Tump makes the worst act of his Presidency

In what way is it bad for the U.S and our allies?

 

Of course good or bad...there is NO deal now...nor will there be

 

Iran has violated the deal, though we have as well. Pulling out of the agreement seems silly, and will be if it’s just posturing for another conflict. I don’t really buy Iran as a influential power, they are rather crushed, sanctions will only further radicalize them.

 

Im glad he pulled out.

The deal was awesome for Iran and **** for the rest of the world.

 

Yet the rest of the world disagrees, and they are all more intelligent than Trump.

 

no, Europe wants to make money

 

According to those responsible for ensuring compliance ... Iran is complying. What is nonsense is those sitting in the peanut gallery claiming otherwise.

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani discouraged his nation’s parliament from voting on the nuclear deal in order to avoid placing legal burdens on the regime. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said in August. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/state-department-iran-deal-not-legally-binding-signed/
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ke-deal-doesn-t-need-parliament-approval.html

 

Well perhaps you can answer the question. What difference in practice does it make? Let's make it easier for you:
If it was signed by the US and Iran, would the US still be in the deal? If the US withdrew from the deal after signing it, what would be the consequences to the US?

If the deal was not signed by one of the parties, what is the consequence to either country?

If the deal was not signed by either of the parties, what is the consequence to either country?

And I mean in practical terms

 

Talk to Rouhani if you don't like his answer. The consequence is that the deal doesn't create any legal obligation upon Iran

 

I don't care whether he said it or not and can any of us speak Farsi anyway to confirm whether he said it. It is "your" side that have been stating that the deal was not signed as if it is a big point, so what are the consequences? You've also stating the phrase "legal obligation" as if you are trying to state that the US would act differently if Iran had signed the deal. So how would the US have reacted differently if Iran had signed the deal?

 

Why do you say that Iran has violated the deal? Nobody has accused them of that. In fact, all international observers agree that they have fully complied.

 

And Trump has made it even better for them. They have received all the benefits, Trump pulls out at the moment when they would still have to meet the obligations. Now they can do whatever they want and blame us.

The right hasn't even began to understand how big a blunder Trump has made.

 

They have exceeded the heavy water cap, which is a violation, though a very minor one. There is also the denial of access to military complexes, which is more concerning.

Not that I find this to be justifiable for axing the deal, it would be better the keep the agreement in place and work to improve on it. Iran is not in a great negotiation position, and we can’t allow the agendas of Saudi Arabia and Israel to influence us too greatly.

This article has a clear agenda, but I wouldn’t dismiss it all outright.
http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/355949-iran-is-violating-the-deal

 

The IAEA has inspected every site they have wanted to inspect. Including military bases. The condition is that they must give a 24 day notice before the inspection. Here is an article commenting on an inspection at the Parchin Military Base.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/j...mpletes-investigation-into-irans-nuclear-past

But there is no way they can get nuclear material anywhere near a military base without it being detected with satellite data.

I don't see any claim of any major violation. In any case, if there were suspicions, and Trump had demanded such inspections or he would restore some of the sanctions (without withdrawing from the deal), then at least we wouldn't be seen as the violators. He just wanted to pull out for political reasons. And that's the problem.

 

I am dubious. At first glance, Trump ill managed the north korean crisis but it ended pretty well. By the way south korean did an awesome job, but Trump didn't prevented that neither.
Trump act in a way who looks dumb, but he is smart, very smart, much more that we could believe concerning his crude behaviour.

Let see how things will end.

 

Don't you find it disturbing that we have a President whose most laudable accomplishments are that he hasn't screwed up something... yet.

.
He certainly plays dumb amazingly well.... As President... not so much. Honestly, I have not seen a shade of smart in him. And I have really looked for it.

That gives me the creeps.

 

Actually, this may be the worst act of his Presidency. Aw, hell, let's call it a toss-up. Both decisions were enormously stupid. We'll call him Donald "Chamberlain" Trump. He wants to make a deal with the devil. For the uninitiated, Neville Chamberlain tried to make a deal with Adolf Hitler. Here we are dealing with another heinous dictator.

Now Trump wants to placate the murderous dictator who killed his own brother and has imprisoned thousands of dissidents in concentration camps. "He will get protections that are very strong," Trump told reporters at an Oval Office meeting with visiting NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg. "The best thing he could do is make a deal."

