2:00....Trump and Iran

[Dschrute3]

Risky move. But it was a campaign promise. I suspect he'll back out of the agreement, but another one will be reached at some point. Just my hunch anyway. Stay tuned.

 

[Rambunctious]

We should get out of the deal...why continue to lie to ourselves about what Iran is doing? we all know they haven't stopped their nuke program...why does the world insist that we all be a stupid and gullible as they are?
Is it all about the first negro president and his legacy?
How stupid and short sighted is that?
Its your children and grand children that will pay for the mistake of wishful thinking...get out and replace the harshest sanctions the world has seen on the lying Mullahs of Iran....help their people rid themselves of these throwback tyrants... not aid the tyrants like the left loves to do...

 

[nat4900]

Having no agreement allows Iran to do whatever they want and outside of armed intervention, they will be a nuclear enabled military sooner rather than later.

These idiotic, Trump cultists don't seem to care that the orange buffoon is strictly acting on his hatred of Obama....regardless of the consequences.

Persians are much more unified than Iraqis ever were, and having no agreement just emboldens the radicals within that country.

Trump's moronic and unilateral pulling out of the current agreement could have catastrophic results.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is 17:45 on May 8 on my computer. We should know what Trump says (this time) in about fifteen minutes, if reports about the hour are not 'fake'.

 

[NightFox]

Risky move. But it was a campaign promise. I suspect he'll back out of the agreement, but another one will be reached at some point. Just my hunch anyway. Stay tuned.

My guess is that you're probably right, IMHO the probability is high that he'll back out of it but won't do anything immediately, something along the lines of a 6 month delay imposing any unilateral sanctions while negotiations continue with the other signatories.

That way he can check the box on his "campaign promise" without having to incur the negative economic, political and diplomatic consequences of doing anything other than a token gesture.

 

[Dschrute3]

Risky move. But it was a campaign promise. I suspect he'll back out of the agreement, but another one will be reached at some point. Just my hunch anyway. Stay tuned.

My guess is that you're probably right, IMHO the probability is high that he'll back out of it but won't do anything immediately, something along the lines of a 6 month delay imposing any unilateral sanctions while negotiations continue with the other signatories.

That way he can check the box on his "campaign promise" without having to incur the negative economic, political and diplomatic consequences of doing anything other than a token gesture.

The man's fulfilling campaign promises. I know that's a rare thing for US Presidents, but he's doing it. Most of his supporters want him to back out this 'Bad Deal.' It is what it is.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is 17:45 on May 8 on my computer. We should know what Trump says (this time) in about fifteen minutes, if reports about the hour are not 'fake'.

Oops, it isn't 'fake news' that had it wrong, it is I.
The announcement will be at 20:00 Eastern U.S. time, not 18:00.
Sorry!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a question that will leave you speechless:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

In what universe did such an award ever take place

"Obama Gave Iran A Faster Route To A Nuke -- And Didn't Tell Us
President Obama's deal with Iran was supposed to keep that nation's mullahs from creating a nuclear weapon with which it could intimidate and dominate the Mideast and much of Europe. Instead, it actually makes it more possible -- and in shorter time.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a secret side deal that, in the words of the normally circumspect AP, advances "Tehran's ability to build a bomb even before the end of the pact." The accord as agreed to by the U.S. and five other nations was supposed to last 15 years. Or so we were told. Turns out, that's not the case.


...the deal as signed all but guarantees that Iran will someday get a nuclear weapon with which to terrorize its neighbors. What the AP document does is move up the time under which Iran can make a nuclear weapon. So we'll all be at risk sooner than we think.

The so-called "add-on" agreement lets Iran expand its uranium enrichment program after 10 years -- not 15 years, as the public parts of the deal suggested."
Obama Gave Iran A Faster Route To A Nuke -- And Didn't Tell Us | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD




BTW....

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



" Iran President Hassan Rouhani endorsed the agreement in a nationally broadcast speech Sunday, saying the accord recognizes Iran's "nuclear rights" even if that precise language was kept from the final document because of Western resistance.

