Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Trump backed us out of the Iran nuclear deal

2

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The fact that Iran held the 300 or so American hostages until nearly the last minute of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and released them while Reagan was being sworn in taught Democrats nothing. Everyone else knew that the Muslim extremists despise weakness and have a visceral hatred for 'pretenders.'

    Democrats should study the Apache Wars, if they want to learn how negotiations are conducted with savages. Pay special attention to Al Sieber's  'ambassadorship.' History holds the answer to many of the problems of the future, folks.
  • roadkingroadking Senior Member Posts: 3,056 Senior Member
    Support your local Scouts!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Big Chief said:
    Dems are sucking rotten eggs about now...........it ain't they didn't want the hostages released, but the fact it is the Trump Admin bringin them home..........must be killin them and many Tums and Alka Seltzers being used right now. 

    Oh wait....Obammy started the process  like they say about the boost in our economy......... **** BS animated emoticon   Crap animated emoticon
    Well said Chief!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Big Chief said:
    The reason France, Germany and Britain wanted to keep the deal they admit is 'Not Perfect' is because of lucrative business deals they made with Iran. Deep in their hearts they know it was a bad deal and nobody can trust Iran without verification and access to all their sites.

    Come on man, a 30 day warning beforehand and letting them do 'Self Inspections'..............get real.

    The deceitful Obammy Admin devised it like the AHCA /Obammycare with hidden surprises that weren't known about and may aspects were secret and downright lies. Devious they way they did things. Even the two-faced congressmen who are denouncing what Trump did were against the deal like Chucky, and said they wouldn't have voted for it.

    Then Obammy and Fast Boat John bypassed congress and cut his own deal because they knew it would never get passed. It wasn't a Treaty, but a deal made by Obammy who sucked in the Europeans to make it difficult to extract ourselves from after he left office.

    It just kicked the can down the road and at the same time allowed Iran to keep developing advanced ballistic missile systems when all they would need is to plug in the nuclear payload after the timeline expires.............and being the deceitful bastards they are most likely doing it clandestinely (working on nuclear materials) the whole time anyway.




     


    Chucky's a Jew and No Way, I believe he's in love with Iran or any other people that are fanatically Muslim. But he's willing to put that all on the table for his sacred Dummycrat Party, to get them back in power and keep them there. To me, in my humble opinion, Mr. Chucky is a despicable hypocrite!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    Dollar, wierd typo because trying to use this new version of the site on mobile fracking sucks!!!!
    LOL, I was leaning that way, based on the rest of the sentence, but it was so far off "dollar" that I just figured it was a real word I'd never heard of.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    edited May 2018 #37
    Alpha brings up a good point.  This is all about the NK deal.  Trump just showed the NKs that if they violate the deal, the deal will be off.

    ...and this morning, three more US detainees in the NK were released and sent home.

    there is no loss in pulling out of the Iran deal. Iran was never going to play along and follow the deal. BUT... we used it to keep the Norks in line
     I personally don't believe Trump thinks like that, what he can get out of this if he does that. I think he does everything for what good it in itself will do for the stated purpose he does it. He takes one thing at a time. But it's like lining up dominoes, when something is the right thing to do, they will all start to fall if you push em over right.

    Trump did it for what it appears to be, he did it for the good of the country and the world. Any other good that comes from it is gravy. To me, that's the beauty of Trump. The man don't play.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    The argument contained here in favor of the pull out is compelling and for sure pulls me personally in that direction.

    The Christian Science Monitor ran a piece some time ago, complete with listed scources detailing how the Reagan compaign committed treason by negotiating a delayed release of the hostages until after the election. Well the content of that article can certainly be disputed, so can the notion that foriegn powers and religions have a partisan bias. I can just as easily speculate that only the spin hungry American public can be prone to such bias.

    I'm willing to embrace good policy if the evidence is suggestive of such, but I'm not likely to entertain the idea of partisan saviors.
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,534 Senior Member

    The KSA is on record now for saying if Iran develops Nukes, then they will too.

    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,395 Senior Member
    First of all, Alpha, You are essentially correct that the money technically was Iran's (with various arguments pro and con), but the manner in which it was paid makes no sense today. When "Frozen" assets are unfrozen, the banks of Iran now have total access to their money. They can wire transfer any amount at any time. The "Cash" delivery was not intended to be used by the "Country" of Iran. This money went directly to the organizations and leaders who are pro-terror, anti-Israel, and the people of Iran benefitted not one iota from the transfer. It was "Payola." THIS is why liberals - yourself included - are so dangerous. There are no critical thinking skills used in the development of progressive theory. It's all based on what one "thinks" might happen, and not on what everyone "knows" will happen. It's all based on "Wouldn't it be nice," and none of it based on "Boy, that was stupid."

    Oh, and the Israelis with the intel coup destroyed your argument before you made it. I wonder why you ignore that?

    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,251 Senior Member
    You realize we gave them zero cash right? All we did is unfreeze their own money.

    OK. . .let's look at that:

    We give them our money and they use it buy a knife.

    We allow them access to their own money and they use it to buy a knife.

    I'd really like to get my forensic accountant on the line to figure out who's money it actually was, but I'm a little preoccupied at the moment with this sudden pain between my shoulder blades. . .
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member

    The KSA is on record now for saying if Iran develops Nukes, then they will too.

    You realize how huge a disaster that would be right? Once that flame is lit it's not going out, and it's going to take ~15% of global oil production with it, likely permanently. We're talking oil prices of at least $200-300/bbl until the ensuing global depression wipes out enough demand to compensate. 
    The Communists, back in the good old days, dreamed of a global depression, believing that their 'scarcity management' skills would be more appreciated, and so that the capitalist world would suffer the same crushing poverty that was the permanent way of life for their proletariat. But, lo and behold, capitalism has continued to thrive, whenever it is not interfered with, too much, and probably will continue to do so. If not, it will be corrected in ten years, as it did in the Great Depression.

    Meanwhile, we have more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia, and the technology skills to find more and recover it from more difficult locales. Barring the mass insanity that might elect back-to-back left-wing politicians to a majority in Congress, or in the presidency, we will likely bumble along just fine, doing what human beings do naturally, when not strangled by government incompetence.
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,395 Senior Member
    There is nothing a liberal can't touch that won't turn to crap.

    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,689 Senior Member
    ...and yesterday as soon as the cancellation of the deal was announced Iran showed a "muscle flexing" by launching rockets against Israeli targets.
    This both worked for the Ayathollas as a message to everyone involved and to both test the "Iron Shield" defensive system capabilities (Apparently quite a few of the rockets were successfully intercepted and destroyed) and to evaluate Israel's reaction (They immediately retaliated against Iranian positions in Syria), which the U.S. immediately backed.

    Europe is mad about leaving the deal because it would mean the end of lots of potential commercial deals with Iran, the increased risk of getting any backwash from any conflict due to their closeness to the region (Even more refugees, oil prices increase, etc.) and being seen not as holders of their word but useful fools who keep deals with terrorist states in spite of everything just to avoid taking action. Problem #2 is that potentially any of such consequences puts their center and left-wing politicians on risk in front of the voters, and might cost them their beloved power share and jobs (What they really only care about).

    Local talking heads are bashing Trump about this; no wonder since most of them only translate and repeat what CNN and the left U.S. media blabbers, and that's pretty much trying to keep their beloved Obama as the "peace hero" they claim he is.


  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    From what I've read about the world between 1930 and 1950 a great depression and self correction isn't something I'd be looking forward to at all.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    I'm fairly certain that the US can withstand higher energy costs as well or better than the middle East and Russia can withstand food scarcity.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member

    The KSA is on record now for saying if Iran develops Nukes, then they will too.

    As we used to say in the Pershing Missile field.......'Everybody Likes A Little Nukey'
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    If Israel takes the lead in a serious effort against Iran, we will at least provide logistical and technical support, if not actual combat troops.  Turning a bunch of PO'ed Israelis loose to do what they do best, kick butt and take names, has historically been bad juju for anyone opposing them.  They're not afraid of world opinion, which has never been on their side anyway.  Dead enemies don't shoot back, or lick their wounds for awhile and counterattack.  That's something we have seemingly forgotten since 1945.   
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    I don't trust any of them Jabber Jabber Islamics............especially the Iranians.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    It's time to play "Cowboys and Muslims"- - - - -"The only good Iranian is a dead Iranian!"
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,654 Senior Member
    Teach said:
    If Israel takes the lead in a serious effort against Iran, we will at least provide logistical and technical support, if not actual combat troops.  Turning a bunch of PO'ed Israelis loose to do what they do best, kick butt and take names, has historically been bad juju for anyone opposing them.  They're not afraid of world opinion, which has never been on their side anyway.  Dead enemies don't shoot back, or lick their wounds for awhile and counterattack.  That's something we have seemingly forgotten since 1945.   
    Yep, yep, and yeppers!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Squawk BoxSquawk Box New Member Posts: 69 Member
    Trump is smarter than Obama, and he knows a bad deal when he sees one. That deal was one of the worst that America has ever made. 
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    What kind of fool negotiates with a rattlesnake, a scorpion, a black widow spider, or any other deadly vermin?  Swat, stomp, shoot, or otherwise make sure the things assume room temperature!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Nice essay, Alf, but like I said, I've been reading some variation of this narrative for decades. The lefties mix and match the ingredients of the basic theory, to keep it current, but it's all basically a different version of "the sky is falling!" I classify it the same as the climate change narrative - a hare-brained theory patched together with a few anecdotal facts that can jump from global cooling to global warming at the drop of a hat, and with great dexterity. When the 'peak oil' admonitions failed to produce the necessary level of fear, there was another well-tweaked theory sitting on the shelf, ready to go.