That is nuts! Trump is offering protection to this cruel autocrat? Those are the words of a paranoid schizophrenic, not an American President.

But Trump was not through kowtowing to the dictator. Next, he threw his own National Security Officer under the bus. Trump dismissed talk of applying the "Libyan model" to the denuclearization of North Korea.

At this point Trump got confused. Bolton commented late last month when he said the "Libya model of 2003, 2004" could be applied to US negotiations with North Korea. Bolton was referring to the dismantling of Libya's weapons of mass destruction program, but Trump appeared to refer to the "Libyan model" as the subsequent military intervention in Libya eight years later that removed Moammar Gadhafi from power.

"The Libyan model isn't a model that we have at all when we're thinking of North Korea," Trump said. "This with Kim Jong Un would be something where he would be there. He would be running his country. His country would be very rich."

At this point an American patriot would want to throw up, literally or figuratively. This is my President speaking!

Yes, it is and Trump was not through making a complete fool of himself.

"The Libyan model was a much different model. We decimated that country. We never said to Gadhafi, 'Oh, we're going to give you protection,' " he continued. "We went in and decimated him, and we did the same thing with Iraq."

"That model would take place if we don't make a deal," said.

So, if Trump does not get his way, he wants a devastating war on the Korean Peninsula that would cost the lives of millions, most of them within hours of Trump's preemptive military strike.

 

Would you care to explain that statement?

 

Pretending that Trump made the korean peace alone is a lie, however, he is surely partly responsible for this peace. Trump have for the moment not that bad econmic results. Furthermore, he is the most peacefull of all of your presidents despite his mistake in Syria.

You should go to the eye doctor. He started from millionaire and ended as a billionaire, he entered the presidential race and many newspapers never predicted his victory, and almost all of them were against him, however he won. That's not luck, it's being smart, extremly smart.

Sorry, I forgot a word, "Trump seemed to have ill managed the korean crisis but it ended pretty well". I mean that it is not that it look bad at the first look that it is really bad.
We first thought that the north korean crisis just worsen the problem, and it's totally the opposite, few times after the north korean crisis, north korea and south korea ended a war who lasted half a century officially.

There is a lot of change in Iran those last times, a lot of iranian women openly defy the regime by walking without any hijab, there is regulary protests. Iranian are lucky to have so brave women. There is obviously in more and more muslim countries a gap who appear between a very religious part of the population and a secular, probably athee youth.

Persia was a great civilization, and they gave to muslims their best intellectal. They're still a great civilization, they're just aslept.
I think that this country will know a lot of (good) changes in the next decades.

It seems to be only a detail, but they already stopped to stone women to death as an execution.

Considering Kim Jong Un, you have opposite claim, you're both angry that he want to protect Kim Jong Un and that he could decide a war.
Kim Jong Un is here, for sure, he is the last of a dynasty of horrible people, but he is the leader of North Korea, does it please you or not, so the best you have to do is to work with him.

 

You mean the secret files Israel claimed it has but haven't shown anyone and haven't allowed any international verification of?

 

Unlike the US where ‘secret’ files are kept from Congress but leaked to the left wing press?

 

Yeah, Presidents like Obama shouldn't make agreements with other nations without first seeking approval from Congress.

 

Ah, actually, he did. Weapons of Mass Destruction are divided into three categories: Nuclear, biological, and chemical. Saddam had chemical weapons and used them against the Kurds. There was video of the results. Also, after we got there, we found at least one building with foundations in place for hundreds of centrifuges for separating out Uranium.

The constant drumbeat that he did not have WMD's is a Left-wing lie easily believed by low-information voters.

 

Sure. Until 1991. Then the UN inspectors came in and... the rest is history that you obviously have not studied. I'll give you a history lesson for free: No WMD's!

Study your lesson. The question may pop up in the Final!

Oh... I see. One of those "alternative-facts" buffs that actually believe everything they hear on wingnut radio. Piece of advice: don't keep repeating what those who have already made you look foolish in the past say.

Now you need a physics lesson: Throwing the remnants from the 80s of "foundations for centrifuges" at your enemies will not produce a massive number of victims!

And a massive number of victims is required to qualify as "mass destruction".