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 (2 Viewers)

Gr00vus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Doesnt work that way.   And know you see why.   

Im not complaining.   Obamas stragety for this agreement has been proven as a failure.   Trump dumped it with a stroke of a pen.   By any measure.  That is a political failure?

 
ren hoek said:
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?  
Click to expand...
Yeah, when worldwide peace breaks out. 

 
quickhands said:
Every treaty.   
Click to expand...
Sort of.  Everything the Constitution refers to as a treaty. Internationally there are things that are treaties that aren’t referred to as such in the US.  Executive agreements, for instance.  But I know what you’re saying. 

So what do you do if the Senate won’t agree with the President on anything at all? Just let the country fall apart diplomatically?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Sort of.  Everything the Constitution refers to as a treaty. Internationally there are things that are treaties that aren’t referred to as such in the US.  Executive agreements, for instance.  But I know what you’re saying. 

So what do you do if the Senate won’t agree with the President on anything at all? Just let the country fall apart diplomatically?
Click to expand...
I think you do what obama did.   If hillary won and the agreement held and delivered.   It probably stays.

But his tactic had a fatal flaw.  It needed time.    And Trump has a hard on for barack

 
zoonation said:
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.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that it was "real" or not.  It was perceived as "real" because someone who wanted to destroyed us and promised to do so, had the perceived ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to Hawaii. 

If the treat of an imminent nuclear delivery wasn't perceived as a "real" threat, nobody would have running for cover.

The quote is "power perceived is power achieved".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
quickhands said:
I think you do what obama did.   If hillary won and the agreement held and delivered.   It probably stays.

But his tactic had a fatal flaw.  It needed time.    And Trump has a hard on for barack
Click to expand...
Don't see what his alternatives were - he wasn't going to be President for life, he wasn't going to get it through Congress. He used the only tool left to him. If Iran and the other parties continue to adhere to the deal, he still accomplished the most important parts of what he set out to do. At the very least he bought a couple years of stalling Iranian nuclear weaponization. Hard to call it a complete failure.

 
Opie said:
It wasn't that it was "real" or not.  It was perceived as "real" because someone who wanted to destroyed us and promised to do so, had the perceived ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to Hawaii. 

If the treat of an imminent nuclear delivery wasn't perceived as a "real" threat, nobody would have running for cover.

The quote is "power perceived is power achieved".
Click to expand...
I don’t buy that at all. If people get an emergency warning saying a nuclear strike is coming then they run to take cover. People aren’t stopping to think who might be behind it or if it is feasible before they take cover. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
quickhands said:
I think you do what obama did.   If hillary won and the agreement held and delivered.   It probably stays.

But his tactic had a fatal flaw.  It needed time.    And Trump has a hard on for barack
Click to expand...
So how can anyone be happy with a massive international decision like this that is based on one American having it out for another? 

 
Gr00vus said:
Don't see what his alternatives were - he wasn't going to be President for life, he wasn't going to get it through Congress. He used the only tool left to him. If Iran and the other parties continue to adhere to the deal, he still accomplished the most important parts of what he set out to do. At the very least he bought a couple years of stalling Iranian nuclear weaponization. Hard to call it a complete failure.
Click to expand...
It was a political failure because it didnt hold.   That is how things like this are judged.

 
Ryan Costello‏ @RN_Costello

Reminder: John Bolton doesn't just want to kill the Iran nuclear deal, he wants to pave the way for war and regime change. Here is his open memo to Trump from October, which the administration has followed thus far https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump/ …

 
What I think worries me about the agreement is the CSIS report I linked to earlier. There are some heavy hitters in that report, and if their claim is that nuclear proliferation is more likely without the JCPOA then it strikes me that maybe complete withdrawal instead of renegotiation of certain aspects of the agreement might not be prudent.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
What I think worries me about the agreement is the CSIS report I linked to earlier. There are some heavy hitters in that report, and if their claim is that nuclear proliferation is more likely without the JCPOA then it strikes me that maybe complete withdrawal instead of renegotiation of certain aspects of the agreement might not be prudent.  
Click to expand...
Agree completely- I defer to the experts and global stability. Then the fact it’s done without thorough explanation is a horrendous leadership. 

 
Opie said:
It wasn't that it was "real" or not.  It was perceived as "real" because someone who wanted to destroyed us and promised to do so, had the perceived ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to Hawaii. 

If the treat of an imminent nuclear delivery wasn't perceived as a "real" threat, nobody would have running for cover.

The quote is "power perceived is power achieved".
Click to expand...
No one with a shred of intellectual honesty ever considered NK in 2018 a serious threat to successfully deliver a nuke to the US or any of its pacific colonies.  

There was no serious threat.  To compare it to the Cuban missile crisis is intellectually ignorant.  

It’s the equivalent of me threatening to kick GSP’s ###.   The Cold War was real. The Russian parked deliverable nukes in Cuba.  

I take Tim’s point earlier in terms of policy.  I still think that is a stretch.  But, your contention that any current NK threat presented a real and present danger on the same level as Cuba is laughable.  

 
zoonation said:
No one with a shred of intellectual honesty ever considered NK in 2018 a serious threat to successfully deliver a nuke to the US or any of its pacific colonies.  

There was no serious threat.  To compare it to the Cuban missile crisis is intellectually ignorant.  

It’s the equivalent of me threatening to kick GSP’s ###.   The Cold War was real. The Russian parked deliverable nukes in Cuba.  

I take Tim’s point earlier in terms of policy.  I still think that is a stretch.  But, your contention that any current NK threat presented a real and present danger on the same level as Cuba is laughable.  
Click to expand...
Tell the people who were prying up the manhole covers in Honolulu.

 
rockaction said:
What I think worries me about the agreement is the CSIS report I linked to earlier. There are some heavy hitters in that report, and if their claim is that nuclear proliferation is more likely without the JCPOA then it strikes me that maybe complete withdrawal instead of renegotiation of certain aspects of the agreement might not be prudent.  
Click to expand...
I agree that it is always prudent to reconsider the terms of important agreements.  

I also agree that it’s far more likely that Iran has nukes soon if this agreement goes away. 

 
bradyfan said:
To my best understanding, the “deal” was never real anyway.
Click to expand...
Well, it was real but people didn't think Iran was honoring it. Enforcement was always the problem with the deal. We couldn't inspect their military bases, etc. 

National Review did a nice six point video today on why the deal should be ended. 

Reason's editorial department disagrees. 

People are all over the place on this thing, but when people at AEI are listed on a report that claims that nuclear proliferation is more likely without the deal, then my ears perk up. 

 
Glenn Greenwald is such a predictable Israeli hating idiot. Somebody explain to me how what Trump did today is good for Israel. 

 
Opie said:
You mean, people who watch the MSM and believe that there's an imminent threat is real?
Click to expand...
What is the comp? If Truman could have gotten an agreement with Stalin in ‘46 before the USSR had come to have nukes he would have jumped at it. If Ike could have had an agreement in ‘53 before USSR had missiles he would have jumped at it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Glenn Greenwald is such a predictable Israeli hating idiot. Somebody explain to me how what Trump did today is good for Israel. 
Click to expand...
Netanyahu and a significant portion of the Israeli populace wanted this, one has to assume.  

But I don't disagree about Greenwald.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
804
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
341
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top