Thank you @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/0H4Nr6sFdT
— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) June 21, 2019
Next, he calls off the ICE raids...
If this is some trick strategy, he can't keep repeating it — saying I'm going to do X, no, I called it off — can he?
IN THE COMMENTS: David Begley says:
He’s unpredictable. Tomorrow he might nuke Iran. The mullahs need to think about that.I react:
Playing "unpredictable" can itself become predictable. That's my point.
Once you see it as a game, it will be perceived as disrespectful and unserious.
In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
Posts
563 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 563 of 563@Sheridan:
Send in a battalion of American inspectors, all at once with total control over an Iranian facility for a month or more with secure lines of communication in and out and then I might believe that the Iranians are following the rules (for at least some of the time).
Then we might as well set the standard as "peace on earth, good will towards men." You've set the bar impossibly high, and your reasoning was the exact line of reasoning that got us into Iraq.
"Playing "unpredictable" can itself become predictable. That's my point.
Once you see it as a game, it will be perceived as disrespectful and unserious."
Does that really make sense to you, or does it just sound right, like "if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit" ?
When he makes these threats, he is reminding everyone what is possible, and making them consider seriously if they really want to take the risk. It's working with Mexico, China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Canada, and Europe. They consider him much more serious than they did his predecessors who they always assumed were bluffing, and they were right. Those were the predictable and unserious folks, who were often too timid to even make a clear threat, becuase everybody knew they didn't have the balls to carry it out. That is how you lose respect, which is what counts - not whether you are being respectful. This isn't some collegiate honor society business.
"In my view, he's crossed the line already."
Then I guess you would call his bluff and enjoy the consequences, so you are now predictable, not him.
"Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious."
Is there really a number at this point when he already imposed numerous threatened sanctions and tariffs at great risk, and that few others would have done for better or worse? He has done it to friend and foe alike, and proven he will do what most would not, including calling off threats. That was hard - not easy.
He's been at this stuff his whole life, and knows it better than most people, especially if you have led a life free of really big decisions and risks sparring with tough characters. I'd trust his judgement on than that of career talking heads.
@bagoh20:
How exactly is it "working" with North Korea and Iran?
J Farmer - the bar is not impossibly high if Iran is completely serious about following the JCPOA guidelines. They agreed to inspections. They weren't coerced into the agreement, were they? The success of JCPOA depends on verifiable and legitimate inspections. The inspectors and their inspections are the weakest link in the entire process. Tighten that up. And reduce the potential for corruption coming out of the UN.
@Sheridan:
J Farmer - the bar is not impossibly high if Iran is completely serious about following the JCPOA guidelines
Did you not say that the only way you "might" believe that the Iranians were complying was to "send in a battalion of American inspectors, all at once with total control over an Iranian facility for a month or more with secure lines of communication in and out?"
so they would have to attack the west coast, presumably after we had lost the carriers, yes that would have worked out, now there are some parallels with the sanctions imposed by Hornbeck, re Japanese offensive in Malaya,
Original Mike:
And they are allowed to improve their enrichment techniques? Why are they enriching uranium?
If you wish to read the document itself, you can do so here.
Michael K said...
Expecting the president to remove illegals who have had their day in court and already have final deportation orders is now "insisting on the perfect."
Ignoring the reality that the acting DHS Director blew the plan by warning the target cities to get ready to hide the illegals and resist the ICE agents is Farmer's way of resisting logic
Why didn’t Trump start doing this the first day he was in office? These cases have already been adjudicated. Let’s be honest, on this issue he is a total failure. In addition, I agree With Farmer that this delay strategy makes no sense. Is Trump not going to deport these people whose cases have already been decided?
Tank is a true Trump fan, but I can see his failures.
"How exactly is it "working" with North Korea and Iran?"
I thought the current situation with both was clearly better than what came before, which was sending them planeloads of cash, easing sanctions, appeasement, and getting nothing in return, but missiles and being ignored. Both those nations would love to have any previous President to deal with right now. They are both being forced to consider not getting what they want from us for the first time.
Don't want to answer that one, do you?
They are enriching uranium in pursuit of a bomb. There is no other plausible reason.
J Farmer - propose an alternative to my American battalion. China has skin in the Straits of Hormuz game. So do the Indians and the Koreans and the Japanese. Involve them too. Plus reps from the EU. Key for me is that the inspection "battalion" (500+ people) is a big, nimble, unified command with secure communications, with completely unfettered access, all requisite tools and complete confidence in the capabilities and commitment of the inspection staff assigned. Weekly polygraphs, one-on-one weekly debriefs, weekly reviews of social media and financials, everything needed to ensure that the inspectors are not compromised.
Lets pretend someone like Obama was still in the charge, and we find out the Iranians are doing what they want with nuclear material, weapons, and delivery systems, which I believe they are and always have. Would they really expect to suffer from that or just get another deal, probably with more cash and a really big kick of the can down the road?
Wendy Sherman, negotiated the same deal, with north korea, by 2001, aq khan's team was already at yong byon, advancing their nuclear program, by 2006 they have developed a number of nuclear weapons, and were working on launch platforms,
These cases have already been adjudicated. Let’s be honest, on this issue he is a total failure.
Yes, he did not march out and start grabbing illegals himself.
Jeez. 400 comments start to get crazy,
there is a naivete, like that from the nuclear freeze movement, which was a soviet exercise, which all the dem light, podesta, Kerry, biden all agreed on, with Obama thinking we had to beyond (he got the notion from peter tosh)
You can still only hold illegals for 20 days under the flores settlement, good grief, the aclu then forces you to release them,
@Sheridan:
J Farmer - propose an alternative to my American battalion.
I can propose until the cows come home. The question is what can an actual deal look like, not what kind of great deal I can conjure up in my own head. No country would agree to the terms you are suggesting. To use a quote Michael K is fond of, this the perfect being the enemy of the good.
China has skin in the Straits of Hormuz game. So do the Indians and the Koreans and the Japanese. Involve them too.
China was involved in the negotiations that led to the JCPOA. India and Japan both have representatives among the IAEA board of governors, and the IAEA director general is a Japanese national.
Don't see why there was a need for anyone to "leak" where the raids would happen since the Executive Office of Immigration Review announced on November 16, 2018, the 10 cities where it had begun tracking cases labeled as a "family unit" filed by DHS: Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, and San Francisco.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1112036/download
http://myattorneyusa.com/eoir-prioritization-of-family-unit-cases
@bagoh20:
Lets pretend someone like Obama was still in the charge, and we find out the Iranians are doing what they want with nuclear material, weapons, and delivery systems, which I believe they are and always have.
Yes, a lot of people believe a lot of things that are untrue.
Would they really expect to suffer from that or just get another deal, probably with more cash and a really big kick of the can down the road?
The Iranians were brought to the negotiating table, in part, because of the effects of UN 1929, which was passed in June 2010. Who was president then?
Roughcoat said...
The attack on Pearl Harbor did not give FDR the right to go to war with Japan.
FDR did use his constitutional authority to place U.S. forces in the Pacific on a war footing prior to the Japanese strike. E.g, the task force with carrier Saratoga (Halsey commanding) that delivered VMF-211 to Wake Island was authorized to shoot/sink on sight any Japanese warships it encountered.
****************
What kind of fool thinks that the Constitution is a suicide pact? FDR had the POWER to RESPOND to the Japanese attack, with force, IMMEDIATELY. Or do you think fact-gathering was called for, as they attacked us again and again w/o fear of a response?
That same day, our Navy sank a Japanese mini sub in our waters off Hawaii, BEFORE the attack.. Wanna tell us that was illegal?
"On the morning of 7 December 1941, under the command of LCDR William W. Outerbridge, Ward was conducting a precautionary patrol off the entrance to Pearl Harbor when she was informed at 03:57 by visual signals from the coastal minesweeper Condor of a periscope sighting, whereupon Ward began searching for the contact.[4] At about 06:37, she sighted a periscope apparently tailing the cargo ship Antares whereupon she attacked the target.[4] The target sunk was a Japanese Ko-hyoteki-class, two-man midget submarine, thus Ward caused the first American-caused casualties of World War II a few hours before Japanese carrier aircraft bombed in or near targets in Honolulu. The submarine was attempting to enter the harbor by following Antares through the antisubmarine nets at the harbor entrance.
*** By entering territorial waters of a neutral country without signalling any intent to stop, the submarine was not entitled to "innocent passage" protections and the neutral party had a right to use whatever means to protect its territory.*** Ward fired several rounds from its main guns, hitting the conning tower of the submarine, and also dropped several depth charges during the attack."
sheesh
wholelottasplainin':
What kind of fool thinks that the Constitution is a suicide pact? FDR had the right to RESPOND to the Japanese attack, with force, IMMEDIATELY. Or do you think fact-gathering was called for, as they attacked us again and again w/o fear of a response?
That wasn't the claim. Yes, as commander-in-chief the president has the power (and responsibility) to protect US territory. Is it your contention that FDR could have launched and carried out the Pacific theater of the war with no approval by Congress? If not, then we do not have a disagreement. And I should repeat, I see very little parallel between the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Iranians shooting down an unmanned spy drone.
Farmer, you may have missed this article and this article in the Times.
Note the dates. The shootdown was on the twentieth. The two articles contain information which makes your statements on Iranian compliance out of date.
Farmer: "Is it your contention that FDR could have launched and carried out the Pacific theater of the war with no approval by Congress?"
One doesn't "carry out" a "theatre of the war".
I'll bet Roosevelt could have order the fleet to sail and engage the enemy all the way from Coral Sea back to Midway and, after Pearl Harbor, try and imagine any congressperson calling him out on that.
In fact, quite the opposite. The President would never have had to ask Congress for approval. They would have given it of their own accord immediately.
But if they didn't, and Roosevelt continued, and congress complained, the congress would have been run out of town on a rail.
Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
OR you could simply stop letting WaPo and the NYTs yank your chain every time the President does something.
This is Titleist Gate all over again. I kinda want Trump to do something really dumb or criminal just to throw you guys a bone with some meat on it. This yipping and yapping about every little Trumpian Error just makes you look ridiculous.
"OMG! Trump used the wrong verb tense!" (clutches pearls, faints)
Farmer: China was involved in -
Waste of time to try to educate you on foreign policy. It does not matter what Trump does re Iran, you will always find a thing to pick about.
You don't really care about the things you are lecturing the rest of us about.
@Rabel:
Note the dates. The shootdown was on the twentieth. The two articles contain information which makes your statements on Iranian compliance out of date.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. And the drone incident is not pivotal. The administration pulled out of the JCPOA over a year ago and has been attempting to economically strangle Iran into submission ever since. I actually expected the JCPOA to fall apart quite quickly after that turn of events. It's pretty rich to pull out of a deal and then complain if the other side announces that they, too, may pull out soon. The critique I made when Trump pulled out is the same as I'd make today. If the JCPOA collapses, as many in the administration want, then that will leave us with an Iran with no inspectors on the ground, no 24/7 video surveillance, and the stockpiles under IAEA safeguard will revert back to Iran. Plus there will be little international consensus for the kind of sanctions regime that would be needed. The art of the deal, indeed.
"Apparently Trump is not as politically competent as Farmer."
He's certainly not as smart as Farmer, or as well-informed.
something else to whine about:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/23/trump-mike-pence-2020-third-term/
@Fen:
Waste of time to try to educate you on foreign policy. It does not matter what Trump does re Iran, you will always find a thing to pick about.
No, his decision to not go through with the strike on Iran was a very good instinct, and one that should be overwhelmingly supported and welcomed by his base.
You don't really care about the things you are lecturing the rest of us about.
If someone disingenuously argues for free speech, does that make free speech a bad idea? You can make this about "TRUMP" all you want (I'm sure he wouldn't mind), but the American nation is a lot bigger than one person, and I care about the American nation much more than I care about Trump.
Roughcoat said...
FDR did use his constitutional authority to place U.S. forces in the Pacific on a war footing prior to the Japanese strike. E.g, the task force with carrier Saratoga (Halsey commanding) that delivered VMF-211 to Wake Island was authorized to shoot/sink on sight any Japanese warships it encountered.
***********************
Source, please.
arms control, is like that economic prognostication game, where everything is always 'unexpected' its like a priesthood, with their own oracles and soothsayers, like paul pillar at state, one of the leading analysts, who was caught off guard despite being part of the national intelligence council,
"It's pretty rich to pull out of a deal and then complain if the other side announces that they, too, may pull out soon."
This ignores the fact that it remains a multi-lateral agreement. Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China remain in the agreement. The threats from Iran cited in the articles I linked were to them, not us.
@narciso:
You're right. No system is 100% accurate, including medicine. But I still bet you'd go to an ER if you had a medical emergency.
J. Farmer said...
wholelottasplainin':
What kind of fool thinks that the Constitution is a suicide pact? FDR had the right to RESPOND to the Japanese attack, with force, IMMEDIATELY. Or do you think fact-gathering was called for, as they attacked us again and again w/o fear of a response?
That wasn't the claim.
>>>Yes, it was. FDR didn't have the power to "declare" war, but he certainly had the power to wage it, right there on the spot as we were being attacked.
Yes, as commander-in-chief the president has the power (and responsibility) to protect US territory.
Is it your contention that FDR could have launched and carried out the Pacific theater of the war with no approval by Congress? If not, then we do not have a disagreement.
>>>Aside from your imprecise phrasing, I would say no. Thing is, He didn't, so your point is moot.
And I should repeat, I see very little parallel between the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Iranians shooting down an unmanned spy drone.
>>>Apparently, neither does Trump! But suppose the Iranians manage to sink one of our carriers in the Gulf. What say you then?
Farmer: "No, his decision to not go through with the strike on Iran was a very good instinct, and one that should be overwhelmingly supported and welcomed by his base"
That's a strange formulation.
Why just his base?
@Rabel:
This ignores the fact that it remains a multi-lateral agreement. Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China remain in the agreement. The threats from Iran cited in the articles I linked were to them, not us.
Certainly sounds like something the British, French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese to address. What do you want the US to do about it? Iran is trying to put pressure on the remainder of the P5+1 members to salvage the deal. Which term of the JCPOA is it that you believe these threats violated?
Farmer: "It's pretty rich to pull out of a deal and then complain if the other side announces that they, too, may pull out soon."
Remind me again. Who in the US approved this deal?
Was it submitted to the Senate?
Aren't you (Farmer) a big proponent of not going around congress?
Shouldn't you be the one saying this was never a "deal" in the first place?
Why is it obama can do the biggest nuke deal giveaway ever all by himself but that darn Trump better march right up to Congress to get approval for what he thinks should be done?
@Drago:
That's a strange formulation.
Why just his base?
Because a base is the group that has the most capacity to put pressure on a politician. If CNN or some Democratic politician opposed something Trump was doing, he could blow it off has just obstructionism. But anger from "the base" is often harder to dismiss.
"The Iranians were brought to the negotiating table, in part, because of the effects of UN 1929, which was passed in June 2010. Who was president then?"
A negotiating table where they got exactly what they wanted and more than they expected, and where they knew damned well they would, considering who they were dealing, the easy time everyone had with them, and how important a deal was to the Obama administration. They could be absolutley certain that Obama would never walk away, no matter what he had to swallow to get a deal.
You can believe the Iranians deal in good faith, and that they wouldn't cheat on nuclear weapons - the most important thing in the world to them. I on the other hand, find it impossible to believe that the mullahs would let their sworn enimies in Israel and The Great Satan decide the path of their nation and the power they knew was available to them if they simply lie and cheat - something they are known for beyond anything else. Trusting they would let us dictate such a thing for them seems counter to everything we know about them, not to mention suicidal.
"What do you want the US to do about it?"
What we're doing now looks about right.
"Which term of the JCPOA is it that you believe these threats violated?"
You didn't read the article.
Farmer: "Because a base is the group that has the most capacity to put pressure on a politician"
Why would the republican base, which supports Trump's action, put pressure on Trump?
For what, doing what they agreed with?
Nonsensical.
@Drago:
Aren't you (Farmer) a big proponent of not going around congress?
In declaring war, yes. In everything, no.
Remind me again. Who in the US approved this deal?
I've never claimed that the deal was a treaty or would be legally binding on future presidents. And I've never denied that Trump had the total authority to withdraw the US from the JCPOA. What I have argued is that it was a bad idea and that he should not have done it.
Why is it obama can do the biggest nuke deal giveaway ever all by himself but that darn Trump better march right up to Congress to get approval for what he thinks should be done?
The only thing the US gave away for the nuclear deal were some US sanctions.
You did notice the brits covered up the discovery of an entire Hezbollah network, around the time of the implementation of the accord, the French since the 60s, have been heavily involved with Iran, the Germans don't get me started,
now why did the intercept try to deplatform heshmat alavi close to two weeks ago, because they want no contrary viewpoint to the blind faith in the sepah, you have, (the mullahs don't run the country, anywhere near the revolutionary guard, which create Hezbollah, and trained the Houthi rebels,
Michael K said...
These cases have already been adjudicated. Let’s be honest, on this issue he is a total failure.
Yes, he did not march out and start grabbing illegals himself.
Jeez. 400 comments start to get crazy,
What is crazy (incidentally, name calling is not an argument)? As head of the executive branch, he should have ordered those executives under him to start deportations of illegals whose cases had been adjudicated on day one. Make it a direct order with an option to resign if they did not wish to follow it.
With all that is arrayed against him, there is much that Trump can not do, but he is not doing the things he can do.
@Drago:
Why would the republican base, which supports Trump's action, put pressure on Trump?
For what, doing what they agreed with?
Nonsensical.
I did not say they should put pressure on him. I said that Trump's decision not to attack Iran "should be overwhelmingly supported and welcomed by his base."
@Rabel:
You didn't read the article.
Both articles discussed Iran's threats to abrogate some of their commitments under the JCPOA. A threat to violate an agreement in the future is not a violation of that agreement currently. If Iran is currently not abiding by the JCPOA, it is not discussed in either of those articles.
Farmer: "I did not say they should put pressure on him. I said that Trump's decision not to attack Iran "should be overwhelmingly supported and welcomed by his base."
So, Trump taking the action that the overwhelming majority of his base approves of and supports and believes is best for our nation should be overwhelmingly supported by his base.
Very insightful.
@bagoh20:
A negotiating table where they got exactly what they wanted and more than they expected, and where they knew damned well they would, considering who they were dealing, the easy time everyone had with them, and how important a deal was to the Obama administration.
They did not get everything they wanted, and they were limited in what even the NPT permits. This was part of the hardline criticism of the deal from within Iran. It was the Iranians who were negotiating from a position of weakness. Sanctions helped bring them to the table, and Rouhani was under pressure to try to clean up a lot of Ahmadinejad's economic mismanagement. Iranian hardliners were also critical and skeptical of the fact that Mohammad Javad Zarif was leading negotiations due to him having been educated in the United States.
You can believe the Iranians deal in good faith, and that they wouldn't cheat on nuclear weapons
The arms control mechanisms that were put in place do not require believing either of those things.
Farmer: "I've never claimed that the deal was a treaty or would be legally binding on future presidents. And I've never denied that Trump had the total authority to withdraw the US from the JCPOA. What I have argued is that it was a bad idea and that he should not have done it."
Nonsense.
The deal is such a loser deal that obama dared not submit it to the Senate for approval because he knew precisely what would happen, and so do you.
But obama wanted it.
And you wanted it.
So you got what you and obama wanted, by going around the very "rules" you are saying Trump should follow in ordering military action.
No.
The deal is a horrific one and should have been pulled on day 1 just because.
We are not the United States of Obama, despite what Inga and LLR Chuck believe.
"A threat to violate an agreement in the future is not a violation of that agreement currently."
Weak. You can do better, I've seen it.
Farmer: "The arms control mechanisms that were put in place do not require believing either of those things."
The "mechanisms" are a complete joke.
As intended.
@Drago:
So, Trump taking the action that the overwhelming majority of his base approves of and supports and believes is best for our nation should be overwhelmingly supported by his base.
Yep, it's called positive reinforcement.
@Drago:
The "mechanisms" are a complete joke.
Please describe some of the mechanisms and why they are a complete joke.
@Rabel:
Weak. You can do better, I've seen it.
Ah, the classic I have no response defense. So just to recap: you say my "statements on Iranian compliance out of date," and I've asked you to identify the agreements they are currently violating, and you have no answer.
That's just a notch above grammar smack.
Farmer: "Please describe some of the mechanisms and why they are a complete joke."
The IAEA does not have the authority they need to verify compliance with the agreement.
Iran is allowed to develop advanced centrifuges.
That's just a couple off the top of my head.
@Rabel:
That's just a notch above grammar smack.
If Iran announced today that it was immediately ignoring all of the conditions of the JCPOA, on what basis would the US complain? We backed out of the agreement over a year ago and have been trying to convince other countries to back out, and then we are going to complain that the Iranians decide to...back out?
"The arms control mechanisms that were put in place do not require believing either of those things."
I'm sorry that people buy such things, but that's why they also think gun control stops gun violence. Bad people use rules and agreements to gain advantage. They do that by letting the other side believe they are in control. In this case, believing we are in control of assets and people inside of Iran under the control of very serious and determined people who despise us and any control we try to exert. It's like expecting the Mafia to honor an agreement with the IRS to properly document their earnings and pay their taxes, and saying they will becuase we keep an eye on their bank accounts.
Complaining has nothing to do with the issue. Preventing the theocracy from becoming nuclear-capable is the name of the game.
The "agreement" was nothing but wishful thinking based on misguided trust and an unenforceable monitoring plan.
As Drago said, if the JCPOA was a good idea, it would have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty and would have been binding on the United States.
Same with the Paris Climate Scam Agreement.
But Bob Corker, arranged a work around, where has he gone off.
The Obama-Kerry-Biden agreement with Iran was a joke.
I am glad at least Schumer didn't agree to it.
@bagoh20:
It's like expecting the Mafia to honor an agreement with the IRS to properly document their earnings and pay their taxes, and saying they will becuase we keep an eye on their bank accounts.
No, it's more like saying they will because we have their assets accounted for, the vast majority sealed and locked away, 24/7 video surveillance in their facilities, had staff in their facilities, and monitoring all of their business activity.
I will again point you to How the Iran Deal Prevents a Covert Nuclear Weapons Program. He spends 4500+ words addressing the concerns you are raising.
@Gospace:
As Drago said, if the JCPOA was a good idea, it would have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty and would have been binding on the United States.
Right. The US Senate would never reject a good idea. Nor support a bad one, I suppose. It seems both would have to be true for your rationale to make sense.
We have no mechanism to find all the various ways they could cheat. Everybody knows this, but admitting that would destroy any chance at an agreement, so that's the choice we had: have an agreement or not becuase they could cheat. Just think of all the times someone brought up some way they could cheat and someone else told them to let it go, or the whole deal will get ruined. You don't have to trust the Iranians to understand how we made a deal, but you do have to trust them to believe they honored it.
Wheeeee ! 466 and Farmer still going strong.
Farmet: "Right. The US Senate would never reject a good idea."
So, all those constitutional rules you've been harping on all day can be chucked when needed because you cannot guarantee agreement on what you consider a "good idea".
Duly noted.
@Rabel:
Complaining has nothing to do with the issue. Preventing the theocracy from becoming nuclear-capable is the name of the game.
Very well. Trump wants to talk to Iran and negotiate a different deal. Iran does not want to come to the negotiating table from such a position of weakness. And so we are at an impasse where we try to ratchet up the pressure and wait and see and hope something happens.
The "agreement" was nothing but wishful thinking based on misguided trust and an unenforceable monitoring plan.
Which parts of the monitoring plan were "unenforceable?"
Never trust the Islamic Theocracy.
"No, it's more like saying they will because we have their assets accounted for, the vast majority sealed and locked away, 24/7 video surveillance in their facilities, had staff in their facilities, and monitoring all of their business activity."
First of all, we do not see every Iranian asset every minute. We see the ones we know about or we see what we think are those assets. You put a lot of faith in documents and people, hundreds of people, people who can be bribed, threatened, or tricked. If the assets "watched" in Iran included your bank account, I bet you would be worried.
@bagoh20:
We have no mechanism to find all the various ways they could cheat. Everybody knows this, but admitting that would destroy any chance at an agreement, so that's the choice we had: have an agreement or not becuase they could cheat.
That's a ridiculous standard. The potential for cheating is inherent to any agreement. If you say that the only agreement that is worthwhile is one that is impossible to cheat, then you will have no agreement.
@Drago:
So, all those constitutional rules you've been harping on all day can be chucked when needed because you cannot guarantee agreement on what you consider a "good idea".
Duly noted.
No, you simply do not understand the argument. The only constitutional rule I've been "harping on" was the power to declare war, which belongs to the Congress and not the President. So, for example, Obama's Libya War was blatantly unconstitutional, and I would have supported the Congress restricting him from waging that war. That said, I have never claimed that the JCPOA was a treaty and was legally binding. Obama violated no constitutional provisions in negotiating it, and the only legal authority he exercised in its regard was his ability to waive sanctions, which he already had under domestic law. The agreement was not legally binding on future presidents, and Trump was well within his constitutional authority to withdraw the US from it. All I've said was that I thought it was a bad thing to do, not that he couldn't do it.
@bagoh20:
First of all, we do not see every Iranian asset every minute. We see the ones we know about or we see what we think are those assets. You put a lot of faith in documents and people, hundreds of people, people who can be bribed, threatened, or tricked. If the assets "watched" in Iran included your bank account, I bet you would be worried.
I was only using "assets" in the context of your Mafia/IRS analogy. Iran's entire nuclear fuel cycle is under continuous monitoring by the IAEA. Please read the article I linked to. It's thousands of words addressing these very concerns you claim the JCPOA ignores.
Yes it was probably fool hardy even if approved by the Congress, because it was toppling an actual ally, on behalf of qatari voices. Gerald devilliers very risque (I would say lazlo level) madmen of Benghazi made this clear
No, they have nothing to worry about;
https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Irans-rapid-deployment-of-S-300-to-Fordow-reveals-importance-of-site-466425
@narciso:
No, they have nothing to worry about;
https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Irans-rapid-deployment-of-S-300-to-Fordow-reveals-importance-of-site-466425
Right. It's not as if Americans haven't publicly mused about bombing these sites for years or presenting the MOAB as a potential option for destroying Fordow.
Because they had hid the site till 2009,
And that article was written three years ago.
Wouldn't Iran's professed interest in not developing nukes and the long range rockets look more like what Gaddafi did in getting rid of WMD and all of their supporting infrastructure 2003? Completely throwing open of all of its development sites, all materials neatly stacked and indexed. Shouldn't it look like that? There is no reason for Iran to develop intercontinental missiles unless it meant to develop nukes.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology
Why did we topple Qaddafi, because there was a riot at a leading prison for Islamists called Ali Salim, think of it a little the Bastille
Farmer is telling us we are all dumb because we don't trust Iran.
Smugly.
He trusts commies radical Islamists as well as militant shia:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/why_scrapping_the_iran_nuclear_deal_was_the_right_move_.html
@Gk1:
The fate of Libya itself is one reason countries would be reluctant to go down that path.
Instead we have to rely on the Israeli's sorting and indexing their nuclear bomb capabilities.
Are successful "treaties" based on how good you are in detecting cheating? Shouldn't it be an honest effort to remove nuclear weapons development in Iran?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-mossad-nuclear.html
@Achilles:
Farmer is telling us we are all dumb because we don't trust Iran.
Smugly.
As best I can tell, the only person on this thread who has called anyone "dumb" is yourself. And I have repeated over and over and over why the JCPOA does not require us to "trust Iran."
J.Farmer why did the Iranians lie about their weapons programs which was evident in the materials evacuated out of Iran. Doesn't that, I dunno, make them suspect in the trusting department?
@narciso:
He trusts commies radical Islamists as well as militant shia
Yes, I trust commies radical Islamists like...*checks notes*...Gadi Eizenkot.
@Gk1:
J.Farmer why did the Iranians lie about their weapons programs which was evident in the materials evacuated out of Iran. Doesn't that, I dunno, make them suspect in the trusting department?
The documents that the Israelis seized from an old warehouse in Tehran were about the nuclear program they had in 2003. Benjamin Netanyahu has been predicting the imminent nuclearization of Iran for over a quarter century now. And for the umpteenth time, the JCPOA does not require us to trust Iran. The entire point of the JCPOA is to prevent Iran from covertly building a weapon. Their program was discovered in 2003 when there was zero monitoring and verification going on within the country.
Despite Faults, Iran Nuclear Deal Works, Israeli Military Chief Tells Haaretz
Oh, so the Iranian's stop developing their nuclear program after 2003? Got it. But why did the Iranian regime continue to lie about never wanting to develop nuclear weapons? I don't quite understand that part.
Also from J.Farmer's link
"Gantz says the international pressure on Iran, in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions, is beginning to bear fruit. "I also expect that someone is building operational tools of some sort, just in case. The military option is the last chronologically but the first in terms of its credibility. If it's not credible it has no meaning. We are preparing for it in a credible manner. That's my job, as a military man."
So we are now continuing to apply international pressure and economic sanctions. If the iranians aren't developing nukes they have nothing to worry about, right?
Odd the jcpoa mandates that sanctions ne lifted
@GK1:
Also from J.Farmer's link
That's not from my link. That's from an interview of Benny Gantz from 2012. My link was to an interview of Gadi Eizenkot.
@narciso:
Odd the jcpoa mandates that sanctions ne lifted
Some sanctions were lifted but subject to snapback provisions, and others, such as the heavy arms embargo, remained. Getting Iran to agree to international limits and inspections of their nuclear program in exchange for lifting the sanctions was the point of the sanctions in the first place.
J. Farmer said...
The documents that the Israelis seized from an old warehouse in Tehran were about the nuclear program they had in 2003.
Farmer found someone who he won't trust.
Smugly.
You trust people whose own soecial forces the vevak sepah pasdaran has murdered in Vienna and Berlin, has blown up community centers as well as embassies
@Achilles:
Farmer found someone who he won't trust.
Given Netanyahu's long history of getting Iran wrong, trust is not warranted in that case.
@narciso:
You trust people whose own soecial forces the vevak sepah pasdaran has murdered in Vienna and Berlin, has blown up community centers as well as embassies
Trust is not involved. And I noticed you had no comment the former chief of staff of the IDF agreeing with me on the JCPOA. Go figure.
Of course trust is involved otherwise its just a piece of paper.
Gantz is that the mclellan figure that challenged Netanyahu and thanks to Liberman may yet be able to form a govt.
Sorry the one you linked to J.Farmer was behind a paywall, I snagged the wrong one. Even so you seem to be evading my question. The iranians lied about ever developing a nukes yet the Israeli's brought the truth out. So I understand your position correctly, the Iranian's stopped developing their program in 2003 and just locked it in a vault in 2003? Really? Does that make sense to you?
So the times puts out a front page piece where two officials supposedly are cheered by the ayatollah for shouting down the drone they aren't named nor is the conversation sourced
Here is another Mullah lying about never developing nukes but the Israeli raid proved otherwise. Why do the mullah's say such thing J.Farmer? I don't understand.
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/hardline-cleric-says-iran-has-the-formula-for-nuclear-bombs/29761815.html
@narciso:
Of course trust is involved otherwise its just a piece of paper.
No, that's the point of having inspections and maintaining control over Iran's centrifuges, keeping their facilities under video surveillance, keeping track over their inventory, and the rest of the monitoring and verification mechanisms.
The only possible way for Iran to develop nuclear weapons under the JCPOA is to do covertly, and that would prevent a very challenging task. Again, I've linked to a lengthy description of how the JCPOA makes covert production very difficult.
Gantz is that the mclellan figure that challenged Netanyahu and thanks to Liberman may yet be able to form a govt.
I was not quoting Gantz; I was quoting Gadi Eizenkot, who was made IDF chief of staff by Netanyahu in 2015.
JCPOA sounds like the same thing Clinton set up with North Korea to "stop" their nuclear program. How did that work out? If a country really wants to stop development and come clean it does what Gadaffi did and have it all bundled up and ready to take, like say in a vault with nuclear plans and specs from 2003.
Negotiated by the same person, wendy Sherman, sold by Hamas fanboi ribert Malley of the international crisis center.
@Gk1:
So I understand your position correctly, the Iranian's stopped developing their program in 2003 and just locked it in a vault in 2003? Really? Does that make sense to you?
That Iran was making covert efforts to develop a nuclear program are well known and have been known since 2003. That was the point of sanctioning them for their "nuclear program." And if you believe that Israel has all the answers on the Iranian nuclear program, then you should probably listen to their military chief when he says that the JCPOA is working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Here is another Mullah lying about never developing nukes but the Israeli raid proved otherwise. Why do the mullah's say such thing J.Farmer?
The official Israeli position is that they do not have nuclear weapons, even though everybody knows they do. Newsflash: politicians lie.
Re my post as follows: FDR did use his constitutional authority to place U.S. forces in the Pacific on a war footing prior to the Japanese strike. E.g, the task force with carrier Saratoga (Halsey commanding) that delivered VMF-211 to Wake Island was authorized to shoot/sink on sight any Japanese warships it encountered.
wholelottasplain' asked for a source citation. As follows, but first a correction to my.
The carrier involved in the operation to deliver Marine pursuit squadron VMF-211 to Wake Island was Enterprise (not Saratoga). As stated, Halsey was the task force commander. The task force departed on 28 November 1941. The day before military commanders in the Pacific had been informed by a confidential memo warning them that "Japanese hostile intentions were suspected. Prompted by alarming decoded Japanese signal intercepts, the following war warning was sent by the US Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, to all commands:
Japanese future action unpredictable but hostile action possible at any moment. If hostilities cannot, repeat cannot be avoided, the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act... This policy should not, repeat not, be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense… Should hostilities occur you will carry out the tasks assigned in Rainbow Five so far as they pertain to Japan.
Of course Marshall issued this warning with the president's authorization and approval.
Further:
"Some commanders took this warning more seriously than others. When Admiral ‘Bull’ Halsey took his carrier group to sea on the 28th, some of his fellow officers thought he was ready to start a war. Many of the men were only prepared for routine overnight operation and a quick return to base. They were quickly advised otherwise:
U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
At Sea
November 28, 1941
BATTLE ORDER NUMBER ONE
1. The ENTERPRISE is now operating under war conditions.
2. At any time, day or night, we must be ready for instant action.
3. Hostile submarines may be encountered.
4. The importance of every officer and man being specially alert and vigilant while on watch at his battle station must be fully realized by all hands.
5. The failure of one man to carry out his assigned task promptly, particularly the lookouts, those manning the batteries, and all those on watch on the deck, might result in great loss of life and even loss of the ship.
6. The Captain is confident all hands will prove equal to any emergency that may develop.
7. It is part of the tradition of our Navy that, when put to the test, all hands keep cool, keep their heads, and FIGHT.
8. Steady nerves and stout hearts are needed now.
G. D. MURRAY, Captain,
U.S. Navy Commanding
@GK1:
JCPOA sounds like the same thing Clinton set up with North Korea to "stop" their nuclear program. How did that work out? If a country really wants to stop development and come clean it does what Gadaffi did and have it all bundled up and ready to take, like say in a vault with nuclear plans and specs from 2003.
The Agreed Framework is a great example of John Bolton's bumbling. He bragged about blowing the agreement up. And the result was that North Korea unsealed the fuel that had been under seal, reactive their reactor, and later successfully tested a nuclear weapon. All so that by 2006 the Bush administration could negotiated a much watered down version of the Agreed Framework.
If you want to make comparisons to the North Korea deal, I would recommend Revisiting the Agreed Framework, published at 38 North.
J Farmer, oh good, I thought you were trying to tell me the Iranian's stopped developing nukes in 2003. That didn't make a lot of sense. But what I am also not understanding was if this was such a great deal why was it never ratified as a treaty in the U.S?
I never understood what we got out of the deal. We were told all sanctions were going to run out on Iran and it was a take it or leave it thing and we got the best deal we could. That seems to fly in the face of what Trump has done. He not only has backed out of the deal but ramped up more crippling sanctions which are being enforced and the world is now honoring. Wasn't the U.S supposed to be all alone? China was going to swoop in and make things right with Iran if we didn't make a deal?
And I should repeat, I see very little parallel between the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Iranians shooting down an unmanned spy drone.
"Parallel" is the wrong term. Presumably the drone was operating in international air space. The attack on it may therefore be construed as an act of war. America and Great Britain in particular have long insisted on and enforced the principle of freedom of passage on the high seas as well as, in the modern era, freedom of passage through international air space. Wars have been fought uphold the principle, such as America's with the Barbary pirates.
Whether or not the president is empowered to order, without Congressional authorization, military action in the defense of of the U.S. and its vital interests is the subject of ongoing debate, and has produced a vast literature which so far has not come close to resolving the issue. See, e.g., the Wikipedia entry for "War Powers Resolution of 1973", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution.
@Gk1:
But what I am also not understanding was if this was such a great deal why was it never ratified as a treaty in the U.S?
Very simple: it wouldn't have passed. And thus the deal would not be legally binding on future administrations.
I never understood what we got out of the deal.
Limits to Iran's nuclear program beyond even what they are allowed under the NPT.
Wasn't the U.S supposed to be all alone? China was going to swoop in and make things right with Iran if we didn't make a deal?
China and India continue to buck the system, and it is very likely China will continue importing Iranian oil despite a threat of US sanctions. India is also not likely to reduce its imports to zero, but it's still possible.
J.Farmer were you aware one of the Clinton negotiators said this about their agreement with North Korea and his warning for Trump?
“With respect to plutonium, they stuck to the deal,” Gallucci, who is now chairman at the U.S.-Korea Institute and a professor at Georgetown University, told CNBC. “The hitch came when we discovered that they were secretly engaged in receiving transfers from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan in uranium enrichment, the other technology used to produce the raw materials for nuclear weapons. ”
Gallucci said the Clinton administration continued to talk with the North Koreans and didn’t inform them that they were aware of the cheating.
“When the Bush administration came in they also didn’t tell the North Koreans we were aware, but ultimately in 2002 they confronted them and said it had to stop,” Gallucci said." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/diplomat-who-made-deal-with-north-korea-warns-trump-they-will-cheat.html
Once a cheater always a cheater some would say. What did Bolton "blow up" when the agreement was not being followed by the Norks? Why is this a shining example for creating agreements with rogue nations like North Korea and Iran?
Not to mention the Europeans have developed the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) solely to circumvent US sanctions in their trade with Iran.
@Gk1:
Once a cheater always a cheater some would say. What did Bolton "blow up" when the agreement was not being followed by the Norks? Why is this a shining example for creating agreements with rogue nations like North Korea and Iran?
The article I linked to from 38 North addresses this question. Here it is again. And I would also recommend 5 Myths on Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea
J.Farmer, oh, so there is a wholesale ignoring of U.S sanctions against Iran?. Do you really mean to say that? I've been reading iranian oil tankers moored in Chinese harbors unable to unload their crude oil and many cancellations of future orders.
India has and will always do trade with Iran but how much are we talking? TaTa cars and flip flops?
INSTEX the euro mechanism for trading with iran isn't going anywhere. They are scared shitless of what Trump would do to them on trade so its just all empty talk. Last time i read the Euros said Iran had to agree to a bunch of terms and the mullahs are just pretending they don't understand.
Nah, I like Trump's approach better. If Iran wants to give up nukes it can any time it wants to. It should be wheeled out on a tarmac in Tehran for the U.N to drop by and scope it out.
Israeli generals expressed many different opinions about the Iran deal, here's another one: Major-General (res.) Israel Ziv is the former head of the Israeli Army’s Operations Directorate branch and he took a realist’s approach to the deal. “There is no one in Israel who thinks the nuclear agreement is a good agreement, but the discussion should not focus on that,” he wrote in an op-ed for the Israeli news site Ynetnews.com. “Because this agreement is the best among all other alternatives, and any military strike — as successful as it may be — would not have delayed even 20% of what the agreement will delay, not to mention the risk of another flare-up with Hezbollah, which an operation against Iran would have generated. The agreement is an established fact, and it’s not particularly bad as far as Israel is concerned.” (https://thinkprogress.org/former-israeli-security-heads-support-iran-deal-6ba89d535083/) That's not an endorsement, it's a pragmatic recognition by a general of the logistical problems for Israel in taking military action against Iran.
Farmer deceptively or naively tries to convince us that the Iran deal was very good because of a general's opinion, without even mentioning the context of that opinion. The generals were facing the alternatives of challenging the US foreign policy of an administration hostile to Israel (a non-starter) and having to take military action against Iran. Two bad options.
Likewise in the article (4500 words?) Farmer referenced, there was no strong argument that Iran could not build a covert program, or was worthy of trust especially given their ability to conceal and history of lies, only offered an argument that concealment would be difficult and would risk retaliation.
The Iranians know better, from 2015: "As the Obama administration negotiates a controversial nuclear agreement with Iran, a dissident group is revealing evidence Tehran is operating a secret uranium-enrichment site northeast of the capital city. NCRI’s deputy director, Alireza Jafarzadeh, said Iran cannot be trusted. “How in the world can the United States expect to get an agreement from Iran to end their nuclear program, when we continue to find Iran is developing and operating secret nuclear facilities that are withheld even from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Administration?” Jafarzadeh asked.
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2015/02/secret-iranian-nuke-facility-revealed/#bScEwK0SD72WG8eM.99
As I said before, Farmer's willful blindness towards the Iranians is strange and difficult to justify, either he is a lot dumber than he realizes or he's extremely dishonest and reprehensible. The Obama Administration tried very hard to convince the public that their deal was absolutely necessary and the best possible deal for the sake of world peace. We were told the Iranian government was now moderate and things had changed. Complete BS. I don't believe that strengthening the current Iranian regime is the best solution.
J.Farmer Thanks for the link to 38 North. Its amusing you feel this article answers all the questions about Nork non compliance. His writing style was less than convincing. Every violation of the Norks is "Well yeah, not quite but yeah" I love this part:
"And, of course, we now know that the Clinton Administration was starting to get wind of the relationship with AQ Khan—which ultimately resulted in the missiles for centrifuge barter that would create so much turmoil in 2002."
Oh that little piffle. Norks continuing to circumvent a nuclear agreement by outsourcing to Pakistan for centrifuge technology so they can enrich more plutonium. Darn those little imps! But its not fair to say the agreement wasn't working or something.
Thanks for linking. It helps me understand your credulousness when it comes to the Mullahs. ;-)
I'll check in in the morning to see if you are still going at it.
I remembered a question from Farmer from way back in the thread regarding the deportation issue: "... how is Trump's threat to deport people a bargaining chip unless he's prepared not to deport people in response to something Pelosi gives him. Do you think there is something Pelosi plans to offer that would be worth Trump not deporting people who have been to court and have final orders of deportation already?"
As far as I understand the whole point is that Trump has been trying again and again (remember he cancelled the DACA program) to get the Democrats to work on immigration reform. Is there anything Pelosi could offer? Border security.
@Gk1:
J.Farmer Thanks for the link to 38 North. Its amusing you feel this article answers all the questions about Nork non compliance
You certainly have a knack for the straw man. I never said that the articles "answers all the questions about Nork non compliance."
Every violation of the Norks is "Well yeah, not quite but yeah"
Right, the actual context is a lot more complicated and not easily reducible to short soundbites. Best to just ignore it all together.
Oh that little piffle. Norks continuing to circumvent a nuclear agreement by outsourcing to Pakistan for centrifuge technology so they can enrich more plutonium. Darn those little imps! But its not fair to say the agreement wasn't working or something.
The agreement actually was working with regard to plutonium. It was uranium enrichment, which the agreement did not cover, that became the issue later. And aside from the rhetorical style, did the article say something that was incorrect?
If Iran wants to give up nukes it can any time it wants to. It should be wheeled out on a tarmac in Tehran for the U.N to drop by and scope it out.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons to give up. Nobody has made that claim. Not the US. Not Israel. Nobody. So how do they give up nukes they don't have?
Thanks for linking. It helps me understand your credulousness when it comes to the Mullahs. ;-)
"Right now the agreement, with all its faults, is working and is putting off realization of the Iranian nuclear vision by 10 to 15 years.”
-Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, I guess displaying his "credulousness when it comes to the Mullahs."
Gk1 said...
J.Farmer, oh, so there is a wholesale ignoring of U.S sanctions against Iran?. Do you really mean to say that? I've been reading iranian oil tankers moored in Chinese harbors unable to unload their crude oil and many cancellations of future orders.
India has and will always do trade with Iran but how much are we talking? TaTa cars and flip flops?
**********************
Why so flippant? Why the self-imposed ignorance?
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/what-is-india-iran-oil-trade-all-about/article24361006.ece
"Iran has always been one of India’s main suppliers of oil, second only to Iraq and Saudi Arabia, with exports that totalled more than 27 million tonnes last year. The figures make India Iran’s biggest buyer after China..."
and:
https://www.opednews.com/articles/India-Doubles-Iran-Oil-Imp-by-Juan-Cole-Iran_Oil_Oil-Demand-Supply_Sanctions-181125-34.html
"India's imports of petroleum from Iran in October [2018] doubled in value terms to $1.42 billion in October, year over year. Likewise, during the first eight months of 2018, the value of India's oil imports from Iran was double that of the same period in 2017. Even in volume terms, imports are up 38%."
So, we're talking $16 billion or so annually.
@RJ Chatt:
Farmer deceptively or naively tries to convince us that the Iran deal was very good because of a general's opinion, without even mentioning the context of that opinion. The generals were facing the alternatives of challenging the US foreign policy of an administration hostile to Israel (a non-starter) and having to take military action against Iran. Two bad options.
As for "mentioning the context of that opinion," I linked to the complete interview of Gadi Eisenkot in Haaretz. The interview was last year while Eisenkot was the chief of staff of the IDF and appointed by Netanyahu.
NCRI’s deputy director, Alireza Jafarzadeh, said Iran cannot be trusted.
Do you know what the NCRI is? It is the National Council of Resistance of Iran and it is a front group for the People's Mujahedin of Iran, known as MEK. They are a Marxist-Islamist cult that took the side of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, are widely loathed within Iran, and are headquarted in Albania and operate the NCRI from France.
@RJ Chatt:
As far as I understand the whole point is that Trump has been trying again and again (remember he cancelled the DACA program) to get the Democrats to work on immigration reform. Is there anything Pelosi could offer? Border security.
Honestly? You think in exchange for border security, Trump should agree not to deport people who have final deportation orders? What would happen to those people? Amnesty?
J.Farmer you seemed to have ignored my link about the Clinton negotiator saying the Norks cheat but that's fine.
Getting back to your response this seems to sail over your head
" The agreement actually was working with regard to plutonium. It was uranium enrichment, which the agreement did not cover, that became the issue later. And aside from the rhetorical style, did the article say something that was incorrect?"
The Norks exploited a loophole! Uranium enrichment and violated the whole spirit of the agreement. Yet you call this "working"? How can you not see that? Does that seem like a regime that wants to give up nukes? What good was the agreement when the Norks were still working with Pakistan to develop nukes?
If this is your idea of a working agreement no thanks. Regimes that sincerely want to give up their nuke program look like South Africa and Libya not North Korea or Iran.
Again I have to point you to what one of the lead negotiators of the agreement said:
" “With respect to plutonium, they stuck to the deal,” Gallucci, who is now chairman at the U.S.-Korea Institute and a professor at Georgetown University, told CNBC. “The hitch came when we discovered that they were secretly engaged in receiving transfers from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan in uranium enrichment, the other technology used to produce the raw materials for nuclear weapons. “They cheated, and we caught them,” Gallucci said, reflecting on the aforementioned events. ”
@wholelottasplainin':
Why so flippant? Why the self-imposed ignorance?
Gk1 appears to have a habit of having very strong opinions on things he knows very little about.
I think Trump knows he has his based locked-in. Now he's trying to get as many of the rest as he can. Right now, all signs for 2020 are pointing to, if not a landslide, at least a good, respectable margin of victory, including a win in the popular vote, oh-so-precious to those who would undo the Electoral College. Especially if there is a bruised-and-battered opponent coming out of the Dem primaries. It's a looooooong time until November of next year. How many people will remember the past few days?
J.Farmer "So, we're talking $16 billion or so annually." I see Trump has overplayed his hand.
16 Billion. Holy cow, stop the presses. Now much much is Iran's pistachio income?
I think Trump has upped the ante on the cost of trading with a rogue nations and many countries can do without the hassle of non compliance.
Check out this link. See if it makes sense to you.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-iran-oil/sinopec-cnpc-skip-iran-oil-purchases-for-may-to-avoid-us-sanctions-idUSKCN1SG0ER
@Gk1:
J.Farmer you seemed to have ignored my link about the Clinton negotiator saying the Norks cheat but that's fine.
I did not ignore it. I linked you to the 38 North to give you the other perspective. The article explicitly states that the North Koreans were violating the spirit of the agreement and what to do about it. The question was what to do about it? Bush followed the Bolton lone and exploded the agreement. So we went from having a bad situation with some limits on North Korea to a bad situation with no limits on North Korea. Bush then pursued the six-party talks with North Korea, which completely failed.
Regimes that sincerely want to give up their nuke program look like South Africa and Libya not North Korea or Iran.
Yeah, I cannot imagine why countries aren't lining up to look like Libya.
If you're interested, here is a very comprehensive chronology of nuclear diplomacy with North Korea.
@GK1:
J.Farmer "So, we're talking $16 billion or so annually." I see Trump has overplayed his hand.
That wasn't my comment.
Check out this link. See if it makes sense to you.
Here's an article published a week after that one: China Restarts Purchases of Iranian Oil, Bucking Trump’s Sanctions
So has anybody stopped to ask whether the propaganda they cite to support their preferred positions is true?
Not from what I see.
Iran will get nukes or not.
They will use them or not.
Then J Farmer can offer a cost-free mea culpa.
J.Farmer. Sorry wrong sock puppet Thanks for the link. Check out this one.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-12-28/us-sanctions-keep-western-businesses-out-iran-china-seizes-opportunityMy favorite part
"China faces another problem with Iran. Many ordinary people complain about the shoddy quality of Chinese goods such as the watches in the Bazaar jewelry stores.
“We know there are different quality goods in China,” said Bazaar shopper Fereshteh, who declined to give her last name. “But the poor quality ones end up coming to Iran. They don't last for long and break down quickly compared to products from other places.”
@Birkel:
Then J Farmer can offer a cost-free mea culpa.
I've got a pretty good track record. But hell, if I get Iran that disastrously wrong, I might be just qualified enough to make National Security Adviser.
Farmer: It's called creating a "pathway to citizenship." Some will call it amnesty and condemn rewarding illegal immigration which would encourage more of the same. That's why a strong border is essential.
@RJ Chatt:
Farmer: It's called creating a "pathway to citizenship."
Precisely. It's the sell out deal that the Gang of 8 tried to foist on us before, and it would be a terrible deal for Trump to make. These are not people in the shadows. They have had their day in court, been rejected, and are under final deportation orders. Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review summed it up nicely in a tweet: "So we've now moved the goalposts from "you cant enforce our sovereignty against those who successfully evaded for 20 years" to "you cant stop anyone at the border or, even after going through gratuitous process, deport them with final orders."
@Farmer: I missed the link on Haaretz, tried to find an article through google but the articles are only available with a subscription. So if you repost I will look at it -- but that's a very leftist site I tend to avoid because of their bias. My comment tried to provide a larger understanding of why generals look at the Iran deal pragmatically, not in terms of political policy or strategies but only in terms of having to take on Iran militarily. We don't expect generals in the US to formulate foreign policy either.
I don't have any idea how that deportation will play out but as I said at the outset, Pelosi and the Democrats have the pressure of dealing with many more millions of potential deportations.
Not surprising China helped provide logjstucam support for Pakistan's nuclear program they provide silk worm missile and later CS 27s to the kingdom
They also keep buying North Korean Coal
@RJ Chatt:
So if you repost I will look at it -- but that's a very leftist site I tend to avoid because of their bias.
The link to the article is here. And recall that this was a Passover interview of Eisenkot, who had been IDF chief of staff since 2015, after being appointed by Netanyahu.
My comment tried to provide a larger understanding of why generals look at the Iran deal pragmatically, not in terms of political policy or strategies but only in terms of having to take on Iran militarily. We don't expect generals in the US to formulate foreign policy either.
I understand and take your point about generals not formulating foreign policy. But given the dialogue I was having with Gk1 and his bringing up the Israeli point of view, I thought he might not be aware that the IDF chief of staff believed the deal was working. Given the number of people here who seem to think that supporting the nuclear deal is somehow synonymous with supporting or trusting Iran, I figured Lt. General Eizenkot's point of view was worth pointing out.
There is a difference between playing a bad hand and saying the defunct treaty with Iran was "working" or better than the alternative of military strikes that would have certainly spun out of control which was R.J Chatt's point. Its funny that you will make appeals to authority with Israeli's that agree with you. Citing links to paysites doesn't help many of us. I've ignored your smug condescension and would point out I read other israeli papers online and am well aware of the diversity of viewpoints. But you would be hard pressed to find any of them that trust Iran.
I don't think it's the Israeli view to point out the obvious that Iran has lied in the past and is a curious partner for peace. Pretending the Nork nuke agreement was "working" also causes dismay. When even the Clinton negotiators have pointed out the Norks where cheating, I don't know what to tell you.
But it's water under the bridge isn't it? No western power it going to deal with this pariah nation while Trump is still in office. China is welcome to help out this sad sack terrorist nation along with that other winner,Venezuela. Good luck to them!
@Gk1:
Its funny that you will make appeals to authority with Israeli's that agree with you.
To refresh your memory, Narciso said, "He trusts commies radical Islamists as well as militant shia." I then replied, "Yes, I trust commies radical Islamists like...*checks notes*...Gadi Eizenkot." That was the first time Eizenkot's name came up after more than 400 comments.
Citing links to paysites doesn't help many of us.
I don't have a subscription to Haaretz, and I have gone to that link several times in the course of this thread. Why you are getting a paywall I haven't the slightest idea.
But you would be hard pressed to find any of them that trust Iran.
Eizenkot does not trust Iran, but still believes the JCPOA is working. The latter does not require the former.
Pretending the Nork nuke agreement was "working" also causes dismay. When even the Clinton negotiators have pointed out the Norks where cheating, I don't know what to tell you.
As I've stated repeatedly and you've steadfastly ignore, the question was what to do about it. Build on the Agreed Framework to address new concerns or blow the whole thing up and try to start over. Bush went for the latter approach and ended up spending the rest of his presidency trying to negotiate a watered down version of the Agreed Framework while North Korea abrogated the NPT and became a nuclear power state. In other words, we pulled out of one agreement in order to negotiate a better agreement and ended up with no agreement and a nuclear-powered North Korea.
But it's water under the bridge isn't it? No western power it going to deal with this pariah nation while Trump is still in office
Wanna bet? Sergei Ryabkov has already suggested that Russia could step in and help Iran with its oil sells.
Twice — pattern. Hmm Ann that layer’s slip is showing.
There is a hysterical link of Brett Favre listening backstage as a bunch of guys at the bar debate his play-calling. Wish I could find it, because it reminds me of this thread.
They were "experts" too.
And Farmer, not that it makes a difference, but the argument you are looking for is:
"A physician can diagnose a disease without knowing what cure to prescribe"
That what the point you were trying to make, and it's a fair one, even though the rest of your analysis is wrong.
If the JCPOA collapses, as many in the administration want, then that will leave us with an Iran with no inspectors on the ground, no 24/7 video surveillance, and the stockpiles under IAEA safeguard will revert back to Iran.
Gosh, Farmer, who cares really, since you say the Iranians don't want the Bomb.
I like assertions from Farmer like "I have a pretty good track record" that cannot be verified.
That's the sort of powerful analysis I expect from Smug.
LOL - how many red lines did Obozo the Magnificent enforce?
Hmmm...so far, J. Farmer bats 1000, his opponents 0.
As usual.
I really don't think anybody learned anything about anything, least of all Farmer, from his all day Sunday rote, obsessive disputing. His activity, yesterday, all seems pointless to me.
@Farmer -- Thanks for posting that link. Here's what struck me from it:
"Eisenkot is cautious, noting that no violations of the agreement by the Iranians 'can be seen at present, but we assume that Iran can operate secretly. Therefore, keeping watch on developments there is the No. 1 mission for both the IDF and intelligence agencies. We are investing vast resources in obtaining the best intelligence about Iran and its operational ability,' he says.
Not that it matters much at this point but might as well bring this thread to a close by addressing the last few points:
@Fen:
They were "experts" too.
Well, I have never claimed to be an "expert." I have opinions about US foreign policy, and I say what they are and why I have them. I opposed the Libyan that "experts" like Obama, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton all favored. So who do you think was right, me or the "experts?"
@Birkel:
I like assertions from Farmer like "I have a pretty good track record" that cannot be verified.
That's the sort of powerful analysis I expect from Smug.
Granted, it doesn't match your piercing insight that Iran "will or will not get nukes," but it's not "analysis," it's a mere statement of fact. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to me.
@nichevo:
Gosh, Farmer, who cares really, since you say the Iranians don't want the Bomb.
I have never said that they do not want the bomb; I said that they have not had a nuclear weapons program for many years. I think the likeliest possibility is that they have not made a choice to weaponize but want to have latent capacity, so they want to build up their technical capacity and civilian reactors. Such capacity is inherent to any domestic nuclear energy program.
@rightguy:
Given that we have been subjected to years and years of myths, lies, and half-truths about Iran in order to help pave the way to a military conflict, I will push back against those as much as possible, since I am primarily interested in not involving the US in yet another stupid, pointless, and destructive war in the Middle East.
But I did learn one thing: people who hate the nuclear agreement and are eager to attack Iran are even more clueless about both subjects than I originally feared.
@Farmer -- Thanks for posting that link from Haaretz. Here's what struck me from the article:
"Eisenkot is cautious, noting that no violations of the agreement by the Iranians 'can be seen at present, but we assume that Iran can operate secretly. Therefore, keeping watch on developments there is the No. 1 mission for both the IDF and intelligence agencies. We are investing vast resources in obtaining the best intelligence about Iran and its operational ability,' he says.
IOW, the Iran deal is OK because Israel is doing covert work as best as possible. Don't you think Trump knows this and Israeli intel is factored into his strategy?
Eisenkot is/was more focused on the immediate threat from Iranian forces in Syria and preparing against Hezbollah. US foreign policy and dealing with Iran in general over the long term was not part of Eisenkot's responsibilities. But it is the responsibility of the US president.
The attack on Pearl Harbor did not give FDR the right to go to war with Japan.
–and–
The only constitutional rule I've been "harping on" was the power to declare war, which belongs to the Congress and not the President. So, for example, Obama's Libya War was blatantly unconstitutional, and I would have supported the Congress restricting him from waging that war.
This, I believe, is flat wrong — or rather, correct but irrelevant. The fact is that, as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, war was already in effect and happening. The enemy (Japan in this case) has a choice in this regard, and they chose… war with the U.S. (They even declared it — as well as striking by surprise.)
(With regard to Libya, they didn't attack the U.S.!)
No subsequent declaration of war (by the U.S. against Japan) was really needed for FDR to thenceforward pursue war against Japan (though of course Congress had to authorize paying the bills).
UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh discusses this issue in the context of constitutional requirements for a declaration of war: 1 2 3
For this reason, a would-be enemy country (or one playing at skirting the outer edge of such) should be very cautious about actually striking at the U.S. and its possessions (which obviously includes American drones flying around in international airspace). War can happen whether Congress declares it or not.
I hesitate to intrude on this erudite Iran support discussion, but there is an interesting discussion of what Iran is up to.
Boiled down to a paragraph, although the while thing is worth reading.
Prior to the JCPOA, Khamenei had received lucrative economic offers from Europe and the United States, all of which came with only one requirement: that, in return, Iran would buy its nuclear fuel on the open market, thereby ensuring that there would be no risk of its use for purposes of creating an arsenal. This would have involved nothing more than following the example of other countries with nuclear-energy programs that were and are truly peaceful and civilian.
Had Khamenei taken that option, he would have saved his country untold billions in lost revenues. Instead, he turned it down. But then, to the Supreme Leader’s great good fortune, came the JCPOA, which bestowed upon Iran unfettered control of the nuclear-fuel cycle. This gift is priceless to him for one reason and one reason only: it is a prerequisite for building a nuclear bomb.
As nodes in its nuclear-weapons program, Iran’s nuclear facilities are the crown jewels of the Islamic Republic. The JCPOA is the fortress that surrounds them. The waivers, in turn, have been the cornerstones of that fortress. Pompeo, on May 3, crashed the gates.
I know no minds will be changed.
@Michael K:
which bestowed upon Iran unfettered control of the nuclear-fuel cycle
Critics of the deal would be more believable if they did not have to constantly resort to misstatements and distortions to make their case. The nuclear deal did not bestow "unfettered control of the nuclear-fuel cycle." There are limits to the activities that can be performed at Arak and Fordow, there are limits on the amount of uranium that can be stockpiled, there are limits on the level of enrichment, there is continuous monitoring of uranium mines and mills, and there is continuous monitoring of centrifuge production. This is, in fact, a very fettered nuclear-fuel cycle.
It turns out, Trump cancelled the ICE Raid because somewhat at DHS leaked the information about the raids for the purpose of giving warning to the immigrants. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is the corrupt bureaucracy.
The nuclear deal did not bestow "unfettered control of the nuclear-fuel cycle."
Opinions are like assholes,. Everyone has one.
@Michael K:
Opinions are like assholes,. Everyone has one.
Devastating riposte, Mike.
Post a Comment