Since every authority, save a very biased Netanyahu, says Iran was complying with the terms of the Nuclear Pact, Trump's reinstating sanctions is a clear violation. Do you think:
1. Iran will go it alone and start up their nuclear weaponization program again?
2. Iran will continue working with Europe, Russia, and China to keep the deal intact while those country's counter the effect of any sanctions Trump may impose?
3. Will Un see that Trump cannot be trusted to keep his word on any deal and tell Pompeo and Trump to take a hike and cancel talks.?
4. All of the above
5. Something else?
Has he violated the agreement, or withdrawn from it? One action would indeed be a negative, while the other is a prerogative. Your terminology suggest the negative. Are you right?
As soon as he said he imposed sanctions, he violated it. And I would argue by unilaterally withdrawing from it also constitutes a violation. It was something America signed on the dotted line. Try "withdrawing" from your mortgage because you don't like the terms anymore. Do you see any difference between the two?
Yes, I do see a difference MY Esoteric. I am not commenting in support of withdrawing from the agreement, (although I may support that action), I am commenting on calling it a violation of an agreement when I see it as a withdrawal from an agreement - which is entirely within his authority to do.
Whether one agrees, or not, with his actions, I think calling it a violation is incorrect, and an indication of a bias, rather than a statement of fact. Maybe the courts will prove me wrong, but don't think they will. Which means you are wrong to call it a violation.
Then I have to ask, GA, what is the difference between the two contracts? While Trump may have the authority to pull out of the agreement, America nevertheless made a binding contract How is pretending it doesn't exist any more (remember 5 other nations plus Iran are still signatories) and reimposing sanctions not a violation of the terms. Are you suggesting the terms never existed in the first place?
Why don't you simply void your contract with your mortgage company. You can do that you know, but there will be consequences as there will be here; and appropriately so. I would think the biggest of which is America can never be trusted again to abide by its promises.
Hi guy, the difference is that even though I can pull out of my mortgage, I do not have the arbitrary authority to do so. I do not know it as a "fact" but I do believe a president does have such authority in agreements like the Iran deal.
As is obvious, I am tentative in picking a side here. In one aspect I agree with you, if Iran was honoring the agreement, then it certainly does look bad on us. And damages our credibility. Even if it was a "bad" deal.
On the other hand, if Iran has simply turned their nuclear ambitions into covert operations, as Israel implies, and not abandoned them, then I would have to support the withdrawal.
Like you, I have also read the summary of the agreement. But I don't have trust in Iran's word. The one thing I do believe is that we "bought" the agreement in a smelly manner.
So there I hang, just blowing in the wind.
Sounds like another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to me. Intelligence says they've gone covert but supplies no proof to the general population. Maybe they're right, maybe not, but a call must be made.
And, like you, I haven't a clue which call it should be. I hate to see the US back out of it's agreements, but hate worse to see another country follow the footsteps of Kim and NK.
I think that pretty much nails my thoughts too Wilderness. I am not happy about what pulling out does for our reputation, so I must hope that there is some kind of proof that it was the right move.
Israel's "document display" was impressive, but I don't recall any of it relating to current activities - other than hiding that facility under a mountain of course.
That's just great GA, we decide to breach the terms of a contract unilaterally without cause. Why should anyone contract with the U.S. in regards to anything?
"we decide to breach the terms of a contract unilaterally without cause"
You might ask the Israelis if there was "cause" - you'll apparently get an earful. Personally I have no more idea than you do if it's true or not, but you might want to wait until all the evidence is in before making such a statement.
What has Iran done to breach the terms of the agreement? As GA alluded to, making an agreement null and void is different from violating it. i don't care about Netenyahu and any thing he says.
Any breach makes it null and void. For one party (Iran) to breach, then another (the US) to declare it void does NOT mean the US breached it.
Of course you don't care what Israel says! After all, it means Trump didn't do wrong if it is true. But as I said, neither you nor I know at this point just who breached and who did not. Until we do I, at least, shall with hold judgement. And maybe for longer than that - another thread posted a link to a letter from Congress explaining to Iran that it was not binding on either side.
