Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20585
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 10:01 am

freeman3 wrote:But if Trump stops North Korea from developing an ICBM that would be a significant accomplishment. Would not make up for all his other nonsense, though.


It actually would dwarf his other nonsense--IF it happens.

Clinton, Bush, Obama--they all tried to buy off the NK regime. That didn't work. They tried cajoling China. That didn't work.

Trump has taken things to a whole new level.

Let's see.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Sep 2017, 5:04 pm

I fret too much in negotiations too, RJ. The other attorney on my office is more successful with an aggressive approach. I tend to be over-analytical...like Obama.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20585
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 6:42 pm

freeman3 wrote:I fret too much in negotiations too, RJ. The other attorney on my office is more successful with an aggressive approach. I tend to be over-analytical...like Obama.


It’s like I say about computers: sometimes, the only thing they understand is brute force. ;)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 8:50 am

fate
Getting China to cut off NK is not "isolationism."

NO its not.
But unilaterally walking way from the Iran-P5+1 agreement is ...
And that what we were talking about.

In the case of NK, its apparent to even Trump that the US has no real leverage on NK .
In the case of Iran ... I guess he doesn't understand that sanctions aren't effective unless every significant trading partner participates...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20585
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 10:45 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Getting China to cut off NK is not "isolationism."

NO its not.
But unilaterally walking way from the Iran-P5+1 agreement is ...
And that what we were talking about.


Nope, that's still not isolationism. Isolationism would be signaling we don't care about Iran and North Korea. It would be "America First" = "America only"

That's not Trump--so far.

In the case of NK, its apparent to even Trump that the US has no real leverage on NK .
In the case of Iran ... I guess he doesn't understand that sanctions aren't effective unless every significant trading partner participates...


Oh, I think he understands quite a bit. I don't like his style. I frequently disagree with the substance of what he wants, but to chalk that up to not understanding would be foolhardy.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 1:32 pm

fate
It would be "America First" = "America only"

That's not Trump--so far.


How many leaders of the P5 + 1 are talking about the Iran deal as "an embarrassment" and signaling that they will abandon the treaty?
So far?

fate
Oh, I think he understands quite a bit.

Based on what he says?

"Iraq and Iran were very similar militarily, and they’d fight, fight, fight, and then they’d rest.

They’d fight, fight, fight, and then Saddam Hussein would do the gas, and somebody else would do something else, and they’d rest." –Donald Trump, demonstrating his knowledge of foreign policy at a town hall meeting in Virginia Beach, VA (Sept. 6, 2016)

"[Vladimir Putin} is not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down." –Donald Trump, apparently unaware that Russia had already annexed Crimea in a 2014 intrusion into Ukraine that left thousands dead (July 31, 2016)

Who knows?" –Donald Trump, when asked if he would start a war with China as president, New York Times interview, March 25, 2016

What do I know about it? All I know is what's on the internet." –Donald Trump, on trying to smear a protester who rushed the stage at his campaign rally by tweeting a widely debunked hoax video tying him to ISIS, Meet the Press interview, March 13, 2016

For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian. … If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS' ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened." –Donald Trump, in response to remarks by Pope Francis saying that "a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian." (February 18, 2016)

"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me... I would bomb the sh**t out of them." –Donald Trump, Nov. 13, 2015

"This is the Trump theory on war,. But I'm good at war. I've had a lot of wars of my own. I'm really good at war. I love war in a certain way. But only when we win." –Donald Trump, who never served in the military and received five draft deferments, Fort Dodge, Iowa, Nov. 12, 2015

I've seen numbers of 24 percent — I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent. 5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent." –Donald Trump, vastly overstating the unemployment rate in a claim rated false by Politifact, Sept.

"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility…then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics." –Donald Trump, three weeks before Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011

Who knew health care could be so complicated?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 2:05 pm

Since Trump has been successful on NK, having pushed the sanctions regime much further than previous presidents and beyond anyone's expectations, Ricky is going with the general character assassination (and we all agree that there is a lot there). Clearly it is too hard for him to say that in this particular case Trump has achieved more than Clinton, Bush, and Obama combined.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 2:11 pm

Ricky:

When Iran tested ballistic missiles in the fall of 2015, while Resolution 1929 was still in effect, it was doubtless in violation of a Security Council stricture. But when it tested its missile on Sunday, under the new Resolution 2231, Iran was essentially ignoring the Security Council's advice — not violating a directive
.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2 ... resolution

When Mr. Obama sought to include a prohibition on ballistic missiles in the Iran deal, or at least extend a previous Security Council resolution banning them, not just Russia and China but even our European allies in the nuclear negotiations refused," former Obama White House official Philip Gordon explained this week in the New York Times. "They argued that the ballistic missile ban was put in place in 2010 only to pressure Iran to reach a nuclear deal, and they refused to extend it once that deal had been concluded."


