43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why was it a mistake, and how was it a failure?

So, what is the alternative? Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

You're posting without reading previous posts.

Enjoy your day.

Well if the Deep State which no doubt controls Trumps every move wanted World War III, Trump would certainly be the perfect puppet for them to utilize. The War president seems to love to flex his tiny little muscles, and it does seem to help him to feel like a little bit of a man. And certainly the same applies to his minion Tiny Petie, who certainly seems prefer to be a sadistic serial killer at this point, instead of an incredibly unsignificant news host that nobody's ever heard of.

Is this the beginning of World War III? I certainly hope not, I certainly hope not for the entire population of the world, that would be a horror beyond horrors. But only somebody with a stunning level of ignorance like Trump would be capable of starting something like this. Iran is not Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq or Algeria. Trump is picked on a big boy now and it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

17 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Well if the Deep State which no doubt controls Trumps every move wanted World War III, Trump would certainly be the perfect puppet for them to utilize.

That's right .... the deep state.

Who was Khomeini really? We will never know if he was a deep state asset all along.

Because ... he came in from exile from France after the revolution.

Odd that these guys are often coming "from exile", like there is no one in the entire country who can be elected democratically, so they need to put the guy in exile in power by default.

Now maybe he doesn't want to play along with whatever the deep state wants him to do and he is getting too big for his britches, so they need to take him out and put another deep state asset in there.

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

There is no reason why the JCPOA could not have been extended.

Why would Iran agree to extend the JCPOA? They had to be begged and given pallets of cash the first time, and they had to be allowed to continue their "peaceful" nuclear program, and they were not compelled to allow unrestricted inspections.

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

Any agreement to limit Iran's development of intercontinental ballistic missiles would be more difficult. Presumably Iran would require some reciprocal agreement re Israeli missile capability?An opportunity for President Trump to use his famed powers of persuasion.

That's pretty weak brother, even for you.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would Iran agree to extend the JCPOA? They had to be begged and given pallets of cash the first time, and they had to be allowed to continue their "peaceful" nuclear program, and they were not compelled to allow unrestricted inspections.

That's pretty weak brother, even for you.

The cash transferred to Iran was Iran’s own money, not U.S. taxpayer funds. It was part of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving a decades‑old dispute over arms payments frozen after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The U.S. paid it in cash because sanctions had cut Iran off from the global banking system.

But I guess you know perfectly well that that was the case.

28 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're posting without reading previous posts.

Enjoy your day.

In other words, you have no idea why the strike on "Iran's deeply buried Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant" was a mistake, or how it was it a failure, you were just regurgitating what some other leftist said.

Neither do you have any idea what alternative to the current strikes might be.

You are not event capable of offering an opinion on whether or not you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

All you can do is regurgitate a few lines you can't support and run away.

You enjoy your day as well.

4 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

The cash transferred to Iran was Iran’s own money, not U.S. taxpayer funds. It was part of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving a decades‑old dispute over arms payments frozen after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The U.S. paid it in cash because sanctions had cut Iran off from the global banking system.

But I guess you know perfectly well that that was the case.

Okay, I'll rephrase. Why would Iran agree to extend the JCPOA? They had to be begged and returned pallets of cash the first time, and they had to be allowed to continue their "peaceful" nuclear program, and they were not compelled to allow unrestricted inspections.

Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Okay, I'll rephrase. Why would Iran agree to extend the JCPOA? They had to be begged and returned pallets of cash the first time, and they had to be allowed to continue their "peaceful" nuclear program, and they were not compelled to allow unrestricted inspections.

Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Under the new agreement that was 99.9% complete.....yes.

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would Iran agree to extend the JCPOA? They had to be begged and given pallets of cash the first time, and they had to be allowed to continue their "peaceful" nuclear program, and they were not compelled to allow unrestricted inspections.

For similar reasons to the first signing i.e. economic necessity. The Iranian economy was in dire straits, even before this conflict started, so economic incentives could have led to an agreement.

Why shouldn't a nation be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear program?

Whether the inspections were unrestricted or not, both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement.

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's pretty weak brother, even for you.

What's weak, brother? Iran worries - not without good reason - that it might be attacked by Israel. Is it unreasonable of them to demand concessions on the part of Israel if Iran halts its' development of nuclear weapons and limit its' ballistic missile program?

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In other words, you have no idea why the strike on "Iran's deeply buried Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant" was a mistake, or how it was it a failure, you were just regurgitating what some other leftist said.

I just don't repeat myself.

Your conclusions are off, but what's new.

A leftist, I don't care about left or right. Depending on the subject, my leanings will be left or right. Your thinking here is as usual, left/right, right/wrong. Too simpleminded to consider reasoned.

