|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 at 01:21:59 am CDT (Viewed 755 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 at 08:07:13 am CDT (Viewed 779 times)
Quote:It also shows that if you make a deal with the US that the US is not trustworthy. Iran has not violated the agreement.
Quote:I'm going to put forth the suggestion that you're not really disturbed by the fact that Trump is breaking a deal. What bothers you is simply a politician won the presidential election who you did not vote for.
Quote:Not really, I despise Trump the man. And I find him to be an unreflective president. So, while I admit to being biased in this regard
I think this is a big problem. We shouldn't despise men. We should disagree with policy, we should despise certain actions, but despising men causes us to lose our objectivity, as you admit you have. Rather than arguing solely policy, when people despise men, they become blind, or accepting of attacks against the truth, as long as those attacks agree with people's biases. When CNN, the formerly most trusted name in news, edits footage to make Trump look bad, it plays into his hands as CNN being "fake news". It clouds what trust people believe they can have in the media. But rather than express dissatisfaction with CNN, you focus on Fox, because you despise Trump. The act of despising the man, causes you accept bad behavior as long that bad behavior agrees with your bias.
Quote:(and given your past of never really saying a critical word towards the man or his policy's, so are you) that would not disallow having problems with a current policy point.
There are certainly things I disagree with Trump about. But as I've said before, my adding to the chorus of Trump complaints on this board is like bringing sand to the beach.
Quote:When Obama broke the agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic for the missile defense technology Bush had negotiated, you had no outrage. There is no post from you declaring that Obama is showing the world that the US is not trustworthy. From one Czech lawmaker, "If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it." No post from you about the US going against its allies.
Quote:I am not sure what your logic is looking back towards historical justification as proof that thing happening is ok.
My logic is twofold. First, to show that reversing an executive agreement is commonplace, and perfectly legal. Second, to question your objectivity. You are motivated to declare to everyone on this board that you are bothered by what you see as Trump as showing the world that the US cannot be trusted when he reverses an executive agreement from his predecessor. But you had no such worry about the world not trusting the US when Obama reversed Bush agreements. As you stated above, you despise the man, and are biased, so I think we're in agreement here.
Quote:But lets analyze this a bit, and the problems with your assumptions:
Quote:1. You assume that I was even aware of this program in the first place. Just because one pays attention to politics does not mean one knows everything that each administration does.
You're right, I did assume you knew about it. You seem well informed and it made international news. The agreement was withdrawn on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland, which really made this an even more distasteful action for the Polish. Your lack of knowledge regarding this brings up a good question. Why did the news sources you follow not report it? Why was this not something that was brought to your attention by the tv shows you watch, or websites you frequent? I suggest it is because those sources did not want you to know anything negative about Obama. Or I could be wrong. I know nothing about about your life, so there could be hundreds of reasons.
Quote:2. Your assumption is that these programs were on equal footing? Were they? Was the initial agreement with those two countries an international agreement supported by the security council, Europe and the country to be defended from itself?
It was an international agreement supported by the defense council, which the Pentagon had worked years on. I don't know what the thoughts were of other European nations, and I don't think that is relevant. The point is one president entered into a nonbinding international treaty with other nations, and the subsequent president, unilaterally broke the agreement. Breaking such non-binding agreements, according to your post, shows the US is not trustworthy.
Quote:3. You are using the past to conviniently defend your guy but ignore that if you go down that road than I, in turn, could go back to the previous president doing that and it is apparently an automatic out.
Trump is not "my guy", I am simply asking for consistency in outrage, and a solid expectation of executive powers which don't alter depending on who holds the office.
I'm not sure what you mean by something being "an automatic out". This may be an American phrase I am unfamiliar with. But in any case, yes, you could go back and find multiple cases of presidents reversing their predecessor's non-binding agreements. Which only supports my case that there was nothing unprecedented, uncommon, or illegal by what Trump did.
Quote:But go on about how these are 1:1 comparisons.
I will. Both were non-binding executive agreements made with foreign nations. Neither were treaties, which require ratification by the senate. Neither Bush nor Obama had authority to enter into legally binding treaties with foreign nations. In both cases the other nations hoped the US to continue with the agreement. In both cases the succeeding president unilaterally exited the agreement because he thought it was in the best interests of the US to do so.
You may disagree with Trump. But as adults, we can't judge actions based on if we like the outcome. That's a child's logic. "But I like this one, and don't like that one" has no legal standing, and is not the way to operate a government. I'm not saying this is your argument, but I am saying if your opinion is that Trump's exit from the Iran deal shows the world that the US cannot be trusted, then you have to start at the assumption that the trust was not there to begin with due to actions of previous administrations.
Quote:Gaddafi gave up his WMD arsenal during the Bush administration, and agreed to let weapons inspectors into Libya to help dismantle its chemical and nuclear weapons programs. This was done with the understanding that those countries sending inspectors wouldn't then invade Libya and force him out of power once he disarmed. When the Obama administration did exactly that, where was your frustration? I've seen nothing from you exclaiming that such actions by the US discourage North Korea from halting its nuclear weapons program.
Quote:So, the fact that questionable things have happened in the past exonerates Trump? Just curious. You are on your soap box accusing me but by your logic no administration can do anything wrong.
I am saying nothing of the sort. I am not attempting to exonerate anyone. As stated above, I am simply asking for consistency in outrage, and a solid expectation of executive powers which don't alter depending on who holds the office.
Quote:So, your accusations against Obama or anybody would also be moot based on history. Or am I understanding you wrong?
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not making any accusations against Obama. I am not saying what he did was against his constitutional powers to do. He had every legal right to break the agreement entered into by Bush. An executive agreement is only binding as long as the current executive wishes it to be so.
Quote:Your entire premise is that Trump cannot do anything wrong because Obama did something wrong. And that I am a hypocrite for calling out one thing but not another.
No on the first part, yes on the second part. I have certainly not offered a premise that Trump can do no wrong. He can, and has. I am questioning your selective outrage regarding one president demonstrating to the world that the US is not trustworthy, while the same action by a different president has apparently not already destroyed that trust.
Quote:Shall I go through and do the same for you? I do not see the point in doing that. Nor do I see how your points here even address the very real concerns with what is happening now with this deal. It was an agreement negotiated with numerous countries that the US backed out of despite it working, potentially allowing Iran to get a nuke in very short order.
I have not had time to read the deal itself. The agreement is extremely politicized, and I am not going pretend I know all the details when I don't. There were numerous democrats against the deal however including Schumer, Bob Menendez, Joe Manchin, Brad Sherman, Eliot Engel, and Joe Leiberman. And I state this not as any defense of breaking the deal, because I haven't read it myself...but I include this only show why it's important to get the information first hand...I have seen reports that there were weeks long waiting periods on inspections, and some clauses which allowed self-inspection. If that is true, it would be a ridiculous deal. Now, based on the fact that your news sources never informed you about Obama cancelling the deal with Poland and the Czech Republic, can you trust them to be honest about the any benefit to backing out of the Iran deal? It's best to read the agreement first hand, and I haven't done so yet, which is why I did not address that in my initial post.
Quote:But because Obama had some bone headed foreign policy decisions I guess that makes it cool for Trump to have some.
That's not at all what I am saying. I never said anything negative regarding Obama exiting the deal with Poland and the Czech Republic. Nor did I say anything negative about Obama entering into the Iran deal. What I was doing was questioning your objectivity. And based on your statements admitting to your bias, we are in agreement about your lack of objectivity.
Quote:Add into that context that Trump has been more critical of varying other defense and trade deals that he has pulled the US out of or has questioned intensely (you point to Poland and such but ignore that he is hyper critical of the whole NATO thing in the first place.
I'm not clear on this part. But this conversation has plenty going on, so I'm fine to move past it.
Quote:You didn't express concern then about one president reversing course on a deal with foreign governments negotiated by the previous president. From late January 2009 through January 2017, it was fine whenever that happened. But on January 20th, 2017, backing out of a deal negotiated by the previous administration all of a sudden shows the US is untrustworthy. Strange how that timing works.
Quote:Not really. You are guilty of the same, or worse in some cases. If we would like to rehash old posts. By your general logic, nobody should ever question the government at all, because some previous government did something questionable in somebodies eyes.
I'm not understanding this. But I am certain it is not an accurate description of my opinion.
Quote:It would honestly, if you were being intellectually honest, require the pulling out of some examples of exiting a similar sort of international plan.
I think I've done so.
Quote:In this case, Iran agreed to various restrictions, Europe and most of the rest of the world (economic powers anyway) were also in on this to make sure that it sticks.
As stated above, I am not arguing the validity or invalidity of the Iran deal. I am questioning your objectivity. When you start with the premise that Trump is a man who should be despised (which you stated you do), then any opinions you form of his actions are colored by your opening assumption. A man who you despise clearly can do nothing good, so you will find a reason to dislike everything he does. I don't believe it's healthy to despise people.
Quote:Trump decides to unilaterally pull out, despite no violation on Iran's part. Simply because he thinks it is a bad deal, even though his preferred stance is apparently the same as Obama's but without the role back.
And it is absolutely within his right as chief executive to do so if he thinks it is in the best interests of the country.
Quote:Your assumption that this is comparable to each and every other pulling out of a promise made by one country to another is pretty bad. You should know better than that. I have seen you make better arguments that that.
I hope some of my points in this post qualify as better arguments.
Quote:This is poor arguing. If you want to get on a high horse on double standards, than I could jump to most conservatives going after Obama for every action that he ever took but now cool when Trump shreds ethics laws or does even worse. All because he is on their side.
You could do that. But that's nowhere near the point of my post. I am specifically questioning your objectivity, not "most conservatives". I do not know most conservatives, and I do not speak with most conservatives. Most conservatives certainly do not post on this board.
Quote:For that matter, the studies indicating that in many Republican's minds the economy went from poor to great overnight when Trump was elected despite nothing really changing.
I'm not sure what these studies are, but again, they have nothing to do with my point. Neither is the economy. A conversation on that would take us wildly off-course.
Quote:If you are arguing about populations baking their tribe than that is fine. However, you are not accounting for things other than what is convenient for you and nowhere in your response to me addressed the problems with backing out of this deal. You are just trying to muddy the waters that who cares?
I did not address the deal because I have not read it. I am not trying to muddy the waters. I am simply asking for consistency in outrage, and a solid expectation of executive powers which don't alter depending on who holds the office. I'm not really interested in attacking or despising individuals. I'd much rather talk policy. Let's try this:
- Do you believe a US president should be given the power to enter into binding treaties with foreign governments?
Quote:Were those other deals going on the same time the US was apparently going to try and be a part of denuclearizing a nasty foe?
Yes. The nuclear shield was partially to help protect Europe from a possible nuclear Iran. At the exact same time as the agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, Bush had reversed course on nearly 30 years of US policy regarding Iran. Previous the official policy was not to enter into talks with Iran. Bush was the first president in 30 years to change that policy.
Quote:Very similar behaviors by Obama and Trump. But you had no great desire to run to the keyboard and alert the world that the US president took action which shows the US is untrustworthy until the behavior was from Trump.
Quote:Firstly, your one sided defense of Trump is so predictable it is sad. It is the only time you show up on these boards in the first place.
It's not true that's it's the only time I show up on this board. I have joined other discussions, but some topics don't interest me.
As to my one-sided posts...I explained above that I don't feel as though my criticisms of Trump would add anything to this board. When you go to a party, and you know that 20 other people will be bringing potato salad, you don't also bring potato salad. You bring chocolate cake. I'll make you a deal...you provide me 5 things you honestly think Trump has done well, and I will provide you with 5 criticisms. In the spirit of this conversation let's not just make a deal, let's pass it through the senate so it becomes a legally binding treaty.
Quote:Second, you need to provide some better examples than you have. You outright ignore the context of the intervention in Lybia and point to a change of US policy alone like it is on footing with an international agreement led by the US.
I'm not clear on what context I am ignoring. When Gaddafi dismantled his chemical and nuclear weapons programs, his expectations were not that a few years later the very same countries he was allowing into Libya as inspectors would invade his country. The only point of giving up his WMDs was to retain power and avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein. By helping to overthrow and kill him after he disarmed, some have the opinion that the US set a bad example for North Korea and others. The question is "why would Kim end the weapons program when the US and others will overthrow him afterwards?". Let's keep in mind this isn't a conversation about NK. That would put us on a detour neither of us likely have time for. But this is an example of one president reversing course on the actions and agreements of his predecessor which have not prompted complaints from you regarding the impact of US trustworthiness.
Quote:Third, you are ignoring that Trump has already done a fair bit to make other countries not trust the US. At least not classic allies. He has acted fairly iratically, but since he probably is backing your views it is cool.
I'm not sure which actions you are referring to. We'd have to address those on a case-by-case basis. I don't know if we have time for that.
Quote:Fourth, your total defense of Trump must mean the man is near perfect and not worthy of any legit criticism on any variety of issues. At least by your train of logic.
Trump is far from perfect. And he should certainly be open to criticism. I'll provide a few honest criticisms if you provide a few honest examples of things you like.
But please, swoop down and go after legitimate criticisms.
I don't think I'm swooping. I just think I'm joining a conversation. And I don't believe I am going after legitimate criticisms. Instead I think I am countering some of your statements because rather than offer objective opinions, you openly despise Trump as an individual, and you fully display admitted biases.
Posted with Google Chrome 66.0.3359.139 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|