In other words, under the Iran deal the US has enabled Iran to achieve great success with their missile programs (including the accuracy they wanted to hit Israel). In addition we have provided them with billions in laundered money to provide for terrorists. We then enabled them to get out of any sanctions all for the small price of delaying their nuclear program which they may be cheating on anyway.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 2:14 pm

freeman3 wrote:I fret too much in negotiations too, RJ. The other attorney on my office is more successful with an aggressive approach. I tend to be over-analytical...like Obama.


On the other hand, nice guys finish second, have more friends, and healthier lives.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20585
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Sep 2017, 5:45 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
It would be "America First" = "America only"

That's not Trump--so far.


How many leaders of the P5 + 1 are talking about the Iran deal as "an embarrassment" and signaling that they will abandon the treaty?
So far?


No one. Because they're all idiots when it comes to negotiations. They're the ones who agreed to give Iran all the money up front, keep funding terror, keep testing missiles, and, at the end of 10 years, go nuclear.

That's dumb.

fate
Oh, I think he understands quite a bit.

Based on what he says?


There's what people say and there's what they do.

Obama said impressive things. The results? Not so much.

Trump says stupid things. The results? Better than Obama.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Sep 2017, 9:12 am

rayjay
Since Trump has been successful on NK


In what way has he been successful?
In getting China to agree to enhanced sanctions?Lets see if they work. Putin says the NK will eat grass before they give up their nukes...

Anyway, greater participation on sanctions... thats what Obama did with Iran...got the whole world to agree to enhanced sanctions against Iran, on top of previous levels of sanction, that lead to the the P5+1 agreement...
It was an agreement that has ended the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. Which was the goal of the treaty. (No more.) It didn't say Iran had to stop development of its other weapons programs...
And it has. If the US and the other partners hold up their part of the bargain for 6 more years, Iran has committed to extending the commitment .Trump cancelling his agreement would provide Iran a legitimate reason to recommence their program, and the P5+1 partners a legitimate reason to abandon sanctions.

Your complaining because Iran is working on a ballistic missile program? Should they not have any ability to defend themselves?
Lets consider Irans position . In 1980 Saddam invaded and attempted to destroy Iran. They showered Iranian cities with missiles. Iran had no weapons to counter this ... The missiles were American. Lets remember that Iraq was supported by the US and the Arab world. The missiles were made in America.
After 8 years they wear Saddam out. And he goes on to invade Kuwait... (Despite their backing in the earlier effort against Iran) . Some pay back huh?
Iran supports the American effort in the first Gulf war against Saddam, despite the 8 years of history ...
And Iran is an active enemy of the Taliban and Al Queda. (Unlike Saudi Arabia).And for a long while, the foremost armed force fighting ISIS ...(who formed with a great deal of support from Saudi Arabia).
So you think maybe Iran thinks they need to be able to defend themselves?
They made a commitment to a non-nuclear future. Not to being a patsy for Saudi Arabia and other nations in the area. (Israel?)

Fate
They're the ones who agreed to give Iran all the money up front, keep funding terror, keep testing missiles, and, at the end of 10 years, go nuclear.

The purpose of the treaty was singular. To get Iran to give up their nuclear weapons programs,. They have. And they have committed that if the P5+1 keep up their end of the bargain that the 10 year period will be extended...
Trump is about to give them an excuse to recommence the program. Genius that.
The treaty has worked exactly as designed.
That it hasn't humiliated Iran to the extent Israel and right wing Americans would like, is not a failing of the treaty.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Sep 2017, 10:28 am

Maybe we should have gotten more in the Iran deal. But trying to nix it now is asinine. Iran got their money, sanctions would be impossible to reintroduce if we're the ones that break the treaty, and Iran would be free to start their nuclear program again.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Sep 2017, 10:38 am

That's too funny. Ricky seems to relish the idea that sanctions would not work. Of course if they succeed appeasement/acquiescence in NK getting ICBMs would have been a colossally wrong approach.

We don't know if they will work but from all that I have read NK is not that stable of a regime and could fall from internal pressure if sanctions cause too much pain. In any case, why wouldn't you just hope that they work? You seem to want NK to have ICBMs...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20585
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Sep 2017, 11:00 am

freeman3 wrote:Maybe we should have gotten more in the Iran deal. But trying to nix it now is asinine. Iran got their money, sanctions would be impossible to reintroduce if we're the ones that break the treaty, and Iran would be free to start their nuclear program again.


To try and "nix it now" might be foolish. To convince other countries that we might nix it, thus getting them to reopen negotiations?

That would be brilliant.

We'll see.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20585
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Sep 2017, 11:01 am

freeman3 wrote:That's too funny. Ricky seems to relish the idea that sanctions would not work. Of course if they succeed appeasement/acquiescence in NK getting ICBMs would have been a colossally wrong approach.

We don't know if they will work but from all that I have read NK is not that stable of a regime and could fall from internal pressure if sanctions cause too much pain. In any case, why wouldn't you just hope that they work? You seem to want NK to have ICBMs...


He never really liked New York City.