8 hours ago, The Theory said:

You must be one of those who hate their own country. 

i don’t just stay quiet if someone disrespect my country or the president even though if the president is not my favorite one. 

 

 

You must be one of them posters making a whole lot of assumptions. Especially when  low on rational arguments. There is no requirement to adulate the president or uphold his "honor". And none of your posturing actually addresses the point made - which was you not actually representing Americans as a whole, or even all of them people who voted for Trump. The use of "we" is rejected.

7 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Hate to break it to you but those days are over.  US wants to close the bases in Europe/Japan/Korea and elsewhere but these countries keep resisting.  So the so called US "allies" want us to leave but moan that we can't leave.

 

There were more US troops deployed to Europe (wasn't there a topic about Poland's Base Trump?), and deployed missiles to South Korea. Just a couple of examples. That Trump sometimes goes on about this or that still doesn't make it into a coherent policy, or one which is supported by his defense advisors and officials.

I listened to BOTH speeches. Mr Trump & Mr Rouhani. Mr Trump is known to be a “stranger to the truth”, but, not all of his speech can be boiled down to truth & lies. The republican vision for the USA, is not the ramblings of one man. I suspect Mr Trump cannot “fully” decide any real change, without support from his party and ultimately the American People.

 

I personally found much of his speech compelling and would VERY MUCH rather the USA be the major power in our world at this moment in time, regardless of their current leader.

 

He was correct in what he said about Iran’s leadership and he did NOT say Iran’s people were inherently bad, if I recall correctly he praised them. Some people in Iran HAVE NO CHOICE but to chant “Death to America” and the leadership in Iran HAVE denied the Holocaust and threatened Israel with annihilation – correct me if I am wrong here.

 

For the leaders of ANY nation, it is despicable to call for the total destruction of a nation (Israel in this case, but, ANY nation) and it’s innocent people, even if they do hate it’s/their government.

 

For IRAN: Regime change from the delusional theocratic Government, to some form of Democracy, would seem by many to be the best outcome.

 

The regime in North Korea is abhorrent to any “thinking” human being. The terror under which the fellow members of our species live, in North Korea is beyond the comprehension of many.

 

If Mr Trump were not to engage with them, what would the outcome be? Sure there is empirical evidence, that this (historical) regime are liars and utterly, totally dishonest. Largely this is because they were never “called out”. Good or bad, the Trump/Kim meeting has focused the world on North Korea AND their biggest supporter of oppression, CHINA!!!

 

Mr Trump is not the most likeable character, he is fast becoming tarnished as an invertebrate liar, and it would seem his dishonesty knows no bounds. However, I believe in the USA – I believe they will fix their issues – (I am not an American). Like an alcoholic, sometimes one must hit bottom to begin recovery. Mr Trump may or may not, drag the USA to it’s own version of “bottom”, but it WILL recover. The checks & balances within it’s various “systems” and the courage of it’s people will eventually shine - I have complete faith in that.

On 9/26/2018 at 5:57 AM, webfact said:

"They do not respect their neighbours or borders or the sovereign rights of nations."

Let's see if Trump does.

The United Nations' International Court of Justice ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to the safety of civil aviation.

• Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.
• the U.S. sanctions "have the potential to endanger civil aviation safety" in Iran and that sanctions limiting sales of goods required for humanitarian needs such as food, medicines and medical devices "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."
• the Trump administration must "ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted" and payments not restricted if they are linked to the humanitarian and aviation goods.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/10/03/uns-highest-court-orders-us-to-lift-certain-iran-sanctions/23549484/

 

 

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Let's see if Trump does.

The United Nations' International Court of Justice ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to the safety of civil aviation.

• Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.
• the U.S. sanctions "have the potential to endanger civil aviation safety" in Iran and that sanctions limiting sales of goods required for humanitarian needs such as food, medicines and medical devices "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."
• the Trump administration must "ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted" and payments not restricted if they are linked to the humanitarian and aviation goods.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/10/03/uns-highest-court-orders-us-to-lift-certain-iran-sanctions/23549484/

 

 

 

As far as I understand this is a preliminary ruling, so an appeal aimed at challenging it would probably be the next phase (if not initiated already), and the whole thing bound to drag on. Doubt that Iran's case rests on solid legal grounds or that the ruling would have much bearing on the Trump administration bearing on with sanctions. 

 

That said, I'm not sure how the bit quoted in your post ("They do not respect their neighbours or borders or the sovereign rights of nations.") relates to your own comment and the article linked. Not exactly what the ruling is about.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

Doubt that Iran's case rests on solid legal grounds

The Court's ruling rests on a 1955 bilateral agreement (still in effect) known as the Treaty of Amity that regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

U.S. is expected to challenge the court's jurisdiction in a future hearing.

Meanwhile, I expect Trump's national security advisor John Bolton to reject the ruling, Trump to refuse to recognize the Court entirely and declare the US is not bound by the Treaty of Amity (which should require approval by Congress).

9 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The Court's ruling rests on a 1955 bilateral agreement (still in effect) known as the Treaty of Amity that regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

U.S. is expected to challenge the court's jurisdiction in a future hearing.

Meanwhile, I expect Trump's national security advisor John Bolton to reject the ruling, Trump to refuse to recognize the Court entirely and declare the US is not bound by the Treaty of Amity (which should require approval by Congress).

 

 

That still doesn't explain how your previous comment, the bit quoted and the news story linked relate. But be that as it may....

 

Invoking that agreement probably exposes Iran to claims of violating it as well, possibly providing enough legal ground for either tossing it out or casting doubt on the next ruling.

 

Expecting Bolton or Trump to make this or that belligerent comment is, by now, trivial.

 

IMO, Iran doesn't expect the proceedings to have any actual effect, more of a propaganda "win", both at home and abroad.