hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2393 of 2570 FirstFirst ... 139318932293234323832390239123922393239423952396240324432493 ... LastLast
Results 47,841 to 47,860 of 51390

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #47841
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilalaunebör View Post
    Fuck war.


  2. #47842
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    RIP the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, 1945-2018

    The Atlantic alliance, built to contain the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II, began to die when the Cold War ended. What kept it alive over the last three decades has been less strategic necessity than a convergence of values — the values of the liberal postwar order. Now, the senior partner of the alliance, the United States, has lost interest in those values. The alliance was already a corpse, but Donald Trump drove the last nail into its coffin when he decided this week to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran

    What now? The United States will lurch from crisis to crisis, but Europe faces more existential questions: It has been expelled from the garden — albeit a very thorny one — maintained by U.S. military and diplomatic power and now must build a new home of its own. The European diplomats, ex-diplomats, and scholars I have spent the last few days talking to agree on that much. They’re less sure whether Europe is up to the task.

    Am I — and my interlocutors — inflating a very bad moment into a mortal one? Perhaps that would be true if the problem were only Trump. In fact, Europe ceased to be the world’s geostrategic center when the Soviet menace disappeared. The humanitarian crises of the next decade reinforced the shared values of Western nations, but 9/11 abruptly diverted the United States to an obsessive focus on the Middle East. Though Barack Obama restored the shared faith in multilateralism and institutions that George W. Bush had breached, his own interests lay more in the Pacific. He yearned to pivot away from the yawning pit of the Arab world to Asia. Obama wanted the United States to face toward the future, not the past.

    The American people, meanwhile, preferred to face home. They wanted a pivot to America, and they voted for the candidate who promised to deliver it. It has thus fallen to Trump to deliver the coup de grâce to the alliance that has defined the postwar world. The Iran decision followed his decision to impose tariffs on European aluminum and steel, which followed his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords. Trump is no more contemptuous toward European allies than Asian or Latin ones; the only opinion to which he defers is that of his base.

    François Delattre, France’s ambassador to the United Nations, says he regards the Iran decision as “the best illustration of the Jacksonian moment the United States is going through — the uni-isolationist moment.” A new president, he concedes, might restore multilateralism. But, Delattre adds, “I am personally afraid the withdrawal is durable. The disengagement started before President Trump, and I am afraid it will last after him.”

    The Iran decision has resonated among European leaders as none of Trump’s previous follies has. First, Europeans regard the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the pact is called, as the foremost proof of their capacity to act coherently and effectively. The Iran diplomacy came hard on the heels of the debacle over the Iraq War, when a divided Europe watched a U.S. president stumble into disaster. “Iran was the opposite of that,” says Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Instead of standing blinded in the headlights of American policy, Europe figured out what its own interests were.” European diplomats negotiated with the Iranians when the Bush administration refused to do so, designing a package of sanctions and incentives ultimately adopted and pushed through the U.N. Security Council by Obama.

    Europe hoped to reduce tensions in the Middle East by drawing Iran out of its revolutionary shell. And it succeeded. The deal, Leonard says, was a “massive source of pride.”

    As a simple matter of geographical proximity, Europe is threatened by conflict in the Middle East as the United States is not. The tidal wave of asylum-seekers from Syria in 2015 upended European politics and exposed a popular vein of xenophobia and illiberalism that has thrown a terrible scare into European elites. Europe simply cannot afford to follow the American lead if the United States is prepared to sow further chaos in the region.

    Of course, Europe’s old reputation for deference and submission to the United States was reinforced by the spectacle of French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel visiting the White House in the hope of propitiating the First Bully and then being dismissed with scarcely a “by your leave” — and oh, by the way, we’re still coming after your steel industry. But perhaps Europe’s leaders needed the shock. Hours after Trump’s announcement, Macron, Merkel, and British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a joint statement reminding the world that the deal had been “unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council” and thus remained “the binding international legal framework” on Iran’s nuclear program. European Council President Donald Tusk announced that Trump’s Iran and trade policies “will meet a united European approach.”