That fairly sums up my thoughts too Cred - if you follow the rest of my comments concerning our withdrawal.
I especially don't like the pressure on our allies. I heard one blurb where, in their, (our allies), consideration whether to ignore America's secondary sanctions and continue to honor the agreement and deal commercially with Iran, a certain someone said Iran was peanuts, and the U.S. was the 800 lb. gorilla - relative to commercial payoffs, and our allies had to choose - peanuts or jackpot. Expressing that sentiment isn't very... ah ... uh ... somebody will fill in the right word.
GA, a very good article pointing out how Trump's pigheadedness continues to isolate us diplomatically and generally is making the world a more dangerous place. What makes him think that his 'all or nothing' diplomacy style has got us any mileage? So now, the great deal maker has left us with our britches down?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-v … 00241.html
Why do the Red folks insist that Trump is always right when the entire world ( Israel excepted) says that he used poor judgement in dissolving this agreement?
I have too much blue to even attempt to explain the rationale of a rightwinger, perhaps you can translate?
Sorry bud, you may have too much Blue, but I don't have enough Red to help you translate.
If, things are as they appear, (sometimes that is a big if), you're linked article is pretty damning. But since all I have to go on is appearances, and gut-instinct, I don't have enough to declare one way or another.
Now, if I had to make a call - with only what I know now, I would call our exit a bad faith and damaging move. Even if the deal is as bad as claimed, I would have done it differently.
Isolationism was a terrible idea in the world of the 1930s, in today's interconnected world I think it is a suicidal idea.
# 5 , "something else " meaning you have no clue #1 What the agreement is , was , comprised of or what consequences because of Trump cancelling Obama's major screw up are ! Like you're an diplomatic attorney , what ? An Iranian attorney , a U.N attorney ? What gives you ,as a mere Trump Resistance warrior , any idea that you decide the consequences of political /diplomatic deal-making or that you have some clue of what you're even talking about ?
Wait, hang on a minute:
Kim Jung Un had NO long range missile capability while President Obama was in office but now he does under Mr Trump and Iran had NO Nuke capability under President Obama but will soon have that capability under Mr. Trump:
And President Obama screwed up?? Really?
Wow , you are just plain ideologically delusional and can't even help it .
And that is how ahorseback deals with facts; call the person who uses them names since he has nothing better to back up his unreasoned opinions.
Of course they block out the facts, how else can Trump fans avoid damage to their fragile psyches?
It's obvious Trump fans have difficulty recollecting all those hollow red lines Spanky Trump drew in the sand that Kim Jung Un laughed at, simply erased and stepped over with impunity, or all that recklessly insane 'fire and brimstone' blabber emanating from the oval office about blowing up a country, all the innocent people within it and creating a radioactive aftermath which would have poisoned the world:
All this retardation from Spanky Trump, and Kim Jung Un simply ignored him while continuing to test his weapons and ultimately achieved success months later and now Spanky want's some kind of prize?: For what? Allowing Kim Jung Un to develop long range missiles by accelerating his efforts under Mr. Trump's watch? UNREAL:
Another fact for ahorseback to ignore. Under #TerribleTrump, NK has tested bigger nukes and shot of more ballistic missiles of all types than under ALL OTHER presidents COMBINED. Yep, it is a safer world alright.
And it doesn't occur to you that they did so because they were never reined in. That if prior presidents had taken the steps they should have those bigger nukes and missiles would never have been developed, let alone tested. Those things did not come into existence overnight - they are the result of years or decades of development.
On this one, Horseback is right - this can be nothing but ideological blindness coupled with the burning need to blame Trump for everything bad that happens. For the first time NK has been subjected to sanctions that hurt enough to sway them (the jury is still out on whether it will continue or be effective long term) and yes, the world may well be a safer place...the direct result of Trumps actions, actions that should have been taken years ago.
