Trump strikes blow at Iran nuclear deal in major U.S. policy shift

[riclag]

double stroke 

Edited October 14, 2017 by riclag

[riclag]

9 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Not really. People who oppose Trump generally rely on logic and facts. Thus understand that it's not beneficial for anyone to create new nuclear weapon powers to this world.

People here go on and on about Twitterman's Presidential ineptness.Granted he isn't the master of speech such as OBWAN was but he surely has more intel data then these logical factual people.How else could his general's advise him.

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

People here go on and on about Twitterman's Presidential ineptness.Granted he isn't the master of speech such as OBWAN was but he surely has more intel data then these logical factual people.How else could his general's advise him.

seems as though you have missed the reporting that Trump has acted contrary to the advice of SecDef, SecState and many others

Edited October 14, 2017 by simple1

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

seems as though you have missed the reporting that Trump has acted contrary to the advice of SecDef and SecState

No, I didn't miss any reporting but I did read "Two administration officials privy to the Iran policy debate" said....

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Two administration officials privy to the Iran policy debate said Trump this time ultimately ignored the opinions of his secretary of defence, secretary of state, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his chief of staff and his national security advisor.

How bad is it getting?

 

How often does a U.S. president make a major foreign policy position that goes against the advice of all of the abovementioned senior advisors and members of his own Cabinet?

 

Putin must be laughing his a** off at how well his stooge is doing at undermining the U.S.'s position in the world and its relationship with its closest western democratic allies.

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[simple1]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

No, I didn't miss any reporting but I did read "Two administration officials privy to the Iran policy debate" said....

That's correct and the full quote is...

 

"Two administration officials privy to the Iran policy debate said Trump this time ultimately ignored the opinions of his secretary of defense, secretary of state, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his chief of staff and his national security advisor.

Instead, one of the officials said, Trump listened to the more hardline views of (CIA Director Mike) Pompeo and some outsiders"

 

In other words Trump has gone with an ideological driven decision, flicked over to Congress to minimise personal ownership, which along with a number of his other decisions degrades US credibility and influence. Demonstrates Trump still adheres to Bannon's incredibly destructive agenda.

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

How bad is it getting?

 

How often does a U.S. president make a major foreign policy position that goes against the advice of all of the abovementioned senior advisors and members of his own Cabinet?

 

It seem's Twitterman and his staff of General's are in agreement contrary to what other's say

“We are never going to accept [Iran] resuming their nuclear weapons program,” Tillerson said.

 

“They can trust we will never do a deal this weak again,” Tillerson said.

 

“No one is for Iran getting a nuclear weapon,” McMaster said. “No one is for Iran continuing its destabilizing behavior.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-iran-deal-20171013-story.html

[lom]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The chief of the U.N. atomic watchdog reiterated that Iran was under the world's "most robust nuclear verification regime" and that Tehran is complying with the deal.

Dejavu.

Those pesky weapon inspectors. CIA does of course know better. This time also..

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

31 minutes ago, riclag said:

It seem's Twitterman and his staff of General's are in agreement contrary to what other's say

“We are never going to accept [Iran] resuming their nuclear weapons program,” Tillerson said.

 

“They can trust we will never do a deal this weak again,” Tillerson said.

 

“No one is for Iran getting a nuclear weapon,” McMaster said. “No one is for Iran continuing its destabilizing behavior.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-iran-deal-20171013-story.html

 

Neither of those comments per se indicate either of those individuals favored voiding the existing agreement.

[IAMHERE]

Good on Trump; let Congress debate and decide. The Senate should be saying if the deal is good or not and has been complied with or not. 

[Get Real]

Off course! Only Trump can be in charge of nuclear missiles. Then the world would be safe. Not! Crazy moron, and the people put him there. That says much about the country´s mental stage.

[mrfill]

4 hours ago, Curmudgeon1 said:

What does he know that isn't told....

...... that which he makes up?

[heroKK]

Why would anyone in the world negotiate agreements with U.S ? The U.S. organized the entire world to achieve an agreement to lower green house gases, and then tells them to go shove it.

 

In the 80's and 2007 Israel's fighter jets destroyed Iraq and Syria 's nuclear weapons program. Is that what Trump wants to do in Iran ?

 

Iran made an agreement with the US and the rest of the world to forgot their nuclear program, and they've honored the agreement. Now Trump wants to take the US out the agreement because he wants to negotiate a better deal.

 

Trump is delusional. Iran would rather drink water from the toilet than negotiate with Trump. Why not have separate talks to discuss other issues? Why do neocon insist on taking the country to war again? Is it because of the support they've received from the military industrial complex? It doesn't make sense to force Iran to restart its nuclear program.

