran wasn't, at least as far as I've read, breaking any of their agreements wrt the limits set on their nuclear program. They were doing other things, of course, but as the eagle eyed up thread noted, they weren't part of the agreement. Trump chose, probably because he felt he could force them to renegotiate a deal (hell, it might have even been EXACTLY the same deal...look at his NAFTA deals with Canada and Mexico) so that he looked strong and in charge. And he could legally do it because it wasn't a ratified treaty and it was within his power to do...just like it was within Obama's to do it in the first place, despite not having Congressional support.

It would be nice if you could see my point...hell, I'm so drunk atm I'm not sure I see it anymore. But I'm fairly sure you are going to come back with something about me defending Trump on this again, so I'll just wander off unless something more interesting than me having to say for the...well, not sure how many times now, but more than I can count on both hands...that I disagreed and disagree with the decision and think it was the wrong move.
What's your point? That he was legally allowed to do this? Why is that relevant? Who cares? Trump is legally allowed to do plenty of things that would be greatly harmful to America. That's no justification, and once again, you said that there was more than "zero justification". You are incorrect about that.
  #124  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:32 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What's your point? That he was legally allowed to do this? Why is that relevant? Who cares? Trump is legally allowed to do plenty of things that would be greatly harmful to America. That's no justification, and once again, you said that there was more than "zero justification". You are incorrect about that.
Ah, I see the disconnect...I think. There is more than 'zero justification' because he only has to justify it to himself, really. Or his advisors to justify it to him and then he makes the decision. So, his 'justification' was, basically, that Iran is doing other bad shit, and despite the fact that none of that stuff was covered under the agreement he chose to take the US out of that agreement. Because he could. And because he could do so on that weak ass shit.

So, I'm doing this drinking game, and every time you repeat the same stuff and force me to repeat shit I've already said I have to take a drink and a puff of this cigar. At this stage, I'm actually hoping we can go over this a few more times, to be honest. So, tell me how I'm defending him again and how I'm incorrect about reality being real. Tell me something I've already acknowledged such as that Trump has done plenty to harm the US, and that this is but one of the things...sort of a death by a thousand John Wick's thingy (better than that old 1000 cuts).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #125  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Ah, I see the disconnect...I think. There is more than 'zero justification' because he only has to justify it to himself, really. Or his advisors to justify it to him and then he makes the decision. So, his 'justification' was, basically, that Iran is doing other bad shit, and despite the fact that none of that stuff was covered under the agreement he chose to take the US out of that agreement. Because he could. And because he could do so on that weak ass shit.

So, I'm doing this drinking game, and every time you repeat the same stuff and force me to repeat shit I've already said I have to take a drink and a puff of this cigar. At this stage, I'm actually hoping we can go over this a few more times, to be honest. So, tell me how I'm defending him again and how I'm incorrect about reality being real. Tell me something I've already acknowledged such as that Trump has done plenty to harm the US, and that this is but one of the things...sort of a death by a thousand John Wick's thingy (better than that old 1000 cuts).
As far as I can tell you're bringing up irrelevancies (that he's legally allowed to do this, or that Iran has done other bad things), for no discernible reasons as if this is somehow some sort of justification for this dumb decision.
  #126  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:44 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As far as I can tell you're bringing up irrelevancies (that he's legally allowed to do this, or that Iran has done other bad things), for no discernible reasons as if this is somehow some sort of justification for this dumb decision.
Another drink!

The point you are missing is he doesn't need a justification. It's not irrelevant...in fact, it's directly relevant. Or revenant. Something like that. You seem to want to discount that this has already happened. He did it. It's done. The US has pulled out of the agreement. Others in the thread seem confused that the US can legally do this stuff, but you are hung up on justification for some reason, as if that is relevant. It's not of course, since if it was we wouldn't have pulled out. Trump wouldn't have been able to pull us out if he had to justify our reasons for doing so with any sort of evidence. Pretty clearly, he didn't do that and didn't need to because, again, reality...it's real.

I feel like I need to bring up ratification again and how our system works, but I'm losing my train of thought on what we are arguing about. Do I need to bring this up? Hopefully, as I still have about a 1/3 of a bottle left, so let me know.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #127  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Another drink!