    The fur will fly if the United States goes ahead with secondary sanctions targeting European companies that continue to do business with Iran. Given the current bellicose mood in Washington, there is good reason to think that it will do so. Hours after assuming his post as U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell tweeted, “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” That would be Europe’s put-up-or-shut-up moment. “We’re going to have to treat the U.S. as a hostile power,” Leonard (director of the European Council on Foreign Relations) says. “We might have to introduce countermeasures against U.S. companies.” The mind reels. No, the heart breaks.

    Neither side has an incentive to widen the breach. Some major European firms may withdraw from the Iranian market, even as European bankers potentially devise an end run around the U.S. financial system that will blunt the effect of secondary sanctions. Still, a combination of U.S. tariffs and sanctions may provoke the European Union to erect barriers against American products and services in Europe, leading to a trade war between the erstwhile partners.
    I am betting that Bolton will convince Trump to start a war with Iran by 2019 and call on NATO to join him. NATO will refuse, and Trump will use that as pretext to withdraw from the alliance.

    Europe should start seriously considering a future where the US is no longer in NATO and arming itself I think.
    Yeah, I'm sure Congress will go right along with that plan. Especially seeing how well Iraq turned out.

    /s
    Ah yes all those declarations of war Congress issued since Korea.

  3. #47843

    Join Date
    July 14, 2013
    Posts
    1,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Varcaus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post

    Yeah, I'm sure Congress will go right along with that plan. Especially seeing how well Iraq turned out.

    /s
    Ah yes all those declarations of war Congress issued since Korea.
    Congress still has to play along if you want money for your war to last more than a few months.
    Totally not Victoria Stecker forgetting his password and not having access to his work email.

  4. #47844

    Join Date
    July 30, 2011
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Varcaus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    RIP the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, 1945-2018

    The Atlantic alliance, built to contain the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II, began to die when the Cold War ended. What kept it alive over the last three decades has been less strategic necessity than a convergence of values — the values of the liberal postwar order. Now, the senior partner of the alliance, the United States, has lost interest in those values. The alliance was already a corpse, but Donald Trump drove the last nail into its coffin when he decided this week to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran

    What now? The United States will lurch from crisis to crisis, but Europe faces more existential questions: It has been expelled from the garden — albeit a very thorny one — maintained by U.S. military and diplomatic power and now must build a new home of its own. The European diplomats, ex-diplomats, and scholars I have spent the last few days talking to agree on that much. They’re less sure whether Europe is up to the task.

    Am I — and my interlocutors — inflating a very bad moment into a mortal one? Perhaps that would be true if the problem were only Trump. In fact, Europe ceased to be the world’s geostrategic center when the Soviet menace disappeared. The humanitarian crises of the next decade reinforced the shared values of Western nations, but 9/11 abruptly diverted the United States to an obsessive focus on the Middle East. Though Barack Obama restored the shared faith in multilateralism and institutions that George W. Bush had breached, his own interests lay more in the Pacific. He yearned to pivot away from the yawning pit of the Arab world to Asia. Obama wanted the United States to face toward the future, not the past.

    The American people, meanwhile, preferred to face home. They wanted a pivot to America, and they voted for the candidate who promised to deliver it. It has thus fallen to Trump to deliver the coup de grâce to the alliance that has defined the postwar world. The Iran decision followed his decision to impose tariffs on European aluminum and steel, which followed his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords. Trump is no more contemptuous toward European allies than Asian or Latin ones; the only opinion to which he defers is that of his base.

    François Delattre, France’s ambassador to the United Nations, says he regards the Iran decision as “the best illustration of the Jacksonian moment the United States is going through — the uni-isolationist moment.” A new president, he concedes, might restore multilateralism. But, Delattre adds, “I am personally afraid the withdrawal is durable. The disengagement started before President Trump, and I am afraid it will last after him.”

