President Backs Out of Iran Deal - will post sanctions

[Dashinka 24,806]

16 minutes ago, bcking said:

I just got back from a conference this weekend and need to catch up on work so I'm hoping to close my browser and not be enticed back to respond for at least a few hours. 

 

I sincerely hope we can end up with a "better deal" but given how hard that last one was to put together I don't see that happening. But maybe I'm being overly negative and I will be wrong. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this case.

 

I also sincerely hope that our plans with North Korea go through, but again I see this decision right now as something that hurts our chances with North Korea. Perhaps things have already moved far enough along that it won't matter. Again I hope I will be wrong in this case and maybe I'm just being overly negative.

 

I think reputation on the world stage matters a lot and this hurts our reputation when it comes to making international agreements. It hurts the Office of President for every current and future office holder because it continues to confirm that all decisions made in the past are "up to discussion" every 4-8 years. That makes it harder for countries to want to work with us when they aren't sure what we will decide after the next election. Perhaps our overall international strength (mostly militarily) will continue to be our dominating negotiating power and this won't matter. We can still try to bully people into agreeing with us. Hopefully that can continue to work in our favour.

 

"Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."

 

I agree the wording is interesting, but ultimately what Iran is "reaffirming" is that that they will never seek, develop or acquire. All three of those verbs are PRESENT tense, not past tense. So they didn't reaffirm that they never sought it. They only are reaffirming as part of the agreement that they never will in the present and future.

 

The deal was about future actions. If their past decisions were a factor it would have read "Iran reaffirms that they have never sought to develop or acquire any nuclear weapons, and under no circumstances will they ever seek to do so in the future". Something like that. Likely written better

Using the adverb "ever" implies all tenses.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Using the adverb "ever" implies all tenses.

Ever can imply all tenses, but can also only refer to now and in the future. I believe that is the case here (though I admit it can be argued both ways....that's the annoying thing about grammar in many cases). 

 

If you are buying a car, the salesman could say "This is the best price you will ever get"

 

That doesn't mean they didn't have better prices last year. You weren't there last year, so you weren't able to get them. It is referring to now and the future. You won't get a better price.

 

Okay I'm really stopping now. I also have a meeting in 15 minutes.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ever can imply all tenses, but can also only refer to now and in the future. I believe that is the case here (though I admit it can be argued both ways....that's the annoying thing about grammar in many cases). 

 

If you are buying a car, the salesman could say "This is the best price you will ever get"

 

That doesn't mean they didn't have better prices last year. You weren't there last year, so you weren't able to get them. It is referring to now and the future. You won't get a better price.

 

Okay I'm really stopping now. I also have a meeting in 15 minutes.

Wrong again LOL. It means he is trying to hold a little bit of Gross, so he dosent make a mini.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Unfortunately I don't think the nuclear deal said we can change our minds if we decided there was "more to tackle".

 

The only people we know with 100% certainty that broke the nuclear deal is the USA.

No one said it said that, which is the whole problem. The deal was bad to start with, allowed Iran to continue  its terrorism activity around the world, should have never taken place, and good on Trump for having the guts to withdraw.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

No one said it said that, which is the whole problem. The deal was bad to start with, allowed Iran to continue  its terrorism activity around the world, should have never taken place, and good on Trump for having the guts to withdraw.

It's only good if we are able to come up with a new deal that is better and covers those topics. I just don't see that happening.

 

So they will continue all those bad activities, plus now they can stop abiding by the intense oversight and they can restart their programs for nuclear weapons.

 

That makes no one safer.

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

 

 

I agree the wording is interesting, but ultimately what Iran is "reaffirming" is that that they will never seek, develop or acquire. All three of those verbs are PRESENT tense, not past tense. So they didn't reaffirm that they never sought it. They only are reaffirming as part of the agreement that they never will in the present and future.

 

The deal was about future actions. If their past decisions were a factor it would have read "Iran reaffirms that they have never sought to develop or acquire any nuclear weapons, and under no circumstances will they ever seek to do so in the future". Something like that. Likely written better

The problem is it's been proven that even while they WERE actually seeking that in the past, they were saying the exact same thing back then too. So am I going to trust them now? Of course not

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

The problem is it's been proven that even while they WERE actually seeking that in the past, they were saying the exact same thing back then too. So am I going to trust them now? Of course not

You don't have to trust them under the deal. The deal allows for intense scrutiny and monitoring 24/7 of all of their facilities, and the ability to investigate ANYWHERE else in their country with reasonably short notice.

 

Even if they got 24 days to clear out a site, we would have external surveillance showing them moving equipment and they would have violated the terms.

 

The deal wasn't about trusting them. They were closely scrutinized and monitored. There was zero evidence that they were continuing development. 

 

Now with the deal gone you can be absolutely sure that they will restart. I'm glad I don't live anywhere near them.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

You don't have to trust them under the deal. The deal allows for intense scrutiny and monitoring 24/7 of all of their facilities, and the ability to investigate ANYWHERE else in their country with reasonably short notice.

 

Even if they got 24 days to clear out a site, we would have external surveillance showing them moving equipment and they would have violated the terms.

 

The deal wasn't about trusting them. They were closely scrutinized and monitored. There was zero evidence that they were continuing development. 

 

Now with the deal gone you can be absolutely sure that they will restart. I'm glad I don't live anywhere near them.

Not if all their facilities are a hole in the ground.

 

YA YA we heard it all before. Trump is standing up to North Korea, the invasion and nuking of the south will start any second 

[X Factor 1,112]

President Obama responded on a Facebook post the foolishness of backing out of the Iran Deal

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, X Factor said:

President Obama responded on a Facebook post the foolishness of backing out of the Iran Deal

Shocking . Did he also claim Trump was going to start a war with NK?

[Dashinka 24,806]

17 minutes ago, X Factor said:

President Obama responded on a Facebook post the foolishness of backing out of the Iran Deal

Considering it was really only a deal between him and the Iranians, I am not surprised.

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Considering it was really only a deal between him and the Iranians, I am not surprised.

You think so highly of Obama...

 

Obama I guess controlled the entire P5+1?

Edited May 10, 2018 by bcking

[Póg mo 1,749]

Iran would have to be not only stupid but suicidal not to try to protect itself.  

 What that means, in stark terms, is that it is likely to pay any price to avoid the mistakes of Saddam Husain and Muamar Qaddafi. They either did not have (Saddam) or gave up (Qaddafi) nuclear weapons.

 We taught them two lessons:  first, not to have the means to defend themselves (which in our times equates to nuclear weapons) and, second, to trust us to let them live, is fatal.

 

 

 

https://b.marfeelcache.com/amp/historynewsnetwork.org/article/168987?__twitter_impression=true

[Dashinka 24,806]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

You think so highly of Obama...

 

Obama I guess controlled the entire P5+1?

Not really, I was just stating reality when a president goes it alone when making agreements.  They are non-binding to the next president.

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Not really, I was just stating reality when a president goes it alone when making agreements.  They are non-binding to the next president.

But we should be clear that this wasn't an agreement between Iran and Obama.

 

It was an agreement between Iran, the rest of the P5+1, Obama and the entire European Union.

 

It is non-binding here in America to be sure...but it still wasn't just one guy at the table with Iran.