How do you know I don't know what is in the agreement? It was there for anybody, including you, to read.
Here is a good summary for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nucl … _framework
Here is the unclassified version of the agreement for you: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docum … deal/1651/
It took me about a minute to locate these. But in summary, here is what Iran can do, should it choose to do so, now that America, via #TerribleTrump, violated the agreement:
1. Reopen or start-up new uranium enrichment facilities that had been terminated under the agreement
2. Re-purpose Fordow back to its original use in developing nuclear weapons
3. Re-purpose the Arak "heavy-water" facility to start producing weapons grade plutonium again
4. Keep and reprocess spent fuel again
5. Shut down the effective monitoring program of their nuclear capability
Obama stopped Iran from becoming a nuclear state, but because #TerribleTrump hates Obama so much, he is going to allow them to start it up again. What a stupid, stupid demagogue.
And BTW, ahorseback, since I engage in facts and critical thinking, I am much better positioned than you to render logical opinions.
I am not a high-scoring, delusional, RWA following ideologue like you.
Iran has good reason to believe that Israel and Trump want a war. So it will try to avoid provoking one and keep complying with the deal.
Currently serving military and intelligence personnel have indicated that Iran are compliant with the JCPOA. See this post for sources.
But the best way to address any doubts about Iran's compliance is through the terms of the JCPOA itself. It has provision for sanctions to snap back if non-compliance is confirmed.
Instead, the US is now threatening EU companies with penalties for trading with Iran(1). And the EU is threatening to "block" US sanctions by activating Regulation 2271/96, passed in '96 to counteract the impact on U.S. sanctions against Cuba on EU companies(2).
Meanwhile Germany, France and the UK have publicly stated they intend to stay in the JCPOA agreement, regardless of what the US does(3).
So unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA has only created a dangerous mess (which I'm certain China, Russia and N. Korea are relishing). The JCPOA itself provides the necessary legal framework to constrain Iran's nuclear capability. Leaving that agreement, on the basis of no real evidence that I can see, makes no sense.
(1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/trumps- … urope.html
(2) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran … SKBN1IA2PV
(3) https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/frenc … y-08-05-18
Did Obama go before Senate to get the Iran deal signed ? No . You cannot cry "Wolf , wolf , wolf "everytime Trump makes what becomes a diplomatic / geo political /economic move --of course few listen to liberal rants anymore , so no big deal . Why should we ? You ALL have screamed FIRE in the theater at each of his political successes .
- North Korea
- Paris Accord
- Tax Cuts
- Iran Pull out
- The wall
- Nafta threats
So not only has the ignorance of a very loud media screamed at each turn but they scream today and they will continue to scream tomorrow . What will happen when something serious needs addressing ?
Answer , No one will listen !
Congress passed a bill, and Obama signed it, that gave Congress to disapprove the agreement. They didn't disapprove it and today Iran has no nukes. They would have otherwise.
- North Korea (remains to be seen although kudos to Trump for getting the three Americans back)
- Paris Accord - a disaster in the making. Hopefully there is still time left after 2020, but I only give it a 50/50 chance of preventing catastrophe after 2040.
- Tax Cuts - tiny help to the middle class, huge help to the wealthy, corporations, stock owners, and a small number of workers
- Iran Pull out - remains to be seen but ripe for disaster
- The Wall - a huge waste of money for no gain
- Trade - if he goes through with it, lost jobs and higher prices MUST follow (they have EVERY other time America started a trade war)
- NAFTA threats? - remains to be seen, but again, if NAFTA fails, higher prices and lost jobs MUST be the result
There is nothing louder than the conservative Right.
Just curious, but how would YOU have spread the tax cuts? Use it to further increase the number of people that contribute nothing to the maintenance of the country, increasing the disparity between what one person pays and what the next pays?
Yep, the economy works much better when the rich don't profit off the poor which is exactly what happens when income inequality becomes rampant like it is today.
Tell me why, since 1967 that the top 20% if income earners share increase from 43.6% to 51.5% today? What is different about that person today than in 1967 to make them worth that much more?