    The Iran decision has resonated among European leaders as none of Trump’s previous follies has. First, Europeans regard the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the pact is called, as the foremost proof of their capacity to act coherently and effectively. The Iran diplomacy came hard on the heels of the debacle over the Iraq War, when a divided Europe watched a U.S. president stumble into disaster. “Iran was the opposite of that,” says Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Instead of standing blinded in the headlights of American policy, Europe figured out what its own interests were.” European diplomats negotiated with the Iranians when the Bush administration refused to do so, designing a package of sanctions and incentives ultimately adopted and pushed through the U.N. Security Council by Obama.

    Europe hoped to reduce tensions in the Middle East by drawing Iran out of its revolutionary shell. And it succeeded. The deal, Leonard says, was a “massive source of pride.”

    As a simple matter of geographical proximity, Europe is threatened by conflict in the Middle East as the United States is not. The tidal wave of asylum-seekers from Syria in 2015 upended European politics and exposed a popular vein of xenophobia and illiberalism that has thrown a terrible scare into European elites. Europe simply cannot afford to follow the American lead if the United States is prepared to sow further chaos in the region.

    Of course, Europe’s old reputation for deference and submission to the United States was reinforced by the spectacle of French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel visiting the White House in the hope of propitiating the First Bully and then being dismissed with scarcely a “by your leave” — and oh, by the way, we’re still coming after your steel industry. But perhaps Europe’s leaders needed the shock. Hours after Trump’s announcement, Macron, Merkel, and British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a joint statement reminding the world that the deal had been “unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council” and thus remained “the binding international legal framework” on Iran’s nuclear program. European Council President Donald Tusk announced that Trump’s Iran and trade policies “will meet a united European approach.”

    The fur will fly if the United States goes ahead with secondary sanctions targeting European companies that continue to do business with Iran. Given the current bellicose mood in Washington, there is good reason to think that it will do so. Hours after assuming his post as U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell tweeted, “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” That would be Europe’s put-up-or-shut-up moment. “We’re going to have to treat the U.S. as a hostile power,” Leonard (director of the European Council on Foreign Relations) says. “We might have to introduce countermeasures against U.S. companies.” The mind reels. No, the heart breaks.

    Neither side has an incentive to widen the breach. Some major European firms may withdraw from the Iranian market, even as European bankers potentially devise an end run around the U.S. financial system that will blunt the effect of secondary sanctions. Still, a combination of U.S. tariffs and sanctions may provoke the European Union to erect barriers against American products and services in Europe, leading to a trade war between the erstwhile partners.
    I am betting that Bolton will convince Trump to start a war with Iran by 2019 and call on NATO to join him. NATO will refuse, and Trump will use that as pretext to withdraw from the alliance.

    Europe should start seriously considering a future where the US is no longer in NATO and arming itself I think.
    Yeah, I'm sure Congress will go right along with that plan. Especially seeing how well Iraq turned out.

    /s
    Ah yes all those declarations of war Congress issued since Korea.
    I mean, there's shit posting, and then there's posting in a shitty manner. Yours was the latter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...lution_of_1991
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...nst_Terrorists
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

    Now bad@botes

  5. #47845
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,438

  6. #47846
    Super Baderator DonorGlobal Moderator cullnean's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The tower of power, too sweet to be sour, ohhhh yeahh!
    Posts
    16,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilalaunebör View Post
    Fuck war.
    Nah it’s a good giggle


    Sent from my iPhtapa
    Quote Originally Posted by Elriche Oshego View Post
    Cullneshi the god of shitposting.

  7. #47847
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    What is Axios and where did they come from?

    >Jim VandeHei, launched in 2017

    Hmm

  8. #47848

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    3,919
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    The only reason Trump could do what he did, is because Obama backdoored the deal in, because it was actually a supremely shit deal that no Senate in the last 50 years would have touched with a 10 ft. pole.
    You can't be more wrong. This deal is, with the sole exception of the treaty to ban biological weapons, the best and tightest controlled weapons restriction contract in the world. Could it be better? Sure! But negotiating international contracts, es pecially when one side has to give up massive control over its deeds, are not simple to negotiate. I mean, it took 12 fucking years for that deal to be done. And Iran's nuclear facilities are ones of the best controlled (both automated and by in person inspections), that everyone (well, with the exception of the warmongers around Trump, ofc) acknowledge that Iran has held to the contract. And that treaty was accomplished, because even China and Russia back in the day supported it. So really, how is Trump going to expect to make a better deal. Not gonna happen. Not now or in the future again.

