Trump abandons 'defective' Iran nuclear deal, to revive sanctions

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Churchill's history of military and ................. service to Trump's

Such as Gallipoli and Crete!

His achievement was in uniting the British to repel the Germans so the Americans could use it as a base to do their part in winning the war. He wasn't so hot when it came to military matters. 

After the war, they wouldn't even re elect him.

[Scott]

I am not sure what some of these comments have to do with the topic, so I strongly suggest getting back on topic and staying there.  

 

[Hummin]

Iran fired 20 rockets at occupied Golan Heights. 

 

I think things getting heated up now. 

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Iran fired 20 rockets at occupied Golan Heights. 

 

I think things getting heated up now. 

Yes, the thread is in world news

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by riclag

[xylophone]

14 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

 

Promises. Promises.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/08/promise-kept-donald-trump-announces-decision-withdraw-iran-deal/

 

I mean it is not as if 'deals' done by Liberals to appease fundamentalist dictators have ever failed: 

 

 

And what was it that Chamberalin and his cohorts said about Hitler? 

By the way - watch the movie 'Darkest Hour' - there was much more hatred of Churchill early in his term.

There is a lot of similarities between Churchill and Trump.

The establishment (swamp) viewed Churchill as a buffoon and not the 'right type' - but the ordinary People related to him and trusted him. 

Churchill was right (nearly all the time), and he kept his promises to the People.

Churchill was against appeasement - and the establishment hated him and tried to take him down.

So far Trump is showing he is the same type of character - unorthodox, unpredictable, and persistent.

 

Please don't let facts get in the way of your posts, and in that regard you are certainly following your hero.

 

Churchill's main and possibly only claim to fame was his handling of certain elements of the Second World War.

 

As a military man in the First World War, he was a disaster, costing the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers in the Gallipoli campaign alone and he was stubborn in his desire to see this take place, and it was a complete disaster as we all know.

 

He was a warmonger, and although he was disliked by many elements of the "establishment" as you call them, he also had his supporters. And as a strategist he was a complete and utter failure.

 

He was belligerent, stubborn, but also witty and intelligent but to even try to compare him to the orange clown is tantamount to calling a donkey a thoroughbred racehorse.

 

The only problem I see is that the orange clown, without anything substantial in the way of grey matter, is unable to think things through, does not know right from wrong, does not know when he is lying or quite possibly doesn't know what a lie is (when he should do as he has had enough experience at telling them) so is a dangerous and unstable cretin, with a hatred of Obama that transcends normal boundaries and drives this poor excuse for a man.

Edited May 10, 2018 by xylophone

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Such as Gallipoli and Crete!

His achievement was in uniting the British to repel the Germans so the Americans could use it as a base to do their part in winning the war. He wasn't so hot when it came to military matters. 

After the war, they wouldn't even re elect him.

If you are going to reply to my post, don't edit it down to a trivial snippet. 

 

I never stated that Churchill was perfect, but he had a long history of service and he did put himself in harm's way.  He was also respected for his wit and intelligence, and, as you noted, for his ability to unite his country.  The only one of these things that apply to Trump is the one about not being perfect.

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Peasandmash said:

"We will not let a country that chats, 'death to America' have the deadliest weapons on earth." God Bless America, God Bless Donald Trump.

Bit of a problem 

 

America, Iran and Israel all have the same God 

 

He's not going to bless all of you now is he.

 

I suspect he's pretty vexed about DT's general behaviour don't you?

 

However, I'm an atheist so what do I know?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

What are some of you guys smoking - 'at the table' - 'we only lease Airbus' - 'It will unify Europe' - etc etc etc. 

 

Trump said he didnt like the deal - said appeasement doesnt work - said he would cancel the deal - he listend to those wanting to keep it - he decided to cancel it - he kept an election promise.

 

Believe and support Israel - or believe and support Iran - Trump obviously made the right call. 

Those of you supporting Iran have issues and need to read up:

 

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

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dont-whitewash-the-iranian-regimes-crimes

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/353398-ignoring-irans-crimes-against-humanity-bolsters-ayatollahs

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/report-iran/

 

So you think the US should only honor the deal it makes with nice governments?  There's another reason for North Korea to not trust the US in any nuclear deal. 

 

Do you think Trump and family should have only make deals with nice people?

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Russian-criminals-links-to-Trump-could-12742583.php

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opinion/sunday/trump-business-mueller-money-laundering.html

[PhonThong]

On 5/9/2018 at 5:00 AM, The Old Bull said:

NATO members should tell the US to pack up their junk and go home.

If only they would. There would be a celebration in the streets in America. 

WOW! Talk about making America Great Again................

Imagine what America could do with the billions of dollars it spends on NATO? 

Edited May 10, 2018 by PhonThong

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

If only they would. There would be a celebration in the streets in America. 

WOW! Talk about making America Great Again................

Imagine what America could do with the billions of dollars it spends on NATO? 

For those who are not aware of this:  An alliance always entails compromise, risks and responsibilities beyond what a "go it alone" approach requires.  Countries enter into alliances because it enhances collective security.

