UK reaffirms commitment to Iran nuclear deal in call with Trump - May's office

[Grouse]

And selling strategic kit like Thaad to those nice Saudis is just F****** stupid. 

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Its effect actually depends on how many nations respect the sanctions or allow their companies to respect the sanctions. If enough nations actively disregard sanctions, the effects would be worse for the USA than for its intended target.

 

If you wish to fantasize, go ahead. The chances that there will be a such universal disregard of USA sanctions, is minimal, at best. Unlike certain posters, countries and companies operate in the real world, rather than in some imaginary idealistic version of it. That participation, cooperation and compliance with such sanctions will not be on par with the previous, agreed upon, sanctions regime is not disputed. That they will be massively ignored, rejected or of no consequence is wishful thinking.

 

34 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And perhaps to the economically illiterate, the relative decline of the US economy is not germane to this issue at hand. Others might consider it extremely pertinent.

Rude remarks aside, the focal point of the OP does not actually revolve around the USA's supposed economic decline, or the comparisons of general economic figures.

 

 

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And selling strategic kit like Thaad to those nice Saudis is just F****** stupid. 

 

Trying to figure what does this have to do with the OP, but in the meantime: other the understandable dislike for the Saudis, what is the objection based upon? Can't be worse than the PRC selling IRBM's to the same country.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you wish to fantasize, go ahead. The chances that there will be a such universal disregard of USA sanctions, is minimal, at best. Unlike certain posters, countries and companies operate in the real world, rather than in some imaginary idealistic version of it. That participation, cooperation and compliance with such sanctions will not be on par with the previous, agreed upon, sanctions regime is not disputed. That they will be massively ignored, rejected or of no consequence is wishful thinking.

 

Rude remarks aside, the focal point of the OP does not actually revolve around the USA's supposed economic decline, or the comparisons of general economic figures.

 

 

For China at least, there isn't much, if any, umm..chinese wall between economics and government policy. 

[Kiwiken]

7 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

It doesn't burn me at all. The USA has a 19 TRILLION dollar economy...what are the corresponding figures for Russia, China, India, the EU, and the soon to be liberated UK?

 

If you were a bank or company, for they are the ones who actually conduct business and trade, do you think you would rather have access to a 19T dollar economy or one the size of the tiny state of Maryland (Iranian GDP about 400 billion dollars...Maryland state GSP about 380 billion)?

In Decades past the United States had Prestige and Economic power. Yes the USA has a 19 Trillion dollar economy. If the USA chose to bully everyone into Sanctions. What if every Nation defaulted on repayments and trade Deals with the USA How strong would your 19 Trillion dollar economy be. The USA may be the biggest kid on the block but the Sandpit would be very lonely playing with yourself

[OMGImInPattaya]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

China

Another Google challenged member...did you see my post, supra, that China's economy is a little over half of America's?  Apparently not; even if they were the same, China's is spread over 5x the number of people making it in practice a much much poorer country.

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

In Decades past the United States had Prestige and Economic power. Yes the USA has a 19 Trillion dollar economy. If the USA chose to bully everyone into Sanctions. What if every Nation defaulted on repayments and trade Deals with the USA How strong would your 19 Trillion dollar economy be. The USA may be the biggest kid on the block but the Sandpit would be very lonely playing with yourself

"Decades past" really...that 19T is here and now baby. And the very fact the world jumps at every utterance, Tweet, or burp of the President tells you all you need to know about which country is the indispensible nation.

 

The U.S. is not bullying anyone...only offering a choice. You can trade with us, a 19T economy or with Iran's 400B one.

 

The USA is a net debtor economy so if nations defaulted on their debts, it would be a net benefit for the country as the defaults would be reciprocated. Also, the USA is a vast and basically self-sufficient continental economy and international trade makes up a very small percent of it (less than 10%...compared with 50-80% for countries like China, Germany, and even little Thailand) so if other nations stopped their trade it would have very little impact on the country.

[boomerangutang]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

And selling strategic kit like Thaad to those nice Saudis is just F****** stupid. 

Not stupid if you're Trump or Kushner or Cheney, ....who likely have investments in the same 'Defense Contractors' which are raking in the dough.  Granted, it's stupid if looked at by a person who wants peace and stability in the Middle East.  Plowing tens of billions of $$'s into the contentious soil of the M.East will yield crops of fighting and war.  Similarly, stuffing 17 million guns into the US population will yield people getting shot, including dads getting shot by their own toddlers.  If you put a lot of salt in your porridge, you're going to have salty porridge.

 

3 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

In Decades past the United States had Prestige and Economic power. Yes the USA has a 19 Trillion dollar economy. If the USA chose to bully everyone into Sanctions. What if every Nation defaulted on repayments and trade Deals with the USA How strong would your 19 Trillion dollar economy be. The USA may be the biggest kid on the block but the Sandpit would be very lonely playing with yourself

That '19 trillion dollar economy' (if that's what the gargantuan number is now) is resting on a floor made of soggy particle-board.  See my comment, further below. . . . . . 

 

4 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

"Decades past" really...that 19T is here and now baby. And the very fact the world jumps at every utterance, Tweet, or burp of the President tells you all you need to know about which country is the indispensible nation.

The U.S. is not bullying anyone...only offering a choice. You can trade with us, a 19T economy or with Iran's 400B one.

The USA is a net debtor economy so if nations defaulted on their debts, it would be a net benefit for the country as the defaults would be reciprocated. Also, the USA is a vast and basically self-sufficient continental economy and international trade makes up a very small percent of it (less than 10%...compared with 50-80% for countries like China, Germany, and even little Thailand) so if other nations stopped their trade it would have very little impact on the country.

OMBIminPattaya: "The U.S. is not bullying anyone"  

Boomers: have you not been keeping up with news on N.Korea and Iran?

 

OMBIminPattaya: "....so if other nations stopped their trade (with the USA) it would have very little impact on the country."  

Boomers: Somewhat true, tho if other nations didn't plow trillions of dollars into the US economy (mostly in the form of buying T-bills), the US would be a so-so economic player on the world stage.   The US is being propped up, to a large extent, by other countries who like the relative 'safe haven' of T-Bills.   Note:  one of Trump's campaign blurbs hinted that he may not honor T-Bills' solid reputation.  

"The deadline to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling is approaching fast, and concerns are showing up at the short end of the yield curve, the line that traces yields across maturities.

The 3-month Treasury bill matures around the time the Treasury is expected to run out of money unless Congress boosts the limit on federal borrowing. The Congressional Budget Office warned that if the U.S. did not hike its debt ceiling in time, it could lead to a default on its gold-plated debt."
SOURCE (MarketWatch.com)

 

Boomer's comment: As well as screwing many other US institutions, Trump may single-handedly tarnish T-Bills' sterling reputation, and put the US economy into a tailspin.  Trump said, during the campaign, "I'm great with debt, believe me."   Translation:  'I'm great with getting loans, especially from Russian banks. As for paying back, ha ha ha.  Only wimps pay back their debts - just like only wimps pay taxes, ha ha ha.'

 

[Grouse]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Trying to figure what does this have to do with the OP, but in the meantime: other the understandable dislike for the Saudis, what is the objection based upon? Can't be worse than the PRC selling IRBM's to the same country.

It's all about strategic balance. Destabilisation of major players in ME just results in further undesirable consequences. Nobody wants Iran to tool up with nuclear weapons right? So why continue to further antagonise them by failing to respect the agreement or further add to Saudi military hegemony?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Another Google challenged member...did you see my post, supra, that China's economy is a little over half of America's?  Apparently not; even if they were the same, China's is spread over 5x the number of people making it in practice a much much poorer country.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

[OMGImInPattaya]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

What's your point...I see the U.S. at 57k GDP PPP and China down there at 15k, just below the economic powerhouse of Palua and above the basket case of Brazil.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

What's your point...I see the U.S. at 57k GDP PPP and China down there at 15k, just below the economic powerhouse of Palua and above the basket case of Brazil.

Just academic interest! USA is #20 in the world! Well done ?

 

I note Liechtenstein is #1, Thailand is #100 and NK is #217! 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

For China at least, there isn't much, if any, umm..chinese wall between economics and government policy. 

 

And your point is...what?

Like most countries and corporations, it will come down to bottom  lines and future prospects. Doubtful that the PRC will consider it a worthy enough cause justifying a severe economic hit. It may or may not fully comply with USA stand alone sanctions, but it will definitely take notice.

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

In Decades past the United States had Prestige and Economic power. Yes the USA has a 19 Trillion dollar economy. If the USA chose to bully everyone into Sanctions. What if every Nation defaulted on repayments and trade Deals with the USA How strong would your 19 Trillion dollar economy be. The USA may be the biggest kid on the block but the Sandpit would be very lonely playing with yourself

 

"What if every Nation defaulted on repayments and trade Deals with the USA..."

 

More fantasies. There is no realistic scenario in which the whole world takes a united stand and firm action against the USA. Certainly not on behalf of Iran.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And your point is...what?

Like most countries and corporations, it will come down to bottom  lines and future prospects. Doubtful that the PRC will consider it a worthy enough cause justifying a severe economic hit. It may or may not fully comply with USA stand alone sanctions, but it will definitely take notice.

 

Lots of hemming and hawing here. I guess to leave yourself a way out if China's reaction is a harsh one.

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Lots of hemming and hawing here. I guess to leave yourself a way out if China's reaction is a harsh one.

 

No idea what you're on.

I'm suggesting that the PRC will do  what it often does when it comes to the USA, which is find some middle way, rather than go for a head on confrontation.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's all about strategic balance. Destabilisation of major players in ME just results in further undesirable consequences. Nobody wants Iran to tool up with nuclear weapons right? So why continue to further antagonise them by failing to respect the agreement or further add to Saudi military hegemony?

 

THAAD is a defensive system. How does providing it to Saudi Arabia directly threatens Iran? By (perhaps) somewhat curtailing Iran's own ballistic threat? 

 

There is no "Saudi military hegemony" that I'm aware of. And as for "antagonizing" Iran - it is Iran itself which insists that the nuclear agreement should be considered separately from any other issues and activities.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

THAAD is a defensive system. How does providing it to Saudi Arabia directly threatens Iran? By (perhaps) somewhat curtailing Iran's own ballistic threat? 

 

There is no "Saudi military hegemony" that I'm aware of. And as for "antagonizing" Iran - it is Iran itself which insists that the nuclear agreement should be considered separately from any other issues and activities.

So you don't consider anti missile systems affect strategic balance? Ask Putin!

 

As for Saudi military hegemony,  who balances them?

 

Frankly, I've always preferred Persian civilisation to Wahhabism anyway.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

THAAD is a defensive system. How does providing it to Saudi Arabia directly threatens Iran? By (perhaps) somewhat curtailing Iran's own ballistic threat? 

 

There is no "Saudi military hegemony" that I'm aware of. And as for "antagonizing" Iran - it is Iran itself which insists that the nuclear agreement should be considered separately from any other issues and activities.

The same way that the Chinese think the Thaad system threatens them or Russia feels anti-missile systems threaten them. If you feel you've got a strong defense, then that makes going on offense a lot more tempting to contemplate if you're of a mind to go in that direction.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

So you don't consider anti missile systems affect strategic balance? Ask Putin!

 

As for Saudi military hegemony,  who balances them?

 

Frankly, I've always preferred Persian civilisation to Wahhabism anyway.

 

No, I do not consider having a defensive system illegitimate. More often then not, those whining about the other side having a defensive capability are the more likely potential aggressors.

 

As for the supposed "Saudi military hegemony" - you are the one who brought this up, I'm the one asking what evidence is there of such "military hegemony". Saudi Arabia does buy a fair bit of toys, but as to implying  anything resembling a military "hegemony" is rather amusing. In terms of force and force projection, Iran (for example) is way ahead of them.

 

I have no idea how you mean "balance them", even. Saudi Arabia's regional (and international) clout is not based on a vastly superior military force. Rather it is more tied to tradition, religious role and natural resources.

 

Acknowledged the dislike of Saudi Arabia as factor, my question was about factors other than personal preferences. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The same way that the Chinese think the Thaad system threatens them or Russia feels anti-missile systems threaten them. If you feel you've got a strong defense, then that makes going on offense a lot more tempting to contemplate if you're of a mind to go in that direction.

 

Yeah, that's the argument potential aggressors often make. The likelihood of Saudi Arabia picking a direct conflict with Iran, on the strength of having a defensive system which wasn't even tested in battle is ludicrous.

[Grouse]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, I do not consider having a defensive system illegitimate. More often then not, those whining about the other side having a defensive capability are the more likely potential aggressors.

 

As for the supposed "Saudi military hegemony" - you are the one who brought this up, I'm the one asking what evidence is there of such "military hegemony". Saudi Arabia does buy a fair bit of toys, but as to implying  anything resembling a military "hegemony" is rather amusing. In terms of force and force projection, Iran (for example) is way ahead of them.

 

I have no idea how you mean "balance them", even. Saudi Arabia's regional (and international) clout is not based on a vastly superior military force. Rather it is more tied to tradition, religious role and natural resources.

 

Acknowledged the dislike of Saudi Arabia as factor, my question was about factors other than personal preferences. 

OK, that's a reasonable point of view 

 

I just worry that when you look at Somalia and even Qatar there is obvious imbalance. From a Persian point of view it might be worth striking now!

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

OK, that's a reasonable point of view 

 

I just worry that when you look at Somalia and even Qatar there is obvious imbalance. From a Persian point of view it might be worth striking now!

 

Somalia? Qatar? Not sure I'm following, sorry.

Iran doesn't have anything to gain by directly attacking Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot to lose. But if it did, them THAADs would not present an impossible obstacle.

[ilostmypassword]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, that's the argument potential aggressors often make. The likelihood of Saudi Arabia picking a direct conflict with Iran, on the strength of having a defensive system which wasn't even tested in battle is ludicrous.

Well, you're saying it as an argument used by potential aggressors I guess makes it an invalid one.  Not really too keen on coping with the impeccable tactical logic behind the argument, are you?

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, you're saying it as an argument used by potential aggressors I guess makes it an invalid one.  Not really too keen on coping with the impeccable tactical logic behind the argument, are you?

 

It's not that such arguments are always invalid, just that they are not to be taken at face value or granted automatic legitimacy.  And I do not accept that there is an "impeccable tactical logic" to the argument you brought. Having an improved defensive capability is not necessarily a prelude or even a prime motivator for aggression.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's not that such arguments are always invalid, just that they are not to be taken at face value or granted automatic legitimacy.  And I do not accept that there is an "impeccable tactical logic" to the argument you brought. Having an improved defensive capability is not necessarily a prelude or even a prime motivator for aggression.

The question isn't whether it's necessarily a prelude or even a prime motivator. It's simply a question of tactical logic. In fact, one of the reasons the USSR collapsed was because the Russians believed that the US was developing a genuine ABM that would give it an unquestioned advantage in war.  It turned out to be a chimera but as far as the USSR was concerned, it did the job.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The question isn't whether it's necessarily a prelude or even a prime motivator. It's simply a question of tactical logic. In fact, one of the reasons the USSR collapsed was because the Russians believed that the US was developing a genuine ABM that would give it an unquestioned advantage in war.  It turned out to be a chimera but as far as the USSR was concerned, it did the job.

 

You can insist on "tactical logic", and it still wouldn't hold water.

Most efforts with regard to demilitarization and anti-proliferation deal with attack-oriented systems and weapons, not defensive ones. The latter are not unanimously considered a paramount threat to stability or peace. For what you go on about to be relevant, there are other factors which need to be considered - for example (and a rough one, this isn't really on topic), the "defensive" side possessing both clear capability and motivation to actually carry out aggression against the its opponent.

 

I'd be more worried about Iran's ballistic program and capabilities, and Saudi Arabia's Made in China IRBM's, rather then the prospects of a defensive system (not battle tested and as yet undelivered) destabilizing the region.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can insist on "tactical logic", and it still wouldn't hold water.

Most efforts with regard to demilitarization and anti-proliferation deal with attack-oriented systems and weapons, not defensive ones. The latter are not unanimously considered a paramount threat to stability or peace. For what you go on about to be relevant, there are other factors which need to be considered - for example (and a rough one, this isn't really on topic), the "defensive" side possessing both clear capability and motivation to actually carry out aggression against the its opponent.

 

I'd be more worried about Iran's ballistic program and capabilities, and Saudi Arabia's Made in China IRBM's, rather then the prospects of a defensive system (not battle tested and as yet undelivered) destabilizing the region.

Such vague comments with alleged authoritative support such as "The latter are not unanimously considered a paramount threat to stability or peace.".  not nearly so convincing as  you apparently think, If unanimity of judgement is a legitimate criterion to judge the merits of anything then what doctrines or theses are there that satisfies this test?  Keep flailing.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Such vague comments with alleged authoritative support such as "The latter are not unanimously considered a paramount threat to stability or peace.".  not nearly so convincing as  you apparently think, If unanimity of judgement is a legitimate criterion to judge the merits of anything then what doctrines or theses are there that satisfies this test?  Keep flailing.

 

You have nothing.

 

Like it or not, defensive systems do not garner as much demilitarization and non-proliferation efforts as offensive systems do. That's a fact. Same goes for offensive systems being considered more of a threat to stability and peace. Doubt that you actually dispute that, apart from the usual argumentative stance. Prevalent approaches and practices do not conform with the declared above "impeccable tactical logic". This may be meaningless for you, I beg to differ.

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.