    Killing that in a notion to just undo "anything Obama" is the worst reasoning there could be.

    And let's not forget that no one is ever going to expect the U.S. to observe any negotiated terms any longer.

    So yes: it DID start with Trump. And it will not end well for the U.S. credibility - if there was any left at all.

    [Added]
    Also I highly doubt that Israel is no anywhere safer than before, with Iran probably steaming up their nukes program again and having access to ballisitic missles that reach that far (yeah, leaving those out of the contract was an error...).

    Not to mention that both the Saudis and Iran stirring up the shit lately in that region and it's really getting hot there. If someone ever had doubts about Trump being a bad business man, than cancelling such a deal - one from which all involved parties benefited, should make this very clear.
    Last edited by Hel OWeen; May 14 2018 at 12:00:54 PM.

  9. #47849
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    955
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    The only reason Trump could do what he did, is because Obama backdoored the deal in, because it was actually a supremely shit deal that no Senate in the last 50 years would have touched with a 10 ft. pole.
    You can't be more wrong. This deal is, with the sole exception of the treaty to ban biological weapons, the best and tightest controlled weapons restriction contract in the world. Could it be better? Sure! But negotiating international contracts, es pecially when one side has to give up massive control over its deeds, are not simple to negotiate.
    Seconding this.

    The treaty, as it's written, is basically a free ticket to send IAEA to investigate whatever you want in Iran. What to probe the Ayatollah's butthole? Sure, just get 5 members (US, UK, France, Germany, EU makes five) and Iran has to bend over.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  10. #47850
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    21,706
    FAKE NEWS
    2/10/17 Greatposthellpurge never forget
    23/10/17 The Greatreposteninging ?

  11. #47851
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    The only reason Trump could do what he did, is because Obama backdoored the deal in, because it was actually a supremely shit deal that no Senate in the last 50 years would have touched with a 10 ft. pole.
    You can't be more wrong. This deal is, with the sole exception of the treaty to ban biological weapons, the best and tightest controlled weapons restriction contract in the world. Could it be better? Sure! But negotiating international contracts, es pecially when one side has to give up massive control over its deeds, are not simple to negotiate. I mean, it took 12 fucking years for that deal to be done. And Iran's nuclear facilities are ones of the best controlled (both automated and by in person inspections), that everyone (well, with the exception of the warmongers around Trump, ofc) acknowledge that Iran has held to the contract. And that treaty was accomplished, because even China and Russia back in the day supported it.
    Are we still pretending Europe, Russia and China didn't support it for their own economic gains reaped from an Iran no longer under sanctions?

    Surprised Keckers hasn't chimed in here, given the rather obvious Capitalism-in-action driving our Euro, Russian and Chinese friends to agree to this treaty.

    So really, how is Trump going to expect to make a better deal. Not gonna happen. Not now or in the future again.
    You're almost assuredly right, it probably won't happen.

    I presume by "better" he (Trump) would want a deal that also stops Iran from developing intercontinental ballistic missiles for their nucle....er.....international food aid shipments-via-missile.

    He would probably also want a deal that would include Iran no longer actively funding terrorism. Or attacking Israel. Or pretty much anything like those two things.

    He might also want a deal that doesn't have a sunset in a few years after which no limits would exist and Iran would be flush with post-sanction cash from oil sales.

    But you ARE right, he's likely not going to get any of that.

    Killing that in a notion to just undo "anything Obama" is the worst reasoning there could be.
    Oh, right, forget all that stuff I said up above, THIS was definitely it. Racism, absolutely. My bad.

    And let's not forget that no one is ever going to expect the U.S. to observe any negotiated terms any longer.
    Awesome! I am sure we can let European countries do all the observ'in from here forward.

    So yes: it DID start with Trump. And it will not end well for the U.S. credibility - if there was any left at all.
    American credibility is generally measured by the party in office. Republican, we have none. Democrats, we're like, totally 100% credible.