 

If the democratic countries in NATO think the alliance is now more trouble than it is worth, then they should elect a government that agrees.  However they should seriously consider the risks of going it alone before doing so.

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

If only they would. There would be a celebration in the streets in America. 

WOW! Talk about making America Great Again................

Imagine what America could do with the billions of dollars it spends on NATO? 

And thats what you think, oh boy, I understand why DT could be elected or selected when he should have been deselected. You should read som history about great nations and empires, and how they managed to rise and not to forget fall. 

[Hummin]

The sad thing is, if you had more of Obama kind of people, and giving them the time necessery, they would have made America more Great than ever, and respected by allies and enemies. 

 

In china they have people in power thinking 10 - 30 - 50 - 100 years ahead, in Usa and other western countries we have 2 years to execute, and two years to manage to get elected for next term

Edited May 10, 2018 by Hummin

[Grouse]

16 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Promises. Promises.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/08/promise-kept-donald-trump-announces-decision-withdraw-iran-deal/

 

I mean it is not as if 'deals' done by Liberals to appease fundamentalist dictators have ever failed: 

 

 

And what was it that Chamberalin and his cohorts said about Hitler? 

By the way - watch the movie 'Darkest Hour' - there was much more hatred of Churchill early in his term.

There is a lot of similarities between Churchill and Trump.

The establishment (swamp) viewed Churchill as a buffoon and not the 'right type' - but the ordinary People related to him and trusted him. 

Churchill was right (nearly all the time), and he kept his promises to the People.

Churchill was against appeasement - and the establishment hated him and tried to take him down.

So far Trump is showing he is the same type of character - unorthodox, unpredictable, and persistent.

 

Well that may be fine for school history but the actualite is of course rather more complex

 

This is off topic so my response will be brief

 

Churchill (as Hitler) was not a great military tactician but he was a great statesman and strategist. He knew that it was essential to get America into the war otherwise we would have the USSR all the way to the Atlantic. That is why the USA were never given advance warning of Pearl Harbour.

 

Chamberlain was absolutely correct to do everything possible to delay the start of war. If he had not, the U.K. would not have sufficient modern fighter aircraft and the radar system would not have been up and running. As a direct result, we won The Battle of Britain in 1940 and stood alone until America finally came on board after Hitler declared war on the USA in December 1941. As a result, the  USSR were effectively brought to a halt in Germany.

 

OK, now back on topic.

 

Holding back Iran for 10 years was a great move. Currently, unlike NK and Israel, they do not have intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons.

[PhonThong]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

And thats what you think, oh boy, I understand why DT could be elected or selected when he should have been deselected. You should read som history about great nations and empires, and how they managed to rise and not to forget fall. 

Sorry to inform you, but that is what I think. 

 

 "The U.S. accounts for about 73% of the roughly $1 trillion in total military spending by NATO countries each year."

Get other counties to start pulling their own weight and maybe I will have a change of heart.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, PhonThong said:

Imagine what America could do with the billions of dollars it spends on NATO? 

It would spend 10 times more decommissioning all it short range missile and missile defence systems and replacing them with lots of long range ones and building extra military bases in the US to house the tens of thousands of troops that are abroad. It would need to buy fleets of long range air to air refuelling aircraft to ensure it could conduct missions without being compromised. Apart from that they could spend it on anything they wanted, maybe give another tax break to the rich.

 

[selftaopath]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I can only speak for myself, but 2 months ago I put my family on a new healthcare plan with about the same deductible as my Obamacare plan but with better coverage. It cost's $6,500/year less than I was paying for the healthcare exchange plan under Obamacare. It is better healthcare at a reduced price for me and my family. It is still exorbinately expensive but much less than it was. Your mileage may vary.

Good for you however there are projected rate increases. 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/17/news/economy/trump-premiums/index.html

Edited May 10, 2018 by selftaopath
spelling

[selftaopath]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

How so?  You know Russia and Iran are allies, right?  Or is just another one of your "feelings""?

If/when oil prices increase do you think puppet master will be displeased?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/4/17314828/iran-deal-trump-oil-gas-price-increase

Edited May 10, 2018 by selftaopath
added link

[selftaopath]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

For those who are not aware of this:  An alliance always entails compromise, risks and responsibilities beyond what a "go it alone" approach requires.  Countries enter into alliances because it enhances collective security.

 

If the democratic countries in NATO think the alliance is now more trouble than it is worth, then they should elect a government that agrees.  However they should seriously consider the risks of going it alone before doing so.

And NATO's dismantling would please swamp king's puppet master:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/putin-it-would-help-russia-if-nato-were-completely-falling-apart.html

[PhonThong]

1 hour ago, selftaopath said:

If/when oil prices increase do you think puppet master will be displeased?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/4/17314828/iran-deal-trump-oil-gas-price-increase

• I think he will be very pleased.
• Still making America Great!
• COMMODITIES

U.S. Will Be the World’s Largest Oil Producer by 2023, Says IEA

Influence on global oil markets is also expected to rise, with U.S. oil exports more than doubling

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

• I think he will be very pleased.
• Still making America Great!
• COMMODITIES

U.S. Will Be the World’s Largest Oil Producer by 2023, Says IEA

Influence on global oil markets is also expected to rise, with U.S. oil exports more than doubling

Are you aware the oil boom in the US was well established before Trump was elected?  He had nothing to do with it.

[PhonThong]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you aware the oil boom in the US was well established before Trump was elected?  He had nothing to do with it.

Actually the rig count was going down when he took office.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/

Edited May 10, 2018 by PhonThong

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

I guess Forbes is wrong then.

 

https://www.forbes.com/

At least have the decency to link to the article you think substantiates your claim. I had a look and could find nothing of the sort.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Actually the rig count was going down when he took office.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/

Your link didn't work, but oil prices were significantly lower when he took office.     http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

 

Are you going to give Trump credit for rising oil prices?  Are you sure you want to pin that on him?

[riclag]

Just now, stevenl said:

At least have the decency to link to the article you think substantiates your claim. I had a look and could find nothing of the sort.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/05/02/u-s-oil-market-update-early-may-2018/#66424bd17995

[dexterm]

I agree with the poster above. What was wrong with the deal that Obama and others took years to negotiate?

 

It was the best deal Iran would accept. It is working and now Trump has no deal at at all.

 

These tweaks that everyone keeps talking about as though minor adjustments are tantamount to Iran rolling over completely, just because Trump 7,000 miles away says so.It's something Iran simply will not do.  

 

Tweak 1. Extend the agreement beyond 2025...that could easily be negotiated in a new agreement in 5 or 6 years time before the old one expires

 

Tweak 2.  Iran's ballistic missile programme. Trump wants Iran to give up the ability to defend itself against its enemies: Israel and Saudi Arabia.  While Israel, the real terrorist state in the Middle East, can develop as much sophisticated weaponry as it likes, knowing that the US admin will hypocritically turn a blind eye to that (US even finances it) and its nuclear weapons too.

 

Tweak 3. Abandon its Shia brothers and sisters in Lebanon, Syria, the Gulf states, and Yemen to their fate at the hands of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni armies.

 

Tweak 1 is a possibility that can be negotiated in future. But 2 and 3 Iran would never have agreed to even with Obama. Obama got the best deal he could and it was working.

 

This whole business is not about nuclear weapons at all..that program has been suspended and it could be extended indefinitely That's just the smoke screen, it's really about the USA trying to eliminate the one power that will stand up to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

Trump is manufacturing an excuse to go to war, and giving Iranian hawks the pretext to do likewise. I wonder if the draft dodger in chief will be there to welcome the body bags home. Sad.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/05/02/u-s-oil-market-update-early-may-2018/#66424bd17995

Again, thanks, but the article doesn't substantiate the claim made 'Trump is responsible for the boom in US oil production'. Only thing in that article in that direction is the claim that US production is up 12% since the start of the year.

[PhonThong]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your link didn't work, but oil prices were significantly lower when he took office.     http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

 

Are you going to give Trump credit for rising oil prices?  Are you sure you want to pin that on him?

That's why the rig count is rising. 

For every action, there is a reaction.

Don't forget more jobs also.

[ELVIS123456]

6 hours ago, xylophone said:

Please don't let facts get in the way of your posts, and in that regard you are certainly following your hero.

 

Churchill's main and possibly only claim to fame was his handling of certain elements of the Second World War.

 

As a military man in the First World War, he was a disaster, costing the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers in the Gallipoli campaign alone and he was stubborn in his desire to see this take place, and it was a complete disaster as we all know.

 

He was a warmonger, and although he was disliked by many elements of the "establishment" as you call them, he also had his supporters. And as a strategist he was a complete and utter failure.

 

He was belligerent, stubborn, but also witty and intelligent but to even try to compare him to the orange clown is tantamount to calling a donkey a thoroughbred racehorse.

 

The only problem I see is that the orange clown, without anything substantial in the way of grey matter, is unable to think things through, does not know right from wrong, does not know when he is lying or quite possibly doesn't know what a lie is (when he should do as he has had enough experience at telling them) so is a dangerous and unstable cretin, with a hatred of Obama that transcends normal boundaries and drives this poor excuse for a man.

So - I gather you dont like Trump then ??    May I suggest you need to get some perspective - and maybe a life.

 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

That's why the rig count is rising. 

For every action, there is a reaction.

Don't forget more jobs also.

So you do blame Trump for rising oil prices.  I disagree, the oil market and its prices have been largely beyond the control of the US for decades.  Even now the US oil industry functions as the swing producer; responding to changes of prices, not dictating them.

 

But if you want US motorists to blame Trump for rising gas prices, that's fine with me.

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you do blame Trump for rising oil prices.  I disagree, the oil market and its prices have been largely beyond the control of the US for decades.  Even now the US oil industry functions as the swing producer; responding to changes of prices, not dictating them.

 

But if you want US motorists to blame Trump for rising gas prices, that's fine with me.

Oil price increases will impact US domestic consumers so don't know why the member is claiming a good outcome for Trump. Trump  pulling out of the Iran agreement has been blamed for recent oil (petrol) price increases in Australia.