Trump is temporary. He will get his ass and all his family kicked out of office soon enough. Every single policy he's made will be reversed. Be they good or bad, including the tax cuts. After that, someone will come after his ass and throw him in jail where he belongs.
I really hope so.
New update: Seems the EU is currently arranging a crisis meeting with Iran in order to try and preserve the deal. They have also vowed to take steps to immunise firms from any US sanctions, as well as the possibility of countersanctions depending on how the situation develops.
The EU are complete morons but it´s clear they are gambling on the fact that there are less than two years left of Trumps presidency and whatever "cold war" there might be will be gone once the "new president" is in office.
But lets hope for 4 more years with Trump just to make sure the EU gets a taste of Russia´s hand and they can come crawling back and ask for forgiveness.
Complete morons for having the integrity to stick to a deal, approved by the international community and have their word actually mean something? Yeah okay then.
It's common knowledge now that Trump's presidency is a trainwreck, and there is no point in wasting time trying to reason with him, as he has consistently proven his unreliability and sheer incompetence for the job. Far better to bypass America altogether on matters such as this in the future, regardless of whether he gets a second term or not.
That's some imagination you've got there on EU-Russian relations also.
Ya, deal even the EU can see was a shit deal but they are so scared of not being loved by everyone they would rather have a shitty deal that will give Iran nuclear weapons than no deal.
Hmm, common knowledge, you may want to check up on the president's approval rating.
And ya some imagination and Ukraine still have Crimea.
If it was a bad deal then it wouldn't have had global support. That is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with wanting to loved by anyone. Rather, it's about upholding an agreement that you signed up to, in order to build mutual trust, and actually achieve things diplomatically. When you are the only country throwing your toys out of the pram, then you are essentially only isolating yourselves.
I don't care what his approval rating is, that is irrelevant to me, and the vast majority of people outside of the US. Internationally, he has been destroying American credibility and influence ever since he took office. Unilaterally pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, the TPP, possibly NAFTA and now this... yeah good luck making any sort of denuclearisation deal with North Korea, now that Trump has demonstrated that an American promise is worthless while he's in charge.
What does that have to do with the EU 'getting a taste of Russia's hand'? Ukraine is, and has never been a member of the EU. Anyway, Russia has been under sanctions as a result of that ever since, which have had a major impact on their economy, leading to them entering a recession in 2015. Practically no nation in the world outside of traditional Russian puppet states recognise the political status of Crimea, and it will likely never be an accepted part of Russia internationally.
The deal was about money. Iran was in bad shape their commercial airplanes were in bad need of replacement and their infrastructure needed rebuilt. The countries who signed deal wanted to be in on selling planes and . This was such a crappy deal it was never presented to the United State Senate for approval and the American people were lied to about what it would achieve.
ehttps://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/quipment to Iran
And if Iran broke it, the sanctions would be back up again. Would it not be better to work out a new deal while the old one is still active? You give me the impression that you rather want Iran poor and with potential nukes.
I don't get your link to work =/
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
The deal was to let Iran get an atomic bomb in 2025, plus we give them a shit load of money. That is a great deal for Iran for the West not so much. Appeasement never works when dealing with rouge nations.
Good thing we broke the deal so they get to keep their shitload of money and start building atomic bombs in 2018, then.
They never stopped their work on atomic bombs. This was an extremely bad deal fro the west all the signatories could see were dollar signs they were going to make on selling planes and equipment to Iran. again appeasement never works. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain with Germany. It didn't work for Bill Clinton with North Korea, and it won't work with Iran.
@Shewgenja: Saudi and Israel supports US move.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5711531/Iranian-forces-Syria-shell-Israeli-army-bases-Golan-Israel.html
Direct fight between Israel vs Iran.
@n64dd: The US has and does support terrorism. Who do you think were Obama’s fabled “moderate Syrian rebels”?
https://www.voanews.com/a/western-gulf-weapons-supplied-to-syria-rebels-leaked-to-islamic-state/4163148.html
Russia and China manufactured more than 50 percent of the weapons and ammunition held by IS forces, CAR calculates. Those arms were captured from Syrian or Iraqi forces.
“Former Warsaw Pact countries that are now EU Member States manufactured a significant proportion of the remaining materiel (more than 30 percent of weapons and 20 percent of ammunition).”
