President Backs Out of Iran Deal - will post sanctions

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

15 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.

Just accept the fact if Trump cured cancer, some would post links to a headline that read.

 

New Trump policy puts 1000s out of work and forces the closure of many many health care providers. 

 

[Dashinka 24,765]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

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.

From the US’s perspective, it was between President Obama and Iran.  Other countries have their own laws, and most of them know about the US laws, so they know that when congress rejected it, it was subject to being dropped.

[Dashinka 24,765]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Just accept the fact if Trump cured cancer, some would post links to a headline that read.

 

New Trump policy puts 1000s out of work and forces the closure of many many health care providers. 

 

I know, I am waiting for the headline that states Trump colluded with KJU for the 2018 election.

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Just accept the fact if Trump cured cancer, some would post links to a headline that read.

 

New Trump policy puts 1000s out of work and forces the closure of many many health care providers. 

 

Really? Obama was attacked for the entirety of his time in office, and you are complaining that the provocateur in Chief is not liked by the press? 

[Dashinka 24,765]

38 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Really? Obama was attacked for the entirety of his time in office, and you are complaining that the provocateur in Chief is not liked by the press? 

Obama was attacked by one mainstream news organization and he fought back.  I don’t remember him getting the same treatment from the left wing news outlets like the NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, etc, unless you feel being treated with kid gloves an attack.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

39 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Obama was attacked by one mainstream news organization and he fought back.  I don’t remember him getting the same treatment from the left wing news outlets like the NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, etc, unless you feel being treated with kid gloves an attack.

It's only 91% of the Media , come on ?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/09/trumps-approval-rises-despite-91-negative-coverage-five-sound

 

 

 

Trump's Approval Rises as Study Shows 91% Negative Coverage; 'The Five' Sound Off

 

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Obama was attacked by one mainstream news organization and he fought back.  I don’t remember him getting the same treatment from the left wing news outlets like the NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, etc, unless you feel being treated with kid gloves an attack.

Obama didn't try to pay off strippers, or regularly embarrassed himself and the country he supposedly leads either. These sort of things makes it easy for people to attack him, and given that the media is in part ratings driven, it should not surprise anyone that the media would want to focus in on Trump  Anyway, fox news was not the only media that regularly attacked Obama. Nobody in the supposedly left wing media, has suggested that Trump wasn't really an American, a claim regularly insinuated about Obama. Trump is a provocateur. He attacks anyone who doesn't give him 100% support, but whines that the media are against him. Get a clue. The media may well be corrupt, and subservient to power and money, but don't tell me that Trump is in anyway better. He is much, much worse. A loose cannon that could easily make the planet uninhabitable for much of the world's population. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

It's only 91% of the Media , come on ?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/09/trumps-approval-rises-despite-91-negative-coverage-five-sound

 

 

 

Trump's Approval Rises as Study Shows 91% Negative Coverage; 'The Five' Sound Off

 

 

It would be interesting to do a similar evaluation of Trump's Twitter and public speeches.

 

How many contain negative comments about someone or something?

 

I imagine it would be quite similar. 90% or more.

[OriZ 3,157]

13 hours ago, bcking said:

Which Israel hasn't done yet. They proved that they were storing documents. Oh no! We proved that they had good reason to.

 

Impossible to prove? They have been monitored since the deal was made. Every other country agrees that they are abiding by the terms.

Seriously, if that's all you took away from these documents then you missed the whole point. In the documents they detailed exactly how they would avoid detection while indeed they were actually lying to the world which has already been proven, splitting activities into small bits and other ways, and basically anything they did then they could also do now and we wouldn't know about it. So the point was not to say whether or not they are or aren't right now, but to demonstrate that if they only do what they wrote black on white to do in the past, it is a possibility they could be potentially violating it and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

10 hours ago, bcking said:

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.

That's kinda like saying if there is a bully in school, punching people, spitting on them, calling them names, the teachers reach an agreement with the bully that for a certain period of time it won't be allowed to do any punching, but it can still do everything else, and after that time is up it can go back to punching as well. And you agree to it because, well, you just don't want the punching to happen in the short term, completely forgetting about the long term or about how harmful everything else they are doing is. You don't bow down and you don't back down from obscene behavior, you pound it to the ground like Israel just did.

 

10 hours 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.

I actually have plenty of friends and family in the area and I don't know anyone who is worried. There are other, better ways anyway, and they have been used for some time now. This deal was terrible and needed to go, even the Iranians themselves say so:

 

Some supported Khamenei's remarks, but the majority did not spare criticism from the Supreme Leader. "The Iranian people are not donkeys, you are not my leader, you do not have the ability to speak for me." Another wrote: "It is better to end bitter than endless bitterness, the only one who benefited from the nuclear agreement was the Islamic Republic, while the people have only expenses, #thank_you_trump".

