• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump to Withdraw from Iran Nuclear Deal

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Aside from strengthening relations with the two most powerful countries in the Middle East, of course. (Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
Aside from those two countries, who do you think Trump "strengthened relationships " with?
He weakened them with an awful lot of people, from Germany to Australia to Egypt.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If you are meaning, who did have a mandate to enter into the agreement, the answer is overwhelmingly, congress.
I don't think you understand the USA very well. That's not surprising since you don't live here.

The President is intended to be the voice of the nation to the rest of the world.
Tom
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Aside from those two countries, who do you think Trump "strengthened relationships " with?
He weakened them with an awful lot of people, from Germany to Australia to Egypt.
Tom
Jeeez, Tom. I haven't done a roll call at the UN for a few days, so it's hard to say. Is going against weak leaders with weak negotiating skills necessarily a bad thing though?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I don't think you understand the USA very well. That's not surprising since you don't live here.

The President is intended to be the voice of the nation to the rest of the world.
Tom
Tom, I understand this quite well. POTUS does have the right to negotiate with foreign powers on their own. That is understood. However, on very important issues, in recent decades, POTUS normally seeks and receives a seal of approval from congress. That way, no one can accuse them of acting unilaterally and they can crow that they truly represent the "will of the people". Obama did an end game around congress because he knew he would have been laughed out of the room. Heck, even the illustrious Chuck Schumer was against the fricken deal.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Agreed. But it doesn't have to be one or the other, as I see it.
Improving the relationship with Iran, in general, is much more productive than expecting Iran not to get armed to teeth with nuclear bombs. And yes, I understand that breaking this deal didn't work towards improving this relationship, but I sincerely believe that it is still doable... as long as politicians don't act stupid...
I agree that we should be working towards more cooperation.
The first step (one never taken) would be to apologize for some things...
- The 1953 coup
- The Iran-Iraq war
- Shooting down Iran Air flight 655.
This would go a long way towards building useful trust.
By the way, how is your fallout shelter doing ?
It's coming along.
The structural work is done, & now the wiring is being installed.
That's quite the problem, isn't it ?
Aye.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
However, on very important issues, in recent decades, POTUS normally seeks and receives a seal of approval from congress.
Congress made it their stated goal to oppose anything that the President did. No matter what.

Was Obama's deal better than his predecessor's?
George W Bush didn't have anything. Trump doesn't either.
At least Bush had a compliant and partisan Capitol Hill. He didn't do any better. Quite the opposite, Obama was trying to clean up the Bush mess while Congress opposed anything and everything Obama did.
Tom
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Congress made it their stated goal to oppose anything that the President did. No matter what.

Was Obama's deal better than his predecessor's?
George W Bush didn't have anything. Trump doesn't either.
At least Bush had a compliant and partisan Capitol Hill. He didn't do any better. Quite the opposite, Obama was trying to clean up the Bush mess while Congress opposed anything and everything Obama did.
Tom
Have it your way, Tom.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Have it your way, Tom.
I would like to.
Have peace, that is.

Trump and his Deplorables want something else. And you'll probably get it. I know what this country is like. Especially when the Republicans hold every government agency.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I would like to.
Have peace, that is.

Trump and his Deplorables want something else. And you'll probably get it. I know what this country is like. Especially when the Republicans hold every government agency.
Tom
Don't forget that Hillary was threatening Iran during the campaign.
Not just war, but to "obliterate" it.
So by voting for her, you out deplorabled even me.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Don't forget that Hillary was threatening Iran during the campaign.
Not just war, but to "obliterate" it.
So by voting for her, you out deplorabled even me.
If Iran attacked Israel.
But she doesn't matter any more. You Deplorables got your Commander in Chief.
Now explain to me why Trump is angling towards another war in the Middle East. He's pulling out of the best deal the USA could make with their victims. Better than Bush, obviously.
Now what?

I think that this is why, among other things, that Trump lost the election. Ya know, the democratic one.
Tom
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
Dangerous to other countries like Iran.
Me being able to post is utterly irrelevant.
Tom
Well, most Americans see it differently. We didn't seem so dangerous when freeing Europe from Hitler, the Baltics from Communists and the ME from ISIS. Or maybe they "wouldn't" have us get involved.

I'm sure our money and man power could be used more at home. Works for me.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
There are reasons for my common harping on the history between Iran and the USA.
From toppling their democracy to launching a devastating invasion to putting them on the Axis of Evil hitlist and start to invade it, the USA has given Iran VERY good reasons to get a nuclear deterrent.
What the deal, such as it was, did was give the USA about 10 years to demonstrate that it was no longer the violent and rapacious sworn enemy that WE have thoroughly demonstrated ourselves to be. Then Iran would not have such a need to defend itself from us!
That is the only true path to peace, and Trump just jumped the rails.
Tom

There is a point in which previous history becomes a facade for propaganda. Iran funding the civil war in Yemen, sending militias to Syria, arming Hezbollah, arming Shi'ite militias in Iraq. America didn't push Iran to do anything of that. Iran did it for it's own regional interests.

The deal had nothing to do with the US demonstrating anything.

Peace? While Iran funds rebels in Yemen? Helps arm Assad? Hezbollah? Iran and the US are not in a shooting war just proxy wars. This deal does nothing to address that thus the idea of peace is just another farce tacked on to a defunct deal.

A deterrent does not make Iran a saint on a hilltop no more than it did the USSR. It is merely a method for Iran to avoid changes within it's own government and nation, which are both a major issues in all of this, by threats of retaliation.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
If Iran attacked Israel.
But she doesn't matter any more. You Deplorables got your Commander in Chief.
Now explain to me why Trump is angling towards another war in the Middle East. He's pulling out of the best deal the USA could make with their victims. Better than Bush, obviously.
Now what?

I think that this is why, among other things, that Trump lost the election. Ya know, the democratic one.
Tom
Emphasis on "best deal". ROTFL

Obviously Congress (peoples representatives) didn't believe so.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Ya know, your cheap shots are just so pathetic, but I'll answer your question anyway.

At the end of each semester, I had the students fill out confidential surveys, and one of the questions I asked was what political affiliation, if any, did they think I had? The results for years came back a relatively even split between Democratic, Republican, and Don't Know. Then most of the time they'd ask me which is the correct answer, and I told them that I couldn't divulge that because of my need to keep objectivity.

BTW, I previously posted here that I felt that Obama also should have gotten Congressional approval, so your accusation of partisanship on my part that you're accusing me of seems to be more a matter of your own "projection".
Well, guess you have changed because I rank you 40% left of center
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I agree that we should be working towards more cooperation.
The first step (one never taken) would be to apologize for some things...
- The 1953 coup
- The Iran-Iraq war
- Shooting down Iran Air flight 655.
This would go a long way towards building useful trust.

It's coming along.
The structural work is done, & now the wiring is being installed.

Aye.

Trump apologizing for something... ?
The second coming of Jesus Christ sounds less far-fetched and I am an atheist as you know.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, guess you have changed because I rank you 40% left of center
Actually not very much, but what you don't seem to understand is that when I taught, I taught "political science", not my opinions. It's called "professionalism", esmith.

But I can understand your inability to understand that because, after all, you blindly support a president that probably doesn't even know how to spell the word, let alone act like like one who actually cares for anyone but himself. Bigotry, stereotyping others, uncaring for the poor, name-calling, committing adultery, constant lying, bragging about his penis size and Ivanka's breast size, etc., are just what he and so many of his supporters are about-- iow, basic morality not being important.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If Iran attacked Israel.
She didn't threaten just defense.
But all out "obliteration".
And this is after Israel & the US talk of a preemptive attack on Iran.
Such outrageous & violent hypocrisy....something has been & is still
horribly wrong with our country.
But hey, that's what you war mongering crooked Hillary voters want. <--[ Response to your next sentence ]
But she doesn't matter any more. You Deplorables got your Commander in Chief.
Now explain to me why Trump is angling towards another war in the Middle East.
I think that this is why, among other things, that Trump lost the election. Ya know, the democratic one.
Hillary lost too, having not even collected half of the popular votes.
The country didn't want her either.

You gotta get over our system not being what would've served her best.
You had no complaints before the election.
 
Top