[Grouse]

Rouhani is a moderate. He should be supported as should the moderate Iranian people. The best way to defeat the hardline types is to build a successful middle class. This is happening right now - 7.5% GDP growth!

 

If the USA harms these benevolent changes the world should put hard sanctions on them, particularly the leaders like Delta Tango. Deny him access to the civilised world.

[boomerangutang]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

People here go on and on about Twitterman's Presidential ineptness.Granted he isn't the master of speech such as OBWAN was but he surely has more intel data then these logical factual people.How else could his general's advise him.

I grew up in Wash DC and have known people in the CIA and other intel agencies.  Some of them (usually elders) like to wax superior and say things like, "Well, you don't really know, do you? We have more intel than you."    I can articulate a hundred examples of how that's been proven to be untrue.  

 

Actually, a big problem right now, re; the WH, is intel folks aren't sure how much data to share with the prez.  They know he's the top banana and that they're obliged to send summaries up to him (whether he reads intel reports/findings is debatable).  Yet, he surely reads intel which implicates him and his cronies in crimes such as Russia interfering in the US campaign. 

 

But, you see the problem there:   Trump will soon be a defendant (legal and impeachment issues) in a range of criminal charges, .....yet he is/will be privy to everything the prosecution has on him.  So, he can pre-emptively fire people, and suppress data which incriminates him - which he's already been doing, and will only increase doing it. 

  

He's like a bank robber about to go to trial, who sees all the incriminating data against him, and can fire the prosecutors and can tweak/suppress data at will.

 

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

That's correct and the full quote is...

"Two administration officials privy to the Iran policy debate said Trump this time ultimately ignored the opinions of his secretary of defense, secretary of state, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his chief of staff and his national security advisor.

Instead, one of the officials said, Trump listened to the more hardline views of (CIA Director Mike) Pompeo and some outsiders"

In other words Trump has gone with an ideological driven decision, flicked over to Congress to minimise personal ownership, which along with a number of his other decisions degrades US credibility and influence. Demonstrates Trump still adheres to Bannon's incredibly destructive agenda.

Right on.  But then, do we expect anything better from Trump? ....a person who thinks Alex Jones is wise.

 

4 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Good on Trump; let Congress debate and decide. The Senate should be saying if the deal is good or not and has been complied with or not. 

Are you kidding?  Republican congresspeople have as much knowledge and wisdom as a clump of clay.  They're 97% partisan, and don't give a hoot for the well-being of Americans.  

[Thongkorn]

Mr Trump has no authority to change anything that was voted by Britain , France Russia Germany China,  And the rest of the United Nations. All talk .

Edited October 14, 2017 by Thongkorn

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

This is literally a question of credibility (credo - Latin to believe)

 

This very damaging for the USA. Why should any nation negotiate with the USA on anything?

 

Of course a president may go against a previous president, but the effect on credibility would have to be considered VERY carefully.

 

For me, Delta Tango should be impeached for the severe and possibly irreparable damage he's done to the reputation of the USA. 

 

He's made America's very name  grate.

It is not damaging the USA in any manner.

 

Any country that negotiates with the USA must have the negotiation ratified by the US Senate in order to be binding. Specifically: "The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause."

 

The constitution of the United States is the highest law of our country, failure to follow it is in my opinion a dereliction of duty by the President and a farce for publicity. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[boomerangutang]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is not damaging the USA in any manner.

Any country that negotiates with the USA must have the negotiation ratified by the US Senate in order to be binding. Specifically: "The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause."

The constitution of the United States is the highest law of our country, failure to follow it is in my opinion a dereliction of duty by the President and a farce for publicity. Nothing more, and nothing less.

It is damaging and damning to the US in several ways.  Here are a few.....

 

>>>>   It shows the US cannot be trusted to abide by a treaty or agreement

>>>>   It gives the finger to all America's friends in Europe

>>>>   It gives the finger to all US's top foreign policy advisors

>>>>   It gives the finger to Iran, and ensures they will crank up a nuke program.

>>>>   It nixes any chance for any deal with N.Korea. They now know the US can't be trusted.

>>>>   It makes an already dangerous scene in the M.East many times more dangerous.

>>>>   It blows away any lingering doubt by anyone thinking Trump may be a little bit smart.  Now all US and all foreign politicians know Trump is a dangerous dufus.  It's official.

 

As for all the hot air about 'Senate approving.....' it's just that:  hot air.  Presidents are also not supposed to go to war without prior Senate approval, but when has that ever slowed down a prez who wants to go to war?   Ok, maybe Bush Sr re; the Iraq I.     There are a slew of treaties involving the US which have gained traction without prior Senate approval.  Would you like a list?

 

 

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is not damaging the USA in any manner.

 

Any country that negotiates with the USA must have the negotiation ratified by the US Senate in order to be binding. Specifically: "The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause."

 

The constitution of the United States is the highest law of our country, failure to follow it is in my opinion a dereliction of duty by the President and a farce for publicity. Nothing more, and nothing less.

IT'S 2 YEARS LATER!

 

Face it, nobody trusts the USA now. It is that bad ?

 

DAMAGING????

[boomerangutang]

36 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Mr Trump has no authority to change anything that was voted by Britain , France Russia Germany China,  And the rest of the United Nations. All talk .

The US, despite being led by a dangerous dufus, still has a bit of influence in world affairs.  

The Paris Accords will still go onward, and possibly the Iran deal, but they will both be weakened due to US soiling itself.  

The US used to have some credence.  Used to have some somewhat wise diplomats.  No more.  Thanks to Trump Sr, that's being flushed down the toilet.  Putin and Xi are surely smiling.

[Thongkorn]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

The US, despite being led by a dangerous dufus, still has a bit of influence in world affairs.  

The Paris Accords will still go onward, and possibly the Iran deal, but they will both be weakened due to US soiling itself.  

The US used to have some credence.  Used to have some somewhat wise diplomats.  No more.  Thanks to Trump Sr, that's being flushed down the toilet.  Putin and Xi are surely smiling.

Britain has a bigger say with Soft power,  Soft power can do more than bombs and bullets.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Britain has a bigger say with Soft power,  Soft power can do more than bombs and bullets.

Soft power doesn't impress the distaff side ?

[riclag]

6 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Neither of those comments per se indicate either of those individuals favored voiding the existing agreement.

The story insinuates Twitterman has decided this against his adviser's wishes.I'm showing links that his adviser's are in line with his idea's .And that is let Congress decide on it.  

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

So, according to that logic:  

 

Let's say you have a crew of doctors and nurses taking care of a seriously ill patient.  One day, you suspect that the sheets weren't laundered for the patient's bed for that day.  You don't know for sure, but you suspect that might be possible.  So, without discussion with anyone, you fire all the doctors and nurses.   Patient now has no care.

?

[riclag]

12 hours ago, simple1 said:

So you and others presumably have more empirical data to hand than IAEA, SecDef, SecState demonstrating Iran's breach of T&Cs. Nations require stability of international convention, not non compliance by signatories. At this moment in time looks like a purely ideologically driven decision by Trump with zero articulated clarity on the actual benefits to be achieved, together with creating mistrust with US allies and other major powers.

You want to be able to make a deal with a country that has mocked the T & C's,Thank god  Twitterman and his adviser's seen right through this.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/21/krauthammer-trumps-right-iran-violating-spirit-nuke-deal

 In this link Tillerson agreed with Twitterman that this agreement was a failure.

 

This above article also discusses how O B WON and Ketchupman negotiated a bad deal. 

The article below confirm's how stupid and wrong the deal was. So much for OB Won's anytime anywhere inspection's.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

 

Bring on the Congress

Edited October 14, 2017 by riclag

[Guest]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

It is damaging and damning to the US in several ways.  Here are a few.....

 

>>>>   It shows the US cannot be trusted to abide by a treaty or agreement

>>>>   It gives the finger to all America's friends in Europe

>>>>   It gives the finger to all US's top foreign policy advisors

>>>>   It gives the finger to Iran, and ensures they will crank up a nuke program.

>>>>   It nixes any chance for any deal with N.Korea. They now know the US can't be trusted.

>>>>   It makes an already dangerous scene in the M.East many times more dangerous.

>>>>   It blows away any lingering doubt by anyone thinking Trump may be a little bit smart.  Now all US and all foreign politicians know Trump is a dangerous dufus.  It's official.

 

As for all the hot air about 'Senate approving.....' it's just that:  hot air.  Presidents are also not supposed to go to war without prior Senate approval, but when has that ever slowed down a prez who wants to go to war?   Ok, maybe Bush Sr re; the Iraq I.     There are a slew of treaties involving the US which have gained traction without prior Senate approval.  Would you like a list?

That's a good list of the damages the current potus has already done to the USA.

However the damage goes far beyond those points. When USA is not to be trusted anymore, it spreads to the businesses and the way people from other parts of the world see the folks from the USA. 

If the reputation of the state of the USA is equivalent to Nigeria, Albania or Myanmar, it makes business people to think twice before committing making business deals with a country which is seen to be in freefall to internal destruction.

Naturally this is not the case yet, but in any business, it's best to think few moves forward. Will the USA based businesses be trustworthy, after couple of years, if this madness continues?

Do we profile people from the USA by their political views? Does it really matter? After all, the country is proud and patriotic, they all must support the same, Trump-values?

Just few pointers, from foreigner.

[Psimbo]

The only person having a wank over this is his mate Benji (the only person who considered his inflammatory UN speech one of the best he had heard in years).

 

Iran complies with a plan-everyone agrees they are then 'The Donald' says'they are not complying wit the 'Spirit of it' - the man is a complete tosser.

 

Edit: I was discussing Trump with  a friend who has just retired from a senior position within the State Department the other day- she shared my assessment that he is indeed a loose cannon and they are constantly trying to sweep up after his chaotic statements. She is wary and disgusted by where he may lead things- a common feeling within the State Department according to her. I reckon Tillerson will jump ship within 2 months.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Psimbo

[Trouble]

Trump's decision does NOT cancel the deal. What it does is throw it to Congress for a complete review of the deal. Most reports indicated that Trump's goal was not to scrap the deal, but to have Congress enact legislation defining what would incite the USA to reimpose sanctions.  Trump listed three things - the deployment of an intercontinental ballistic missile by Iran, Iran's refusal to negotiate an extension of the deal's existing constraint on its nuclear activities and evidence that Iran could manufacture a bomb in less that 12 months. Any of those things could cause the US to walk away from the deal.  The Obama Administration made a bad deal they could wave around as some kind of victory, much like Kissinger's and Nixon's Paris Peace Accords agreement. The Europeans made a deal which allowed business as usual (money talks), and Iran got 1.5 billion dollars up front and are going about their business as usual developing missiles and nukes.  With Iran prohibiting access to full inspections without the AIEA jumping through hoops, anyone doubting that Iran is methodically moving forward slowly and carefully must be a fool.   

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Trump's decision does NOT cancel the deal. What it does is throw it to Congress for a complete review of the deal. Most reports indicated that Trump's goal was not to scrap the deal, but to have Congress enact legislation defining what would incite the USA to reimpose sanctions.  Trump listed three things - the deployment of an intercontinental ballistic missile by Iran, Iran's refusal to negotiate an extension of the deal's existing constraint on its nuclear activities and evidence that Iran could manufacture a bomb in less that 12 months. Any of those things could cause the US to walk away from the deal.  The Obama Administration made a bad deal they could wave around as some kind of victory, much like Kissinger's and Nixon's Paris Peace Accords agreement. The Europeans made a deal which allowed business as usual (money talks), and Iran got 1.5 billion dollars up front and are going about their business as usual developing missiles and nukes.  With Iran prohibiting access to full inspections without the AIEA jumping through hoops, anyone doubting that Iran is methodically moving forward slowly and carefully must be a fool.   

We all know that USA has been doing their ballistic missiles tests. USA has been the aggressive party to do their military exercises next to North Korea. 

The thing is, that it's no longer easy to say that Russia, being the bully of the Baltic sea, is  the biggest bully in the world. 

Stop this stupidity. Nobody wishes the WW3.
 

[riclag]

29 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Trump's decision does NOT cancel the deal. What it does is throw it to Congress for a complete review of the deal. Most reports indicated that Trump's goal was not to scrap the deal, but to have Congress enact legislation defining what would incite the USA to reimpose sanctions.  Trump listed three things - the deployment of an intercontinental ballistic missile by Iran, Iran's refusal to negotiate an extension of the deal's existing constraint on its nuclear activities and evidence that Iran could manufacture a bomb in less that 12 months. Any of those things could cause the US to walk away from the deal.  The Obama Administration made a bad deal they could wave around as some kind of victory, much like Kissinger's and Nixon's Paris Peace Accords agreement. The Europeans made a deal which allowed business as usual (money talks), and Iran got 1.5 billion dollars up front and are going about their business as usual developing missiles and nukes.  With Iran prohibiting access to full inspections without the AIEA jumping through hoops, anyone doubting that Iran is methodically moving forward slowly and carefully must be a fool.   

 

 

 

 

Can I tell you I almost bought into the deal as a good thing, I wanted to see Iran have nuclear energy for  electric etc.

 

But when I googled through the nuts and bolts .I found the hoax and that is not being able to perform unfettered inspections . Denied access to  Parchin military base where Iran is suspected to be engaging in nuclear weapons development.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

Edited October 14, 2017 by riclag