Trump leaves the Iran deal

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby Cobra-D » Tue May 08, 2018 11:01 pm

While I thought of putting this in the trump is an asshole thread, figured this move deserved it’s own thread. So yes, today Donald “totes not a puppet” Trump announced he would be pulling the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Which is great timing considering the NKorea talks are soon, and I’m sure Kik will be totes happy with making a deal with a country who has a habit of breaking deals lately. Doesn’t help that we have John”Just passing the troops through”Bolton in the White House who not too long ago said we would be “celebrating in Tehran in 2019”. Huh wonder what’s in 2019
  • 9

The truth is like poetry, everyone fucking hates poetry.
User avatar
Cobra-D
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:46 pm
Show rep
Title: The Witty Flirt

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby SandTea » Wed May 09, 2018 1:22 am

I am genuinely curious as to why people hate the Iran deal. As far as I know, the US lifted sanctions in exchange for a huge detriment to Irans nuclear progress. Calling it a stop gap or bandaid, I can see as being a reasonable assertion but to back out now is to actually allow, yes allow, them to progress towards the goal that ostensibly is what people were objecting to; That it is better to have a non-nuclear capable Iran.

I'm also wondering why Ben Net is trying to get don t to back out also. But all I've gotten for that is some conspiracy theories about future wars and fundie theists hoping for end times.

I'd rather hope Iran gets more moderate over the ten years of the deal than let them, as is, get nukes sooner. Are there reasonable objections I am not aware of other than "Obama did it so it must be bad"?
  • 7

"Draw me not without reason; sheath me not without honor."
User avatar
SandTea
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Show rep
Title: 3rdAeolus

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby Cobra-D » Wed May 09, 2018 2:14 am

SandTea wrote:I am genuinely curious as to why people hate the Iran deal. As far as I know, the US lifted sanctions in exchange for a huge detriment to Irans nuclear progress. Calling it a stop gap or bandaid, I can see as being a reasonable assertion but to back out now is to actually allow, yes allow, them to progress towards the goal that ostensibly is what people were objecting to; That it is better to have a non-nuclear capable Iran.

I'm also wondering why Ben Net is trying to get don t to back out also. But all I've gotten for that is some conspiracy theories about future wars and fundie theists hoping for end times.

I'd rather hope Iran gets more moderate over the ten years of the deal than let them, as is, get nukes sooner. Are there reasonable objections I am not aware of other than "Obama did it so it must be bad"?



From what I can gather people hated because it was a bad deal to make. That we didn’t get anything from lifting sanctions cept a pinky promise that they wouldn’t(it’s a little complex then that and you can read more about deal here, that’s the most common one I hear going around.
  • 2

The truth is like poetry, everyone fucking hates poetry.
User avatar
Cobra-D
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:46 pm
Show rep
Title: The Witty Flirt

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby A Combustible Lemon » Wed May 09, 2018 10:38 am

SandTea wrote:Calling it a stop gap or bandaid, I can see as being a reasonable assertion but to back out now is to actually allow, yes allow, them to progress towards the goal that ostensibly is what people were objecting to; That it is better to have a non-nuclear capable Iran.


...you can see how it's a bandaid but not how it warrants going back to the original place of negotiation? Really? What's your solution for bandaids, complete surrender to the bad policies of previous governments? Are the dems allowed to reverse the effects of Trump's tax cuts later? I mean, it's a bandaid solution that obviously makes people happy in the short term so why should any successor be allowed to touch it?

Obama should've given up on Iran if congress was being obstructive. That's why there are multiple arms of government with the ability to block each other. If Obama hadn't strongarmed all his policies through despite a government elected and reelected three times to obstruct him, there wouldn't be even close to as strong a republican reaction, and Trump, already unpopular, would've lost in the primary.

If Trump can negotiate a deal, unless democrats obstructed, it'd actually be a strong deal with democratic guarantees behind it because of passing through congress, instead of Obama's "my-successor-can-unilaterally-break-this" deal. Not that that's likely to happen anyway considering he sounds more like he's ready to start a war, and there's probably a few republicans that still don't fucking want a deal.

If they're unable to make a new deal, just like they were unable to replace Obamacare, it'd hurt their electoral chances, which is how it's /supposed/ to work. Whining about how it doesn't because republicans vote for the R hurr durr isn't relevant at all. As everyone should know by now, American Elections are 25-25-50 D-R-Unaligned, and have been for years. Because there's strong moral issues like Abortion, Gun Control, Religious Freedom, Secularism, Private vs Public, etc. that D and R fall neatly into sides on. Just because they'd be disappointed in an R Iran deal doesn't mean they stop protesting abortion, as a simple example.

The simple fact is it hurts them, and it adds up. The republican party's been through two fucking reforms in the last ten years already. Trump was a complete upset to republican candidates (the fact that republican lawmakers aren't nevertrumping IS COMPROMISE. It's a good thing. Politicians have always fucking played ball and been two-faced. It's not a caricature, it's required, the same way newspapers until ten years ago knew what objectivity was and why they were supposed to use it, despite the editorial bias)

We have time on the Iran deal, and hopefully we'll take it slower this time and do it right. America needs to slow the fuck down, on everything. Yes, millions could die, but honestly, as Yemen shows, the west can absolutely abandon countries facing human rights crises without losing any of their bargaining power.
  • 1



WE ARE ALL FLOATING IN THE WINDS OF TIME. BUT YOUR CANDLE WILL FLICKER FOR SOME TIME BEFORE IT GOES OUT -- A LITTLE REWARD FOR A LIFE WELL LIVED. FOR I CAN SEE THE BALANCE AND YOU HAVE LEFT THE WORLD MUCH BETTER THAN YOU FOUND IT, AND IF YOU ASK ME, said Death, NOBODY COULD DO ANY BETTER THAN THAT...
User avatar
A Combustible Lemon
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:25 pm
Location: The Internet, India
Show rep
Title: Grenadier

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby iMURDAu » Wed May 09, 2018 9:04 pm

Cobra-D wrote:Huh wonder what’s in 2019


Name the last President that wasn't re-elected during a war.

I assume there is no plan in place to renegotiate shit, deal with the fallout of backing out of this deal or much of anything based on what I've seen out of politicians in my life. When there's no plan presented to the voting public to deal with the removal of a current plan, and it clearly would not be based on any top secret classified information, I've noticed a pattern of a plan simply not existing.

This is part of the campaign checklist, it gives the U.S. a reason to say Iran isn't complying with the deal that we backed out of and that leads to WAR! which is a bonding exercise for dumbasses. And we are chock full of dumbasses.
  • 7

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6752
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: twitch.tv/beakstore
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby Ceiling_Squid » Thu May 10, 2018 12:15 am

Lets not forget that Trump is basically surrounded by warmongers, and is incredibly easy to influence.

Bolton wants a war with Iran. So does Trump, as long as Bolton has his ear. That's essentially why we've broken the deal so abruptly. Bolton will have his war.
  • 4

User avatar
Ceiling_Squid
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:22 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Show rep

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby SandTea » Thu May 10, 2018 1:41 am

A Combustible Lemon wrote:If Trump can negotiate a deal, unless democrats obstructed, it'd actually be a strong deal with democratic guarantees behind it because of passing through congress, instead of Obama's "my-successor-can-unilaterally-break-this" deal. Not that that's likely to happen anyway considering he sounds more like he's ready to start a war, and there's probably a few republicans that still don't fucking want a deal.


I do not think don t wants to, nonetheless, is able to make any deal better than the one we had. If mr 'art of the deal' can somehow do that I still think it would be better to... lets say, know you've got the new job before quitting your current one.

Correcting mistakes of previous administrations requires, to me, making them better not just scrapping them and, if I'm being honest, slapping your name on the exact same thing while claiming its better. (that is a prediction but he prob won't even do that). The general idea is that the deal wasn't 'good enough', not that it was not good at all. When a new administration rescinds a policy, I would hope that that policy was detrimental to well being not just "not good enough". Like saying you can't beat your slaves to death is better than repealling that ruling and hoping one day to abolish slavery altogether. That would have possible years of people being beaten to death rather than a forward march towards abolition.

If donny thinks the duct tape plugging the hole sinking my boat is not good enough, fine but don't remove the tape until you got some gd caulk and a dry dock.

Unfortunately the ones hurt are the moderates. We'll be getting more and more moores.
That's a pessimistic, if perhaps realistic, view. I never understood why people who want things to be better than they are are so shat upon just because things aren't.
Oh, fake news stuff...
Nevermind. Ignore all of this and go about your business. I'll just hope that the steps we take are forwards here all on my lonesome.

Aside, yeah that bolton dude wants wars wars wars. I can only hope fox n friends will say "mr trump, please don't start a war" or even China going "we will no longer sweat shop your daughters clothing line" but I'm just some asshole who wants tomorrow to be better than today so no need to listen to some hippy.
  • 6

"Draw me not without reason; sheath me not without honor."
User avatar
SandTea
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Show rep
Title: 3rdAeolus

Re: Trump leaves the Iran deal

Postby Crimson847 » Thu May 10, 2018 3:13 am

Basically the argument against the Iran deal boils down to this: all we got out of the deal was a freeze on their nuclear program. We did not secure any concessions from Iran on any other issue, from their development of ballistic missiles to their interventions in Syria and elsewhere to their propping up of Hezbollah. In exchange for this pittance, we ended sanctions and promised not to impose any more unless Iran violates the agreement. This has left us with no coercive options for dealing with Iran's other offenses, short of military force--if we want to push back on their support of terrorism or ballistic missile program or whatever, the only option we have is to politely ask them to stop, or swing to the opposite extreme and bomb them. If you're someone who views these activities as intolerable for the US but you don't want to jump directly to war with Iran over them, preferring to ratchet up economic pressure first, then the Iran deal severely limits your options for doing that.

If the Iran deal was a duly ratified treaty, the argument goes, then our interest in keeping our word no matter what would be considerable and possibly decisive. But since this agreement wasn't ratified by the Senate, no informed foreign leader who understands our Constitution should have expected it to hold up for long. Thus, we will not lose any appreciable credibility internationally because we won't have truly broken our country's word, just our President's word.

For the long version, see here and here for National Review's explication of both arguments, or here for a Vox interview with a foreign policy expert who supports leaving the agreement.


Personally, I'm somewhat persuaded by the first argument. I'm inclined to think we should have barred them from ballistic missile research as well and demanded inspections of military sites to verify Iran isn't cheating on the nuclear agreement, and if they weren't willing to go for that we should have walked away. The second argument, however, leaves me cold enough to freeze the balls off a pool table. Foreign leaders may understand the move that way, but foreign publics almost certainly will not, and that will affect the ability of said leaders to sell agreements with the US to their people.
  • 5

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

cron