Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
In Reply To
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 at 11:41:45 pm CDT (Viewed 533 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US out of the Iran nuclear deal
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:06:00 pm CDT (Viewed 638 times)



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



    Quote:
    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.


I'm sure you understand there is a difference between addressing more issues (which is what I have said) vs. "do it all". Ballistic missiles could have been included as well as sponsoring terrorism.


    Quote:
    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.


I've been very honest that I have not read the agreement. I've stated that multiple times. From what I understand, one of the conditions for sitting down to craft a deal was 100% honesty from Iran regarding it's past nuclear programs. We know now that honestly wasn't there. I am not sure if this breaks the letter of the deal (as I haven't read it), but it sure seems to break the spirit of the deal if Iran's lies violated conditions for the deal to even be considered in the first place. It should at the very least cause concern.


    Quote:
    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?


The end result is reached by re-employing sanctions and pressuring Iran into a better deal for the rest of the world.


    Quote:
    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,


I never said I expect the world to obey the US. You should not try to grossly mischaracterize my side of the conversation to make yourself look like the only reasonable one. It's not honest.


    Quote:
    despite the fact that the US just demonstrated they cannot keep their word,


How many times have I explained the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty? The US did not break its word. End of story. The executive agreement was only entered into by Obama's administration, and it only covered Obama's administration. Obama had zero authority to give the US's word, only congress can do that regarding deals with foreign nations. Obama could little more give the US's word than you or I could. An executive agreement means that for the term of that specific executive, that specific person dedicates his sole branch of the US government to the agreement, and only while he is in office. There was zero promise by the US. Only congress can do that. Please stop saying the US broke it's word because it means you do not not understand the nature of the deal. And also because you are spreading false information.


    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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.


You are consistently misstating or misrepresenting what I have said. You would be better off posting your thoughts on the issue rather than state what you think my thoughts are. Nowhere did I "give a ton of weight to some countries". As I explained in a prior post, you raised the issue of the opinion of some European nations as being against US withdrawal. I countered that by demonstrating that other nations are in favor of US withdrawal. Never did I say one country had a ton of weight over any other.

I am not willing to accept any country's opinion more than any other. France's opinion is just as valid as Bahrain's. I never said otherwise. I only demonstrated that there are multiple countries in favor of US withdrawal, as there are multiple counties against it.


    Quote:
    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.


If we knew Iran was lying for so long, then why was the agreement entered into to begin with? Iran's 100% honesty regarding their nuclear program was a precondition to the talks. So either the information is fairly new, or Iran's violations of preconditions was ignored.


    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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?



    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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.



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



    Quote:
    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/



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


I'm not clear what information you are waiting for.


    Quote:
    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.


The US, and every nation should only enter into agreements which it thinks are in its own best interests, which will at times also be what's best for everyone else. But no nation should enter into an agreement which it thinks is not beneficial.


    Quote:
    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?


The Iran deal was not in any way "official" in terms of US policy. It was only the policy of the Obama administration. Only congress can ratify a treaty, making it official.


    Quote:
    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.


If congress will not pass a treaty, that means not enough of the American people placed representatives in congress who agree the treaty is a good idea. That's the way our republic works. It is not a flaw when congress won't pass something a president wants, it is the way the government was meant to function. If enough Americans agreed with Obama's policies, they would have voted in more senators who held similar beliefs. But they didn't, which means many Americans were against Obama's ideas. This makes it difficult to pass treaties and laws sometimes, but that's the way it should be. There needs to be enough of a consensus that the president and congress agree. If that consensus doesn't exist within the government, it may very well mean that not enough of the American people are in favor of the treaty or law. You may not like it, but that's how the US government works.


    Quote:
    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?


I disagree that my thoughts on respecting others' opinions are "out there". I think that assuming positive intent, and assuming intelligence is something people deserve. We're not talking about "the world is flat", we're talking about politics, and expectations of future of events which nobody have any certainty of. Each individual has experienced the world differently, and that leads us to see the same thing, yet draw different conclusions. Many times opposing views can be equally valid.


    Quote:
    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.



    Quote:
    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.


I did not accuse you of bias, nor did I search previous threads. I quoted what you said in this very conversation in a reply to me on May 9. You said you despise Trump, and you admitted being biased.


    Quote:
    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.


I don't believe I have ignored anything. There is a *LOT* of conversation going on in this thread. If I have failed to address any specific points it was either by mistake, or in the belief that they were addressed elsewhere. But I think I make a good effort to reply to as many points as I can.


    Quote:
    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.


I hold no animus towards you personally. This is an open board. If you post something publicly that I disagree with, or if I wish to challenge your motivation, I think that's fair. You are free to do the same with my posts.


    Quote:
    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.


This is really simple...I didn't perform a search of your posts. You stated that you are biased in a reply to me in this very thread. You stated in this very thread that you despise the man. I don't know why you are asking me to consider how active you are on the board. I don't see what has to do with this. I quoted you from a reply to me in this same thread.

Quoting a person is not an attack. If you state that you despise Trump as a man, and if you have an admitted bias, then I think it is fair for me to point that out in context of your posts.


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


Republicans can be pretty stupid as well. I've never said otherwise. And in the thread regarding "one free amendment", I stated that a positive result of term limits was to stop both parties from getting the same people in office constantly. I used Mitch McConnell as one of my examples.


    Quote:
    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.


I never said Trump is an upstanding guy. Quite possibly he's just the opposite.


    Quote:
    The only positives I can think of would be from a perspective that government is evil by default.


You honestly can't think of any positive thing he's done since being in office?


    Quote:
    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?


I never said France is the only country in Europe that matters. I think you are mischaracterizing what I have said. As for the rest of this point #14, I don't understand a lot of it, especially the part of "the US is also the EU". I think there might be some sarcasm in there, but I'm not fully sure.




Posted with Google Chrome 66.0.3359.139 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