"No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognized," said Rouhani,...."
US, Iran nuclear deal spurs bipartisan concern in Congress





Iran's right to enrichment has been recognized,


By whom?


Oh.....by Obama.....



In your face, you dunce.

You’ve yet to show any award being given Jumbo. As is always the case…you offer nothing.

Having no agreement allows Iran to do whatever they want and outside of armed intervention, they will be a nuclear enabled military sooner rather than later.

How easily I force you dolts to default to lies.


You've served your purpose.....dismissed, you dunce.

 

[Cellblock2429]

His mind was made up before he was elected, Obama did it..... So he hates it.

When Iran develops nukes now, Is America suppose to protect Israel from Iranian attack? Yes or no?

/——/ It was a bad deal to begin with and our President is fixing another Obozo screw up. Deal with it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A person very close visited Iran recently. He found it to be a beautiful, friendly country. The people were welcoming, generous and interested in the outside world. The Iranians are not to be confused with a régime that is theocratic and outmoded, just as Americans are not to be judged by what Nixon, 'W' or others have done.

#1 tourist destination for Iranians before the revolution: Israel.
#1 medical needs destination for Iranians seeking significant medical attention before the revolution: Israel.

Fake news


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Stop being a dumbass troll and grow up.

Your to statements are bullshit, you have nothing to support them.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for reminding us you are ignorant on all topics.
Iran even recognized Israel as a sovereign nation before the revolution.

Israel and Iran Before the Revolution: A Not-So-Secret Marriage of Convenience - Languages Of The World

Iran–Israel relations - Wikipedia

From friends to foes: How Israel and Iran turned into arch-enemies

Thank you for finally supporting a statement you made! I knew I could get you to do it.


Now start making a habit of it.

Will save a lot of time in the future!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bendog]

asdfghjklWERTGYHJK QL;5T

Risky move. But it was a campaign promise. I suspect he'll back out of the agreement, but another one will be reached at some point. Just my hunch anyway. Stay tuned.

My guess is that you're probably right, IMHO the probability is high that he'll back out of it but won't do anything immediately, something along the lines of a 6 month delay imposing any unilateral sanctions while negotiations continue with the other signatories.

That way he can check the box on his "campaign promise" without having to incur the negative economic, political and diplomatic consequences of doing anything other than a token gesture.

The man's fulfilling campaign promises. I know that's a rare thing for US Presidents, but he's doing it. Most of his supporters want him to back out this 'Bad Deal.' It is what it is.

Well he's fulfilling promises without actually fulfilling them because they were crazy promises. See eg EU tariffs. LOL. But stated alternatively, he may be trying take actions that are better than no action, or better than what we did before, without really throwing bombs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My fondest hope:
Trump collapses the sell-out to Iran
and
re-imposes the sanctions that were strangling the 7th century savages.



"Could that happen in Iran? Could the regime eventually collapse if Mr. Trump stands his ground? The clearest arguments have come from Prime Minister Netanyahu, who stresses not only Iran’s nuclear work and past lies but also the importance of sanctions to keep from Iran the vast billions it needs for its expansionist war in the Middle East. Understanding such dynamics is how Reagan won the Cold War."
Remember Reykjavik

 

[Dschrute3]

asdfghjklWERTGYHJK QL;5T

Risky move. But it was a campaign promise. I suspect he'll back out of the agreement, but another one will be reached at some point. Just my hunch anyway. Stay tuned.

My guess is that you're probably right, IMHO the probability is high that he'll back out of it but won't do anything immediately, something along the lines of a 6 month delay imposing any unilateral sanctions while negotiations continue with the other signatories.

That way he can check the box on his "campaign promise" without having to incur the negative economic, political and diplomatic consequences of doing anything other than a token gesture.

The man's fulfilling campaign promises. I know that's a rare thing for US Presidents, but he's doing it. Most of his supporters want him to back out this 'Bad Deal.' It is what it is.

Well he's fulfilling promises without actually fulfilling them because they were crazy promises. See eg EU tariffs. LOL. But stated alternatively, he may be trying take actions that are better than no action, or better than what we did before, without really throwing bombs.

