The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
RDCR07 said:
Maybe it was him who suggested Trump to pull out of the deal.
Click to expand...
DcskqJ_WkAIPFZV.jpg


Dcsn_SFW0AEGHbu.jpg
 
Pexbo said:
Could also be a way for Russia to make ground in the Middle East. Russia get to take up a few strategic positions in Iran in return for protection and trade which provides some relief from the incoming sanctions.
Click to expand...

Cheesy said:
Yeah, was wondering the same. Although considering the size of Iran, Putin may be biting off more than he can chew if he gets involved in yet another ME conflict.
Click to expand...

I just don't think Russia hasn't enough resources to be involved in Syria and Iran as well as having heavy economic sanctions against them. So yeah Russia would be biting off more than they can chew. Just thought though.
 
Silva said:
The last thing Assad or the Israel government want is Iran with nukes. You can't fight someone who has nukes.
Click to expand...

:confused: I'm guessing you mean MbS?

Massive Spanner said:
Israel are the ones manipulating him this time.
Click to expand...

Drifter said:
This as always been about Netanyahu and Israel.
Click to expand...

The Saudis/UAE have played just as big a role IMO. And then you have a basic, long-standing GOP desire to enact revenge on Tehran for the humiliation of the hostage crisis, and of course Trump's personal quest to un-do everything his predecessor did.
 
Nucks said:
It really wasn't the most winnable election.

All the people that swept Trump to victory, had 8 years of "HES NOT EVEN AMERICAN", "HES A COMMUNISTS MUSLIM", "HES BLACK", brewing. Republicans sweeping to power off the back of 2008, was a classic reactionary movement. It was a peoples movement every bit as big and as powerful as the movement that swept Obama to the oval office. You just don't like it, and you shouldn't, no rational human should. However, you can't deny that Obama winning, having 8 years, infuriated a larger part of this country.

If anything, that is the takeaway that you should have. That there is a MASSIVE backwards looking conservative bloc in this country, that racism, bigotry, and a failure of the education system is empowering.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. He got a lower percent of the vote than Romney and only 0.4% more than McCain. The real difference is the people who supported Obama didn't support Hillary.
 
Unlike Bolton's hiring and the strikes on Syria, r/t_d is extremely happy.
 
Silva said:
Why were they against Bolton? The Bush connection?
Click to expand...

I'd assume so, classic neocon. t_d types tend to be against certain interventionist moves like the Syria strikes etc, albeit they always find a way to excuse their dear leader.
 
I am trying to come up with an explanation for both positions but I'm not sure if it's any good.

I think it's to do with the image of Assad = Saddam, and t_d agrees with candidate Trump that the Iraq invasion was a mistake. They also (I think) like the image of Putin as an "anti-terrorist" strong man who doesn't bother with "political correctness", and Putin=Assad.
OTOH, Iran propaganda runs deeper in the US right-wing, and again this is something where they agree with candidate Trump. The Putin connection doesn't exist much, and Iran's role in forming the anti-ISIS militias is quite suppressed. The Iran deal was pushed by weak liberals like Obama and Kerry, which makes it obviously bad. OTOH, liberals like HRC supported Syrian intervention, which makes that bad too.
 
Van Gaalacticos said:
Like I say I don't wish to argue with anyone but I just personally feel as though there will be intelligence and reasoning behind this decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you should trust Netanyahu who has a conflict of interest in this situation over your allies, France, Germany and the UK who don't.

You're naïve if you think that politics works like that (your first post)
 
berbatrick said:
I am trying to come up with an explanation for both positions but I'm not sure if it's any good.

I think it's to do with the image of Assad = Saddam, and t_d agrees with candidate Trump that the Iraq invasion was a mistake. They also (I think) like the image of Putin as an "anti-terrorist" strong man who doesn't bother with "political correctness", and Putin=Assad.
OTOH, Iran propaganda runs deeper in the US right-wing, and again this is something where they agree with candidate Trump. The Putin connection doesn't exist much, and Iran's role in forming the anti-ISIS militias is quite suppressed. The Iran deal was pushed by weak liberals like Obama and Kerry, which makes it obviously bad. OTOH, liberals like HRC supported Syrian intervention, which makes that bad too.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd say that's about bang on.
 
Guess the neocons are back in the driver seat and Trumpies will find a way to somehow spin that as something that totally alines with what Donnie suppposedly stands for.
 
How convenient it is that information is circling right now on CNN (the source apparently is US officials and Israel) that Iran is planning an attack on Israel.
 
Mr H said:
Yeah, you should trust Netanyahu who has a conflict of interest in this situation over your allies, France, Germany and the UK who don't.

You're naïve if you think that politics works like that (your first post)
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we'd probably have to disagree on me being naive however.
 
berbatrick said:
I am trying to come up with an explanation for both positions but I'm not sure if it's any good.

I think it's to do with the image of Assad = Saddam, and t_d agrees with candidate Trump that the Iraq invasion was a mistake. They also (I think) like the image of Putin as an "anti-terrorist" strong man who doesn't bother with "political correctness", and Putin=Assad.
OTOH, Iran propaganda runs deeper in the US right-wing, and again this is something where they agree with candidate Trump. The Putin connection doesn't exist much, and Iran's role in forming the anti-ISIS militias is quite suppressed. The Iran deal was pushed by weak liberals like Obama and Kerry, which makes it obviously bad. OTOH, liberals like HRC supported Syrian intervention, which makes that bad too.
Click to expand...
I went over to 4chan to see how the purists are reacting to it. Feeeeeck me, they've basically turned on Trump and kicked the antisemitism up another notch.
 
berbatrick said:
I am trying to come up with an explanation for both positions but I'm not sure if it's any good.

I think it's to do with the image of Assad = Saddam, and t_d agrees with candidate Trump that the Iraq invasion was a mistake. They also (I think) like the image of Putin as an "anti-terrorist" strong man who doesn't bother with "political correctness", and Putin=Assad.
OTOH, Iran propaganda runs deeper in the US right-wing, and again this is something where they agree with candidate Trump. The Putin connection doesn't exist much, and Iran's role in forming the anti-ISIS militias is quite suppressed. The Iran deal was pushed by weak liberals like Obama and Kerry, which makes it obviously bad. OTOH, liberals like HRC supported Syrian intervention, which makes that bad too.
Click to expand...

Rather than all of this - just look at it in the simplest of terms. Trump campaigned on repeal and has repealed. It keeps his base happy that he kept a promise and he needs all the support he can get as the Russia investigation continues to wind up.
 
Silva said:
I went over to 4chan to see how the purists are reacting to it. Feeeeeck me, they've basically turned on Trump and kicked the antisemitism up another notch.
Click to expand...

Huh that's interesting. Maybe I got in too late before the mods deleted the comments straying from the party line.
 
Raoul said:
Rather than all of this - just look at it in the simplest of terms. Trump campaigned on repeal and has repealed. It keeps his base happy that he kept a promise and he needs all the support he can get as the Russia investigation continues to wind up.
Click to expand...

I agree that this makes his base happy.
But I'm talking specifically about the online part of his base. They were vocally anti-Bolton, unlike rank-and-file GOP voters. I was trying to see if it was possible to reconcile that position with opposition to the Iran deal.
 
berbatrick said:
Huh that's interesting. Maybe I got in too late before the mods deleted the comments straying from the party line.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting there's been a minor in the split the shit-posting base. Some going the dogwhistle route through reddit, the "don't scare the normies" crowd and the rest becoming more extreme on 4chan/nazi forums.
 
berbatrick said:
I agree that this makes his base happy.
But I'm talking specifically about the online part of his base. They were vocally anti-Bolton, unlike rank-and-file GOP voters. I was trying to see if it was possible to reconcile that position with opposition to the Iran deal.
Click to expand...

His base are sufficiently gaslit to where they will follow Trump's lead on most issues. Its a cult of personality following more than an ideological one.
 


There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.
Click to expand...
 
Eboue said:
This is not accurate. He got a lower percent of the vote than Romney and only 0.4% more than McCain. The real difference is the people who supported Obama didn't support Hillary.
Click to expand...

Aye, you've been spot on about this. The election was a walk-in for Democrats, all they had to do was not pick Hillary and it was an easy 4 years. The Republican field was pathetically weak, with the only possible danger, Chris Christie, out of serious contention because of Bridgegate. The idea some people have that the likes of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would have been a serious threat to a strong Democrat is laughable.
 
Captain Obvious said:
So whats the end game here?

I'm already seeing Israeli trickles in the news about bomb shelters and Irans possible "attack" on Israel,

Eventual regime change and replace with a much worse group that'll bend to the US's will?
Click to expand...
That about sums it up.
 
The Saudis won't let oil hit $100. All they have to do is turn on the spigot and the price will drop to whatever they want.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Eventual regime change and replace with a much worse group that'll bend to the US's will?
Click to expand...

I believe we will see a big push now for regime change, using the MEK as the primary weapon. I'll leave it to others to judge if they're worse or better than the current regime, but I'd bet most Iranians prefer the mullahs.
 
Eboue said:
I would argue why would Trump pull out of the deal if he didn't have legitimate reason to think Iran were not a peacekeeping nation? I also don't see an issue with trusting information given by Netanyahu.

It seems Trump got it right with North Korea too.

I don't wish to get into an argument with anyone but I think Trump deserves a bit more respect and credit than he is given.
Click to expand...

Netanyahu used information from 2003 to present his absurd press conference last week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.