Tell me why, in the same period, the share of income of the lowest quintile FALL from 4% to 3.1%? What is it about them to make them worth less?
Tell me why the shares of income didn't remain steady (meaning everybody was able to profit from a growing economy) over those 49 years? If things were fair, those shares would have remained nearly constant. Because they didn't remain steady and the top actually gained a bigger piece of the pie means they "took" their wealth from the less wealthy.
The rich get richer because they are powerful and can make it happen at the expense of real working Americans and not because they "earned" most of it.
Why, in the 1960s and 70s it was perfectly reasonable that a CEO earned 25 times what a line worker makes, yet today it is running 271%. 'What changed that made them worth that much more other than they are in a position to take it for themselves?
If it were up to me, I would tax a CEOs salary at 30% up the point where it exceeds 25 times the average workers wages, because that represents real "earned" income. I would tax the remainder over that at 60% since that is not earned income.
I could except this as an alternative to an income tax.
- All nutritional food (not including candy, sodas, chips, beer, alcohol, and the like
- All medicines, over-the-counter or otherwise
- The first $200,000 (or what ever the average price of a home is) of the purchase price of a home
- The first $2,000 of rent
- The first $30,000 of a vehicle
- The first $1,000 spent on clothes per year
- Tax the sale of stocks and bonds at 2%
- Tax the sale of businesses at 5%
- Tax everything else at 20%
BTW, alt those people who work you say don't contribute to the maintenance of the country actually do. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, use taxes, tolls, and all sorts of other taxes in addition to providing the cheap labor so many of the wealthy rely upon to stay wealthy.
"If it were up to me, I would tax a CEOs salary at 30% up the point where it exceeds 25 times the average workers wages, because that represents real "earned" income. I would tax the remainder over that at 60% since that is not earned income."
I'm sure you would - after all, that money belongs to the American people rather than to the one that earned it. And defining an artificial limit to earnings in your own mind doesn't mean it wasn't earned. Perhaps that's one of our biggest disagreements - you think you get to define everything as you would like it to be, I live in the real world where corporations don't give money to CEO's because they exist - they pay a salary for work performed and whether you think it is "earned" or not means nothing whatsoever.
For exemptions, you forgot all medical costs. all taxes, all utility bills, all mortgage interest, all cosmetics, all home maintenance, all education costs, any HOA dues, all pet costs, costs for kids to play sports, etc. Anything the normal human in the USA pays for, and for God's sake don't forget to tax your 2 year old granddaughter for the birthday gift you gave her . But I did like that you get to decide what is "nutritional" or not and tax only those things you don't use much of.
Don't forget to tax yard sales, car sales, sales on eBay, Craigslist and FB Marketplace (as well as anything else that is sold as well). Or was that included in the "Tax everything"?
Heck, Esoteric, why don't we just go whole hog and confiscate all money or other wealth in the country (from each according to their ability to give) and dole it out to those people that agree with your political stance (to each according to their need)? We could join the third world in a heartbeat the way you want what belongs to others!
Better yet, why not confiscate the small percentage of money the middle and lower class have and give it to the upper classes? It seemed to work well for our ancestors in the Old Country. How would you like to be a real peon, Dan?
How would you? If you think wealth confiscation is the way to help the poor you're no better than those in the Old Country, and worse in many ways for you would completely destroy the economy and the nation. Rich and poor and in between - it will make no difference.
I've never been for wealth confiscation, Dan. Neither do I want unregulated capitalism which ultimately ends up with a few having all of the money, as we are seeing now. Those few use their unneeded surplus to make sure they stay "the few".
Unneeded by YOUR standards. Of course, the majority of your own wealth is "unneeded" by the standards of those with far less.
I confess I have a problem understanding "I've never been for wealth confiscation" followed by "The few have unneeded surplus that I can take and give to those I think need it more".
If you think we have "unregulated capitalism" you've obviously never participated in the running of a business of any kind.