CAR researchers note: “Nearly 40 percent of ... anti-armor rockets deployed by IS forces in Iraq were produced in the past four years. ... EU Member States produced nearly 20 percent of these post-2014-manufactured rockets ... a fact that sits uncomfortably with the EU’s parallel efforts to degrade the group’s capacity to wage war and terrorism and to mitigate the international effects of the Syrian conflict.”
-----
Better to blame EU instead of US (Obama)
@Shewgenja: Saudi and Israel supports US move.
No shit.
Your post is shit.
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
Kinda like the president before him did?
The deal isn't bad if you don't want Iran to have nukes. If you don't mind them having nukes, then it is obviously a bad deal.
Trump will tell them to either not start production of nukes or he will sanction them and have them cut off from other companies as they are still trying to grow economically, For example, Iran ordered a bunch of planes from Boeing. Trump will tell Boeing to cancel that order and they will. This would be simple to stop Iran.
I don't get the overall strategy of this administration. Why they keep pushing the US to irrelevancy while strengthening Russia and China?
How are China and Russia gaining strength? Trump told Russia to step back for his bombing of Syria and guess what...they did. Russia does not want to get involved.
So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?
He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...
Are you making things up? Hell...the South Korean President said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. lol
@needhealing:
"So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?"
If I were Kim, I wouldn't trust this administration for even a second. I probably would have been wiped out but I would have attacked by now.
You would have attached who? The US? So you would have went to war with US just to get your whole nation destroyed? Do not be stupid.
The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?
I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?
How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.
The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.
Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.
Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.
His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.
You do not think logically. We literally pay a terrorist country to not build nuclear weapons. So they are using that money to build their military and economy. When the deal ends then they would start building nukes in 2025 with all of that money. We either tell them to not start producing nukes and we will stop them or we will do an economic sanction where their economy will fall.
They never stopped their work on atomic bombs. This was an extremely bad deal fro the west all the signatories could see were dollar signs they were going to make on selling planes and equipment to Iran. again appeasement never works. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain with Germany. It didn't work for Bill Clinton with North Korea, and it won't work with Iran.
Oh where to begin?
The IAEA, the foremost authority on the matter, has repeatedly deemed Iran in compliance with the nuclear deal. The State Department has also certified the Islamic Republic is holding up its end of the bargain, and a host of experts affirmed these definitive findings.
However, the IAEA did report two instances where Iran barely -- and briefly -- exceeded its supply of a nuclear reactor component known as "heavy water."
But experts said this minor breach posed no practical risk of moving Iran closer to developing a nuclear weapon, and added that such infractions should not be interpreted to mean Iran has not complied with terms of the deal.
Politifact
IAEA says Iran is complying with the deal. LINK
Jim Mattis supports staying in the deal. LINK
The fact is that Iran was complying with the deal and its capability to develop a nuclear weapon became limited in that they couldn't. Withdrawing from the deal has now potentially made it easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, if it wants to. Where you're getting your information from, I don't know.
As for Neville Chamberlain, you lack an understanding of history and have the benefit of hindsight. Great Britain was in the midst of its own Great Depression, a lack of support to go to war in the first place, and its military forces depleted. Neville Chamberlain did was he could at the time due to its weakened military and economic depression and sought to buy itself time in order to rebuild its military might. Even then, the British military put out a report that even if they declared war, they would have lost and Germany would still obtain the Czech Republic. LINK
But even then, diplomacy has worked: Egypt-Israeli peace accords, the START treaties between the USSR and USA. Before the nuclear deal, Iran was close to obtaining nuclear weapons despite sanctions. Sanctions did not and will not work. And if you're suggesting that war will somehow stop Iran, then sign up. I don't want another war in the Middle East so to fulfill the apocalyptic ideologues like Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo. You literally had Mattis, McMaster, and Tillerson argue against withdrawal from the deal.
@Diddies:
"You would have attached who? The US? So you would have went to war with US just to get your whole nation destroyed? Do not be stupid."
Hey, this is why I'm not a leader, right?! lol I acknowledged that I would lose in the end!
The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?
I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?
How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.
The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.
Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.
Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.
His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.
You do not think logically. We literally pay a terrorist country to not build nuclear weapons. So they are using that money to build their military and economy. When the deal ends then they would start building nukes in 2025 with all of that money. We either tell them to not start producing nukes and we will stop them or we will do an economic sanction where their economy will fall.
We are not paying them anything. Removal or lessening of economic sanctions in return for crippling their nuclear arms development does not constitute a "payment".
As mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing that prohibits a continuation of the agreement beyond the 2025-2030 sunset dates.
I think quite logically, thank you. I am literally a digital logic designer by profession. : )
So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?
He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...
Are you making things up? Hell...the South Korean President said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. lol
Reuters
Pardon me if I don't kiss Trump's ass like you want me to.
The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?
I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?
How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.
The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.
Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.
Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.
His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.
You do not think logically. We literally pay a terrorist country to not build nuclear weapons. So they are using that money to build their military and economy. When the deal ends then they would start building nukes in 2025 with all of that money. We either tell them to not start producing nukes and we will stop them or we will do an economic sanction where their economy will fall.
We are not paying them anything. Removal or lessening of economic sanctions in return for crippling their nuclear arms development does not constitute a "payment".
As mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing that prohibits a continuation of the agreement beyond the 2025-2030 sunset dates.
I think quite logically, thank you. I am literally a digital logic designer by profession. : )
We have literally given them billions. Please do research before you say something stupid. What do you think the deal was for? FREE!????? LOL Do not be dumb
So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?
He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...
Are you making things up? Hell...the South Korean President said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. lol
Reuters
Pardon me if I don't kiss Trump's ass like you want me to.
I am not saying to kiss trump's ass. All I am saying is we all know he had involvement in this and even if you dislike him or not, he can still do some good things.
So what will Kim think? Why should he dismantal his nuclear deal if they can't trust the adminstration?
He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...
Are you making things up? Hell...the South Korean President said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. lol
Reuters
Pardon me if I don't kiss Trump's ass like you want me to.
I am not saying to kiss trump's ass. All I am saying is we all know he had involvement in this and even if you dislike him or not, he can still do some good things.
No we don't know that.
He already said Trump had nothing to do with the Korean deal, so...
Are you making things up? Hell...the South Korean President said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. lol
Reuters
Pardon me if I don't kiss Trump's ass like you want me to.
I am not saying to kiss trump's ass. All I am saying is we all know he had involvement in this and even if you dislike him or not, he can still do some good things.
No we don't know that.
So you do not believe the South Korean President?
@Shewgenja: Saudi and Israel supports US move.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5711531/Iranian-forces-Syria-shell-Israeli-army-bases-Golan-Israel.html
Direct fight between Israel vs Iran.
Which is both sad and hilarious when you consider that Jewish people are a protected minority in Iran unlike Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia.
The Iran deal was a win, win for Iran: they got their sanctions lifted which will ultimately make them more powerful and all they had to do was temporarily halt their nuclear program. The day the deal expired, they would literally pick up their nuclear program right up where they left off. A deal would indicate that both parties got something, but what did America get?
I don't think we should be negotiating with terrorists to begin with, but wouldn't a permanent nuclear ban be I don't know, more "efficient" in keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists?
How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.
The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.
Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.
Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.
His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.
You do not think logically. We literally pay a terrorist country to not build nuclear weapons. So they are using that money to build their military and economy. When the deal ends then they would start building nukes in 2025 with all of that money. We either tell them to not start producing nukes and we will stop them or we will do an economic sanction where their economy will fall.
We are not paying them anything. Removal or lessening of economic sanctions in return for crippling their nuclear arms development does not constitute a "payment".
As mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing that prohibits a continuation of the agreement beyond the 2025-2030 sunset dates.
I think quite logically, thank you. I am literally a digital logic designer by profession. : )
We have literally given them billions. Please do research before you say something stupid. What do you think the deal was for? FREE!????? LOL Do not be dumb
-sigh-
As I said, lessening of economic sanctions isn't really a direct payment.
If you are referring to the $1.3B payback ( principal payment + decades of interest ) that was in return for reneging on an arms deal in the 70's after the revolution soured relations between the two countries. If you want to consider that "paying them not to build nuclear weapons" to win an argument, then by all means do so, I don't care.
As a side note, if that's all it took for Iran to stop building nuclear weapons, a piddly little $1.3B, then that was a great deal for the US. I would wager than the sanctions relief is worth far more to Iran than an old arms payment.
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
Written like an opinion piece... Anything else to back it up? I am not surprised if there is some truth to this, but a lot points to it being a success.
Sources. back it up with sources.
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
Written like an opinion piece... Anything else to back it up? I am not surprised if there is some truth to this, but a lot points to it being a success.
Sources. back it up with sources.
We have literally sanctioned them previously. However, Obama wanted to help them out instead. I do not understand how I can back up sources on things that I believe would be effective and so does many others. lol
How would one propose making a "permanent" ban? Hell, for that matter, define permanent. Is it 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years? infinity years? Will the such a ban still be in effect when the earth no longer exits in a few billion years? Would Iran be banned by the US from pursuing nuclear weapons after the US is no longer a nation capable of enforcing such a ban? Limits exist for a reason. You may argue that the terms are not long enough, and that is a valid argument.
The agreement wasn't the US vs. Iran, it was a multilateral agreement. You ask what the rest of the world got in return? It got an Iran that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. The world got the right to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure compliance and retained the rights to levy additional sanctions should non-compliance be found. We don't live in a black and white world were simply because 'murica! wants everything under the sun that all other nations will bend over and lick their asses. If a deal between adversarial parties has aspects which all interested parties are happy with and aspects all interested parties dislike, it's probably on the right track.
Like many others have said, where is Iran's incentive now to come back to the negotiating table? They're free now to back out on their end and resume weapon's development, the precedent has been set. Or they're free to continue to comply with the terms in agreement with the other participating nations, making Trump's antics looks even more ridiculous on the world stage. Not to mention now the stupidity of putting the US at odd with its closest European allies wrt sanctions on Iran.
Trump made a silly campaign promise that wasn't well thought out, something he's done time and time again. Rather than admit it, to save face he's compelled to follow though on his promises.
His face is more important to him than America's or the worlds interest. We all know it.
You do not think logically. We literally pay a terrorist country to not build nuclear weapons. So they are using that money to build their military and economy. When the deal ends then they would start building nukes in 2025 with all of that money. We either tell them to not start producing nukes and we will stop them or we will do an economic sanction where their economy will fall.
We are not paying them anything. Removal or lessening of economic sanctions in return for crippling their nuclear arms development does not constitute a "payment".
As mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing that prohibits a continuation of the agreement beyond the 2025-2030 sunset dates.
I think quite logically, thank you. I am literally a digital logic designer by profession. : )
We have literally given them billions. Please do research before you say something stupid. What do you think the deal was for? FREE!????? LOL Do not be dumb
-sigh-
As I said, lessening of economic sanctions isn't really a direct payment.
If you are referring to the $1.3B payback ( principal payment + decades of interest ) that was in return for reneging on an arms deal in the 70's after the revolution soured relations between the two countries. If you want to consider that "paying them not to build nuclear weapons" to win an argument, then by all means do so, I don't care.
As a side note, if that's all it took for Iran to stop building nuclear weapons, a piddly little $1.3B, then that was a great deal for the US. I would wager than the sanctions relief is worth far more to Iran than an old arms payment.
I am not referring to this at all. I am referring to the sanctioned amount of money first that was hundreds of billions and then about 1.7-1.8 billion to make them not make nuclear weapons that was straight from taxpayers dollars. Please do your research.
As a side note, I would not agree that we pay billions to a terrorist country where they have been spending the money to build their military and economy. If we do not want them to have nuclear weapons then we just sanction them and their economy collapses. Pretty simple.
Are you making things up? Hell...the South Korean President said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. lol
Reuters
Pardon me if I don't kiss Trump's ass like you want me to.
I am not saying to kiss trump's ass. All I am saying is we all know he had involvement in this and even if you dislike him or not, he can still do some good things.
No we don't know that.
So you do not believe the South Korean President?
And yet the North Korean dictator said no........and he'd know more than South Korea as to what led him to discuss with them.
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
Written like an opinion piece... Anything else to back it up? I am not surprised if there is some truth to this, but a lot points to it being a success.
Sources. back it up with sources.
We have literally sanctioned them previously. However, Obama wanted to help them out instead. I do not understand how I can back up sources on things that I believe would be effective and so does many others. lol
There are a lot of articles on line about the Iran deal, by the way Iran has yet to sign the deal.
We have literally sanctioned them previously. However, Obama wanted to help them out instead. I do not understand how I can back up sources on things that I believe would be effective and so does many others. lol
And those sanctions would be put in immediate effect if Iran broke their part of the deal. Their break out time for creating nuclear weapons have increased from 3-4 months to a year or more. Why could not Trump start working on a new deal before leaving the old one?
There are a lot of articles on line about the Iran deal, by the way Iran has yet to sign the deal.
Then why follow it?
We have literally sanctioned them previously. However, Obama wanted to help them out instead. I do not understand how I can back up sources on things that I believe would be effective and so does many others. lol
And those sanctions would be put in immediate effect if Iran broke their part of the deal. Their break out time for creating nuclear weapons have increased from 3-4 months to a year or more. Why could not Trump start working on a new deal before leaving the old one?
There are a lot of articles on line about the Iran deal, by the way Iran has yet to sign the deal.
Then why follow it?
Then why pay them to follow the rules? I do not want to give a country billions to build their military (which they have been doing) off our dime just for it to expire in 2025. Just tell them no and if they do sanction them. It was a horrible deal.
Reuters
Pardon me if I don't kiss Trump's ass like you want me to.
I am not saying to kiss trump's ass. All I am saying is we all know he had involvement in this and even if you dislike him or not, he can still do some good things.
No we don't know that.
So you do not believe the South Korean President?
And yet the North Korean dictator said no........and he'd know more than South Korea as to what led him to discuss with them.
As I have stated earlier...this is incorrect liberal lying news that is made up. I know it hurts to say good job Trump, but he is doing a pretty great job.
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
Written like an opinion piece... Anything else to back it up? I am not surprised if there is some truth to this, but a lot points to it being a success.
Sources. back it up with sources.
We have literally sanctioned them previously. However, Obama wanted to help them out instead. I do not understand how I can back up sources on things that I believe would be effective and so does many others. lol
There are a lot of articles on line about the Iran deal, by the way Iran has yet to sign the deal.
Why are you ignoring my response? Iran is complying with the deal. Do you have any articles to back your statements?
Dude Oobamas Iran deal allowed them to keep there nuclear plants running. Clinton did a nuclear deal with north korea!! Hmmm now they got them,, Thanks democrats and bill clinton!
The nuclear deal restricted creation of nuclear weapons, not nuclear power plants. As for the failed 1994 deal, it was a bilateral agreement that contained no specifics and safeguards to prevent North Korea from obtaining weapons. The Carnegie Endowment puts it out nicely: LINK
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/
Try this link if it doesn't work just go on line there are numerous articles on haw bad the deal is and how the public was duped into accepting this deal.
Written like an opinion piece... Anything else to back it up? I am not surprised if there is some truth to this, but a lot points to it being a success.
Sources. back it up with sources.
We have literally sanctioned them previously. However, Obama wanted to help them out instead. I do not understand how I can back up sources on things that I believe would be effective and so does many others. lol
There are a lot of articles on line about the Iran deal, by the way Iran has yet to sign the deal.
Why are you ignoring my response? Iran is complying with the deal. Do you have any articles to back your statements?
Dude Oobamas Iran deal allowed them to keep there nuclear plants running. Clinton did a nuclear deal with north korea!! Hmmm now they got them,, Thanks democrats and bill clinton!
The nuclear deal restricted creation of nuclear weapons, not nuclear power plants. As for the failed 1994 deal, it was a bilateral agreement that contained no specifics and safeguards to prevent North Korea from obtaining weapons. The Carnegie Endowment puts it out nicely: LINK
You are correct...they have been complying with the deal, but it was a HORRIBLE deal. We literally pay terrorists not to build nuclear weapons. They have been using this money to build up their military and economy. Just tell them not to build nuclear weapons or we will sanction them again causing hundreds of billions in damage if they do not comply. Pretty simple.
@Jacanuk: Do you rather want EU to do more on their own, without US interests in mind?
Yes, it would be good to see EU (which is Germany and France) try to come out and play on the big world stage and have them send troops and spend billions paying for other countries cowardarly behaviour.
It´s time they play against Russia on their own.
You are correct...they have been complying with the deal, but it was a HORRIBLE deal. We literally pay terrorists not to build nuclear weapons. They have been using this money to build up their military and economy. Just tell them not to build nuclear weapons or we will sanction them again causing hundreds of billions in damage if they do not comply. Pretty simple.
We're not paying them. We lifted sanctions off from Iran.
Before that, the U.S., most of the western powers, and even Russia and China sanctioned Iran because of suspicions that they were building nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran was closer to the bomb while under sanctions than when the Iran Deal passed.
We already did sanctions. It wasn't working.
@drunk_pi: actually not true. When we sanctioned them, they had lost massive amounts of income and money with their economy getting closer to calapsing. And your argument makes absolutely no sense. So you are saying they had all this research during the sanction and was almost nuclear weapon ready and then became idiots and lost all their research and didn’t know anything once the deal was set in place? Do not be that ignorant and make dumb comments.
@drunk_pi: actually not true. When we sanctioned them, they had lost massive amounts of income and money with their economy getting closer to calapsing. And your argument makes absolutely no sense. So you are saying they had all this research during the sanction and was almost nuclear weapon ready and then became idiots and lost all their research and didn’t know anything once the deal was set in place? Do not be that ignorant and make dumb comments.
Did sanctions and economic repression halt North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons? No, it didn't.
While Iran's economy was affected by sanctions, it didn't entirely "destroy" the country's economy, nor its capability of developing nuclear weapons. Also, it's important to note that Iran is not dictated by a single, monolithic entity. It does have some democratic aspects in which the current leader is considered a "moderate" who was willing to work out a deal to relieve Iran from sanctions where as its previous leader was a hardliner who was willing to develop nuclear weapons.
@drunk_pi: you know what...you are right. Us paying them billions made them unable to build nuclear weapons. Some of the stuff people say on here. You are saying incorrect info over and over again.
We. Did. Not. Pay. Them.
When the deal was passed, it unfroze Iranian assets that were denied to Iran. It was Iranian money but we denied access to it. We never paid them.
@drunk_pi: actually not true. When we sanctioned them, they had lost massive amounts of income and money with their economy getting closer to calapsing. And your argument makes absolutely no sense. So you are saying they had all this research during the sanction and was almost nuclear weapon ready and then became idiots and lost all their research and didn’t know anything once the deal was set in place? Do not be that ignorant and make dumb comments.
The deal included removing some key elements to build a nuclear weapon. And lower the number of centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapon grade.
So while the knowledge isn't gone, the tool box shrunk and some of the elements already built have been removed.
You are correct...they have been complying with the deal, but it was a HORRIBLE deal. We literally pay terrorists not to build nuclear weapons. They have been using this money to build up their military and economy. Just tell them not to build nuclear weapons or we will sanction them again causing hundreds of billions in damage if they do not comply. Pretty simple.
Unfreezing their assets abroad isn't the same as paying them.
@drunk_pi: Uh...yea we did. Please use google. Do not say things you do not know.
No one in the deal is paying them, as a result of the deal. Perhaps you should take your own advice about talking about things you dont know about. Furthermore, using google can be a terrible idea sometimes. Instead, how about using reputed sources instead of random blogs?
Or share your sources so we can debunk them.
You are correct...they have been complying with the deal, but it was a HORRIBLE deal. We literally pay terrorists not to build nuclear weapons. They have been using this money to build up their military and economy. Just tell them not to build nuclear weapons or we will sanction them again causing hundreds of billions in damage if they do not comply. Pretty simple.
We're not paying them. We lifted sanctions off from Iran.
Before that, the U.S., most of the western powers, and even Russia and China sanctioned Iran because of suspicions that they were building nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran was closer to the bomb while under sanctions than when the Iran Deal passed.
We already did sanctions. It wasn't working.
Russia was helping them with their nuclear program.
You are correct...they have been complying with the deal, but it was a HORRIBLE deal. We literally pay terrorists not to build nuclear weapons. They have been using this money to build up their military and economy. Just tell them not to build nuclear weapons or we will sanction them again causing hundreds of billions in damage if they do not comply. Pretty simple.
Unfreezing their assets abroad isn't the same as paying them.
Obama sent them an airplane loaded with cash. I would call that paying them.
@Maroxad: I mean, we do pay Iran 1.7 billion dollars, but the facts are very muddied.
Here is an article: https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2016/11/the-story-of-obamas-ransom-payment-to-iran-gets-worse/
"Supposedly" the money was for a legal settlement of money that the United States owed Iran from before the 1979 revolution- however there are some parts that are very wrong here. Omri Ceren, the managing director of the Israel Project has said that this is 100% NOT TRUE. In a tweet earlier this year he said, "US Courts ruled that the money belonged to US victims of Iranian terrorism. Also Cong statute prohibited transfer of funds until those acts were settled. Also money had already been cleaned out for that (so the US paid twice). Also, it didn't have to be cash..."
To make matters worse, there was $400 million that was paid, but then another 1.3 billion was paid which was "dubbed" as interest. Many have questioned the legitimacy of the interest payment and the U.S. treasury department has refused to make a comment or release any statements.
So you're claim that we didn't pay them is actually incorrect.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment