SURVEY: Do you agree with cancelling the Iran Nuclear Agreement?

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.  

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The strict inspection regime is in place precisely because other parties do not consider Iran's word to be credible. The comments you allude to refer to whether Iran clearly violated the agreement so far - the "verdict" seems to be a "no" on this, but a cautious one.

 

The question of whether said strict inspection regime provides an adequate coverage may be debated, and anyway, it's a long term proposition. It may have been the best agreement possible at the time, and it certainly beats having no agreement at all, but it is what it is - an imperfect tool.

Your usual obfuscation designed to muddy the water.

 

As recently as March this year, Iran gets the thumbs up that it is sticking to the deal.

 

Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iran-is-implementing-nuclear-related-jcpoa-commitments-director-general-amano-tells-iaea-board

 

So you use Morchspeak to smother the verification with your fence sitting language:

 

"refer to whether Iran clearly violated the agreement so far- the "verdict" seems to be a "no" on this, but a cautious one. may be debated,  imperfect tool"

 

Any deal is subject to verification of conditions. One would hardly negotiate something as serious as non proliferation of nuclear weapons on the shake of a hand or a nod of the head (although that's exactly what the USA hypocritically did to verify the other nuclear power in the region's compliance ..and just look how wrong they were!)

Edited May 14, 2018 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Trump ignored Boris Johnson's request for his Plan B after ditching an agreement that was working.

 

The reason for no reply is: to tear up the agreement precisely because it is working actually is Trump's Plan A. This is not about curbing nuclear weapons proliferation..that's just a red herring. It's about curbing Iran's influence in the region to leave an open playing field for US buddies.

 

He is itching to fight Iran although it is no harm to the USA 7,000 miles away but it is a threat to the tail that wags the US dog. But he can't do so without a pretext. So Plan A is to precipitate an excuse.

 

The scenario will go like this:
The U.S. imposes sanctions and threatens Western and Chinese companies wanting to invest in Iran heightening tensions with allies and risking a trade war (so much for reducing unemployment).
Germany, France and UK in particular will not be able to maintain their side of the deal with Iran either, and will cave in to Trump pressure. Provoking Iran to announce that the deal is defunct.
 
Then there will be some intelligence information accompanied by theatrics again probably from the tail that wags the US dog that Iran is working towards a nuclear weapons program...doesn't have to be genuine intelligence...phoney (just like last time) will be sufficient.

 

Thus allowing for military intervention at the urging of all Trump's new neocon advisers like the warmonger Bolton.

War is a well worn tactic for deflecting domestic criticism..handy for Trump et al at the moment. Trouble is when you deliberately play these brinkmanship games, the escalation may get out of hand.
 

[spidermike007]

19 hours ago, dlodratsab said:

I for one, would be very interested to read about 'ANY' promises he has made and 'KEPT'  !!!

He has devoted his entire lifetime and career to breaking promises. It is what he is known for, and does best. To date, the only parties he has kept some of his promises with, are his base of supporters. 

[Naam]

21 hours ago, meinphuket said:

As was to be expected from a patently stupid megalomaniac. Shame on the US to have elected such a joke as its president.

please do not insult stupid megalomaniacs!

[spidermike007]

21 hours ago, noahvail said:

Th US will re-impose sanctions...but not the sanctions against Russia that Congress passed and Trump signed into law. They were supposed to take place in December, but Trump continues to run roughshod over the Constitution. Trump tweeted that Iran increased its military budget by 40% since the treaty was signed, with the implication that it was for nuclear armaments. In fact, their budget increased by 250% - all for conventional weapons. As he continues to make enemies of US allies, the US economy has slowed down, the dollar has lost value, the deficit has increased, and he has shown that rather than draining the swamp, he has plugged the drain. To quote him, “SAD!”

All sadly true. He has re-populated the swamp, with his own crocodiles and snakes. Anyone who equates the rise in the stock market with Trump's policies, and considers that a sign of a booming economy is missing all of the signs. It is about the companies saving taxes, and cutting back on services, that is making them more profitable, and causing them to have record profits. Meanwhile, consumer confidence remains very, very low, and retailers are hurting. The average person is not benefitting from the corporate tax cuts, and inflation is rampant. I know many will argue with my inflation and consumer confidence claims, as the fake narrative coming from the deflector in chief is quite the opposite. But lies do not change reality. 

 

U.S. retail sales fell for a third straight month in February as households cut back on purchases of motor vehicles and other big-ticket items, pointing to a slowdown in economic growth in the first quarter.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/retail-sales-decline-for-third-straight-month-in-february.html

 

 

[MunkyBoogar]

17 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

But that happened under Barry and Hillary's watch. 

I am NOT fan of 42nd president Hillary nor 44th president Barry. At least they could convey their points without sounding like a delusional wackadoo! Heck, Triple D makes 43rd president Bubba Bush look like a genius!

 

It was Obama that went to the middle east and apologized for the US being a military power.

And?? Barry also wanted to pull out the troops until he realized that it was easier said than done.

It was Obama that refused to talk with the Israeli government.

Do you know why? Care to explain it?

It was Obama that drew a line then when it was crossed erased it.

What the heck are you talking about?

It was Obama who told the Black community that he would look after them.

Bwahaha... that didn't happen!

It was Obama that unilaterally created the Dreamer act even though he was told that it was illegal to do so.

Why aren't those who were whining about Dreamers and not having a job rushing to replace the migrant work force that has been lost? Oh, could it be because they are enjoying their unemployment and welfare benefits??!!

It was Hilary that pressed the button for new relations with Russia.

Actually, relations are needed with both friends and foes. The lack of proper relations does more harm than good.

It was Hilary that let the people Die in Libya.

 

Trump so far has done what he said he would.

Triple D (Draft dodging Don) is doing what he always does! Hopefully some of those nitwits in the government will be able to stop this implosion.

He has lowered taxes federally.

And only 1% of the population is reaping the benefits of this.

He at least has the American hostages out of NK.

What has he done for Detroit and PR? NOTHING!! We also do not know what was promised to Kim DUNG-un.

He has NK dismantling one of its test sites.

The NK site dismantled itself after the last test so Triple D doesn't get credit for that action. NK is merely going to finish the process so it will be difficult to see the innards of the site

 

Would any of this be accomplished by Hillary not likely?

Yyour question is full of moot conjecture so it cannot be answered without making some wild right-out-of-left-field assumptions that serve no purpose whatsoever!

Mike, I hear your anx and understand it but just as people said to those that did not trust Obama give him the benefit of the doubt and see where history puts him.

 

Listen to this video and ell me if it seems familiar.

 

 

 

Has Triple D's promise to recover the "lost" coal mine jobs in the Appalachians come into fruition? NO and those jobs are lost FOREVER. There are cleaner and much safer sources of energy. The coal industry is dead and the people who believed his soap box antics got snookered! And to make matters worse, blue color workers are still losing their jobs because companies are moving their production plants offshore in order to increase their profit margins. Thailand is gaining the factory that was closed in Kansas. Why didn't Triple D, the economic genius (but only when it comes to bankrupting businesses), save those 800 jobs? Triple D himself uses offshore plants/factories to increase his own profit margin.

 

Has Triple D's kept his promise to work instead of wasting time on the golf course? BWAHAHAHA!

 

Triple D has been using the OFFICE of the President of the USA as a source to increase his wallet by pushing official state dinners/meetings to venues that he owns. 

 

The lower of unemployment was started during the Barry administration so Triple D's administration had very little to do with this decrease. 

 

The lack of migrant work force is going to drive up the cost of fruits, vegetables, shellfish and other industries that relied in these seasonal workers. The LEGAL migrant workers are having issues getting their visas processed in a timely fashion and 'MURICANS would whine on the interwebs instead of working a seasonal job. When you do not have a job, something is better than NOTHING!

 

Oh yeah, Mexico is still laughing about that wall.

 

 

[dcutman]

Apparently not one Trump hater has read this so called agreement. The just repeat what CNN tells me. Its just about I hate Trump and anything he does is the end of the world.

Edited May 14, 2018 by dcutman

[MunkyBoogar]

The problem is, most of the replies are not about the agreement. Triple D has made a habit of trying to undo anything that was done during the previous administration and it is more than obvious that he made a knee-jerk decision to pull out of the agreement without considering the consequences or without having a real plan. He needs to get out of that "this is my corporation to bankrupt" train of thought.

 

Was the Iran Nuclear Agreement good? No, but it did slow down the "obvious" advance of the Iran nuclear program. Iran will most likely start to enrichen more uranium. I say "more" because I don't think they truly stopped (my unsupported opinion).

 

 

[Grouse]

10 hours ago, catinthehat said:

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

What evidence do you have of Iranian sponsored terrorist attacks in the USA or the European countries you mention? 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, MunkyBoogar said:

The problem is, most of the replies are not about the agreement. Triple D has made a habit of trying to undo anything that was done during the previous administration and it is more than obvious that he made a knee-jerk decision to pull out of the agreement without considering the consequences or without having a real plan. He needs to get out of that "this is my corporation to bankrupt" train of thought.

 

Was the Iran Nuclear Agreement good? No, but it did slow down the "obvious" advance of the Iran nuclear program. Iran will most likely start to enrichen more uranium. I say "more" because I don't think they truly stopped (my unsupported opinion).

 

 

My unsupported opinion is that the lizard people are helping Iran evade sanctions. And it's exactly as valuable as yours.

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, you're just doing your usual routine of implying something which wasn't said, twisting other posters' words and so on. Guess some things don't change whether one finds his password or not, but  I guess that's the best you can do.

 

The question raised earlier was with regard to Iran's (or rather, the Iranian regime's) word being seen as credible. The short version is that it isn't. That would go back to the whole reason the sanctions regime was applied, and later on, the current inspections regime. There is nothing that implies trust here.

 

I acknowledge that the inspections regime in place is strict - and is, overall, a reasonable tool. That still does not make it fail proof or impossible to circumvent. Given Iran's past record, and similar instances of countries achieving nuclear ambitions on the sly, blind faith in the inspections regime is not, IMO, a top choice.

 

As for the casting doubt bit - it's pretty much what this agreement is about. Signatories do not trust Iran's word, hence inspections regime. It wouldn't be in place unless the expectation was that Iran will try something. And while the inspections regime is strict, it also represents a compromise between Iran and the signatories - hence, imperfect.

You mean because if say, the President of the United States swears on the Bible that something is true, that would be good enough for an international agreement?

And who said anything about blind faith? Apart from you, that is. there is a very strict enforcement regime in place.

 

[MunkyBoogar]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

My unsupported opinion is that the lizard people are helping Iran evade sanctions. And it's exactly as valuable as yours.

What was that lizard's name? Barry, Hillary or Triple D? LoL

 

I purposely added the comment about it being "my" unsupported opinion so nobody would assume that I was stating that is was a fact.

[Oziex1]

Interesting contradictions in the world we live in, a gun massacre here a school shooting there. The solution to gun violence in the US by DT and the gun lobby is to arm more people and give guns to Teachers.

 

In the wider world countries demonised by the US, feel the need to arm themselves against the only power that has used nuclear weapons on other human beings. But, oh no you cant have that only the good guys can have the big one. 

 

Should Iran have nukes, of course not.

Should any other country have them again, no.

[lannarebirth]

48 minutes ago, MunkyBoogar said:

 

 

 

 

[Naam]

11 minutes ago, Oziex1 said:

Should Iran have nukes, of course not.

Should any other country have them again, no.

[Brunolem]

11 hours ago, catinthehat said:

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

May I call you by your real name Anderson Cooper?

 

Murder millions of men, women and children?

What are you smoking these days Anderson?

 

Do you know the difference between shia muslims and sunny muslims?

Do you know that all the "famous" terrorists groups such as ISIS, Al qaeda and affiliates are composed of sunny muslims, more precisely salafists with a "philosophy" close to Saudi wahabism?

 

Hezbollah is indeed supported by Iran and composed of shia muslims.

It is an official party in Lebanon, who just won the elections, and is not linked to any attack in Europe, contrary to sunny ISIS who is proud to claim credit for most terrorist attacks, including the latest in Paris.

 

Get your facts straight Anderson!

[Brunolem]

11 hours ago, catinthehat said:

I take it you do not watch any type of news. Head in the sand.

Serious people do not watch news, they read news, and from many different sources if possible.

CNN and other MSM won't do any good to your capacity for critical thinking.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Your usual obfuscation designed to muddy the water.

 

As recently as March this year, Iran gets the thumbs up that it is sticking to the deal.

 

Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iran-is-implementing-nuclear-related-jcpoa-commitments-director-general-amano-tells-iaea-board

 

So you use Morchspeak to smother the verification with your fence sitting language:

 

"refer to whether Iran clearly violated the agreement so far- the "verdict" seems to be a "no" on this, but a cautious one. may be debated,  imperfect tool"

 

Any deal is subject to verification of conditions. One would hardly negotiate something as serious as non proliferation of nuclear weapons on the shake of a hand or a nod of the head (although that's exactly what the USA hypocritically did to verify the other nuclear power in the region's compliance ..and just look how wrong they were!)

 

If you'd bother reading previous posts, and following the context, you wouldn't have posted this pointless drivel. Then again, you probably would have anyway.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You mean because if say, the President of the United States swears on the Bible that something is true, that would be good enough for an international agreement?

And who said anything about blind faith? Apart from you, that is. there is a very strict enforcement regime in place.

 

 

No, that's not what I meant. Rather, that's just how you try to spin my words, as you often do. As for "blind faith", it clearly referred to the inspections regime, and repeating the mantra of it being in place.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Trump ignored Boris Johnson's request for his Plan B after ditching an agreement that was working.

 

The reason for no reply is: to tear up the agreement precisely because it is working actually is Trump's Plan A. This is not about curbing nuclear weapons proliferation..that's just a red herring. It's about curbing Iran's influence in the region to leave an open playing field for US buddies.

 

He is itching to fight Iran although it is no harm to the USA 7,000 miles away but it is a threat to the tail that wags the US dog. But he can't do so without a pretext. So Plan A is to precipitate an excuse.

 

The scenario will go like this:
The U.S. imposes sanctions and threatens Western and Chinese companies wanting to invest in Iran heightening tensions with allies and risking a trade war (so much for reducing unemployment).
Germany, France and UK in particular will not be able to maintain their side of the deal with Iran either, and will cave in to Trump pressure. Provoking Iran to announce that the deal is defunct.
 
Then there will be some intelligence information accompanied by theatrics again probably from the tail that wags the US dog that Iran is working towards a nuclear weapons program...doesn't have to be genuine intelligence...phoney (just like last time) will be sufficient.

 

Thus allowing for military intervention at the urging of all Trump's new neocon advisers like the warmonger Bolton.

War is a well worn tactic for deflecting domestic criticism..handy for Trump et al at the moment. Trouble is when you deliberately play these brinkmanship games, the escalation may get out of hand.
 

 

"The scenario will go like this:..."

 

Quite the crystal ball there, again. Its a good thing your doomsday predictions do not have a tendency to actually materialize. Unsurprisingly, the totally one-sided "account" does not allow for any negatives when it comes to Iran.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been reported and removed. 

 

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

May I call you by your real name Anderson Cooper?

 

Murder millions of men, women and children?

What are you smoking these days Anderson?

 

Do you know the difference between shia muslims and sunny muslims?

Do you know that all the "famous" terrorists groups such as ISIS, Al qaeda and affiliates are composed of sunny muslims, more precisely salafists with a "philosophy" close to Saudi wahabism?

 

Hezbollah is indeed supported by Iran and composed of shia muslims.

It is an official party in Lebanon, who just won the elections, and is not linked to any attack in Europe, contrary to sunny ISIS who is proud to claim credit for most terrorist attacks, including the latest in Paris.

 

Get your facts straight Anderson!

 

Quote

Hezbollah is indeed supported by Iran and composed of shia muslims.

It is an official party in Lebanon, who just won the elections, and is not linked to any attack in Europe,

 

Hezbollah's definition can be debated, and is a more complex issue than presented above. Painting it as a political party", without acknowledging it's a political party with an armed force is misleading, at best.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization_or_resistance_movement

 

As for not being linked to attacks in Europe - while true that the vast majority of these are associated with Sunni organizations:

 

2012 Cyprus terrorist plot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Cyprus_terrorist_plot

 

2012 Burgas attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#2012_Burgas_attack

 

The only angle in which this relates to the topic is if one adopts the Trump administration's view that  the Iran Deal ought to address Iran's (and its affiliates or proxies) non-nuclear activities.

[trianglechoke]

1) i have no idea what goes on behind the scenes which might be where stuff happens that is most important.

2) Many people hear seem to allow their feelings for Trump dictate their thoughts and not be holistic.

3) The deal states no inspections of teir 1 military bases... which surely is silly as military stuff of interest to this situation could be there.

4. I still dont know the behind the scenes stuff. 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

As for not being linked to attacks in Europe - while true that the vast majority of these are associated with Sunni organizations:

 

2012 Cyprus terrorist plot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Cyprus_terrorist_plot

 

2012 Burgas attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#2012_Burgas_attack

 

The only angle in which this relates to the topic is if one adopts the Trump administration's view that  the Iran Deal ought to address Iran's (and its affiliates or proxies) non-nuclear activities.

Let's look at Islamist terror attacks in Europe  another way:

Hezbollah

2013 nothing

2014 nothing

2015 nothing

2016 nothing

2017 nothing

2018 nothing.

 

Sunni Islamists

2013  100%

2014 100%

2015 100%

2016 100%

2017 100%

2018 100%

 

Let's throw in the Americas too.

Hezbollah

2013 nothing

2014 nothing

2015 nothing

2016 nothing

2017 nothing

2018 nothing.

 

Sunni Islamists

2013  100%

2014 100%

2015 100%

2016 100%

2017 100%

2018 100%

 

[Brunolem]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Let's look at Islamist terror attacks in Europe  another way:

Hezbollah

2013 nothing

2014 nothing

2015 nothing

2016 nothing

2017 nothing

2018 nothing.

 

Sunni Islamists

2013  100%

2014 100%

2015 100%

2016 100%

2017 100%

2018 100%

 

Let's throw in the Americas too.

Hezbollah

2013 nothing

2014 nothing

2015 nothing

2016 nothing

2017 nothing

2018 nothing.

 

Sunni Islamists

2013  100%

2014 100%

2015 100%

2016 100%

2017 100%

2018 100%

 

Hezbollah has one main objective: preventing Israel from invading South Lebanon, which is the only reason why it is called a "terrorist" organization.

 

Israel dearly needs the water in South Lebanon and has made in the past a few tentatives that were promptly defeated by Hezbollah.

 

The fact that Iran supports Hezbollah enrages Israel, because it hampers its expansion projects.

 

Thus, Israel is looking for made up reasons to point the international finger at Iran, and involve its bully of a brother in Washington in yet another unwinnable conflict!

 

That's all there is to it!

 

Nuclear ambitions, terrorism sponsoring, Iranians waiting for liberators...are all smoke screens...they are the new version of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and complicity will Al Qeada...

Edited May 14, 2018 by Brunolem

[alocacoc]

serious question - are you using google translate?

If so, who cares? Imo the text is well understandable.

Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Let's look at Islamist terror attacks in Europe  another way:

Hezbollah

2013 nothing

2014 nothing

2015 nothing

2016 nothing

2017 nothing

2018 nothing.

 

Sunni Islamists

2013  100%

2014 100%

2015 100%

2016 100%

2017 100%

2018 100%

 

Let's throw in the Americas too.

Hezbollah

2013 nothing

2014 nothing

2015 nothing

2016 nothing

2017 nothing

2018 nothing.

 

Sunni Islamists

2013  100%

2014 100%

2015 100%

2016 100%

2017 100%

2018 100%

 

 

Yet another pointless "contribution": this was addressed in my post ("the vast majority of these are associated with Sunni organizations"). There was no implication of claiming otherwise - just a correction of the post replied to (which alleged that Hezbollah is "not linked to any attack in Europe").

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Brunolem said:

Hezbollah has one main objective: preventing Israel from invading South Lebanon, which is the only reason why it is called a "terrorist" organization.

 

Israel dearly needs the water in South Lebanon and has made in the past a few tentatives that were promptly defeated by Hezbollah.

 

The fact that Iran supports Hezbollah enrages Israel, because it hampers its expansion projects.

 

Thus, Israel is looking for made up reasons to point the international finger at Iran, and involve its bully of a brother in Washington in yet another unwinnable conflict!

 

That's all there is to it!

 

Nuclear ambitions, terrorism sponsoring, Iranians waiting for liberators...are all smoke screens...they are the new version of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and complicity will Al Qeada...

 

Other than the topic not being about Hezbollah - you claimed that Hezbollah was not linked to terrorist attacks in Europe, facts indicate otherwise (as was linked above). Regarding Hezbollah's objectives - I don't know that killing foreign citizens out of the country does much to protect southern Lebanon, and the same could be said about Murdering a Prime Minister.

 

The rest of your nonsense ("expansion projects") is just the standard deflections. The fact stands that Iran breached NPT commitments, and that both the sanctions and the Iran Deal were international efforts.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Morch

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yet another pointless "contribution": this was addressed in my post ("the vast majority of these are associated with Sunni organizations"). There was no implication of claiming otherwise - just a correction of the post replied to (which alleged that Hezbollah is "not linked to any attack in Europe").

Sure, you were just making a technical corrections. No agenda there, really?  That's why you mentioned it again And then you follow it up with this in a different post:

Other than the topic not being about Hezbollah - you claimed that Hezbollah was not linked to terrorist attacks in Europe, facts indicate otherwise (as was linked above). Regarding Hezbollah's objectives - I don't know that killing foreign citizens out of the country does much to protect southern Lebanon, and the same could be said about Murdering a Prime Minister.

 

It seems massively obvious that like lots of other revolutionary organizations born in violence, Hezbollah has hugely changed over the years. Hariri's assassination occurred 13 years ago. The terrorist incident in Europe is 6 years past. But we can count on you to keep dredging them up.