But I have participated in business and I can say your statement is a non-sequitur meaning it has nothing to do with the truth that if an economy is built on unregulated capitalism, it WILL always end up in a monopolistic or oligopolistic economy. Why do I say "always"? Because without regulation of any sort, it is a mathematical certainty. You will also end up with unlivable polluted world.
I agree. Surprised? You shouldn't be for neither I nor any else wants all regulation removed.
But is there no middle ground? Must government run every business the way the politician thinks will benefit him? Must government decide what a job is worth, what a product is worth, what benefits shall be paid to workers? I think not. It has become a never ending round of costs for business to be in this country and that will inevitably end up the same way as your scenario.
"Must government run every business the way the politician thinks will benefit him?" - Actually, reality is quite different.
Ask yourself, why do regulations exist? Virtually, EVERY regulation exists because somebody or some company abused a liberty.
- Regulations on the environment exist because large corporations were destroying America. I don't know if you are hold enough to watch cities disappear in a smog cocoon, or lakes and rivers die, or rivers burn, or forests become non-existent, but I do. All large corporations care about is the bottom line and very few of them care what they have to do to make it grow bigger.
- Regulations regarding workers rights exist because large corporations effectively enslaved their workers and still would, if given the chance. Even today, most large corporations will abuse their workers to the largest extent allowed by law. That is simply the nature of the beast.
- Regulations on unfair business practices exist because large corporations use their size and power to stifle any competition. Unless the barriers to entry are low and the commodity or service ubiquitous, unchecked a monopoly or oligopoly will soon develop
- Regulations regarding workplace safety exist because large corporations constantly exposed their workforce to injury and death, all just to make an extra dollar.
-Regulations exist on protecting animal life because humans were artificially killing of whole species left and right in order to make an extra dollar.
Name me one regulation that exists because somebody didn't abuse the freedom they have to hurt someone or something else
And yes, I pick on large corporations because small and many medium-sized businesses actually care about their employees and the environment. Very few corporations feel the same way.
Once again you are completely wrong about me, Dan. I have operated several private businesses in my lifetime. During my farming years I witnessed the tobacco companies colluding on the prices they paid for tobacco. They refused to pay more than a penny or so above the Govt. support price. They got together and agreed to do so because they knew the farmers needed the money to stay in business as they had banks to repay for their expenses.
This was well known by everyone, but the big tobacco companies had money to keep it that way by keeping the politicians happy with donations. This is just one example of big business corrupting what should be an even playing ground. Today, the big poultry suppliers and other big meat suppliers are still doing the same thing with the prices. I suppose you believe big companies really care about their suppliers and pay them properly. If so, I have a few acres of swampland I'll be happy to sell you.
Then you know we are far, far from "unregulated capitalism".
"They got together and agreed to do so because they knew the farmers needed the money to stay in business as they had banks to repay for their expenses."
I trust you reported this to the authorities, along with the proof of their malfeasance. And when that failed you went up the line until you had covered the FTC, the attorney general, local police, and the President. That IS very much against the law; the law regulating competition that you pretend isn't there.
I do question that it was "well known by everyone", though; If "everyone" knew of it someone would have filed suit, and if they "knew" it they had proof enough to prevail in a court of law. Perhaps the story should read that some people thought the companies colluded but couldn't prove it, then spread the tale of collusion because they wanted more money. Same thing with meat suppliers today: I flatly refuse to believe that every attorney and every law enforcement in the country is ignoring violations that large.
Apparently you have no idea how powerful tobacco companies were back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. In fact, many did report the collusion but the big Tobacco lawyers had their way with politicians. You really don't know anything about the Deep South, do you?
Do you recall the big lawsuits when representatives claimed tobacco was harmless? Get real, Dan! Were they trustworthy to your way of thinking?
I can only repeat that if everyone (320 million people) knew of the crime and did nothing then there probably wasn't a crime. I DO know that some individuals buy off politicians, but you're claiming not one but ALL the tobacco companies. I don't believe it.
They are about as trustworthy as politicians, or as a citizen mob, or as a group of people wanting money. Not at all, in other words.
I really don't care if you believe me or not, Dan. I lived through it and am not in the practice of "Trumping it." I suppose you wouldn't believe the stories of blacks getting hung or burned out of their homes either. What floor of the Ivory Tower do you reside?
Don't know about "trumping it", but you certainly have a propensity for labeling belief or opinion as knowledge.
Was there a reason you didn't indicate you reported the illegal collusion?
I go along with Randy on this one. Businesses have been conspiring to fix prices ever since it became illegal. Occasionally we get lucky and catch them. It has happened WAY too many times over the last 200 years that only a fool would believe it isn't common practice, especially if they have the money and power to hide/suppress it. Look at all those companies who polluted land and underground water (think PG&E in California or the Koch Bros in Texas). Every thinking person knew these companies were responsible for the death of many people, but getting past the bribery, threats (in the case of Koch Bros), and other nefarious ways they beat responsibility for their crimes.
Do you go to bed at night KNOWING that the sun will come up the next morning? I hope not, because you really don't know for sure that it will do you? All of the evidence points to the sun rising, but it is nevertheless not certain, is it. Well the same is true in Randy's examples. All of the evidence points toward conspiracy, but proving it is often difficult.
Easy to make accusations, isn't it? Not so easy to prove them, and it is obvious to anyone that money and power talks. We saw that with Clinton, after all. Nevertheless, we DO catch criminals, even powerful ones, occasionally. Now describe how more regulations on what a business can and can't do will will catch what we can't now. Describe how the ADA, OSHA, MSHA, minimum wage laws etc. will do to stop illegal price collusion.
If you can't prove your accusations then don't make them. This is a simple concept and I'm sure you wouldn't like your neighbors to spread rumors of your being a pedophile - well, the same concept applies to the accusations you make.
But I would mention that proving past practices IS a little easier than proving what will happen in the future...until the future is the now.
Liberals have such a shallow view of wealth ; The richer one percent have stolen all their wealth from the poorer 99 % and the saddest part is , that it took sometimes many degrees of education to come to that brilliant conclusion .
When in truth the bottom percentage of wealth have fared way better in recent decades of the actual rise in personal protections and possessions , in America no longer are the poor without access to some kinds of financial help , to home ownership , minimum wage , labor protections , higher education , blanket protections of social security , welfare , food and needed goods , daycare , nutrition ..........etc.
Wealth Redistribution , Guaranteed minimum income [notice they no longer call it minimum wage ] free higher education , no work clause welfare , Make no mistake THIS Is the goal of liberals in America , The elitist european form of socialism where all is provided by government , all one has to do is open the mail box once a month , IS the new-liberal agenda .
Work for Welfare ? Are you kidding , That is a draconic Idea !
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
What a bold move...Reaganesque in my opinion.Long overdue. We need to apply sanctions to Iran to force them to comply.The Obama legacy is being torn down piece by piece.
by mhope324 10 years ago
Many news outlets, like CNN, have posted that Leon Panetta is now suggesting Isreal will attack Iran in the spring. Is this a good idea? Should America get involved?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 3 years ago
Should the president have a meeting with Rouhani? Should a "deal" be made? The wrong response might provoke some radical reaction in the US. Is the president walking back on his position? Who should be advising the preisdent on Iran?
by Sharlee 4 years ago
Well, the list grows longer every day... IT very much appears the Dem's should have requested an investigation into 2016 presidential election. The tables have certainly turned, and once again they are in a very unflattering spotlight. This scandal will be bigger than Watergate. With the FBI,...
by JasonCooley1123 6 years ago
Why Would Are President make a deal like this for Iran?What I don't understand and I'm sue most if not all American citizens are not getting is why Iran!, what sense does it make to give them like. Billion dollars to build nukes when they don't like America along with Irans Allies, Russia, North...
by Stacie L 7 years ago
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to make an aggressive case against the United States' handling of nuclear...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|