Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default Things Are Getting Interesting With Iran

    Perhaps they ARE bringing the US to their point of view:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ming-obama-2-0

    OPINION
    Trump’s erratic Iran policy careens toward becoming Obama 2.0
    by Philip Klein
    | September 12, 2019 08:25 AM

    When John Bolton was ousted as national security adviser, I noted that it was great news for fans of Barack Obama’s Iran policy. Some thought I was exaggerating, but then on Wednesday we got this Bloomberg report that with Bolton gone, Trump was looking to give money to Iran to induce a leader of the terrorist regime, Hassan Rouhani, to meet with him:


    "President Donald Trump discussed easing sanctions on Iran to help secure a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani later this month, prompting then-National Security Advisor John Bolton to argue forcefully against such a step, according to three people familiar with the matter.


    After an Oval Office meeting on Monday when the idea came up, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin voiced his support for the move as a way to restart negotiations with Iran, some of the people said. Later in the day, Trump decided to oust Bolton, whose departure was announced Tuesday."
    This development is not surprising to those who have been following the administration’s erratic Iran policy. For all the headlines that were generated about Trump pulling out of Obama’s Iran deal and ratcheting up sanctions, thanks to intense lobbying by Mnunchin, Trump has stopped well short of following through on his promise of “maximum pressure” by waiving some key sanctions. Most worrisome, Trump has repeatedly granted waivers for “civilian” nuclear cooperation. This has helped keep Obama’s nuclear deal warm for a potential Democratic successor to revive it.


    Now, Trump desperately wants to meet with Rouhani, and is willing to ease up on the economic pressure campaign that has been put on Iran. We’ve gone from the possibility of a meeting under certain conditions, to a willingness to meet without preconditions, to a situation in which it seems increasingly likely that Trump is going to capitulate to Iran and meet the regime’s conditions for a meeting.


    At least in Obama’s case, it could be argued that the administration was consistent. They believed a policy of appeasing Iran would strengthen moderates, and reorient the Middle East, and they were hostile toward traditional U.S. allies in the region — the Arab states and Israel.


    In Trump’s case, however, his Iran policy is all over the place. He decided to pull out of the Iran deal, but then short arm the “maximum pressure” campaign, and now wants to offer concessions in exchange for a meeting that would be a diplomatic coup for Iran without doing anything to advance U.S. interests. It’s unclear why Trump wanted to pull out of the deal in the first place if this is how he followed through.


    There are multiple possible explanations for this vacillation. One is that Trump has competing impulses on foreign policy — wanting to seem tough, wanting to avoid conflict. The other is that he has advisers pulling him in different directions — hawks, non-interventionists who portray any toughness with Iran as a prelude to war, and those like Mnuchin who are sympathetic to Obama’s policies.

    ...



    http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...184#post943184


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509733

    Default

    The entire article doesn't make sense.

    Of course it is clear why Trump left the Iran deal. It was a TERRIBLE deal that did nothing to make the ME any safer. But he doesn't and never did want NO deal with Iran. He's always wanted a deal, he just wants far more than Obama got.

  3. Thanks LongTermGuy thanked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    The entire article doesn't make sense.

    Of course it is clear why Trump left the Iran deal. It was a TERRIBLE deal that did nothing to make the ME any safer. But he doesn't and never did want NO deal with Iran. He's always wanted a deal, he just wants far more than Obama got.
    So repeat what Obama did, but 'just' $15M.

    Both this and Obama's pallets were freeing up of Iranian $$$.

    Not a bit of difference.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    The entire article doesn't make sense.

    Of course it is clear why Trump left the Iran deal. It was a TERRIBLE deal that did nothing to make the ME any safer. But he doesn't and never did want NO deal with Iran. He's always wanted a deal, he just wants far more than Obama got.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    So repeat what Obama did, but 'just' $15M.

    Both this and Obama's pallets were freeing up of Iranian $$$.

    Not a bit of difference.
    Trump has repeatedly stated he wants a deal. Just not the one Obama killed Iran's ass with. Which, as stated, no problem with me.

    That being said, I remain greatly underwhelmed at Trump's handling of foreign policy. From everything I've seen, he's a great businessman. He needs to stick to it. Seems to me every time push comes to shove, he waffles. And I'm talking specifically about Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Turkey ... he has side-stepped the latter two, playing BS wishy-washy with Iran and wants to bail on Afghanistan (the wrong way).

    My first question when I saw this crap is "If Trump knew he was going down this road to begin with, WHY hire a lightning rod like Bolton to begin with?
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Trump has repeatedly stated he wants a deal. Just not the one Obama killed Iran's ass with. Which, as stated, no problem with me.

    That being said, I remain greatly underwhelmed at Trump's handling of foreign policy. From everything I've seen, he's a great businessman. He needs to stick to it. Seems to me every time push comes to shove, he waffles. And I'm talking specifically about Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Turkey ... he has side-stepped the latter two, playing BS wishy-washy with Iran and wants to bail on Afghanistan (the wrong way).

    My first question when I saw this crap is "If Trump knew he was going down this road to begin with, WHY hire a lightning rod like Bolton to begin with?
    Why NOT have Bolton where he was ?

    It'd be one good move to prove to the Iranians that the American Government was no longer composed of people who'd cave to opposition on a whim.

    I'm not sure that Trump has got his foreign policy direction right in all instances. Still ... as limited as it is ... he's achieved more notable success with N Korea than his predecessor. Besides, he'll have his advisers. He's doing a far better job, overall, than others have.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    49,579
    Thanks (Given)
    36105
    Thanks (Received)
    27789
    Likes (Given)
    3460
    Likes (Received)
    11179
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Why NOT have Bolton where he was ?

    It'd be one good move to prove to the Iranians that the American Government was no longer composed of people who'd cave to opposition on a whim.

    I'm not sure that Trump has got his foreign policy direction right in all instances. Still ... as limited as it is ... he's achieved more notable success with N Korea than his predecessor. Besides, he'll have his advisers. He's doing a far better job, overall, than others have.
    What good is having someone like Bolton or the Almighty Thor when all eyes are on Trump. Anyone under him, which is everyone in the US government, is a "Who's Next?". He has definitely marginalized "Secretary of _______".

    And don't misunderstand: I like John Bolton. When I want to kick someone's ass. Definitely not when I want to negotiate.

    I don't see the point to the moves Trump is making. Timing sucks. They are conciliatory (Iran & Afghanistan). And even if they only appear conciliatory, that's all it takes. Perception.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  8. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  9. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    49,013
    Thanks (Given)
    25501
    Thanks (Received)
    18957
    Likes (Given)
    10828
    Likes (Received)
    7417
    Piss Off (Given)
    86
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475543

    Default

    It looks like now the administration believes that Iran is behind the drone attack upon the Saudi oil fields, shutting off 5% of the world's oil supply for a few weeks.

    The President has called our strategic oil reserves to be opened if needed.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ed-loaded-iran


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  10. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  11. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Trump tweeted out they are waiting for orders from Saudia Arabia on what to do. Amazing. America is now 2nd tier.

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    Trump tweeted out they are waiting for orders from Saudia Arabia on what to do. Amazing. America is now 2nd tier.
    So what's your suggestion ? That Trump shows no consideration for Saudi Arabia's borders, or those who rule that country ?

    Would you like the Saudis to turn against America, on that basis ? H'mm ?

    How NON interventionist have you been, Pete, when it comes to previous incidents ? Did you cheer America on, when it carpet-bombed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ? Did you support the Iraq invasion of 2003 ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow, I doubt that you've been enthusiastically pro-intervention in your thinking (you'd be a strange Leftie, if you have). Yet, now, you take this stand over this Saudi incident ?

    So tell me, Pete. Is there anything Trump could do that you'd approve of ? Or is your disapproval an automatic 'given' .. ?
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  13. Thanks Kathianne, STTAB thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  14. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    So repeat what Obama did, but 'just' $15M.

    Both this and Obama's pallets were freeing up of Iranian $$$.

    Not a bit of difference.
    Not exactly true in regards to Obama.

    While the bulk of the figure we here bandied about was in actuality Iranian assets that were in EUROPEAN banks, not US banks, that were frozen at the request of the US until Obama made the request to unfreeze them, which the European banks did.

    However, Obama absolutely DID give Iran $1.7 in CASH. Now the money was a disputed settlement plus interest over an airplane sale from the 1970s, the world court had found in favor of Iran, BUT we're talking a reversal of almost 40 years of US policy where we refused to honor that judgement and Obama DID just decide on his own to turn over cash to the fucking Iranians.

  15. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    So what's your suggestion ? That Trump shows no consideration for Saudi Arabia's borders, or those who rule that country ?

    Would you like the Saudis to turn against America, on that basis ? H'mm ?

    How NON interventionist have you been, Pete, when it comes to previous incidents ? Did you cheer America on, when it carpet-bombed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ? Did you support the Iraq invasion of 2003 ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow, I doubt that you've been enthusiastically pro-intervention in your thinking (you'd be a strange Leftie, if you have). Yet, now, you take this stand over this Saudi incident ?

    So tell me, Pete. Is there anything Trump could do that you'd approve of ? Or is your disapproval an automatic 'given' .. ?
    Saudis are not in NATO. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a bit different. Not our war. I thought we weren't the world's police.
    Last edited by pete311; 09-16-2019 at 12:25 PM.

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    Saudis are not in NATO. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a bit different. Not our war. I thought we weren't the world's police.
    Pete, wouldn't it be easier to just start being honest and consistent so that you don't have to justify every post you make?

    I mean and it's blatant too, because every person on this board knows there is absolutely no way you are actually in 100% perfect alignment with every single liberal talking point even though your posts show differently. Seriously , at least once in awhile you have to be thinking to yourself "Jesus Christ this is a baseless complaint against Trump, I do NOT agree with this"

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    Pete, wouldn't it be easier to just start being honest and consistent so that you don't have to justify every post you make?

    I mean and it's blatant too, because every person on this board knows there is absolutely no way you are actually in 100% perfect alignment with every single liberal talking point even though your posts show differently. Seriously , at least once in awhile you have to be thinking to yourself "Jesus Christ this is a baseless complaint against Trump, I do NOT agree with this"
    cool story

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    cool story

    Surprise surprise , the half man deflects again.

  19. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    Saudis are not in NATO. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a bit different. Not our war. I thought we weren't the world's police.
    So .. Saudi Arabia isn't in NATO ... so, what they want, what they say, has no importance ? They, their wishes, can be disregarded ?

    Do you take the same attitude to every non-NATO country ?

    Why didn't you support the invasion of Iraq .. were you one of those millions of Lefties worldwide who went on marches, trying to save Saddam's regime from military threat ? [Did Saddam find the decency to give your lot a 'thank you' for that one ?]

    Afghanistan was, yes, a 'bit' different. I somehow recall that there was a 'bit' of an issue with terrorists located in large numbers, there. Some of their number had shown a 'bit' of belligerence in killing 3,000 people in America on 9/11, so, they needed a 'bit' of sorting out !

    But tell me. Why don't you think the War on Terrorism is 'your' war ?? Where do you think the World Trade Center was located, then ???

    Perhaps you think terrorism can now be disregarded, if it's not 'your war'. Is that the new Leftie lunacy ?
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums