Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 at 09:51:45 am CDT (Viewed 740 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 at 11:41:24 pm CDT (Viewed 757 times)


      I think your first point highlights how ridiculous and holier than though your approach was in this.


        At no point in your response to me did you address substance of this issue. You accused me of hypocrisy and gave various examples of what you consider historical examples of evidence that other people have done things at different points in time. Conviniently ignoring various contexts around the current issue under discussion or those events in the past. Just to make the point that other presidents have done stupid, bad or dumb things. Or things that might not have been, but were undoing unilateral poor decisions. All comparing it to equal ground with an international agreement to achieve on of the wests big goals of the last decade or plus.


          Add on top of that, the US will likely put sanctions to punish Europe for doing business with Russia. Driving another wedge between Europe and the US that did not have to be there. This only helps Russia and probably Iran. Who can now start the process to getting a nuke all over again.



            For somebody wanting to argue policy, you sure did none of that in your initial or follow up reply to me.


              What is the positive of what he did? Why did he do it when there was an agreement and no side had broken the agreement yet?

    To address your continued statements that Iran had not violated the deal first: The agreement was invalidated by Iran by lying about it's past nuclear programs. One of the conditions for entering into the deal in the first place was that Iran needed to be 100% upfront about prior efforts. It seems they did not do so, which violates the agreement. When the deal allows self inspection, then it's very significant that Iran lied at the very start of the agreement process.

I am not sure where you get that, as nothing about the deal I have ever read indicates that. In fact, it sets guidelines for objectives agreed upon. Not upon Iran being honest or lying about the past.

The only out of the contract is if the IAE reports violations. They have not. Even Trump's administration has agreed that they are not in violation.

So, please provide grounds for your statement.

Even in your context, it would not be grounds for invalidating the agreement itself. It would be a reason (if countries thought it was severe enough) to back out of talks.

It is also telling that no country other than the US has backed out on these grounds, if true, and it took quite a long time for this to come up. If this was the truth of it, why wouldn't the Trump administration have backed out of it right away?

I am just saying, I am not sure where you get some of your information from. Even the State Department site does not indicate this anywhere in the language of the agreement itself, meaning it is not part of the agreement or grounds to leave it.

    To address what positives could be achieved by exiting: Re-establishing sanctions on Iran, crippling it economically could lead to Iran submitting to a deal more favorable towards greater stability in the region. I'm saying this is a possibility, not a definite outcome.

Because previous sanctions from the international community stopped Iran from progress with their nuclear program?

Previously intelligence communities reported Iran was three or four months away. That is not the case anymore.

And the key point you are saying there is could. Backing out of an internationally backed situation that was agreed on by the party in question to get something that might work (and the US is the only one throwing sanctions in at the moment). Seems like a good idea.

What about when the US starts sanctioning Europe for obeying the deal in the first place? That is sure to be a great starter with our allies.


      I guess that it is a positive to break an agreement you do not like for no reason if you agree with the person violating the agreement.

    Statements of yours like this is precisely why I posted on this thread to begin with. I'm not saying that I know 100% that exiting the deal is better. I haven't read the deal, I don't know enough about it. But I do know enough to understand that there are two sides to the issue. There is more to this than Trump "being surrounded by yes men". Your insistence to ignore any valid reasons to exit the deal is ignoring facts. You stated that you personally despise Trump as an individual, and you stated that you are biased against him. You attack every action he does not because you have weighed both sides, but because you despise the man. You refused to admit there is another side with valid concerns. You have stated that "all accounts" show the deal is working, but that just isn't so. Many countries in the region don't think the deal is working at all.

I assume you refer to Israel and Saudi Arabia. What are their grounds. Neither of them have put forward any information that Iran has violated the deal. They are just acting as they always have.

And your despite to give credibility to a small percentage of individuals is a bit striking. So if a president used an argument that because another country does something that it is ok for me to do it, does that mean international law or humanitarian activities are moot?

Even Trump has not given a valid both sides to this. And something like 94 or 95% of experts have indicate this is a bad move. You are going to side with the 5% because you want to give them an equal voice.

And your logic for this, and the logic I have read from the minority, is that doing the same thing that was being done for the last few decades would somehow magically work now.

And you sure come off as being 100% certain of jumping into things and calling other people out when it is pretty clear you are not entirely sure what you are talking about.

The both side of something nonsense is just that. Even in terms of debate, two sides are not always given equal weight in a matter. If new evidence comes out later than that is one thing but you do not judge things based on the possibility of something coming out. You judge it with the best evidence at that moment in time.

If we assume your point of contention with this paragraph than no argument or debate would ever be settled.

    One Saudi official stated "Iran used economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to continue its activities to destabilize the region, particularly by developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups”.

That is not in violation of the nuclear deal. That is them acting like a bad actor in the region.

Nobody is pretending Iran is a wonderful country now. Merely that they are upholding the agreement about nuclear weapons. I am not sure why we expected the agreement to fix everything in the region?

If we used their logic than the US and the USSR would never have had any agreements between the two of them because neither got everything they wanted in the cold war. In international law, or in any law, you judge an agreement by the agreement. Not on everything in it.

It did not cover ballistic weapons or doing anything else. Just that in agreement for stopping their nuclear program, economic sanctions would be lifted. That was the deal. None of the other stuff.

If Trump wanted to go in and negotiate on the other things, was it necessary to pull out of an agreement that was working as a symbol for Iran's poor behavior in other areas.

What does that do to other potential agreements with Iran to curb other programs we do not like. Seems those are dead now.

    A foreign affairs minister of the UAE tweeted, "Iran interpreted the JCPOA as concurrence of its regional hegemony. An aggressive Iran was emboldened as a result & its ballistic missile program became both offensive & exportable".

Does this have to do with the nuclear weapon's agreement?

    Also from UAE, "Iran’s rhetoric & aggressive regional actions were the background to a flawed deal. The veneer of Tehran’s compliance contradicted its bellicose policies. President Trump’s decision is the correct one".

Does this indicate a violation of the nuclear agreement or show that this country does not like Iran in the region?

What about all of Europe going against the US with this?

I guess the UAE matters more. Especially since their concerns are not involved with the agreement.

    From Bahrain, "The Iranian nuclear agreement was born thin and lived paralyzed. It was an imperfect agreement that unleashed the hands of Iran to tamper with the security and stability of the region. And today he fell and thank God".

Still, nothing to do with Iran violating the agreement. It is a problem with what they think Iran would do with the money. While that is true, it does not change that Trump and the US pulled out and could help Iran launch their nuclear weapon's program again.

Thus, putting the countries you listed in immediate danger compared to before. But no big deal. Lets just back out because it did not make Iran bow to every whim.

One deal is not going to give anybody everything they want.



      I also find it funny, that your first approach, despite these high minded ideas in writing, was never to talk about this issue but to attack me. Never considering the potential limitations in that sort of approach. But I guess you rather go after the poster instead of admitting that Trump was very very wrong here.

    My approach was such because I had no strong opinion regarding the US exiting the deal. But your hatred of Trump causes you to be blind to any consideration other than every action he takes is his new worst decision ever. And that exhibition of extreme bias is frustrating to see.

If you do not have anything to say about the matter policy wise of note than it is clear that you should stay out? Yeah?

I could make the counter claim that your support of pretty much everything the guy does and says makes you likely to swing in and just attack posters. Making horrible debate points just to point out things that are not points.

Even if one would accept that I am the biggest hypocrite on the planet, ti does not mean that my points or any hypocrites points are wrong.

I laid out problems with it. In return you went after me and pointed out irrelevant points.

    If your next response to me is anything like your previous few, you will accuse me of the opposite bias. As I've stated, there are plenty things I dislike which Trump has done. But I find it unnecessary to add to the never-ending anti-Trump posts on this board. But, I remind you of my offer....share with me five things you think Trump has done well, and I will return five criticisms. It will be interesting to switch sides, yes?

That has no bearing on the current discussion at hand. My problem is you came in to attack myself and other posters. Not our arguments.

Your debating style here has been pretty poor and you have provided nothing useful to the debate at all. Then come in and pretty much just dismiss views that you disagree with.

If you have views that run counter than you could have fooled me. You have supported the guy at every turn using pretty much the same tactics as here. You also have a tendency to resort to both sides do it and leave it at that. That is a useless strategy that adds nothing.

You want to jump in on a discussion about policy than do it. Don't come in and go after posters.

If you want to start another thread about pro's and con's of Trump than fine, but that is not for here.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 59.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software