    So soon as we elect a Democrat, we're all good again! So 2020 then, we'll be fine again.

    [Added]
    Also I highly doubt that Israel is no anywhere safer than before, with Iran probably steaming up their nukes program again and having access to ballisitic missles that reach that far (yeah, leaving those out of the contract was an error...).
    A positive development if you ask most of our resident Euros.

    Not to mention that both the Saudis and Iran stirring up the shit lately in that region and it's really getting hot there.
    Again, you're quite right, this siganls the U.S. taking the Saudi side of the Arab v. Persian warm war. Not that's that new in any form.

    If someone ever had doubts about Trump being a bad business man, than cancelling such a deal - one from which all involved parties benefited, should make this very clear.
    Biggest winner, people who sell stuff to Iran. And Iran.

    U.S., no so much a winner, but IMO shouldn't be our business in the first place.


  12. #47852

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    [Added]
    Also I highly doubt that Israel is no anywhere safer than before, with Iran probably steaming up their nukes program again and having access to ballisitic missles that reach that far (yeah, leaving those out of the contract was an error...).
    A positive development if you ask most of our resident Euros.
    Whatchu implying there? That we are all raging anti-semites because some view the current israeli policy vis-a-vis the palestinians with a critical eye? Thats some mighty fine "if youre not with us, youre against us" you showing there.

  13. #47853
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    955
    Alistair, do you really think that a solution where Iran becomes the model citizen of the world is even remotely possible? You often argue, when discussing gun control, on what's actually possible to get legislated versus what would be the optimal solution. So, honestly, do you think that there's any chance that there will be an agreement where Iran gives up every single thing you listed while Saudi-Arabia and Israel keep doing what they do in the ME?

    Second, getting a state to do what you like is more feasible when they have something to lose. Keeping Iran in the nuclear treaty, building some bilateral business and then stating that 'we'll have to revisit these bilateral business deals unless you scale down your ballistic missile program' is more likely to succeed than just trying to bully them into doing something. When the state has been turned into a pariah in the global political arena, why wouldn't it strive to get nuclear missiles? I mean, if you want to increase pressure on such a state, the only thing you can do is start bombing it or invade. To avoid that, I'd be spending all the money in my piggy bank to get nukes ASAP.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  14. #47854
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilalaunebör View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    [Added]
    Also I highly doubt that Israel is no anywhere safer than before, with Iran probably steaming up their nukes program again and having access to ballisitic missles that reach that far (yeah, leaving those out of the contract was an error...).
    A positive development if you ask most of our resident Euros.
    Whatchu implying there? That we are all raging anti-semites because some view the current israeli policy vis-a-vis the palestinians with a critical eye? Thats some mighty fine "if youre not with us, youre against us" you showing there.
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


  15. #47855
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Alistair, do you really think that a solution where Iran becomes the model citizen of the world is even remotely possible?
    That's a broad question.

    Remember, Nazi Germany was far worse and vastly more effective at it than Iran in literally every way, and today they are the model citizen (or damn close to it) of the world.

    Do I think getting Iran to be a model citizen is worth the American blood and treasure (in the face of European, Russian and Chinese objection) to make them "the next Germany" is worth it?

    Lol, nope.

    But remember, I'm not for the U.S. exerting it's power in the Middle East at all.

    You often argue, when discussing gun control, on what's actually possible to get legislated versus what would be the optimal solution. So, honestly, do you think that there's any chance that there will be an agreement where Iran gives up every single thing you listed while Saudi-Arabia and Israel keep doing what they do in the ME?
    A VERY valid observation Timaios, excellent point.

    You're quite right, we should focus on the achievable while working towards the perfect.

    Personally, I think we (i.e. the supposed allied side of this deal) could and should have got more from Iran than we did. Like limits on missiles, return of people held illegally in Iran, and some other concessions.

    Time was no issue to us allied folks, it was to Iran. They needed those sanctions lifted to avoid a future overthrow of their repressive theocratic government.

