Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Pettifogger]

There is a massive difference between opposing the deal when it was signed (the “200 retired generals”) and advocating unilaterally pulling out of it.

Saying something is “unquestionable” doesn’t make it so.

Pulling out of a deal that the other party is complying with (which EVERYONE sensible agrees on) is insane - and particularly when you’re on the verge of trying to encourage the most unpredictable regime on the planet to sign on to something similar.

If Trump wanted to negotiate additional agreements with Iran to address some of the supposed shortfalls of this one (though they weren’t really shortfalls- this deal aimed to do one thing, and has done so until today) I would be all for it.

Going back on the country’s word is simply stupid.

If this is such a good decision maybe you can explain why Trump felt the need to wilfully misrepresent almost everything he discussed in his announcement speech?

You: Saying something is "unquestionable" doesn't make it so

Also you: "Trump felt the need to wilfully misrepresent almost everything he discussed"

It's like dealing with two different people.

We're now down to "going back on the country's word is simply stupid." This wasn't much of a concern for anyone when Iran called the deal untenable last week. Nor is it much of a concern when non-Trump presidents do it. I have no idea whether Trump will manage to get America to a better position as a result of this decision, and neither do you. I do reject the idea that America has to stick by the errors of prior American presidents in perpetuity, however.

 

[davek]

Shredded wheat head needs to be ousted.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

You: Saying something is "unquestionable" doesn't make it so

Also you: "Trump felt the need to wilfully misrepresent almost everything he discussed"

It's like dealing with two different people.

We're now down to "going back on the country's word is simply stupid." This wasn't much of a concern for anyone when Iran called the deal untenable last week. Nor is it much of a concern when non-Trump presidents do it. I have no idea whether Trump will manage to get America to a better position as a result of this decision, and neither do you. I do reject the idea that America has to stick by the errors of prior American presidents in perpetuity, however.

You’re right - maybe it wasn’t wilful. That would imply he’d read the background.

It’s not my opinion by the way, but that of pretty much every fact checker.

There is a reason that no one sensible (most of them with far more idea of the intricacies of foreign policy and national security than either of us) thought that unilaterally withdrawing was a good idea.

Most of those same people would have had no issue with a renegotiation or additions to the deal. But for that, Trump would have had to forgo the opportunity to blow up something Obama did. Was it a perfect deal? No. Did it accomplish it’s limited scope? Yes.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Shredded wheat head needs to be ousted.

Christ, I’ve just agreed with Dave.

These are truly the End Times

 

[Pettifogger]

You’re right - maybe it wasn’t wilful. That would imply he’d read the background.

It’s not my opinion by the way, but that of pretty much every fact checker.

There is a reason that no one sensible (most of them with far more idea of the intricacies of foreign policy and national security than either of us) thought that unilaterally withdrawing was a good idea.

Most of those same people would have had no issue with a renegotiation or additions to the deal. But for that, Trump would have had to forgo the opportunity to blow up something Obama did. Was it a perfect deal? No. Did it accomplish it’s limited scope? Yes.

You keep mentioning an apparent Trump obsession with destroying Obama's legacy. That could be true, and I think there are certainly Trump supporters who are primarily focused on that. But I also think the people most incensed by Trump's withdrawal are those who are angered by the same thing - that this tarnishes Obama. Rhodes has obviously acknowledged the ease with which the media manipulated the media on selling the deal because American media would default to supporting Obama's agenda.

The question, again, is whether anything productive could be accomplished through renegotiation without the legitimate threat of withdrawal as a backdrop.

 

[peteblue]

I'll remember that a second before being incinerated.

You won’t feel anything, but I’d duck if you see a bright light.......

 

[tsubaki]

Or maybe save us all. We had a weak chinned pillock waving a piece of paper after a meeting with a nice chap called Hitler and it caused the death of millions. Sometimes a show of strength is the right answer. Anything negotiated or agreed by Obama will be a fudge with a claim of ‘peace in our time’........

The JCPOA was a show of strength, you cretin.

 

[peteblue]

The JCPOA was a show of strength, you cretin.

Cretin.....come now, no need for this......

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

You keep mentioning an apparent Trump obsession with destroying Obama's legacy.

Well to be fair, there were so many other reasons to repeal those laws compelling financial advisors to act in their clients’ best interests, and to allow guns into the hands of as many mentally ill people as possible (to name but two)

 

[tsubaki]

Cretin.....come now, no need for this......

Sorry but there really is no other word to describe people, if that is honestly what they think.

The JCPOA was an agreement of the entire world, or at least all the world that actually matters, and it was both being adhered to and had years of tough measures left in it. It was about as far away from Munich as it is possible to be.

 

[ilikecheese]

Sorry but there really is no other word to describe people, if that is honestly what they think.

The JCPOA was an agreement of the entire world, or at least all the world that actually matters, and it was both being adhered to and had years of tough measures left in it. It was about as far away from Munich as it is possible to be.

Was reading back up on when the agreement was signed. There was only one nation that expressed that they thought it was a bad agreement. Israel.

 

[Pettifogger]

Well to be fair, there were so many other reasons to repeal those laws compelling financial advisors to act in their clients’ best interests, and to allow guns into the hands of as many mentally ill people as possible (to name but two)

Going back to my prior point, it does you no good to make silly statements like "to allow guns into the hands of as many mentally ill people as possible" when talking about an Obama change that never went into effect and was opposed by the ACLU because it raised constitutional concerns without any realistic likelihood of decreasing the threat of gun crime.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Going back to my prior point, it does you no good to make silly statements like "to allow guns into the hands of as many mentally ill people as possible" when talking about an Obama change that never went into effect and was opposed by the ACLU because it raised constitutional concerns without any realistic likelihood of decreasing the threat of gun crime.

Yeah, that’s why Trump did it... a deep and abiding concern for constitutionality.

 

[Pettifogger]

Was reading back up on when the agreement was signed. There was only one nation that expressed that they thought it was a bad agreement. Israel.

People probably read with a more critical eye when the concern is existential in nature.