What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Iran - Democracy Movement, The Nuke Deal & The Future (3 Viewers)

Serious question here:How many here are old enough to actually remember the arms race between the USSR and the USA...
Great question.

In 1953, right after President Eisenhower took office, angry hardline Republicans demanded that America repudiate the Yalta and Potsdam agreements of 1945 and pull out of NATO. The Yalta agreement in particular was regarded by conservatives almost exactly the same as they regard the Iran deal today. Had Joseph McCarthy, John Foster Dulles, or any of the extremist Republicans been President, that's exactly what would have happened. In addition, McCarthy and Co. demanded that the US support Chiang Kai Shek invading communist China from Taiwan with nuclear weapons, and further use of nuclear weapons in Northern Korea. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that if Donald Trump had been elected President in 1952, we would have done these things. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that if you had been around in 1953, you would have supported the government doing these things.

Thankfully, though Dwight Eisenhower came from the same party as these men, he was a leader and a statesman, responsible and knowledgeable, and he rejected their advice. And eventually we won the Cold War.

 
you get the Hawaii thing was not real, right?  as in there was no threat whatsoever.  your entire argument is strawman.  The cold war arms race has absolutely no probative value when discussing what happened today.  None.
It does though, just not what Opie thinks. Please refer to my last post.

 
Serious question here:

How many here are old enough to actually remember the arms race between the USSR and the USA....now, I mean the REAL arms race...Gromyko....Cuba...THAT arms race.  When the big question was not who had the most nuclear weapons but who could deliver them to their target.  I don't think that many of you are old enough to actually remember "duck and cover" and the absolute fear that was present when the USSR was putting nuclear weapons only 90 miles from Florida while the USA was staging them in Germany.  We saw a small, a very small, snapshot of that period in history when we saw citizens of Hawaii climbing under manhole covers to avoid the incoming missile.  This is what life is like when a country who has vowed to destroy you has nuclear weapons and are able to deliver them.

Democrat POTUS John Kennedy faced off with that situation and Gromyko blinked.

What could have happened had Kennedy been as appeasing and placating as our past few administrations?
If that was really your concern:

Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs...

US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
Thanks to this deal, the above is no longer the case. You should be supporting the deal if you're really worried about nuclear weapons proliferation.

 
It will be interesting to watch Trump fans congratulate him when he reaches a deal with North Korea involving way more concessions than the Iran Deal ever had.

 
Here's a BBC article on the deal Trump just backed out of.

Wikipedia page with more detail.

Key quotes that some in this thread may want to understand.

This is a good deal, for all parties, and there is no evidence that Iran was in breech of terms.

Unilaterally pulling out of this deal is an idiotic move. The good news is, it seems there's a chance all the other countries will honor the deal, which will placate Iran and forestall them reimplementing their nuclear weapons plan in ernest. 

Maybe Trump's plan is to have our cake and eat it too by not honoring the deal ourselves but having it practically remain in place anyway. I don't know that I can give him that much credit intelligence wise, but even if he did plan it this way, it's still a lousy long term decision in light of the impact it will have on international relations with the U.S. while he's President. Then again, maybe it's in the world's best interest to completely understand that they can't expect this guy to honor any commitments or be held accountable in any way.
"Completely understand." I think most get it after today's idiotic/stupid decision. Completely.

 
It's Reuters. And their most recent poll is from a week ago, and even then he was only at 49%. So if you want to say that Trump was at 49% a week ago, that's fine. Just don't say that he's "at" 50%.
Fine but you shouldnt correct me and say the highest was trump at 47%.  If you are gonna go johnny backbone and start telling people they are wrong.   Go all douchy with you spelling gastapo.    

Then please at least be correct.   The sighted quote showed 49.    

Please, in the future.   Try to do better.

Ywia

 
Serious question here:

How many here are old enough to actually remember the arms race between the USSR and the USA....now, I mean the REAL arms race...Gromyko....Cuba...THAT arms race.  When the big question was not who had the most nuclear weapons but who could deliver them to their target.  I don't think that many of you are old enough to actually remember "duck and cover" and the absolute fear that was present when the USSR was putting nuclear weapons only 90 miles from Florida while the USA was staging them in Germany.  We saw a small, a very small, snapshot of that period in history when we saw citizens of Hawaii climbing under manhole covers to avoid the incoming missile.  This is what life is like when a country who has vowed to destroy you has nuclear weapons and are able to deliver them.

Democrat POTUS John Kennedy faced off with that situation and Gromyko blinked.

What could have happened had Kennedy been as appeasing and placating as our past few administrations?
Your grasp of history is a little hazy.  

"On Saturday, October 27, after much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey..."

 
You know what would have made it impossible for Trump to pull out of the deal? If President Obama had submitted the full agreement to the Senate to ratify as a treaty like he should have. 

The danger of making an end around the process and making a deal solely on the word of the President is that it is just as easily undone by the next President.

By refusing to do this in the proper manner, Obama bears quite a bit of blame in this mess.

 
You know what would have made it impossible for Trump to pull out of the deal? If President Obama had submitted the full agreement to the Senate to ratify as a treaty like he should have. 

The danger of making an end around the process and making a deal solely on the word of the President is that it is just as easily undone by the next President.

By refusing to do this in the proper manner, Obama bears quite a bit of blame in this mess.
Yep. 

 
You know what would have made it impossible for Trump to pull out of the deal? If President Obama had submitted the full agreement to the Senate to ratify as a treaty like he should have. 

The danger of making an end around the process and making a deal solely on the word of the President is that it is just as easily undone by the next President.

By refusing to do this in the proper manner, Obama bears quite a bit of blame in this mess.
Or maybe Obama had no idea what the future would hold.

 Like one of those inflatable punching clowns filled with hog farts being elected president.

 
You know what would have made it impossible for Trump to pull out of the deal? If President Obama had submitted the full agreement to the Senate to ratify as a treaty like he should have. 

The danger of making an end around the process and making a deal solely on the word of the President is that it is just as easily undone by the next President.

By refusing to do this in the proper manner, Obama bears quite a bit of blame in this mess.
The Senate would have rejected it. In which case Russia, China, and several others would have started trading with Iran, without any kind of restrictions, and we'd be even worse than where we are now. I don't understand how anybody can blame Obama for this at all. He did the best that he could with an intransigent Congress.

 
The Senate would have rejected it. In which case Russia, China, and several others would have started trading with Iran, without any kind of restrictions, and we'd be even worse than where we are now. I don't understand how anybody can blame Obama for this at all. He did the best that he could with an intransigent Congress.
He would have gotten the votes. Look, we can blame an "intransigent" Congress or we can admit that one side had more public support in the Senate. That's politics and life.  

 
The Senate would have rejected it. In which case Russia, China, and several others would have started trading with Iran, without any kind of restrictions, and we'd be even worse than where we are now. I don't understand how anybody can blame Obama for this at all. He did the best that he could with an intransigent Congress.
But that’s our system. Really international agreements should be decided by Congress. I get why Obama did it but it flipped out usual process, which exists for a reason. Obviously none of it excuses Trump’s stupidity.

 
The Senate would have rejected it. In which case Russia, China, and several others would have started trading with Iran, without any kind of restrictions, and we'd be even worse than where we are now. I don't understand how anybody can blame Obama for this at all. He did the best that he could with an intransigent Congress.
We don't know that, now do we? And you know why we don't know that? Because the full agreement was never submitted to them for approval. If it had been, and they had rejected it, then the Senate would be to blame. But he didn't, and so they didn't, and so Obama is to blame.

This is the entire reason we have the process we have.

Obama knew the risks and chose to take the risky approach he took rather than attempting to engage with the Senate and either get them onboard, go back with some agreed upon changes, or fail and let the Senate take responsibility as the Constitution intends.

 
quickhands said:

Fine but you shouldnt correct me and say the highest was trump at 47%. If you are gonna go johnny backbone and start telling people they are wrong. Go all douchy with you spelling gastapo.

Then please at least be correct. The sighted quote showed 49.

Please, in the future. Try to do better.
Like I said, the Reuters poll is a week old. The highest current poll is at 47%.

So, even if you had said "Trumps at 49%", you wouldn't have been correct -- unless the (omitted) apostrophe was designed to hide the word "was". If so, you should have added the phrase "one week ago".

 
Like I said, the Reuters poll is a week old. The highest current poll is at 47%.

So, even if you had said "Trumps at 49%", you wouldn't have been correct -- unless the (omitted) apostrophe was designed to hide the word "was". If so, you should have added the phrase "one week ago".
I accept your apology

 
That doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. If it's revocable by the next president, and you don't know who the next president is, you run it through the treaty process because that makes it binding. 

But the blame game is unimportant. The issue is does this agreement work? If it stops nuclear proliferation, then it would seem like a good idea to make it a treaty. If it merely allows Iran access to trade while they lie to inspectors and continue to be the largest supporter of terrrorism in the M.E., then it's a bad deal.  

 
Sure it does. If it's revocable by the next president, and you don't know who the next president is, you run it through the treaty process because that makes it binding. 

But the blame game is unimportant. The issue is does this agreement work? If it stops nuclear proliferation, then it would seem like a good idea to make it a treaty. If it merely allows Iran access to trade while they lie to inspectors and continue to be the largest supporter of terrrorism in the M.E., then it's a bad deal.  
As someone who was against this thing back when Obama signed (but honestly not informed enough to "really" get a lot of the underlying nuance, admittedly), I felt it was somewhere in between. We (Obama, those that supported it and were in the know) "knew" that Iran was going to do some shady #### to circumvent... but it was likely some steps forward in "admitting" to oversight (even if that oversight was to be somewhat meaningless) and engage in economic carrots when there were not that many real sticks left to be played.

That said, today is a different place than when it was signed, and more importantly, it's not the decision to rescind, but HOW we are doing it and worse yet, the likely motivation to do it (Obama bad, must strike all things Obama!)

 
But that’s our system. Really international agreements should be decided by Congress. I get why Obama did it but it flipped out usual process, which exists for a reason. Obviously none of it excuses Trump’s stupidity.
How would you have Congress negotiate an agreement?

 
We don't know that, now do we? And you know why we don't know that? Because the full agreement was never submitted to them for approval. If it had been, and they had rejected it, then the Senate would be to blame. But he didn't, and so they didn't, and so Obama is to blame.

This is the entire reason we have the process we have.

Obama knew the risks and chose to take the risky approach he took rather than attempting to engage with the Senate and either get them onboard, go back with some agreed upon changes, or fail and let the Senate take responsibility as the Constitution intends.
What the unholy God are you talking about? The Republican controlled congress basically spent six months trying to pass an official denouncing of the deal.  We know exactly what they would have done. 

 
Sure it does.
Nope.

Obama had no idea that the next president would be the biggest moron to hold the office in history by a factor of about 30.  

"What happened to your carpet?"

"We went out of town for the weekend.  That night a freight train full of howler monkeys went off the tracks about a mile from here.  The monkeys ripped open one of our attic vents and about 50 of them took shelter in our house.  The basically crapped everywhere."

"See you should have sprung for the howler-monkey-proof attic vents, dummy."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What the unholy God are you talking about? The Republican controlled congress basically spent six months trying to pass an official denouncing of the deal.  We know exactly what they would have done. 
Constitutionally limited republics suck.   Except compared to everything else.

 
Trump didnt need a reason to kick the deal.   It is within his power and priviledge.    Just like firing comey.   He doesnt have to have a reason other than he thinks its in the best interest  of the united states

 
Trump didnt need a reason to kick the deal.   It is within his power and priviledge.    Just like firing comey.   He doesnt have to have a reason other than he thinks its in the best interest  of the united states
He's accountable to the citizens of this country. He does need a reason, and he needs to be able to articulate it. This isn't some shadow government that operates on the whims of a king or a cabal. This is a representative government, and the representatives are responsible for clearly justifying the decisions they make on our behalf. Trump is no exception.

 
He's accountable to the citizens of this country. He does need a reason, and he needs to be able to articulate it. This isn't some shadow government that operates on the whims of a king or a cabal. This is a representative government, and the representatives are responsible for clearly justifying the decisions they make on our behalf. Trump is no exception.
Like obama loved to say.   "Dont get mad, vote"

Obama was actually trying to bind us to an agreement he made, like a king.    Your analogy is ###-backwards

Trump isnt in the shadows.   He's out in the open.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How would you have Congress negotiate an agreement?
It wouldn't. Either make it a treaty in advance, or have Congress have a vote on the final deal. However IIRC what happened was there was a resolution of disapproval, so the usual majority (or 2/3s if treaty) bar was flipped so that just enough votes to resist a veto were required, which of course happened. There was also the issue of past sanctions which had been passed by Congressional vote but were not rescinded by Congressional vote. - I'm sure I fail at this on a technical level but IMO major international agreements like this should be dealt with by consensus. It's sad what happened with Trump but obviously this should have been something beyond his reach and a matter of national agreement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn Greenwald‏ @ggreenwald 

Russia opposes Trump's violation of Iran Deal, just as it opposed so much of what he's done (bombing Assad, arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russians, etc.). The governments to which Trump is *actually loyal & subservient are Israel & Saudis, but this doesn't help Dems' 2016 narrative

Is there ever a point where people acknowledge Israel is a total albatross on US foreign policy and serves no strategic purpose at all?  

 
Like obama loved to say.   "Dont get mad, vote"

Obama was actually trying to bind us to an agreement he made, like a king.    Your analogy is ###-backwards

Trump isnt in the shadows.   He's out in the open.
The reasons for Obama's decision were provided to us by Obama. The nature of the deal was presented to us. Congress was and is in a state such that it can't provide governance, yet the deal needed to get done as it was an improvement over the then current state, and has had beneficial impact.

Trump has offered no reasons for his decision, and you, yourself have said he doesn't need to provide them. I guess that makes your complaint about Obama even more ###-backwards.

 
The reasons for Obama's decision were provided to us by Obama. The nature of the deal was presented to us. Congress was and is in a state such that it can't provide governance, yet the deal needed to get done as it was an improvement over the then current state, and has had beneficial impact.

Trump has offered no reasons for his decision, and you, yourself have said he doesn't need to provide them. I guess that makes your complaint about Obama even more ###-backwards.
Right. Some complaints about the deal were parts were secretive or hidden from the public. So we should really hate the fact that the deal is being killed  without thorough explanations from the President. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn Greenwald‏ @ggreenwald 

Russia opposes Trump's violation of Iran Deal, just as it opposed so much of what he's done (bombing Assad, arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russians, etc.). The governments to which Trump is *actually loyal & subservient are Israel & Saudis, but this doesn't help Dems' 2016 narrative

Is there ever a point where people acknowledge Israel is a total albatross on US foreign policy and serves no strategic purpose at all?  
This is a boon for Russia.

Why is Trump supporting Israel & Bibi so blindly here? Trump doesn’t argue for democracy, he doesn’t argue for a 2 state solution, he doesn’t complain about Iranian presence on the Syrian-Israel frontier, he doesn’t explain why this makes the Mideast or Israel safer, and he doesn’t speak of human rights. I can almost presage your response about supporting Israel in general, but here there isn’t even a putative statement of principles. 

 
Obama's response (remember when we had an eloquent President who didn't communicate like a third-grader?):

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

 
I did not remember this but apparently Bush unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. 

@Tom Karako 

No. Treaties aren’t permanent. Presidents may withdraw from them unilaterally too, pursuant to their terms as Bush did w ABM. Judge JPCOA up or down on policy merits. Alleging constitutional impropriety is a distraction. The US Constitution permits unwise political arrangements.

----

Donald Trump can unilaterally withdraw from treaties because Congress abdicated responsibility

No treaty can be ratified without a two-thirds vote in the Senate. And once ratified, a treaty becomes part of the "supreme law of the land" — which should logically mean that it could only be undone by Congress and the President, or at least by a vote of the Senate.

There were few comments by the founders on the issue of withdrawal, but arguably the clearest comes via Thomas Jefferson. He wrote in his manual of parliamentary practice, which he composed while presiding over the Senate: “Treaties being declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded.”

The failure to act to assert Congress' constitutional prerogative now hands an erratic and often vengeful president the power to undo crucial international agreements.

Unfortunately, that is not what is "understood" today. When President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, only a few members of Congress protested; Congress as a whole failed to insist on a vote. Several members of the House then sued to force a vote (an effort I was prevented from joining by the Senate Ethics Committee). That lawsuit was rejected by the courts, because Congress had failed adequately to assert its powers and because the judge ruled “issues concerning treaties are largely political questions best left to the political branches of the government, not the courts, for resolution."

That failure to act to assert our constitutional prerogative now hands an erratic and often vengeful president the power to undo crucial international agreements.

 
Fine but you shouldnt correct me and say the highest was trump at 47%.  If you are gonna go johnny backbone and start telling people they are wrong.   Go all douchy with you spelling gastapo.    

Then please at least be correct.   The sighted quote showed 49.    

Please, in the future.   Try to do better.

Ywia
hmmm

 
What the unholy God are you talking about? The Republican controlled congress basically spent six months trying to pass an official denouncing of the deal.  We know exactly what they would have done. 
Yeah, pretty shocking that Congress would denounce a deal whose full contents were still unknown to even Congress, has been negotiated completely in secret, and had never intended to be submitted to Congress for approval. 

The President pulled an end around from Congress from the very beginning and hid sections of it from them. It would be irresponsible of them to NOT denounce such an agreement.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top