    But end of the day, Europe, Russia and China valued their trade enough to take a weak and limited deal instead of pushing for more, and Obama supported the deal for his legacy, so he could be seen as having done something serious and big (gotta validate Nobel, amirite?)

    Second, getting a state to do what you like is more feasible when they have something to lose. Keeping Iran in the nuclear treaty, building some bilateral business and then stating that 'we'll have to revisit these bilateral business deals unless you scale down your ballistic missile program' is more likely to succeed than just trying to bully them into doing something. When the state has been turned into a pariah in the global political arena, why wouldn't it strive to get nuclear missiles?
    Because there comes a point where either the state is forced to clamp down so hard the entire world would want to intervene (in an ethical/moral world), or it's people revolt and throw the fuckers out, preferably a la Mussolini.

    Now Iran has both money, international trade AND a weak treaty they can get around by simply doing their work in secret where the inspectors are not permitted, while getting missiles, while funding terrorism, while attacking Israel, etc, etc, etc.

    Not saying outright leaving was the best choice, probably wasn't. But the "this was the greatest treaty like ever!" side is laughable tbqh.

    I mean, if you want to increase pressure on such a state, the only thing you can do is start bombing it or invade. To avoid that, I'd be spending all the money in my piggy bank to get nukes ASAP.
    Bombs not required. Economics and time works wonder generally, if applied by enough "good guys" to make it effective.
    Last edited by Alistair; May 14 2018 at 07:47:09 PM.


  16. #47856
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,950
    Matt Taibbi about the 2008 financial shit



    Interesting stuff, not schocking now offcourse.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  17. #47857
    walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fancomicidolkostümier- ungsspielgruppenzusammenkunft
    Posts
    6,213
    I have to congratulate Trump, I didn't think it would be possible to take a bigger dump on the palestine-israeli peace process.
      Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    But islamism IS a product of class warfare. Rich white countries come into developing brown dictatorships, wreck the leadership, infrastructure and economy and then act all surprised that religious fanaticism is on the rise.
    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    walrus isnt a bad poster.
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    also i like walrus.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmaNutin View Post
    Yer a hoot

  18. #47858
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    955
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    <snip>
    I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps keeping with the sanctions might have been feasible. But then again, I'd rather have them on all suspect parties (Saudi-Arabia, Israel, Iran), not just on Iran.

    I hate to refer to the actual treaty again, but there is no place "to work in secret where the inspectors are not permitted".

    The treaty, pages 42-43, sections 75-78.

    Any location you want the IAEA to look is valid, nothing is restricted, some locations are just listed under constant surveillance. If Iran complains, you need a majority vote in the council of signatories (US, UK, France, Germany, and EU make five) and Iran has three days to provide access.

    I'm not entirely sure on the EU and trade angle either. But I don't really have hard data to counter the claim so until I have, I'll just pile that argument into the 'might have some merit' pile. And just to point out, the we never lifted the monetary restrictions on Iran, meaning their banks have never been allowed on the global financial markets. I know from experience, there's no way to have Iran transfer money abroad - the few Iranian neuroscientists that want to travel to a conference we're organizing have literally no way to pay the conference fee except to travel to Finland in person, exchange physical money and then paying with physical money at the site. All they got from the treaty is us 'maybe' doing business with them. The US seemed really eager to do so, even - Boeing sold them planes for $20B, for example. Haven't heard of any EU investments or trade deals.

    Due to these issues (really strict treaty allowing for probing of Ayatollah's butt hole if we wanted to, no real promises to Iran) the treaty was as good as we could get under the circumstances. Not greatest ever, but a good step in the right direction and one that could suggest that soft power still has a place - especially since nobody's keen on yet another land war in Asia. Realistically, I think it was a pretty good deal that took years to negotiate.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  19. #47859
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,150
    Alistair isn't even pretending anymore, what?

    That's no fun

  20. #47860
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,129
    Basically the treaty was sound if you wanted to work with Iran to build a future without an all out war.

    It was not good if your goal was to regime change Iran which is what Israel wants and apparently what trump wants.

    Relations are build pretty much like any business, on repeated customers/treaties/contracts.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •