Iran v US confrontation

I Don't know the intel that trump have, but I know the intel of what experts on the matter says and I know the fake intel that the US and UK government gave to the public to get their way around Iraq Invasion. I know the kind of experts that says the opposite than the whole scientific community. Also we know how untrustworthy Tump is and that he lies more than he talks.

I am sorry but I will stay at the safe side of the occam razor, not about you guessing that trump experts has some sort of intel that says the opposite than the whole international community experts in the JPOC

To be fair respect for having the conversation even if we perhaps in the end we have to respectfully disagree. It is always good to get both sides of an issue.
 
To be fair I see what you mean but it' not really in Trump’s nature to settle into talks and negotiate. He's maybe taken it a bit too far by completely violating the agreement but agree with the reasoning behind it though negotiations would have perhaps been the better option for now...unless he's tried and done that behind closed doors, doubtful but maybe.

You've hit the nail on the head. precisely the reason why he has so many detractors is his inability to work with most people be it fellow Americans or other global Leaders. Not just in scope of this agreement, but it's detrimental in wider context as countries will not want to negotiate with US in good faith anymore.
 
To be fair respect for having the conversation even if we perhaps in the end we have to respectfully disagree. It is always good to get both sides of an issue.

It is to get 2 sides of an issue. But you are just guessing that Trump has something when he did not even said that. At the other side, there is plenty of proof and precedents that makes pulling out of the JPOC a bad and a partisan idea
 
You've hit the nail on the head. precisely the reason why he has so many detractors is his inability to work with most people be it fellow Americans or other global Leaders. Not just in scope of this agreement, but it's detrimental in wider context as countries will not want to negotiate with US in good faith anymore.

To play devils advocate though and Trump was totally correct, they would seem the more reliable and trustworthy in any possible negotiation.
 
It is to get 2 sides of an issue. But you are just guessing that Trump has something when he did not even said that. At the other side, there is plenty of proof and precedents that makes pulling out of the JPOC a bad and a partisan idea

Sigh....

We're never going to agree as I don't believe the "proof" you speak of is actually proof of anything. I don't want this get silly and go overboard so I'll leave it there.
 
Sigh....

We're never going to agree as I don't believe the "proof" you speak of is actually proof of anything. I don't want this get silly and go overboard so I'll leave it there.

Well, if you don't believe that experts in the matter are no proof vs no proof at all, yes, we better leave it here. We can agree on that ;)
 
Well, if you don't believe that experts in the matter are no proof vs no proof at all, yes, we better leave it here. We can agree on that ;)

Nicely twisting my point there as I said Trump will have "experts" as we are calling them. But let's just leave it and be friends now haha
 
Nicely twisting my point there as I said Trump will have "experts" as we are calling them. But let's just leave it and be friends now haha

Trump said nothing about having experts of Iran not complying. SO I don't see the twist. And yes, I can discuss with friends, no prob :)
 
Trump said nothing about having experts of Iran not complying. SO I don't see the twist. And yes, I can discuss with friends, no prob :)

I'm just saying I think he will have experts even though he did not mention them. Nice one :)
 
Curious, which deal do you refer to as Trump being correct?

To remove himself and the US from this deal with Iran and thereby not idly standing by as another nation increased its capability for nuclear warfare as he feels Iran are a threat. He could be proven right as he was with North Korea.
 
To remove himself and the US from this deal with Iran and thereby not idly standing by as another nation increased its capability for nuclear warfare as he feels Iran are a threat. He could be proven right as he was with North Korea.

He did not say that, and the JCOP says completely the oposite. What was about right in NK?
 
He did not say that, and the JCOP says completely the oposite. What was about right in NK?

He got them to the negotiating table for legitimate talks. Looks like he's odds on to win a Nobel peace prize for it too.
 
To remove himself and the US from this deal with Iran and thereby not idly standing by as another nation increased its capability for nuclear warfare as he feels Iran are a threat. He could be proven right as he was with North Korea.

