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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?? :dubious: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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)?
And grass is green and the sky is blue.
Missed edit, that should be “international support”
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.
John Bolton rattles his saber in the UAE today:
These crazy idiots are certainly doing there best to cultivate a war-ready situation eh.
Apparently Iran is not responding to “our” current provocations the way our so-called administration would like.
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.