Another conducted a survey in response to Khamenei's post and asked: "Which of the two is the ridiculed and the one who made the mistake, Khamenei or Trump?" Out of 2,058 voters, 69% voted for Khamenei and 10% voted for Trump. Another 21% voted for both of them. Since then, more polls have been launched on social networks that raise the question "Do you agree with Trump's words?" And "Does Iran have a positive or negative image in international relations?" Although Trump is portrayed in all the media as an unstable leader who makes decisions easily, on social networks in Iran he is actually supported. Most of the voters in that poll agreed with his remarks, and decided that Iran was perceived negatively in its international conduct.

"Do you agree with the words of Donald Trump? Yes, 75 percent, not 25 percent." Survey in Iran
 

More and more satirical videos have recently surfaced on social networks showing how the Iranians are begging familiar figures of ayatollahs for bread or chicken. The clerics explain in the film that bread and chicken are not essential, and that it is better to invest the money in Hezbollah , Syria and in the nuclear program. "What will I do with the nuclear program, when I am hungry for bread?"

 

"This decision is good for us, for the Iranian people but not for the regime," Dardashti said, "many Iranians support Trump's decision, and now we can see if Khamenei really goes to war, or that it's all just talk , The Iranian people are hungry anyway, only they will be harmed - the 'Hindists,' the clerics of the Islamic regime. " According to Dardashti, "25 billion of the nuclear agreement did not reach the people, the money went to Hezbollah and Yemen, the Iranians did not see that money, all the money went to Lebanon and the Arabs ate and enjoyed it."

 

When asked about the tension felt in Israel over the friction on the northern border, Dardashti asked whether "the Israelis really think there will be a war with Iran, that it is impossible, you can sleep quietly." The whole world thinks that Iran will fight Israel, but that will not happen. They know they will be defeated and there will be a revolution, only because of this the Islamic Republic will prevent war, Israel is a strong country, it has strong intelligence and it is everywhere. "

 

Rani Amrani is the director of the Ran radio station in Farsi in Israel. Every day he broadcasts on the radio a program in the Persian language, which has listeners in all the people and also in Iran. Immediately after the broadcast yesterday, he says in a conversation with Walla! News on the feelings of the listeners who come up to broadcast occasionally and some keep him in touch. "They are happy that the Americans have stepped out of the agreement, because now there will be more pressure on Iran, those who talk and go on the air, they want to topple the government, they know that Trump's exit from the agreement raises the cost of living, but maybe that will bring down the government."

According to Amrani, the Iranians were very moved by Trump's speech. "He is speaking to them, and anyone who supports the government does not take Trump's statement seriously and even disparages it, and they present it as if the one who is isolated from the world is the United States, not Iran."

 

Arte Mirzaei, 29, of Tehran, said in a conversation with Walla! That he too has experienced the many difficulties brought by the economic situation in Iran. "If there is no external interference," he warned, "the difficult situation in Venezuela would reach Iran."

Mirzaei said he agreed with Trump's remarks that the nuclear agreement had no effect on the economic situation of the Iranian people. "If the Iranian government's policy regarding its economy and its conduct with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria will not change, the Iranian government will not change its policy, Then a protest will begin here too, "he said.

 

I shorted it as much as possible, but it requires translation, I couldn't find one in English but if you want to read more, check out this link and use the translate page option:

 

https://news.walla.co.il/item/3156740

 

I also talked to my ex whom I have mentioned here before, she's a brit with an Iranian mom who moved out of Iran after the revolution, I asked her what she thought about the situation in Syria, and her response was "hmmm not good at all". I was like 'oh don't tell me you're surprised' and this is a direct quote of what she said: "Not with the lunatics running Iran no. My mum actually said trump was right and they need to put pressure for another revolution"

 

So you see - the really curious thing here is the fact that you have the people of Iran or people from Iran who actually understand this regime support this decision, and then you have the usual apologists who have mostly probably never even known an Iranian or asked or cared about how they even feel about it, try to lecture them and the world that this deal was good and ditching it is bad. It's a crazy world we live in.

 

Ironically, it's only gotten Israel and sunni muslim countries, mainly the gulf ones closer, because they're aligned on the need to deal with the threat coming from Iran. Here's but two for you:

 

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/bahrain-defends-israel-s-right-to-defend-itself-against-iran-1.6075271

 

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/33487/Default.aspx

 

Iran is the biggest threat to world peace and stability today, a threat this deal doesn't even come close to solving. The Iranians acknowledge it, other Muslims as well as Arabs acknowledge it, but for some reason the left in the west refuses to. Go figure that one out.

Edited May 11, 2018 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

Seriously, if that's all you took away from these documents then you missed the whole point. In the documents they detailed exactly how they would avoid detection while indeed they were actually lying to the world which has already been proven, splitting activities into small bits and other ways, and basically anything they did then they could also do now and we wouldn't know about it. So the point was not to say whether or not they are or aren't right now, but to demonstrate that if they only do what they wrote black on white to do in the past, it is a possibility they could be potentially violating it and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Please show me where the documents say those things.

 

From what I've read the only thing Netanyahu has revealed is documents about their prior weapons program. 

 

As I've said before if there is actually concrete evidence that they are violating the agreement I'm all for breaking it off. I just haven't seen it yet.

[OriZ 3,157]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

Please show me where the documents say those things.

 

From what I've read the only thing Netanyahu has revealed is documents about their prior weapons program. 

 

As I've said before if there is actually concrete evidence that they are violating the agreement I'm all for breaking it off. I just haven't seen it yet.

I already have. Look at the links I provided in the relevant thread a week or so ago.

 

Here's an example:

 

According to the senior source, the information obtained by Israel serves as proof of the existence of a nuclear weapon program which the Iranians began working on before 2003. When they halted their nuclear program that year, they dissolved the weapon program into small components but kept working on the plan and deceiving the entire world.

 

 

This leads to the conclusion, the senior intelligence source said, that they may have been doing the exact same thing after signing the nuclear agreement in 2015. The source added that the material included detailed instructions and images for the production of a nuclear weapon, but that they were not presented on Monday so that the information wouldn’t fall into unwanted hands of other countries and used by terrorists or countries for their own nuclear programs.

 

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5247833,00.html

Edited May 11, 2018 by OriZ

[Dashinka 24,765]

11 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Obama didn't try to pay off strippers, or regularly embarrassed himself and the country he supposedly leads either. These sort of things makes it easy for people to attack him, and given that the media is in part ratings driven, it should not surprise anyone that the media would want to focus in on Trump  Anyway, fox news was not the only media that regularly attacked Obama. Nobody in the supposedly left wing media, has suggested that Trump wasn't really an American, a claim regularly insinuated about Obama. Trump is a provocateur. He attacks anyone who doesn't give him 100% support, but whines that the media are against him. Get a clue. The media may well be corrupt, and subservient to power and money, but don't tell me that Trump is in anyway better. He is much, much worse. A loose cannon that could easily make the planet uninhabitable for much of the world's population. 

I actually never suggested that Trump was any better than the media, but it is nice to hear you say that the media isn't above the fray either.  When more people understand that all the media outlets may have a political agenda, maybe, just maybe, people will become more informed.

[Dashinka 24,765]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

I already have. Look at the links I provided in the relevant thread a week or so ago.

 

Here's an example:

 

According to the senior source, the information obtained by Israel serves as proof of the existence of a nuclear weapon program which the Iranians began working on before 2003. When they halted their nuclear program that year, they dissolved the weapon program into small components but kept working on the plan and deceiving the entire world.

 

 

This leads to the conclusion, the senior intelligence source said, that they may have been doing the exact same thing after signing the nuclear agreement in 2015. The source added that the material included detailed instructions and images for the production of a nuclear weapon, but that they were not presented on Monday so that the information wouldn’t fall into unwanted hands of other countries and used by terrorists or countries for their own nuclear programs.

 

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5247833,00.html

I remember you already showing this.  It seems to me that the source was attacked in response.

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I remember you already showing this.  It seems to me that the source was attacked in response.

Sorry, any source that originates with Israel, given its history of attempting to undermine an the treaty with Iran, should never taken at face value. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, OriZ said:

I already have. Look at the links I provided in the relevant thread a week or so ago.

 

Here's an example:

 

According to the senior source, the information obtained by Israel serves as proof of the existence of a nuclear weapon program which the Iranians began working on before 2003. When they halted their nuclear program that year, they dissolved the weapon program into small components but kept working on the plan and deceiving the entire world.

 

 

This leads to the conclusion, the senior intelligence source said, that they may have been doing the exact same thing after signing the nuclear agreement in 2015. The source added that the material included detailed instructions and images for the production of a nuclear weapon, but that they were not presented on Monday so that the information wouldn’t fall into unwanted hands of other countries and used by terrorists or countries for their own nuclear programs.

 

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5247833,00.html

So their conclusion was that they MAY have been doing the exact same thing after the agreement in 2015.

 

They had no evidence of them actually doing it. They are just arguing that it is possible, and therefore even the possibility of it violates the agreement.

 

If that is the standard we want to hold countries to in future agreements it would be impossible for any country to meet it. Whatever deal we make with North Korea, it will always be POSSIBLE that they don't keep to their end. Therefore by the same standard we shouldn't even bother entering into an agreement because it will fail our standard.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by bcking