Iran Nuke Deal

[DrDelirium]

It seems that Trump will definitely fail to certify Iranian compliance with the nuke deal, even though everyone, including Trump, agree that Iran is in compliance. He says they are violating the 'spirit' of the deal, but not its actual provisions.

By itself, this doesn't have any direct consequences, except to make the US look like an unreliable negotiating power, but we knew that. Indirectly, that should eliminate any possibility of the Norks agreeing to anything involving getting rid of their nukes.

What it does do is put the ball in Congress' court. If they impose sanctions, the US will have openly violated the deal. It's unlikely that anyone else will abide by the sanctions, so they will be meaningless, but Iran will then have a free hand to develop nuclear weapons. It will be interesting to see how long that takes.

So- does Trump really want war with Korea and Iran? Or is he just giving the neocon war mongers enough rope to hang themselves? Either way, it's a dangerous game. I still have a glimmer of hope that Trump's crazy-ass rhetoric is designed to scare the bejeezus out of the hawks that have been talking tough about NK and Iran for so long, and make them be the ones to demand peace. Yeah, I know. But the more obvious alternatives are really, really bad.

 

[Rightguide]

What he's doing is keeping a campaign promise about a horse shit deal.

 

[DrDelirium]

Interesting choice of campaign promises to keep.
What, out of curiosity, makes it a horse shit deal?

 

[adrina]

Interesting choice of campaign promises to keep.
What, out of curiosity, makes it a horse shit deal?

Because Obama did it. Short answer.

 

[MGurkus]

Interesting choice of campaign promises to keep.
What, out of curiosity, makes it a horse shit deal?

Obama!

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

If Obama hadn't embarrassed Trump at the correspondent's dinner all those years ago, Trump wouldn't be so dead set on dismantling Obama's achievements. *nods*

 

[DrDelirium]

So what you're all saying is that if this leads to nuclear war, it's Obama's fault?

 

[adrina]

So what you're all saying is that if this leads to nuclear war, it's Obama's fault?

Not quite. More like the knee jerk reactionary everything anti-Obama crowd that can't control themselves.

 

[DrDelirium]

Not quite. More like the knee jerk reactionary everything anti-Obama crowd that can't control themselves.

I suppose it's comforting to feel that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an absolute idiot, steeped in evil and operating entirely from the lizard brain, but I don't think that comports with reality. I don't understand everything Trump does, but I do understand a lot of what his supporters are upset about, and a lot of it is perfectly rational. A narrative in which Trump and his supporters are the same doesn't pass inspection, and once we begin to divide our analysis among Trump and the various different kinds of people who support him or have supported him for different reasons, statements like yours lose all meaning.

Trump seems to have had presidential ambitions well before Obama mocked him- in fact, that's why Obama mocked him. So explaining his policies on the basis of undoing Obama's legacy requires us to believe that a few snide remarks were enough to over ride every single position that Trump had before they were made and become his sole driving force. Given that the man quite deliberately made a career of making himself the target of mockery with The Apprentice and professional wrestling, this is hard to credit. It seems, in fact, to be a facile attempt to avoid looking at any possibility that there is anything about Obama's legacy that ought to be changed, and to avoid examining what Trump's real motives are.
I don't pretend to know what Trump is 'really' thinking, and I'm clear on the fact that whatever he's thinking, I'm in no position to influence what he does. However, since what he does may have rather extreme consequences for me and the people I care about, I have a certain interest in trying to understand Trump, so I can anticipate his actions, so I have a slightly better than blind-luck chance of doing whatever little things I can do to protect myself and my family. And I tend to think that people who resort to simplistic and derogatory descriptions of other people's motivations and interests have a touching but probably unfounded confidence in their own immunity from serious consequences.

 

[Sean]

I suppose it's comforting to feel that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an absolute idiot

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Trump is a narcissist with a tiny, fragile ego.

 

[DrDelirium]

Trump is a narcissist with a tiny, fragile ego.

And this conclusion is based on what?

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

And this conclusion is based on what?

Keen observation.

 

[adrina]

I suppose it's comforting to feel that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an absolute idiot, steeped in evil and operating entirely from the lizard brain, but I don't think that comports with reality. I don't understand everything Trump does, but I do understand a lot of what his supporters are upset about, and a lot of it is perfectly rational. A narrative in which Trump and his supporters are the same doesn't pass inspection, and once we begin to divide our analysis among Trump and the various different kinds of people who support him or have supported him for different reasons, statements like yours lose all meaning.

Trump seems to have had presidential ambitions well before Obama mocked him- in fact, that's why Obama mocked him. So explaining his policies on the basis of undoing Obama's legacy requires us to believe that a few snide remarks were enough to over ride every single position that Trump had before they were made and become his sole driving force. Given that the man quite deliberately made a career of making himself the target of mockery with The Apprentice and professional wrestling, this is hard to credit. It seems, in fact, to be a facile attempt to avoid looking at any possibility that there is anything about Obama's legacy that ought to be changed, and to avoid examining what Trump's real motives are.
I don't pretend to know what Trump is 'really' thinking, and I'm clear on the fact that whatever he's thinking, I'm in no position to influence what he does. However, since what he does may have rather extreme consequences for me and the people I care about, I have a certain interest in trying to understand Trump, so I can anticipate his actions, so I have a slightly better than blind-luck chance of doing whatever little things I can do to protect myself and my family. And I tend to think that people who resort to simplistic and derogatory descriptions of other people's motivations and interests have a touching but probably unfounded confidence in their own immunity from serious consequences.

Well that jumped the shark.

Nice, and false, assumptions.

If you haven't been paying attention to American politics over the past eight years - ie the McConnell memo and the lock step irrational obstructionism at every point - I can't help you.

But good luck with that.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

DrDoofus is kind of a dope who takes himself too seriously.

He should go outside and get laid.

 

[Rightguide]

Interesting choice of campaign promises to keep.
What, out of curiosity, makes it a horse shit deal?

Obama committed felonies when he broke US law by shipping millions in cash to Iran, the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism, and doing so in violation of sanctions imposed by Congress. Obama made this transfer (ransom) knowing Iran would use the money to further its nuclear ambitions, purchase weapons, and fund terrorist activity that would be employed against the US and its allies. His own DOJ warned the transfer was illegal. All of which got us nothing in return except noncompliance.

Obama himself claimed the transfer was legal because he sent cash and didn't use a bank transfer prohibited by law, but the alleged law professor was ignorant of the fact that cash transfers in US Dollars or foreign currency were also illegal. Note:

Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, Section C-14:

C. 14. What U.S. financial and banking measures with respect to Iran remain in place after Implementation Day? After Implementation Day, the United States retains the authority to impose correspondent or payable-through account sanctions on foreign financial institutions that (1) knowingly facilitate significant financial transactions on behalf of any Iranian person included on the SDN List, pursuant to section 1247 of IFCA, or (2) facilitate or conduct
significant financial transactions for persons that remain designated in connection with Iran’s proliferation of WMD or their means of delivery or Iran’s support for international terrorism, pursuant to section 104(c)(2)(E)(ii) of CISADA, as amended. Sanctions under section 104(c)(2)(E)(ii) of CISADA no longer apply to transactions with individuals and entities removed from the SDN List on Implementation Day (see FAQ I.6).

Further, even after Implementation Day, the prohibitions set forth in the ITSR remain in place, including the prohibition in section 560.204 of the ITSR on the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran, with the exception of transactions that are exempt from regulation or authorized by OFAC (see FAQ M.9). Consequently, the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited, unless the transactions are exempt from regulation or authorized by OFAC.

 

[colddiesel]

Hey Right Guide. The money transferred to Iran belonged to Iran. Always had, and your argument wrapped up in legalese nonsense can never get around that fact.

The money belonged to Iran - not the US.

 

[colddiesel]

Hey Right Guide. The money transferred to Iran belonged to Iran Always had, and your argument wrapped up in legalese nonsense can never get around that fact.

The money belonged to Iran - not the US.

 

[DrDelirium]

Obama committed felonies when he broke US law by shipping millions in cash to Iran, the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism, and doing so in violation of sanctions imposed by Congress. Obama made this transfer (ransom) knowing Iran would use the money to further its nuclear ambitions, purchase weapons, and fund terrorist activity that would be employed against the US and its allies. His own DOJ warned the transfer was illegal. All of which got us nothing in return except noncompliance.

Obama himself claimed the transfer was legal because he sent cash and didn't use a bank transfer prohibited by law, but the alleged law professor was ignorant of the fact that cash transfers in US Dollars or foreign currency were also illegal. Note:

Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, Section C-14:

C. 14. What U.S. financial and banking measures with respect to Iran remain in place after Implementation Day? After Implementation Day, the United States retains the authority to impose correspondent or payable-through account sanctions on foreign financial institutions that (1) knowingly facilitate significant financial transactions on behalf of any Iranian person included on the SDN List, pursuant to section 1247 of IFCA, or (2) facilitate or conduct
significant financial transactions for persons that remain designated in connection with Iran’s proliferation of WMD or their means of delivery or Iran’s support for international terrorism, pursuant to section 104(c)(2)(E)(ii) of CISADA, as amended. Sanctions under section 104(c)(2)(E)(ii) of CISADA no longer apply to transactions with individuals and entities removed from the SDN List on Implementation Day (see FAQ I.6).

Further, even after Implementation Day, the prohibitions set forth in the ITSR remain in place, including the prohibition in section 560.204 of the ITSR on the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran, with the exception of transactions that are exempt from regulation or authorized by OFAC (see FAQ M.9). Consequently, the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited, unless the transactions are exempt from regulation or authorized by OFAC.

The problem with this is that even the Trump Whitehouse admits that Iran is NOT furthering its nuclear ambitions and is in compliance with the treaty. So, illegal or not, the agreement has achieved the stated purpose- to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

 

[DrDelirium]

Well that jumped the shark.

Nice, and false, assumptions.

If you haven't been paying attention to American politics over the past eight years - ie the McConnell memo and the lock step irrational obstructionism at every point - I can't help you.

But good luck with that.

Which assumptions are false? What has McConnell's obstructing Obama go to do with Trump breaking the Iran nuke deal? Are you suggesting that Obama made fun of McConnell, thus causing him to be anti-Obama for no other reason? Is Netanyahoo's passionate desire for the US to attack Iran based on a hatred of Obama? What about the Saudi hostility toward Iran?
The fact that you don't agree with something, or understand it, doesn't make it irrational. McConnell adopted a rational and effective strategy for putting GOP asses in government seats from state legislatures to the White House. It worked. It worked so well that Dems are now adopting the same techniques.

 

[adrina]

Frankly I didn't read much past your first sentence because you made the assumption about what I thought.

If you don't understand the anti-Obama fervor that was encouraged, stoked, purposefully built up and used to inflame the base then again, I can't help you.

If you don't understand that Trump has been rabidly anti-Obama for years (hello, see the scadzillion tweets from Obama's time in office and the ridiculous birtherism BS), then again I can't help you.

Trump and the republicans - and the base - haven't demonstrated any single clear coherent policy except anti-Obama.

You began one post with one stupid assumption and ended your last post with another stupid assumption.

Nicely done. But you want me to be fucked to explain anything to you? Really? Show you can comprehend basic history and some smattering of basic political events.

 

[DrDelirium]

Frankly I didn't read much past your first sentence because you made the assumption about what I thought.

If you don't understand the anti-Obama fervor that was encouraged, stoked, purposefully built up and used to inflame the base then again, I can't help you.

If you don't understand that Trump has been rabidly anti-Obama for years (hello, see the scadzillion tweets from Obama's time in office and the ridiculous birtherism BS), then again I can't help you.

Trump and the republicans - and the base - haven't demonstrated any single clear coherent policy except anti-Obama.

You began one post with one stupid assumption and ended your last post with another stupid assumption.

Nicely done. But you want me to be fucked to explain anything to you? Really? Show you can comprehend basic history and some smattering of basic political events.

Not at all. If you have nothing to contribute, please contribute nothing.

 

[adrina]

Not at all. If you have nothing to contribute, please contribute nothing.

Yes because it's so rewarding contributing to threads where passive aggressive assumptions are what passes for a discussion.

Please do, carry on.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Trump is right, it's a one sided deal. No monitoring of their secret military bases which, hello the military are always the ones overseeing the development of a Nuclear bomb.. because security.

They get what is it? 90 days notice of an upcoming IAE inspection?

They continue to develop long range ICBM's, I guess to be used as a piñata , to drop candy on US cities for the children

When Iran says the US is the big Satan , that's really code for we love you to pieces literally.

 

[Rightguide]

Hey Right Guide. The money transferred to Iran belonged to Iran. Always had, and your argument wrapped up in legalese nonsense can never get around that fact.

The money belonged to Iran - not the US.

Doesn't matter, any transfer of cash to Iran was a felony under the existing sanctions which froze their assets.