    The bottom line for me is that lefties build their foundations for predicting the future on a consensus of theory that they have decided to believe, whereas the righties keep using the same old basic tenets of capitalism - produce and adapt. Neither is always right or always wrong, but less people starve under capitalism. When you strip it all out to the basics, it is about socialism versus capitalism, or carried out to its logical extension (in my opinon, of course), Utopia vs. Reality.

    In my feeble little brain, the options are to bet the ranch on what a consensus of politically motivated intellectuals theorize, or you can try something that has actually worked, and see if it will work again. My strongest education comes from history, whereas your much higher level of formal education comes from scientific theory. It really is a great thing to have the kind of knowledge that produces ideas, as long as you remember that half (or more) of the many very brilliant ideas just don't work. It takes time to root out the unexpected consequences, and the evidence has to be evaluated honestly, not along political lines. I suggest that when in doubt about the science, pay a little bit of attention to theoretical physicists, who are the least political in the scientific world, and much smarter than the 'also-rans' who confuse theory with fact.





  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,689 Senior Member
    .....I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us....
    Regarding this, it's true that in a desperate bid for peace in Europe poor Neville was ready to sign anything Herr Hitler could hand him, despite all proofs that "annexing" the smaller neighbors wasn't enough for the Nazis, but if memory doesn't fails me, at the same time his government was approving a discrete rearmament program that would eventually pay off discouraging the Germans from invading the isles after taking over France...seems like Chamberlain wasn't as naive as popular history usually portraits him.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    I'm not sure I understand the all capitalism or all socialism view either. Sometimes it seems like there's a group of people that want unfettered, unregulated, capitalism with no laws whatsoever. 
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    edited May 2018 #57

    As for the first statement, it's really not. Not this conversation, not most things. I get that that's the lens (back to those lenses again) that you see everything through, but it's a very, very narrow view. I mean I can't say it's surprising given that you came of age in the heart of the cold war and the existential threat was communism/nuclear war with the USSR, but it's really not a super useful lens for looking at most things these days.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bisley:
    It's more than just my understanding of the Cold War. It's also about the Army-McCarthy hearings, which I was too young to understand, so I read some books, before all of the authors became propagandists for one side or the other. It was about the progressive era - Teddy Roosevelt thru Woodrow Wilson, and on to FDR. It was about the early Communist Party of America's efforts to take over the labor unions, not completely successful, thanks to organized crime, but still useful in fomenting chaos at the drop of a hat.

    But most of all, it was about European entities, George Soros being one of the more prominent, buying Al Gore and the Democrat Party, lock, stock, and barrel, and a few Republicans for good measure. Moveon.org was very successful in propagandizing the youth of America with the still new Internet capability, but chasing all of the moderates out of the Democrat party, the invention of Barack Obama out of thin air, and the adoption of 'Rules for Radicals' as the new Democrat playbook was the most harmful, when supported by an already liberal mass media.

    I also spent a lot of time swimming upstream on a left-wing political forum with dozens of very bright young college students, mostly British, who challenged and questioned everything, and would then launch into tirades that 'sounded' very much like your last post, all warning of impending depressions, worldwide economic disaster, etc., etc. ad infinitum - all of it canned rhetoric, straight out of the communist party narrative of the time.

    So yes, my thinking is 'tainted' by history, although I would say it was informed by history, and that your anti-Bush rhetoric identifies you as another political science student influenced by lefty professors and led astray with the Moveon.org style propaganda.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your second point is a good one and applies especially to this thread. This is something I rarely see out of republicans. I get that I am also tainted by history, watching Bush lie us into the quagmire Iraq and then lie about the costs. That happened while I was an undergrad and I actually wrote an essay that predicted almost exactly how big a mess it would be before the first bomb was even dropped. In almost every case the unexpected consequences can be seen and predicted, you just have to take the time to think and look.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bisley:
    Maybe Bush lied, or maybe he was just wrong...or maybe he was right and Saddam got rid of the WMD. It doesn't matter much now, because the nation building didn't work out, anyway. His biggest failing was in over-estimating the time it would take for the left-wing opposition to turn the American public against him.

    Nation building took a generation, in Japan, and it was totally subjugated at the end of WWII, and had a US military governor with unlimited power until the people learned and understood a democratic form of government. The Bush administration did not understand how long it would have taken to straighten out the factions in Iraq, and were unwilling to wage war against Iran to accomplish that. In the end, the left beat him into submission, while he claimed to be taking the high road.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I see in many republicans a level of idiotic machismo and unchecked testosterone that leads to shooting first and asking questions later. Occasionally that works out fine or is even what we need. Other times it leads to wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. And it's possible for the costs to be much much higher. I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us. Bring them on. But I also ask you to think. We live in a global world that is highly connected. Consequences can cascade. Little ripples can become big cascades. If you do nothing else, do a google map search of Ras Tanura, look at the satellite view, then look at it's location in relation to Iran, and then realize that ~10-15% of globally traded oil flows through that one point and then you can explain to me how the risks to war with Iran are small.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------bisley:
    Even JFK was able to learn a few basics about realpolitik, as a result of his Bay of Pigs failure, that directly led him into the Cuban missile crisis. Fortunately, he recovered enough to listen briefly to some people with USSR understanding, and he was able to 'cowboy' his way out of being forced into a nuclear war (with an assist from a very fine blue-water Navy that scared the crap out of the Politburo). But that burgeoning understanding died with him, because Soviet realpolitik ate LBJ's lunch, and no Democrat president has ever mastered it, since. They got caught flat-footed by the break-up of the Soviet Union, and turned their attention away from geopolitics, while the expertise continued to flourish (at least for the future) in Russia, China, and all their minions.

    When a president spends too much time worrying about how "little ripples can become cascades" (...into a tidal wave, I suppose?), he makes mistakes, like making deals from a position of weakness, rather than from strength. When you beg someone to make a deal, you end up getting royally screwed. You must convince your enemies that you believe you have the upper hand, to just break even, much less win, in a peace treaty.

    Obama gave much, and got nothing but a half-hearted promise from a religious fanatic, who has been chanting "death to America" for forty years. The evidence of this is irrefutable to those of us who are looking through the correct lens. Iran is now having temper tantrums, and for the first time, one of our allies in the same region is spanking them for it, instead of the Sixth Fleet and some very weary special ops guys. They may get spanked some more, and it might be by us, but it is nothing compared to what could happen at the end of Obama;s treaty, when the Iranians can install the uranium core in an atomic bomb, and bolt it to one of the missiles they have been testing continuously, throughout the negotiations. Obama made some European businessmen and politicians happy about their future profits, and kicked the can...nothing else.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    early,

    I'm not arguing for unfettered capitalism - just against socialism. The only reason I went at it that way is because I am being told that I'm always wrong because I am looking through the wrong lens.

    I don't have the right lens, so I'm just trying to contribute to the topic in the best way I can, albeit through the wrong lens.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    bisley,
    I think your lens is important. I don't always agree with it, but I definitely read it. Sometimes more than once.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Antonio said:
    .....I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us....
    Regarding this, it's true that in a desperate bid for peace in Europe poor Neville was ready to sign anything Herr Hitler could hand him, despite all proofs that "annexing" the smaller neighbors wasn't enough for the Nazis, but if memory doesn't fails me, at the same time his government was approving a discrete rearmament program that would eventually pay off discouraging the Germans from invading the isles after taking over France...seems like Chamberlain wasn't as naive as popular history usually portraits him.
    That is what some historians claim, and it may be true. But, he was hanging Czechoslovakia and Poland out to dry, in the process. His problem was that he preferred to ally with the French point of view, rather than Winston Churchill's, in the years before Hitler made his first military move. The French could have beaten the Germans, or at least bluffed them out of their move to re-occupy the Rhineland, in 1936. Instead, they crowed about the Maginot Line, saying that they no longer needed a buffer zone between France and Germany, despite the fact that they knew Hitler was cheating on the rearmament terms of the Versaille Treaty.

    They had an alliance with Poland, but had not prepared themselves for actually effecting their rescue, if Hitler attacked them. Chamberlain knew this and didn't want it, so he basically gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in hopes that his 'white paper' would keep them from attacking Poland.

  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Peace in our time?
    Time to prepare.
    Time for more Spitfires people think but really just time to prepare.
    He was not such a fool history painted him.
    Let us not rewrite the past from the comfort of the now.


Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement