Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 at 09:06:00 pm EDT (Viewed 636 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 at 06:57:15 pm EDT (Viewed 778 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:

      Quote:

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

        Quote:

          Quote:
          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.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            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.

            Quote:

              Quote:

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

              Quote:

                Quote:
                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?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        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.



    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    So, please provide grounds for your statement.



    Quote:
    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.


When Iran is now known to have been dishonest at the start of the talks it absolutely should be a problem when confidential agreements are in place allowing for self inspection. How much honesty can be expected going forward?


    Quote:
    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?


There was new evidence brought to light recently from Israeli intelligence.


    Quote:
    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.


It was a qualification for the talks to begin. Which although not stated as grounds for leaving the agreement, should be troublesome. And not to repeat myself, but nothing is needed per the agreement itself to exit other than the current US President wishing to do so. It is an executive agreement, not a binding treaty.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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.



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


The sanctions before being lifted were absolutely working to cripple Iran's economy. Iran would not have met at the bargaining table to release the sanctions if they had not been.


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



    Quote:
    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.


I agree, this seems like a good idea. With sanctions reimposed, Iran's economy will be in a dire situation. The time is now to put in place a better deal without confidential side agreements for self testing. It should also be passed through congress to be ratified as a treaty.


    Quote:
    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.


Europe should join the US as part of a better deal for the world.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        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.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        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.



    Quote:
    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.


I'm referring to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and UAE, as stated in the post you are replying to. They haven't stated that Iran violated the deal, but they stated that Iran is using it's freed economic power from release of the sanctions to cause further unrest in the region.


    Quote:
    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?


I'm not understanding this part at all. Excuse me if it is because of my English. What does "and your despite to give credibility" mean?

Also, I never claimed that any US President can do something simply because another country has. So I am lost here. But there is so much going on here, I'm fine skipping this.


    Quote:
    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.


I'm not sure who these experts are, or what exactly they said, or what their reasons are. More importantly, I don't who who chose which "experts" to poll.


    Quote:
    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.


No magic involved, I assure you. The sanctions which were just released had not been in place for decades. And those sanctions had been crippling the Iranian economy. Iran entered into a deal to release sanctions because the sanctions had been working. Iran would have had no other motivation to enter talks.


    Quote:
    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.


I've been clear that I have not read the agreement. I have also been clear that I understand there are two valid sides to this argument. One side believes the deal was working and was better than nothing. That side believes Iran is now free to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons without the deal in place. The other side does not trust a deal that starts with a premise of Iran being honest, and which includes confidential side deals excluding areas from IAEA testing, and which includes sunset clauses for significant parts of the deal. This side believes the world is better off exiting the deal and using sanctions to negotiate a better deal for the world.


    Quote:
    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.


Accepting that there can be two sides to an issue is "nonsense"? I call it being open minded and rational, and accepting of other viewpoints. People have different experiences which lead them to have different priorities and opinions. We should try to understand that we live different lives and the different events we've experienced personally shape how we understand our needs. There is more to the opinion of people who disagree with you than simply them "being surrounded by yes men". Both you and I want what's best for the world in this situation, but we disagree how to achieve it. That is what I mean when I say there are two valid sides to the issue.


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


I don't think that's the case. There is no problem accepting that people have different opinions which may equally be valid.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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”.



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


Yes, I never said the Saudi's had evidence of Iran violating the deal. The point is that Iran is using its freed economic power released from lifting the sanctions to be a bad actor. This is not a country we can trust to self inspect, or trust to not immediately continue a nuclear program after the sunset clause.


    Quote:
    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?


I'm not expecting the deal to fix everything, just explaining why I don't think Iran can be trusted to self inspect or not to continue being a bad actor after the sunset clause.


    Quote:
    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.


If you want to use the US and USSR as an example, Reagan walked away from what he thought was a bad deal. After that, he and Gorbachev agreed on other treaties, and came to respect one another. There is nothing wrong with walking away from a bad deal.


    Quote:
    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.


My point is that if Iran is using it's newly freed economic power from the lifting of the sanctions to further continue in its role as a bad actor, then the deal is too weak to be effective. At best, it just becomes a waiting game of 10 years.


    Quote:
    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.


Yes, it was. Iran will not negotiate for the benefit of the world peace. It will only negotiate to get something it wants. Unless it has something to gain, it will not give anything up. Which is why sanctions should be restored to pressure Iran into a tougher deal. And this time it should be ratified by congress as a treaty.


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


I'm not sure what other agreements you are referring to.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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".



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


It was your opinion that part of the reason we should not have exited the deal was because France thought we shouldn't. I am showing that not all countries agreed with France, the UK and Germany. If you are using world opinion for a reason to stay in the deal, I am showing that there is more to the world than those who agree with you.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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".



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


It shows that Iran continues to be a bad actor, and that we have no reason to believe anything will change when the sunset clauses hit. That makes the current deal a problem. As stated above, it was your opinion that part of the reason we should not have exited the deal was because France thought we shouldn't. I am showing that not all countries agreed with France, the UK and Germany. If you are using world opinion for a reason to stay in the deal, I am showing that there is more to the world than those who agree with you.


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


All of Europe? You are exaggerating. Anyway, the US should do what it thinks best, regardless of what France or Germany thinks.


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


Neither matter more. But I don't know why you think the UAE has no concerns with Iran using its freed economic power from lifting the sanctions to fund terrorism is the region. They absolutely have concerns with the agreement. But again, no 3rd party matters when the US wants to enter or exit a deal with a sovereign nation. I bring up other nations only as a counter to your argument that some nations wanted the US to remain in the deal. Others are happy we are out, and they look forward to sanctions stopping Iran from causing problems.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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".



    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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.


Not because it did not make Iran bow to every whim. You are seriously misrepresenting the other side of the agreement to make yourself look like the only rational one. That's not honest.


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


No, it won't. But the current deal has many flaws, and possibly we're better off putting sanctions back on Iran, and renegotiating.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

        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.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        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.



    Quote:
    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 think anyone is free to join the conversations on this board without being told to stay out.


    Quote:
    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.


I am not "swinging in", I am joining a conversation. I am not attacking posters personally, I am addressing what I see as flaws in arguments. I also disagree that my points are horrible.


    Quote:
    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.


As a general case, you are correct. But you should want someone to point out to you when you are being hypocritical.


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


I don't think I ever went after you personally. I did point out that you stated you despised Trump as a person, and I stated that you admitted a bias against him. Quoting a person is not an attack.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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?



    Quote:
    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.


I am not attacking anyone personally. I hold no ill will against anyone.


    Quote:
    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.


I have to disagree strongly that I have been dismissive. I've been pretty clear that I see both sides to this issue, and I have asked you to do the same. You are the one who called seeing both sides "nonsense". So if one of us has been dismissive of views they disagree with, it has not been me.


    Quote:
    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.


I am not trying to fool you. But I've stated many times how unnecessary I feel it is to add to Trump complaints on this board.


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


I am not going after any posters personally.


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





Instead of addressing each and every part I am going to hit the highlights. (which turned out pretty long)

1. You say in a few different sections that you are not in favor of a do it all plan, but consistently come back to Iran being a bad actor and wanting a deal that stops that. That is pretty much wanting a deal that does it all. So, I am not sure where to go from there with you.

2. You backtracked. In your previous response you said that Iran invalidated the agreement by not being honest. Now, you are stepping back and questioning their past honesty. It either violates the agreement or it does not. You admitted to not being an expert on the agreement. How do you know that this violates it? I asked for evidence, none was provided.

3. Nothing you have posted has indicated that Iran is in violation of the agreement. Nor have you addressed in the slightest the consequences of the US unilaterally violating an agreement they sought at the start. It strengthens Russia's hand, pushes the US's allies away and potentially drives Iran to getting a nuke. How does that reach the end result?

4. A point that you have not considered at all is the current situation. IT is obvious you expect the rest of the world to just obey the US, despite the fact that the US just demonstrated they cannot keep their word, but the world is now in the situation it is. This shows a lack of foresight by the Trump administration. They know must try and force the rest of the world to buy in and put sanctions back on. In the meanwhile, Iran is no longer bound to uphold the agreement while the rest of the world squabbles. This just demonstrates how little thought really went into this.

5. Your thoughts about what parts of the world matter is confusing. You give a ton of weight to some countries with their own questionable records in recent times. This does not dismiss their concerns outright, but you are more willing to accept the opinions that seem to back your own but readily dismiss the US's oldest allies. Who were involved with establishing the deal in the first place. Not to mention, the news reports about the information Israel gave to the US was nothing that has not been known for some time anyway. Those being grounds for the US to pull out of the agreement without any other country agreeing seems like pretty weak footing.

6. Your argument basically is the following, if I understand you correctly. The US is free to leave the agreement they made with Iran and other countries. This frees the US to reimpose sanctions that will lead to Iran falling into poor economic states that will give the US a strong hand in negotiating for additional concessions.

This, in my view, ignores multiple leaps of faith from one step to another. Turning the US into an untrustworthy partner aside, the US will have to unilaterally put sanctions on Iran, followed by secondary sanctions that will punish allies for doing business with Iran. This would put pressure on Iran but would not prohibit Russia or China for continuing doing business with Iran. It will annoy our allies greatly though.

It also assumes that sanctions will have a fast impact, how long would Iran hold out to even come to the table? And when that time came would they have nukes and a stronger hand themselves? Also, would that force Israel's hand in going to war with Iran. Potentially forcing the US to get involved too?

On the lighter side, what is Iran's incentive to be anything but stubborn and resist whatever the US wanted ever? I do understand the concern about parts of the deal lapsing but not all of it does, so the rest of the world would be free at that point to do as they will if Iran goes the wrong way. And doing so as a united community would have more impact immediately.

You also assume that any of the other bad actor angles would even be agreed to by much more than the US and maybe Europe. Part of the strength of this agreement was the UN security council backed it. Actually giving it teeth from Iran's enemies and allies. Would Russia agree with what the US thought was bad? Russia is probably the one enjoying the most, gaining in strength every time the US acts unstable or does something wacky. You are really hoping for the best out of chaos. That is an opinion, I am hard pressed to see it as valid with any matter of thought unless I assume pretty rosy conditions.

7. You did not believe the expert thing that I referenced:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/09/u-s-international-relations-scholars-global-citizens-differ-sharply-on-views-of-threats-to-their-country/

Keep in mind, here and in the past, I have provided information. I am still waiting on some from you.

8. There is some conflicting thoughts in your thoughts. Maybe I misunderstand, but the US is allowed to do what is in the best interest of the world, but apparently only the US agrees to what that is? This has not gone well in some past examples. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for instance led to a large amount of instability in the middle east and the grounds for it were, shaky.

9. You point to Reagan but miss the point of what I said. If the US and USSR both agreed that they wanted to do something. They agreed and then made it official. Then one of them wanted to back off because of an unrelated issue. Is that acceptable? And what are the examples you are referring too? Are they the same as what we are discussing? Did they walk away from negotiations or from deals that they already agreed to in the first place?

10. Your faith in treaties is misplaced. It is great to have a treaty, but they are very hard to get. Even in the best of times. There is a reason there are so many international agreements that are not really treaties. Obama would have loved to have one, but the GOP was pretty dead set on stopping anything the man tried to do, at nearly any cost.

11. I want to point out that your thoughts on opinions are out there. Everybody gets one, it does not mean that each opinion is valid or even worthy of serious thought. If somebody thinks the world is flat do I need to accept their opinion as valid? If somebody puts forward an opinion that makes little sense and requires jumps of logic than what ground are there to think it valid?

One should respect that other people have opinions, there is no need to respect the subject of their opinion in and of itself. I find what your thoughts are on this matter to require huge jumps in logic and hopes. Casting aside a known agreement for what may be, with no promise of improvement.

12. As for the hypocrite stuff. You jumped right in and accused me of political bias. The goal being to undermine anything I would say, ignoring you always have a conservative opinion. You then pointed out several examples of what said prove that I am not being intellectually honest. Presumably searching for previous threads.

At no point did you seriously consider your examples, as they do not demonstrate hypocrisy in anything but a cursory way. Zvelf and myself indicated this to you. And you never addressed it again. You perpetually ignore context of a historical event or situation as is convenient to your purpose.

Your first response to me never brought up your position or the grounds for it. It took a few replies for you to get to that. Your first response was a direct go at me and dismissing of my claims by dismissing me, not the points I was making. That is about as personnel as you can get. Particularly with how you did it.

You also did not really consider other things on your quick search, how often do I post topics, how often do I respond to what others post, did I reply on some of these issues? What was the tone of the original poster, what did I actually say, how active on this particularly board was I at that time and so on? I am sure you did not. It was just a convenient line of attack at the time.

I mean it is lost on nobody that all of your comments for politically stupid moves are from Democrats.

13. To your original point. It is perfectly fine to dislike a person's positions and the person. The later requires that the person's actions are deplorable. If you think Trump's actions throughout his life make him an upstanding guy than please convince me. Cheating on multiple wise and his comments about women alone are deplorable. That is to say nothing for appointing individuals whom despise the agencies they work in. And I am just getting started. The only positives I can think of would be from a perspective that government is evil by default.

14. You have a fair number of opinions on an issue you admitted to not know much about. And you seem to think that France is the only country in Europe that matters. The US, EU and UN all agreed to this deal. It is why it was effective and why sanctions did anything at all. But I guess the EU is France? And the US is also the EU and UN all by itself?




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 66.0.3359.139 on Windows 10
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