Trump’s ‘God Bless the USA’ Bibles Were Made in China, Raising Eyebrows

[webfact]

Iran says it does not expect U.S. to leave nuclear deal

By Steve Holland and John Irish

 

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani delivers remarks at a news conference during the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, U.S. September 20, 2017. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iran said on Wednesday it did not expect the United States to abandon the Iranian nuclear deal as U.S. officials sent mixed signals on what they plan to do about the international accord.

 

A collapse of the 2015 deal, which U.S. President Donald Trump has called "an embarrassment" but which is supported by the other major powers that negotiated it with Iran, could upend relations in the Middle East and trigger a regional arms race.

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed that his country would not be the first to violate the agreement under which Tehran agreed to restrict its nuclear program in return for the loosening of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy.

 

"We don't think Trump will walk out of the deal despite (his) rhetoric and propaganda," Rouhani told reporters on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly gathering of world leaders. He also ruled out the idea of renegotiating the pact.

 

"Either the nuclear deal remains as it is or it will collapse," he added.

 

Trump, who on Tuesday called the pact "one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into," told reporters he had made up his mind whether to keep the pact but declined to disclose his decision.

 

Trump must decide by Oct. 15 whether to certify that Iran is complying with the pact, a decision that could sink the deal. If he does not, the U.S. Congress has 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the accord.

 

A senior U.S. official said Trump is leaning toward not certifying that Iran is complying with the pact and letting Congress effectively decide whether to kill the agreement.

 

The official said Trump could always change his mind before the deadline and noted he publicly and privately has fumed about the deal, feeling the United States was taken advantage of.

 

A source familiar with the U.S. discussions said the Trump administration is also considering ways to leave the agreement intact, sanction Iran for its missile tests and support for extremist groups, and then seek to strengthen the pact.

 

Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly of world leaders, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded forcefully to Trump's pugnacious speech on Tuesday by saying Iran would not be pushed around by a relative newcomer to the world stage.

 

But he also said Iran desired to preserve its accord with six world powers under which Tehran agreed to restrict its nuclear program for at least a decade in return for the loosening of economic sanctions that crippled its economy.

 

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will not be the first country to violate the agreement," Rouhani said, adding that Iran would respond "decisively and resolutely" to a violation by any party.

 

"It will be a great pity if this agreement were to be destroyed by 'rogue' newcomers to the world of politics: the world will have lost a great opportunity," he said in a dig at Trump, who on Tuesday called Iran a "rogue" state.

 

Trump, a businessman and former reality TV star whose first elected office is the presidency, told reporters, "I have decided," when asked if he had made up his mind after having criticized the accord in his own U.N. speech on Tuesday.

 

But he declined to say what he decided.

 

U.S. officials have sent mixed signals about the nuclear agreement Iran hammered out with six major powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

 

The Republican president hinted on Tuesday that he may not recertify the pact, negotiated by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. "I don't think you've heard the last of it," he said.

 

The seven nations that negotiated the agreement met at the United Nations, marking the first time U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had met in the same room.

 

The prospect of Washington reneging on the agreement has worried some U.S. partners that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron said it would be a mistake to pull out of the pact. "We have to keep the 2015 agreement because it was a good one," he told reporters.

 

However, an official from a Gulf nation suggested that his nation could accept the deal's collapse. Should Trump either not certify Iranian compliance or withdraw from the deal entirely, the Gulf official said: "I think we can live with that."

 

(Reporting by Yara Bayoumy, Parisa Hafezi, Steve Holland, John Irish, Michelle Nichols, Jeff Mason and Arshad Mohammed at the United Nations, Patricia Zengerle, John Walcott and Susan Heavey in Washington, Andrew Osborn in Moscow and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Beirut; Writing by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Grant McCool and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-21

[inThailand]

Wake up! DT is not going help you with your nuclear capabilities while at the same time giving you money. Its either up for re-negotiation or it will be terminated.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Wake up! DT is not going help you with your nuclear capabilities while at the same time giving you money. Its either up for re-negotiation or it will be terminated.

Get acquainted with reality. Not only is Donald  not going to help North Korea with it's nuclear capabilities. the US is actually not helping them either.

[Emster23]

Say DT pulls US out of agreement, but the other major signers stay the course (as they probably would). Result would be USA further isolating self from world political reality, further deterioration of US standing world wide. America would be first in a line of one.

[kamahele]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Wake up! DT is not going help you with your nuclear capabilities while at the same time giving you money. Its either up for re-negotiation or it will be terminated.

And how exactly would "DT" help with their nuclear capabilities?

[inThailand]

6 minutes ago, kamahele said:

And how exactly would "DT" help with their nuclear capabilities?

The Iran agreement allows them to continue their nuclear program at reduced levels while sanctions are reduced and money given. These guys are laughing as behind closed doors they are marching forward. They are pulling the camel over our eyes!

 

Read again, it says Not help them.

[Rancid]

Seems all monitors suggest Iran has stuck to the deal, it is Donald under pressure from his Israeli mate that is looking for the usual BS reason to terminate. Recall the same thing happened with N Korea when the US reneged on that deal. An Islamic theocracy would be about last system of government I'd want to live under, but Iran has done nothing (except oppose Israel in Syria/Lebanon) to warrant sanctions.

 

 

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, Rancid said:

Seems all monitors suggest Iran has stuck to the deal, it is Donald under pressure from his Israeli mate that is looking for the usual BS reason to terminate. Recall the same thing happened with N Korea when the US reneged on that deal. An Islamic theocracy would be about last system of government I'd want to live under, but Iran has done nothing (except oppose Israel in Syria/Lebanon) to warrant sanctions.

Iran does seem to be abiding by the terms of the agreement.  Trump is just nuts.  Hopefully, cooler heads around him will prevail.

 

The US/NK deal was more complicated than saying "the US reneged on that deal."  NK has a long history of not abiding by UN resolutions.

[Scott]

The name of the President is Donald Trump.   One inflammatory post has been removed.  

 

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Iran does seem to be abiding by the terms of the agreement.  Trump is just nuts.  Hopefully, cooler heads around him will prevail.

 

The US/NK deal was more complicated than saying "the US reneged on that deal."  NK has a long history of not abiding by UN resolutions.

Yes. Actually it was North Korea who first violated the deal by surreptitiously doing something or other nefarious to with with fuel rods. Oddly enough, when they were caught out, they admitted it. Things were getting back on track when Bush and Cheney decided that they couldn't do business with a member of the axis of evil and just walked away from the whole thing. 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes. Actually it was North Korea who first violated the deal by surreptitiously doing something or other nefarious to with with fuel rods. Oddly enough, when they were caught out, they admitted it. Things were getting back on track when Bush and Cheney decided that they couldn't do business with a member of the axis of evil and just walked away from the whole thing. 

Can we stick to the topic?  Iran?  NK has plenty of other topics to discuss this.

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Can we stick to the topic?  Iran?  NK has plenty of other topics to discuss this.

 

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

The US/NK deal was more complicated than saying "the US reneged on that deal."  NK has a long history of not abiding by UN resolutions.

???

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Rancid said:

Seems all monitors suggest Iran has stuck to the deal, it is Donald under pressure from his Israeli mate that is looking for the usual BS reason to terminate. Recall the same thing happened with N Korea when the US reneged on that deal. An Islamic theocracy would be about last system of government I'd want to live under, but Iran has done nothing (except oppose Israel in Syria/Lebanon) to warrant sanctions.

 

 

 

Quite a selective memory there. Enough bad blood between the US and Iran - a certain embassy was taken, some marines blown to bits, etc etc...

 

So, Iran didn't do anything to warrant sanctions, eh? Totally lived up to it's NPT obligations? All them countries who acted on the sanctions decision were making things up?

 

 

[retarius]

The credibility of the US is on the line here. Pulling out of Paris, reneging on the Iran deal, supplying $2.2 billion of arms to al Nusra, calling for the annihilation of NK, spying on Angela Merkel, endless threats to Syria, Venezuela, China, Russia et al, endless wars none of which involve any sort of threat to the US : all these things are making the US most untrustworthy as a partner in any adventure. There is a straw coming which will break the camel's back and the US will be left with even stalwart allies like the UK questioning US motives and leadership. 

[craigt3365]

18 hours ago, retarius said:

The credibility of the US is on the line here. Pulling out of Paris, reneging on the Iran deal, supplying $2.2 billion of arms to al Nusra, calling for the annihilation of NK, spying on Angela Merkel, endless threats to Syria, Venezuela, China, Russia et al, endless wars none of which involve any sort of threat to the US : all these things are making the US most untrustworthy as a partner in any adventure. There is a straw coming which will break the camel's back and the US will be left with even stalwart allies like the UK questioning US motives and leadership. 

Like with NK, things like this don't help. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/technology/iran-hackers-destructive-new-group/index.html

 

Quote

 

Security experts: Iran-backed hackers targeting U.S. and Saudi Arabia

Cybersecurity firm FireEye has identified a new group of hackers, known as APT33, that it says has been working on behalf of the Iranian government since 2013. The group has "potential destructive capabilities," FireEye warned.

"The campaigns that were laid out were not just aligned with the Iranian government but with the Iranian military," said Stuart Davis, a director at FireEye subsidiary Mandiant.

 

 

 

[farq]

On 21/09/2017 at 1:35 PM, Morch said:

 

Quite a selective memory there. Enough bad blood between the US and Iran - a certain embassy was taken, some marines blown to bits, etc etc...

 

So, Iran didn't do anything to warrant sanctions, eh? Totally lived up to it's NPT obligations? All them countries who acted on the sanctions decision were making things up?

 

Yours is the selective memory! They actually have lived up to the requirements of the Agreement and the UN and the IAEC are in agreeance with this fact! Why aren't there sanctions against the US? They haven't even signed the NPT, along with Israel! All those countries that "voted" on the sanction decision are in the pockets of the US and Israel and can't be taken seriously! And on the subject of "bad blood" between the US and Iran, you seem to be selective about the small matter of the US arming and supplying Iraq to fight against Iran on their behalf in the US attempt for regime change. What about all the Iranian civilians murdered on behalf of the US?! You obviously don't count in your distorted world view. A little honest research into a subject, in future, before commenting would save you some embarassment. 

[ilostmypassword]

On 9/21/2017 at 1:35 PM, Morch said:

 

Quite a selective memory there. Enough bad blood between the US and Iran - a certain embassy was taken, some marines blown to bits, etc etc...

 

So, Iran didn't do anything to warrant sanctions, eh? Totally lived up to it's NPT obligations? All them countries who acted on the sanctions decision were making things up?

 

 

1 hour ago, farq said:

Yours is the selective memory! They actually have lived up to the requirements of the Agreement and the UN and the IAEC are in agreeance with this fact! Why aren't there sanctions against the US? They haven't even signed the NPT, along with Israel! All those countries that "voted" on the sanction decision are in the pockets of the US and Israel and can't be taken seriously! And on the subject of "bad blood" between the US and Iran, you seem to be selective about the small matter of the US arming and supplying Iraq to fight against Iran on their behalf in the US attempt for regime change. What about all the Iranian civilians murdered on behalf of the US?! You obviously don't count in your distorted world view. A little honest research into a subject, in future, before commenting would save you some embarassment. 

Saddam Hussein didn't  invade Iran on orders from the USA.. But it is a fact that the USA did provide invaluable operational intelligence, third party weapons, and upgraded its diplomatic relations with Iraq. It also vetoed a security council resolution condemning Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. In fact, as I recall, Senator Alan Simpson, a close friend of George H.W. Bush, sent Saddam a letter consoling him for being a victim of the press in regards to the chemical weapons reports.

Roughly 200,000 Iranians died in that war of aggression waged by Saddam Hussein.

 

[pegman]

On September 20, 2017 at 11:41 PM, craigt3365 said:

Iran does seem to be abiding by the terms of the agreement.  Trump is just nuts.  Hopefully, cooler heads around him will prevail.

 

The US/NK deal was more complicated than saying "the US reneged on that deal."  NK has a long history of not abiding by UN resolutions.

The American's political masters in Isreal are far, far worse in not abiding by UN resolutions. It is time for Trump to shut up and pull out of this deal. All the other signatories will carry on fine without them. Just as is happening with TTP. Once it is finalized China will be asked to join. After that Trump should pull out of NAFTA & NATO. The world has had enough of him.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Saddam Hussein didn't  invade Iran on orders from the USA.. But it is a fact that the USA did provide invaluable operational intelligence, third party weapons, and upgraded its diplomatic relations with Iraq. It also vetoed a security council resolution condemning Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. In fact, as I recall, Senator Alan Simpson, a close friend of George H.W. Bush, sent Saddam a letter consoling him for being a victim of the press in regards to the chemical weapons reports.

Roughly 200,000 Iranians died in that war of aggression waged by Saddam Hussein.

 

The US voted for this U.N. resolution condemning Iraq for use of chemical weapons against Iraq. Same with 582, 588, 598, 612, etc.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_620

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, pegman said:

The American's political masters in Isreal are far, far worse in not abiding by UN resolutions. It is time for Trump to shut up and pull out of this deal. All the other signatories will carry on fine without them. Just as is happening with TTP. Once it is finalized China will be asked to join. After that Trump should pull out of NAFTA & NATO. The world has had enough of him.

Most are telling Trump not to pull out of the deal. I tend to ignore what he says. Most is just talk and not backed up by action as he doesn't have the support.

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, farq said:

Yours is the selective memory! They actually have lived up to the requirements of the Agreement and the UN and the IAEC are in agreeance with this fact! Why aren't there sanctions against the US? They haven't even signed the NPT, along with Israel! All those countries that "voted" on the sanction decision are in the pockets of the US and Israel and can't be taken seriously! And on the subject of "bad blood" between the US and Iran, you seem to be selective about the small matter of the US arming and supplying Iraq to fight against Iran on their behalf in the US attempt for regime change. What about all the Iranian civilians murdered on behalf of the US?! You obviously don't count in your distorted world view. A little honest research into a subject, in future, before commenting would save you some embarassment. 

Please don't post incorrect information. The US did sign the NPT.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The US voted for this U.N. resolution condemning Iraq for use of chemical weapons against Iraq. Same with 582, 588, 598, 612, etc.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_620

"For example, the United States and the UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).[43]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

And no the UN security council resolution 620 does not condemn Iraq for using weapons agains Iran for their use even though it was Iraq that initiated their use and used them against its own civilian population. It condemns both Iran and Iraq.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_620

 

I went and looked up resolution 582 and it doesn't condemn either side for using chemical weapons, It just reminds both of them that they are parties to treaties outlawing their use.

https://undocs.org/S/RES/582(1986)

 

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

And no the UN security council resolution 620 does not condemn Iraq for using weapons agains Iran for their use even though it was Iraq that initiated their use and used them against its own civilian population. It condemns both Iran and Iraq.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_620

 

I went and looked up resolution 582 and it doesn't condemn either side for using chemical weapons, It just reminds both of them that they are parties to treaties outlawing their use.

https://undocs.org/S/RES/582(1986)

620 Absolutely condemns the use of chemical weapons.  By both sides.  From my link.  You love to nit pick.  From my link above:

Quote

United Nations Security Council resolution 620, adopted unanimously on 26 August 1988, after recalling Resolution 612 (1988) which found evidence of the use of chemical warfare between Iran and Iraq, the Council again condemned the use of such weapons, in violation of the Geneva Protocol.

 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, farq said:

Yours is the selective memory! They actually have lived up to the requirements of the Agreement and the UN and the IAEC are in agreeance with this fact! Why aren't there sanctions against the US? They haven't even signed the NPT, along with Israel! All those countries that "voted" on the sanction decision are in the pockets of the US and Israel and can't be taken seriously! And on the subject of "bad blood" between the US and Iran, you seem to be selective about the small matter of the US arming and supplying Iraq to fight against Iran on their behalf in the US attempt for regime change. What about all the Iranian civilians murdered on behalf of the US?! You obviously don't count in your distorted world view. A little honest research into a subject, in future, before commenting would save you some embarassment. 

 

Some confusion in the above between the NPT and the current agreement, may want to get clued  in as to what triggered both sanctions and the latter. And, of course, the USA did sign the NPT. The "in the pockets" conspiracy nonsense is just that, thanks for sharing.

 

No "selective memory" at all - the comment was made in reply to a previous post asserting Iran did nothing at all to warrant sanctions other than "opposing Israel in Syria and Lebanon". As even your own account implies, the bad blood between the two countries predates and exceeds the specified premise.

 

USA aiding Iraq is not quite the same thing as "Iranian citizens murdered on behalf of the USA" - but do go on about "distorted world view".

 

Got to love them "new" opinionated posters jumping in topics with fiery views. Welcome back, whomever you were.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

620 Absolutely condemns the use of chemical weapons.  By both sides.  From my link.  You love to nit pick.  From my link above:

 

Nitpicking? Really? So if a judge decides in a lawsuit that only one side is at fault, that's the same as if the judge decides both sides are at fault? 

The fact is the US stopped the UN from condemning Iraq alone in order to avoid having the onus put on it.  And by extension, since the US was aiding Iraq against Iran, on the US itself.

[ilostmypassword]

On 9/21/2017 at 7:14 AM, inThailand said:

Wake up! DT is not going help you with your nuclear capabilities while at the same time giving you money. Its either up for re-negotiation or it will be terminated.

But by your reasoning he already has helped them since he has twice given his approval. And what really shows how weak Trump is is this remark from an interview with the Wall Street Journal ". If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago."

 Is he so ignorant that he doesn't know that it's in his power to do just that?