3 hours ago, JAG said:

If we are talking about the current war in the Persian Gulf, perhaps a better title for the thread, from the US perspective, would be "We have started World War 3" - perhaps prefaced a la Britney Spears with "Oops I did it again!"

Britney Spears with "Oops I did it again!" would have fitted quite well in 1939.

World war leader board :-

Europe 2 – US 0

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I just don't repeat myself.

Your conclusions are off, but what's new.

A leftist, I don't care about left or right. Depending on the subject, my leanings will be left or right. Your thinking here is as usual, left/right, right/wrong. Too simpleminded to consider reasoned.

You repeat your regurgitations constantly, you are just never able to actually say anything.

And you clipped my post. What I said was:

In other words, you have no idea why the strike on "Iran's deeply buried Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant" was a mistake, or how it was it a failure, you were just regurgitating what some other leftist said.

Neither do you have any idea what alternative to the current strikes might be.

You are not event capable of offering an opinion on whether or not you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

All you can do is regurgitate a few lines you can't support and run away.

You enjoy your day as well.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

No, Trump is not unhinged

Ehm,

"The word *unhinged* is often used to describe behavior that seems chaotic, irrational, or emotionally out of control"

Maybe it takes a chaotic and irrational mind to understand Trump?

31 minutes ago, RayC said:

For similar reasons to the first signing i.e. economic necessity. The Iranian economy was in dire straits, even before this conflict started, so economic incentives could have led to an agreement.

Why shouldn't a nation be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear program?

Whether the inspections were unrestricted or not, both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement.

What's weak, brother? Iran worries - not without good reason - that it might be attacked by Israel. Is it unreasonable of them to demand concessions on the part of Israel if Iran halts its' development of nuclear weapons and limit its' ballistic missile program?

No, Congress never approved the JCPOA, most everyone knew what a POC it was, and Trump was right to cancel it.

The JCPOA was strictly Obama's debacle. Had Congress approved it, it would have been a treaty, and Trump would not have been allowed to cancel it.

I do not believe it is in the best interest of the free world that Iran be allowed to have an intercontinental ballistic missile program, nor do I think they should be allowed to maintain a nuclear enrichment program.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Jeffrey Sachs also has another video "China and Russia cannot afford to let Iran fail".

So why haven't they stepped in yet?

Sorry, I don't trust Jeffrey Sach's geopolitical analysis.

This war actually has quite positive impacts for Putin, as it is aiming at another prize, namely Ukraine. Sanctions are being waived, energy price is increasing, and less weapons will be available to Ukraine.

It's less rosy for China, apart from the fact that the US is wasting its weapon stock, and is also transferring some military assets to the ME. However, the negative consequences are likely not enough to justify a military involvement. And as Russia, it is mainly interested in another prize.

12 minutes ago, candide said:

This war actually has quite positive impacts for Putin, as it is aiming at another prize, namely Ukraine. Sanctions are being waived, energy price is increasing, and less weapons will be available to Ukraine.

It's less rosy for China, apart from the fact that the US is wasting its weapon stock, and is also transferring some military assets to the ME. However, the negative consequences are likely not enough to justify a military involvement. And as Russia, it is mainly interested in another prize.

Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

It's not WW3

It's two terrorist states that are led by two fanatical, psychopathic terrorists, one that is already wanted by the ICC on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the other with 34 recent felony convictions and fresh from kidnapping a president from another continent, committing grave acts of terrorism and destabilizing the world economy and lives of billions. No doubt in the name of God, liberty, freedom and bald eagles.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Right now NK and USA got Nuclear as well Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, UK, What could possibly go wrong?

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Jeffrey Sachs also has another video "China and Russia cannot afford to let Iran fail".

So why haven't they stepped in yet?

Sorry, I don't trust Jeffrey Sach's geopolitical analysis.

He also claims Israel is following an "old book" (even though religious freedom exists in Israel) whilst ignoring that Iran LITERALLY runs its country according to an interpretation of the Quran. Making grand claims does not make one an expert.

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Right now NK and USA got Nuclear as well Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, UK, What could possibly go wrong?

But the question was, do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

But the question was, do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

The same questions was raised about NK, Pakistan and India, there is no good answers. Nukes is power, but the power lasts until you use them only!

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But the question was, do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Why not ? The hypocrites that have them already say no one else should have them but wont give up their own supply..well then anyone else

will be looking for the ultimate deterant too.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

For similar reasons to the first signing i.e. economic necessity. The Iranian economy was in dire straits, even before this conflict started, so economic incentives could have led to an agreement.

Why shouldn't a nation be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear program?