It's what his supporters want. He is fulfilling promises. Love him, hate him, but he is doing what he said he would do.

 

[BlindBoo]

A person very close visited Iran recently. He found it to be a beautiful, friendly country. The people were welcoming, generous and interested in the outside world. The Iranians are not to be confused with a régime that is theocratic and outmoded, just as Americans are not to be judged by what Nixon, 'W' or others have done.

Persian Poison

Appeasers have been riding that "good Iranian" dead camel for decades. Turn it in to the glue factory.

He knows far more about the situation than anyone to be seen in these threads. Appeasing has nothing to do with it.
Having participated in overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953, however, might play in.

Well those oil contract are worth a great deal of money

A minority of Iranians 'chant' "Death to America", just as a minority of Americans say "Nuke Iran". What is the difference in sentiment between the two expressions?

Their lawmakers were chanting that when they voted to expand their missile program last year..

And American 'law makers' (and law breakers) voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Should all Americans also be seen as war criminals because of that?

I think faulty evidence isnt equatable with chanting "death to america"
But yes, our lawmakers and intelligence should be held accountable for the invasion of Iraq.
One of the main things i want out of this country is to hold our leaders accountable. And we dont. Far from it.

I can agree with most of that. Except for the part about faulty evidence. They deliberately used unvetted and often faulty evidence that supported their claims, but ignored evidence to the contrary.

 

[TNHarley]

A person very close visited Iran recently. He found it to be a beautiful, friendly country. The people were welcoming, generous and interested in the outside world. The Iranians are not to be confused with a régime that is theocratic and outmoded, just as Americans are not to be judged by what Nixon, 'W' or others have done.

Persian Poison

Appeasers have been riding that "good Iranian" dead camel for decades. Turn it in to the glue factory.

He knows far more about the situation than anyone to be seen in these threads. Appeasing has nothing to do with it.
Having participated in overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953, however, might play in.

Well those oil contract are worth a great deal of money

A minority of Iranians 'chant' "Death to America", just as a minority of Americans say "Nuke Iran". What is the difference in sentiment between the two expressions?

Their lawmakers were chanting that when they voted to expand their missile program last year..

And American 'law makers' (and law breakers) voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Should all Americans also be seen as war criminals because of that?

I think faulty evidence isnt equatable with chanting "death to america"
But yes, our lawmakers and intelligence should be held accountable for the invasion of Iraq.
One of the main things i want out of this country is to hold our leaders accountable. And we dont. Far from it.

I can agree with most of that. Except for the part about faulty evidence. They deliberately used unvetted and often faulty evidence that supported their claims, but ignored evidence to the contrary.

IDK the full story as i was around 15 or so but i dont doubt it

 

[easyt65]

Iran was violating the TEMP agreements while they negotiated the Obama deal - according to UN Inspectors....but Barry stayed when everyone else walked away ... either because he was an idiot, he wanted to do something to earn his Nobel Peace Prize, or he wanted to help Iran, the enemy of the US.

I wonder which one it was...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, if we're going to talk about evil foreign powers seeking nuclear weapons, Trump certainly has Kim Jong Un paying attention.

Right. And the message being sent is that deals mean nothing to Trump (something any American who has done business with him already knows).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Barry stayed when everyone else walked away ...

A historian you are not. All of our allies are part of this deal.

 

[rightwinger]

Our president seems intent on destroying any nuclear deal with N Korea

 

[easyt65]

Barry stayed when everyone else walked away ...

A historian you are not. All of our allies are part of this deal.

A MISLEADING LIAR you are...

EVERYONE walked away from the negotiating table when this deal was being Un-Constitutionally forged, to include out allies...it was not until Barry took his un-Constitutional treaty to the UN to get it ratified, not even letting Congress look at it, that our allies jumped on board. They were not there to negotiate Barry's Un-Constitutional 'Treaty'.

I specifically said Barry STAYED....you said 'all of our allies are ONBOARD' - 2 separate things. Nice try.