Jim Mattis, who you might consider an actual tough guy instead of someone just posing as one, and has no love for Iran, thought it was better to stay in the deal.
 
Many of them aren't even voting on that base. Elections in the US are pretty much known for decision making without facts.
Now that I'm reading your other response, speculating about a Nobel peace prize for Trump, I think this surely must be the nail in the coffin.

He's 2/1 for the peace prize and 13/8 to be re-elected. Which electorate has ever been fully informed on facts?
 
This is where the Iranians went wrong. Had they bought the bomb from us when we were selling, they'd be safe today. America doesn't bomb countries who can cause it an unacceptable amount of damage. Libya also ratted us out, look at the state of it today. N.Korea bought the bomb and developed long range missiles - for all the big talk, not a single bullet has been fired at them.

What makes you think pakistan can cause 'unacceptable amount of damage' to usa ? Pakistan doesn't have missiles which can cover all of India, let alone even reaching the shores of america.
 
we're talking about trustworthiness of Trump here in the context of a potential military engagement of the US in the middle east
Judging by the context, it's a legitimate question and would actually be - in opposite to many other posts here - be of value and absolutely relevant.

So why does my opinion on Climate change affect anything if it's about he trustworthiness of trump.

Btw I do think climate change is real.

To be fair, his position on trump is also stupid and he can stop talking about that.

You have no basis to say my position on Trump is stupid, you're just talking for the sake of it.
 
What makes you think pakistan can cause 'unacceptable amount of damage' to usa ? Pakistan doesn't have missiles which can cover all of India, let alone even reaching the shores of america.
Submarine launched ballistic missiles say hello.
 
Your posts in this thread are the basis. You've demonstrated it over and over again.

Whatever mate. Just because I have a different opinion to you, you try to ridicule me and make out as though my opinion is nonsense compared to your own...typical of the modern left these days. Nobody can prove Trump is wrong at this moment in time with absolute certainty and quite a few also believe he is correct.

Anyway I'm out of this thread for now.
 
Whatever mate. Just because I have a different opinion to you, you try to ridicule me and make out as though my opinion is nonsense compared to your own...typical of the modern left these days. Nobody can prove Trump is wrong at this moment in time with absolute certainty and quite a few also believe he is correct.

Anyway I'm out of this thread for now.

so much for the tolerant left!
 
Funny how Trump supporters bail when you ask them to justify why they support him.
 
Funny how Trump supporters bail when you ask them to justify why they support him.

I did, earlier in the thread. I gave 4 examples of policies I supported. I asked which policies they didn't like and was given 4 things that weren't even policies but more "controversies".

Myth Busted.

*edit - apologies 2 of 5 were policies they didn't like.
 
I did, earlier in the thread. I gave 4 examples of policies I supported. I asked which policies they didn't like and was given 4 things that weren't even policies but more "controversies".

Myth Busted.

*edit - apologies 2 of 5 were policies they didn't like.

Where is the justification part? You just put them out there, no reasons given.
 
Where is the justification part? You just put them out there, no reasons given.

At that time I wasn't asked to justify them, just to name them. And I don't need to justify myself to you, whomever you are to judge others opinions as justifiable or not? I could and would if I thought it would change your opinion. Why waste my time...could anything I type or anything Trump could ever do change your opinion on him?
 
At that time I wasn't asked to justify them, just to name them. And I don't need to justify myself to you, whomever you are to judge others opinions as justifiable or not? I could and would if I thought it would change your opinion. Why waste my time...could anything I type or anything Trump could ever do change your opinion on him?

Yes, but people asked follow up question you seem to ignore which is a bit odd since we are all here to advance our views by discussion. Of course you are free to hold whatever opinion you like and I couldn't care less about that, it's the rationale I'm talking about. I'm trying to be as open-minded as possible and depending on what you say/Trump does I'd be more than happy to evolve my views.