The point you are missing is he doesn't need a justification. It's not irrelevant...in fact, it's directly relevant. Or revenant. Something like that. You seem to want to discount that this has already happened. He did it. It's done. The US has pulled out of the agreement. Others in the thread seem confused that the US can legally do this stuff, but you are hung up on justification for some reason, as if that is relevant. It's not of course, since if it was we wouldn't have pulled out. Trump wouldn't have been able to pull us out if he had to justify our reasons for doing so with any sort of evidence. Pretty clearly, he didn't do that and didn't need to because, again, reality...it's real.

I feel like I need to bring up ratification again and how our system works, but I'm losing my train of thought on what we are arguing about. Do I need to bring this up? Hopefully, as I still have about a 1/3 of a bottle left, so let me know.
Enjoy your drinks and your irrelevancies (like the more you brought up in this post)! You said earlier "this isn't coming completely out of Trump's ass with zero justification", when in fact this is coming completely out of Trump's ass with zero justifications. Which is and has been my entire point.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-25-2019 at 07:48 PM.
  #128  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:41 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Why would I? I was alive then myself. Did you have a point?
Sorry, had no idea you required me to be more explicit. Tonkin Bay, Saddam's WMD, "Remember the Maine!". Our glorious military adventure into Grenada? Any of that bringing it into focus? Let me know if you need further clarification, I'm here to help.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #129  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:03 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Yeah, or I suppose the Iranian's for not holding out for a treaty. Basically, if it were me and I was the leader of a country negotiating with the US I wouldn't settle for anything short of a full Congressional ratification...assuming I was in a position TOO hold out, of course.
How would Iran hold out for a treaty? Every other country that was a signatory to the accords made it binding. They had no room to "hold out". They trusted that we would hold to our word, and we betrayed that trust.

You are correct that in the future, no country will consider the US to be negotiating in good faith due to Trump's actions here, but I don't see that as Iran's fault, I do not see that as the fault of those in past administrations that did negotiate in good faith. I only see it as the fault of those who unilaterally abrogated the agreement.

This is why the other countries that signed the Iran deal are having problems at this point. They have biding agreements that say that as long as Iran holds to their deal, they must as well. Their binding agreements say that they cannot reimpose sanctions, but we are demanding that they do anyway.

We not only destroy our credibility with negotiation by this move, but also destroy our chances of getting allies to sign onto agreements as well, as they may be left hanging.

Trump did quite a bit of damage to our credibility as a nation, and made us untrustworthy to both our opponents and our allies. "Because he could" is not a good enough reason.
  #130  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:19 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
How would Iran hold out for a treaty? Every other country that was a signatory to the accords made it binding. They had no room to "hold out". They trusted that we would hold to our word, and we betrayed that trust.
Then they took the best deal they could. Trust? If they did, then they were desperate or foolish. We didn't betray any 'trust'....this is how our system works. If Obama told them that this was binding and they could 'trust' that the next president down the line would continue to honor it...and the next one after that...and the next one after that...they he mislead them. If their own US experts didn't point out how this was possible, then those guys should be fired because they gave bad advice.

Not sure what ever other country making it binding according to their laws has to do with it. It's like you and others want us to play by other rules, regardless of if it works in our system. In OUR system, if you want a binding treaty then it needs to be ratified by Congress. If the president can't get that (which Obama couldn't with the treaty that was proposed) then your options are to take the agreement and hope the next president doesn't change it or don't take the deal. Sign with the other countries. Perhaps put in clauses dealing with the US not signing, and take whatever repercussions that entails wrt US displeasure.

Quote:
This is why the other countries that signed the Iran deal are having problems at this point. They have biding agreements that say that as long as Iran holds to their deal, they must as well. Their binding agreements say that they cannot reimpose sanctions, but we are demanding that they do anyway.

So, what you are saying is that none of them know how our system works? Allies, enemies, unfriendly powers, none of them know how our system works?? I can't help that their binding agreements tie them to the deal. Ours do too. Sadly, this wasn't a binding agreement. Everyone knew that. Everyone knew Obama couldn't get the deal through Congress because a majority of Congress was opposed to it for political reasons. It should be pretty unsurprising that when the party that opposed the agreement came into power after Obama, that said party would overturn the agreement made against their will, regardless of the 'justification'. The Republicans WERE going to change this...it was just a matter of timing. It's how our system works.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #131  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:30 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Then they took the best deal they could. Trust? If they did, then they were desperate or foolish. We didn't betray any 'trust'....this is how our system works. If Obama told them that this was binding and they could 'trust' that the next president down the line would continue to honor it...and the next one after that...and the next one after that...they he mislead them. If their own US experts didn't point out how this was possible, then those guys should be fired because they gave bad advice.



Not sure what ever other country making it binding according to their laws has to do with it. It's like you and others want us to play by other rules, regardless of if it works in our system. In OUR system, if you want a binding treaty then it needs to be ratified by Congress. If the president can't get that (which Obama couldn't with the treaty that was proposed) then your options are to take the agreement and hope the next president doesn't change it or don't take the deal. Sign with the other countries. Perhaps put in clauses dealing with the US not signing, and take whatever repercussions that entails wrt US displeasure.









So, what you are saying is that none of them know how our system works? Allies, enemies, unfriendly powers, none of them know how our system works?? I can't help that their binding agreements tie them to the deal. Ours do too. Sadly, this wasn't a binding agreement. Everyone knew that. Everyone knew Obama couldn't get the deal through Congress because a majority of Congress was opposed to it for political reasons. It should be pretty unsurprising that when the party that opposed the agreement came into power after Obama, that said party would overturn the agreement made against their will, regardless of the 'justification'. The Republicans WERE going to change this...it was just a matter of timing. It's how our system works.
I still don't understand why any of this is relevant. That a stupid and harmful policy was expected doesn't make it any less stupid, harmful, or worth criticizing.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #132  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:37 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I still don't understand why any of this is relevant. That a stupid and harmful policy was expected doesn't make it any less stupid, harmful, or worth criticizing.
I know you don't. I could see that in last nights drunken exchange (well, for my part). Not sure how to say it differently now that I'm sober though. It DOESN'T make it less stupid or harmful or give him a pass from being criticized. Go bananas...call him an idiot, call him stupid, call the policy harmful. I've done all those things and more.

But it's relevant because this is exactly what the Republicans said they would do. It's why Obama couldn't get a treaty through Congress, and the Republicans were pissed that the US put this all in place when THEY thought it was stupid, harmful and all the rest, or that if they had the chance, they were going to change it. This is exactly the same thing with the healthcare reform situation. The Democrats pushed it through over the objections of many Republicans, so it should be unsurprising that when the Republicans get power back they do all they can to gut the thing.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 05-26-2019 at 12:38 PM.
  #133  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Then they took the best deal they could. Trust? If they did, then they were desperate or foolish. We didn't betray any 'trust'....this is how our system works. If Obama told them that this was binding and they could 'trust' that the next president down the line would continue to honor it...and the next one after that...and the next one after that...they he mislead them. If their own US experts didn't point out how this was possible, then those guys should be fired because they gave bad advice.
As that has been the case with previous administrations. Yes, such agreements have generally been honored. You are saying that they should have known that a few years later, and idiot would get into the white house and tear up such agreements for no reason other than a temper tantrum.

Maybe they should not have thought well of us, maybe they should have not trusted that we would do what we said.

In the future, few will make that mistake again.
Quote:
Not sure what ever other country making it binding according to their laws has to do with it. It's like you and others want us to play by other rules, regardless of if it works in our system. In OUR system, if you want a binding treaty then it needs to be ratified by Congress. If the president can't get that (which Obama couldn't with the treaty that was proposed) then your options are to take the agreement and hope the next president doesn't change it or don't take the deal. Sign with the other countries. Perhaps put in clauses dealing with the US not signing, and take whatever repercussions that entails wrt US displeasure.
It's not like that at all. Not sure why you would make such an outrageous claim as to what it is that I want. I am just pointing out that others went into the negotiations in good faith with the belief that we were as well. We fucked them, and they won't trust us again.
Quote:



So, what you are saying is that none of them know how our system works? Allies, enemies, unfriendly powers, none of them know how our system works?? I can't help that their binding agreements tie them to the deal. Ours do too. Sadly, this wasn't a binding agreement. Everyone knew that. Everyone knew Obama couldn't get the deal through Congress because a majority of Congress was opposed to it for political reasons. It should be pretty unsurprising that when the party that opposed the agreement came into power after Obama, that said party would overturn the agreement made against their will, regardless of the 'justification'. The Republicans WERE going to change this...it was just a matter of timing. It's how our system works.
No, that is not what I am saying at all, and it would require some pretty ridiculous and malicious interpretation of my words to come to that conclusion.

But in any case, they certainly do know how it works now. And they will never trust us to negotiate in good faith again.

You don't seem to be understanding that we do understand that Trump *could* do this. That it was within the powers of the presidency to simply unilaterally dump a deal that had been forged with a great deal of national support. Yeah, we get that he had the power to do so.

We are just pointing out that it was a stupid thing to do that harms our reputation with the world, and will end up getting many people, our own people included, killed.

If you are still going on and on about the fact that he had the power to do this, then we are talking past each other, as we already know this. So, unless you are actually defending the stupidity of his act, then I do not see what the point of your contributions have been to this thread.
  #134  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:52 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,527
So... Trump is justified in doing any stupid and harmful thing he wants because he can, and it's actually Iran's fault for trusting the USA. "Ha ha stupids, you should not have trusted us! We had our fingers crossed!"

Where have I heard this one before - "If it's legal then it's perfectly acceptable"
  #135  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I know you don't. I could see that in last nights drunken exchange (well, for my part). Not sure how to say it differently now that I'm sober though. It DOESN'T make it less stupid or harmful or give him a pass from being criticized. Go bananas...call him an idiot, call him stupid, call the policy harmful. I've done all those things and more.
So then why do you keep bringing up things that no one denies and that don't conflict with any of my points (or those of others', I'm pretty sure)?

Quote:
But it's relevant because this is exactly what the Republicans said they would do. It's why Obama couldn't get a treaty through Congress, and the Republicans were pissed that the US put this all in place when THEY thought it was stupid, harmful and all the rest, or that if they had the chance, they were going to change it. This is exactly the same thing with the healthcare reform situation. The Democrats pushed it through over the objections of many Republicans, so it should be unsurprising that when the Republicans get power back they do all they can to gut the thing.
And grass is green and the sky is blue.
  #136  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:01 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You don't seem to be understanding that we do understand that Trump *could* do this. That it was within the powers of the presidency to simply unilaterally dump a deal that had been forged with a great deal of national support. Yeah, we get that he had the power to do so.
Missed edit, that should be "international support"

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-26-2019 at 01:01 PM.
  #137  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:05 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,213
So, Obama gave peace a chance. And now Il Douche would prefer a situation of tension and threat, a situation where a simple human error or miscalculation means its harvest time for the Grim Reaper. It may be legal and Constitutional. Still fucking stupid, and unworthy of being defended.

Last edited by elucidator; 05-26-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #138  
Old 05-29-2019, 09:31 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
John Bolton rattles his saber in the UAE today:
Quote:
President Donald Trump’s national security adviser warned Iran on Wednesday that any attacks in the Persian Gulf will draw a “very strong response” from the U.S., taking a hard-line approach with Tehran after his boss only two days earlier said America wasn’t “looking to hurt Iran at all.”
Quote:
On Wednesday, Bolton told journalists that there had been a previously unknown attempt to attack the Saudi oil port of Yanbu as well, which he also blamed on Iran. He described Tehran’s decision to back away from its 2015 atomic deal with world powers as evidence it sought nuclear weapons, even though it came a year after America unilaterally withdrew from the unraveling agreement.

Bolton stressed the U.S. had not seen any further Iranian attacks in the time since, something he attributed to the recent military deployments — America recently sent an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf. But he warned the U.S. would strike back if again attacked.

“The point is to make it very clear to Iran and its surrogates that these kinds of action risk a very strong response from the United States,” Bolton threatened, without elaborating.
These crazy idiots are certainly doing there best to cultivate a war-ready situation eh.
  #139  
Old 05-29-2019, 10:12 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,447
Apparently Iran is not responding to "our" current provocations the way our so-called administration would like.
  #140  
Old 05-29-2019, 06:08 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666
So, I wanted to post this link to a YouTube video that, IMHO, does a good job of showing the real reasons why the US is pursuing this (stupid, IMHO) policy towards Iran, what Trump et al (actually, I think Bolton and other hawks in the administration) hopes to achieve, and why it probably won't work.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #141  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:53 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Where have I heard this one before - "If it's legal then it's perfectly acceptable"
Aye; as I was reading XT's posts, I kept thinking of another poster who makes that same "argument" all the time (or used to, when he posted here).
  #142  
Old 05-29-2019, 08:04 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So, I wanted to post this link to a YouTube video that, IMHO, does a good job of showing the real reasons why the US is pursuing this (stupid, IMHO) policy towards Iran, what Trump et al (actually, I think Bolton and other hawks in the administration) hopes to achieve, and why it probably won't work.
I agree that this is an excellent summation of the situation; thanks for bringing it into the thread.
  #143  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:06 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
I saw this just as I was shutting things down for the night: The Latest: Khamenei says Iran won't negotiate on military
Quote:
11 p.m.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says his country will not negotiate on issues related to its military capabilities.

During a meeting with university professors on Wednesday, Khamenei said “Negotiations on defensive issues means that we give up our defensive capabilities.” He said negotiating with the U.S. would bring nothing but harm.

Khamenei also said Iran is not looking to acquire nuclear weapons “not because of the sanctions or America,” but because nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic Sharia law.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran soared recently over America deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf over a still-unexplained threat it perceives from Tehran.
  #144  
Old 05-30-2019, 07:22 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,186
In the old days, an embargo required a powerful navy; and for Iran paratroopers would need to be sent in to lay siege at its borders. Starvation would force Iranis to lick the boots of their American masters.

But in today's world, navies and armies are unnecessary. Financial centers in the U.S. control the world economy; and continue to do Trump's bidding. Iran can be ruined just by pushing buttons in New York.

It is the United States which is starting war with Iran, by abandoning its covenant and, more importantly, by imposing a strict embargo on the struggling country. Iran's economy is plunging, its people suffering, ... for what? So it will agree to the agreement it has already made? ... and is still largely keeping despite U.S. attempts to provoke war? If Iran fires the first shot, do not blame them for a war. The U.S. is completely responsible for whatever tragedy befalls.

There WAS a solution to the "Iran problem." A solution which was carefully negotiated by the best President of the past 50 years, was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the U.N. Security Council and, reluctantly, by Iran's factions. (That solution may no longer be available: Iranis have learned that the solemn promise of the U.S.A. has no more value than the turds or vomit of a diseased dotard.)

If Trump's goal is bloodshed to appease or lull his base, his strategy may make sense, but let's take him at his word. WHY then is adopting such a stupid policy and provoking war?

Because it is NOT a stupid policy for top U.S. "allies" — or rather the evil countries with their tongues stuck up Trump's a***o**. MBS of Saudi is delighted to have the Irani Shi'ites starve, as is the despotic Netanyahu. What about the top U.S. "ally", Putin's Russia? Yes, Iran is Russia's de facto ally in the Middle East but a U.S.-Iran war would be very good news for Putin, and he has probably found clever ways to niggle Trump in that direction. Iran occupies a strategic position near Russia's border; Iran's dependence on Russia will be very good for Putin. And any war involving America serves Russian interests.

What a stupid mess.
  #145  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:44 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Relevant story about the OIC meeting in Mecca yesterday:
Quote:
Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister on Thursday urged Muslim nations to confront with “all means of force and firmness” recent attacks in the Persian Gulf that U.S. and some Arab officials have blamed on Iran.

Ibrahim al-Assaf made the comments at a preparatory meeting of foreign ministers of the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, ahead of a trio of summits in the kingdom’s holy city of Mecca.

Saudi Arabia hastily called for the meetings in response to the spike in tensions with its key rival, Iran. That King Salman could quickly bring regional leaders and heads of state to Mecca so rapidly reflects the kingdom’s weight in the region and its desire to project a unified position on Iran.
Quote:
In his opening remarks, al-Assaf said the alleged sabotage of oil tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates and a drone attack on a Saudi oil pipeline by Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in recent weeks threaten the global economy and endanger regional and international security.

“We should confront it with all means of force and firmness,” he said.

Upon their arrival at the airport, each leader was shown Houthi military items, such as a destroyed drone, missiles and mortar shells used in the conflict with the Saudis. The leaders were given a brief explanation of the weapons on display by Col. Turki al-Maliki, spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition at war in Yemen.
They're doing their prep work.
  #146  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:47 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... and is still largely keeping despite U.S. attempts to provoke war? If Iran fires the first shot, do not blame them for a war. The U.S. is completely responsible for whatever tragedy befalls.
Just a quibble here: it's pretty obvious to me that the US (by which I mean Trump) is doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia (by which I mean, the House of Saud), using the canard of "global economic stability" (by which they mean, "our means of obtaining money") as part of their excuse for taking action. I'm not saying the US doesn't have some self-interest here, but really, this is Saudia Arabia getting the US to do their grunt work, because they have tons of money. And money is what rules the world. If you have money, as Saudi Arabia is demonstrating, you can rent the best military might on the planet whenever you want.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-30-2019 at 02:49 PM.
  #147  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:07 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Just a quibble here: it's pretty obvious to me that the US (by which I mean Trump) is doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia (by which I mean, the House of Saud), using the canard of "global economic stability" (by which they mean, "our means of obtaining money") as part of their excuse for taking action. I'm not saying the US doesn't have some self-interest here, but really, this is Saudia Arabia getting the US to do their grunt work, because they have tons of money. And money is what rules the world. If you have money, as Saudi Arabia is demonstrating, you can rent the best military might on the planet whenever you want.
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here. Might I paraphrase it as follows?
MBS al-Saudi is a very powerful but evil murderous man, much like the late Saddam once was. With Arabia and Persia both major oil producers, sanctions and war are win-win for him. Trump is merely a frothing-at-the-mouth puppet, strings yanked. (MBS, Yetanyahu and especially Putin are all delighted with the Bolton appointment.)
If so, color me in agreement ... with the stipulation that there other evil actors involved. I assume the CFR (or Illuminati, whatever it is) understand all this far better than I — yet are unable to act. Our democracy has literally been turned over to Alexjones, Hannity, and other crooks and clowns. I only wish there were a "New World Order" able to exert some influence.
  #148  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:23 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
. . . you can rent the best military might on the planet whenever you want.
Maybe not the best, but you can definitely rent Erik Prince's band of merry mercenaries.
  #149  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:31 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Maybe not the best, but you can definitely rent Erik Prince's band of merry mercenaries.
I really dislike that jackass (and everything he stands for).
  #150  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:50 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,610
Here's some news:
Quote:
In a confidential quarterly report distributed to member states and seen by The Associated Press, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has stayed within key limitations set in the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, for uranium and heavy water stockpiles.

But while in past reports the IAEA said Iran’s research and development on enrichment “has been conducted using centrifuges within the limits defined in the JCPOA,” the Friday report instead changed the wording to say it “has been conducted using centrifuges specified in the JCPOA.”
No explanation or speculation on what the change in wording means or why it happened, tho.
Quote:
In a footnote, the agency said that “up to 33” more advanced IR-6 centrifuges have been installed and that “technical discussions in relation to the IR-6 centrifuges are ongoing.”

Under terms of the nuclear deal, Iran is allowed to test no more than 30 of the IR-6s once the deal has been in place for 8 1/2 years. The deal is murky about limits before that point, which will arrive in 2023.

The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, said last month that Iran had begun installing a chain of 20 IR-6 centrifuges at its underground Natanz enrichment facility. Iranian officials say the IR-6 can enrich 10 times faster than an IR-1.
Quote:
Iran maintains that it is allowed to install the centrifuges, regardless of the agreement’s limit on their use for testing. A senior diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t officially allowed to comment on the report said the faster centrifuges were not yet being fed with uranium.

The diplomat said the technical discussions on the centrifuges were between the deal’s signatories and Iran, but would not elaborate. “It is being discussed, and we report the facts that we see,” the diplomat said.

“The feed line is under agency seal,” the diplomat said, adding it was up to partner countries in the deal to determine whether the installation was a violation of the accord.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017