Whether the inspections were unrestricted or not, both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement.

What's weak, brother? Iran worries - not without good reason - that it might be attacked by Israel. Is it unreasonable of them to demand concessions on the part of Israel if Iran halts its' development of nuclear weapons and limit its' ballistic missile program?

Valid point. After all Israel has amply demonstrated that it is the new terrorist state in the Middle East.

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, Congress never approved the JCPOA, most everyone knew what a POC it was, and Trump was right to cancel it.

The JCPOA was strictly Obama's debacle. Had Congress approved it, it would have been a treaty, and Trump would not have been allowed to cancel it.

I do not believe it is in the best interest of the free world that Iran be allowed to have an intercontinental ballistic missile program, nor do I think they should be allowed to maintain a nuclear enrichment program.

Whether the JCPOA was a Treaty or an Agreement may have significant legal implications within the US, however, the discussion is about whether (1) the contents of the JCPOA were (are) a good thing and (2) whether Iran was abiding by those contents.

The answer to (1) was 'Yes', a view predominant most everywhere apart from Israel and within the US government, but shared at the time by the majority (67%) of the US public (Source: "Majority say US should not withdraw from Iran nuclear agreement"). The answer to 2) was also, 'Yes'; again a view shared by most of the rest of the world apart from the US and Israeli governments.

Imo it would be in the best interests of the world if no nation had a nuclear weapon capability but, unfortunately, it would be naive idealism to think that state could be reached. Preventing further nations from obtaining this nuclear capability would be a second-best outcome (although again this might also be a bit idealistic). However, irrespective of whether either of those outcomes are realistic and achievable, neither justifies the US attack on Iran.

26 minutes ago, RayC said:

However, irrespective of whether either of those outcomes are realistic and achievable, neither justifies the US attack on Iran.

Indeed, Israel is governed by religious fanatics living in 500 BC. Trump has received over $400 million from JUST one pro Israeli donor - Miriam Adelson. Due to the Israel lobby and donations by billionaires to Trump(and previous presidents) and indeed all Congress, they are not allowed to argue or they'll be out of a job, it's that powerful.

The Israel lobby must be defeated, they have started a world war this time, just so Iran, a peaceful country that hasn't started a war in over 200 years, is out of action - this will allow Israeli land grab, no, country grab.

47 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Valid point. After all Israel has amply demonstrated that it is the new terrorist state in the Middle East.

There no doubt about that. The US is another rogue state.

2 minutes ago, JimCM said:

There no doubt about that. The US is another rogue state.

And the really scary part is that they are a rogue state now, with the largest military in the world, leadership that has absolutely no moral authority, and is downright sadistic and cruel, and seemingly very little in the way of guardrails from the constitution, the Senate, nor the house, nor members of his own party.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Jeffrey Sachs also has another video "China and Russia cannot afford to let Iran fail".

So why haven't they stepped in yet?

Sorry, I don't trust Jeffrey Sach's geopolitical analysis.

They are waiting until USA runs out of money, soldiers, supporters or missiles.

You can't get much more of an expert than Sachs but if your ego thinks it knows better......

28 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whether the JCPOA was a Treaty or an Agreement may have significant legal implications within the US, however, the discussion is about whether (1) the contents of the JCPOA were (are) a good thing and (2) whether Iran was abiding by those contents.

The answer to (1) was 'Yes', a view predominant most everywhere apart from Israel and within the US government, but shared at the time by the majority (67%) of the US public (Source: "Majority say US should not withdraw from Iran nuclear agreement"). The answer to 2) was also, 'Yes'; again a view shared by most of the rest of the world apart from the US and Israeli governments.

You falsely claimed that the JCPOA was approved by Congress, it was not.

Now you are (IMO) falsely claiming that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA which you clearly have no way of knowing, because unrestricted access for inspections was never allowed.

28 minutes ago, RayC said:

Imo it would be in the best interests of the world if no nation had a nuclear weapon capability but, unfortunately, it would be naive idealism to think that state could be reached. Preventing further nations from obtaining this nuclear capability would be a second-best outcome (although again this might also be a bit idealistic). However, irrespective of whether either of those outcomes are realistic and achievable, neither justifies the US attack on Iran.

Well, you can thank Germany for nuclear weapons, they have done so much for the world,

In any event, the question was, do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

A simple yes or no will do. You can say no and still be against doing anything to stop them. That seems to be the left's position on everything.

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

And the really scary part is that they are a rogue state now, with the largest military in the world, leadership that has absolutely no moral authority, and is downright sadistic and cruel, and seemingly very little in the way of guardrails from the constitution, the Senate, nor the house, nor members of his own party.

Another experts says they have failed.