That may have been the case with all the shitbag presidents before Trump.93henfan wrote:Nukes if they use them first, obviously. Otherwise, no. The US doesn't nuke countries that don't attack us unprovoked.
Turning Tehran to glass would be pretty awesome though, I must admit.
ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:That may have been the case with all the shitbag presidents before Trump.93henfan wrote:Nukes if they use them first, obviously. Otherwise, no. The US doesn't nuke countries that don't attack us unprovoked.
Turning Tehran to glass would be pretty awesome though, I must admit.
Theres a new sheriff in town and he gets things accomplished no matter how much congress tries to hamstring him.
Get ready for 4 more years of gloriousness! #TrumpTrain2020
We have something going on that doesn't need to be going on. I was against the Iran deal when Obama did it. But we made a deal as far as the rest of the World is concerned. Then Trump came in and we went back on our word. We demonstrated that the word of the United States has no value. And now we are here.Ivytalk wrote:So we lost a drone. Big deal. Nobody has been killed yet. Dial back the testosterone, gents.
We have demonstrated that over and over and over again since WWII. I don’t see why you are suddenly obsessed with it now.JohnStOnge wrote:We have something going on that doesn't need to be going on. I was against the Iran deal when Obama did it. But we made a deal as far as the rest of the World is concerned. Then Trump came in and we went back on our word. We demonstrated that the word of the United States has no value. And now we are here.Ivytalk wrote:So we lost a drone. Big deal. Nobody has been killed yet. Dial back the testosterone, gents.
Agree 100%. The leftists should be grateful to Trump...if his resolve holds.SDHornet wrote:Heard there was going to be some missile strikes that Trump called off. Leftists will now probably pillory Trump for that move as well.
Going to war with Iran is idiotic and if we send troops in it would be like Afghanistan but 1000x worse as its geography is nothing like Iraq. If anything, we just blow up a few things from the air and call it good.
Agree, but it'll be funsies seeing the leftists stump for another war. Oh the irony.Ivytalk wrote:Agree 100%. The leftists should be grateful to Trump...if his resolve holds.SDHornet wrote:Heard there was going to be some missile strikes that Trump called off. Leftists will now probably pillory Trump for that move as well.
Going to war with Iran is idiotic and if we send troops in it would be like Afghanistan but 1000x worse as its geography is nothing like Iraq. If anything, we just blow up a few things from the air and call it good.
I’m more worried about the rightists this time, like Lindsey Graham (who should know better) and Field Marshal von Bolton (who is irredeemable).SDHornet wrote:Agree, but it'll be funsies seeing the leftists stump for another war. Oh the irony.Ivytalk wrote: Agree 100%. The leftists should be grateful to Trump...if his resolve holds.
Bolton and Pompeo are the real concerns here, and yes I fear this escalates into a full blown war.Ivytalk wrote:I’m more worried about the rightists this time, like Lindsey Graham (who should know better) and Field Marshal von Bolton (who is irredeemable).SDHornet wrote: Agree, but it'll be funsies seeing the leftists stump for another war. Oh the irony.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
I am willing to listen and if it's true it's true. But do you have an example of a situation in which we did something like what we did with the Iran agreement? I'm talking about we make a high profile agreement involving a bunch of nations with one particular antagonist being featured. Then the antagonist honors its side of the agreement and we welsh on our end just because we changed Presidents.CID1990 wrote:We have demonstrated that over and over and over again since WWII. I don’t see why you are suddenly obsessed with it now.JohnStOnge wrote:
We have something going on that doesn't need to be going on. I was against the Iran deal when Obama did it. But we made a deal as far as the rest of the World is concerned. Then Trump came in and we went back on our word. We demonstrated that the word of the United States has no value. And now we are here.
We promised South Vietnam - over and over and over that we would protect them from the North (for better or worse). Our Ambassador in Saigon, literally days before the city fell in April 1975 was assuring the South Vietnamese that our government would not turn its back on the them.JohnStOnge wrote:I am willing to listen and if it's true it's true. But do you have an example of a situation in which we did something like what we did with the Iran agreement? I'm talking about we make a high profile agreement involving a bunch of nations with one particular antagonist being featured. Then the antagonist honors its side of the agreement and we welsh on our end just because we changed Presidents.CID1990 wrote:
We have demonstrated that over and over and over again since WWII. I don’t see why you are suddenly obsessed with it now.
If you've got an example of us doing something like that before then it is what it is. But I don't recall it.
Yes because I do not consider that an example of what I'm talking about. Iran is a "foe." We and our allies made an agreement with that foe. The foe agreed to do certain things and we agreed to do certain things. By all accounts the foe generally lived up to its end of the bargain. Then we had a Presidential election, a new President took office, and we reneged on our end of the bargain.CID1990 wrote:We promised South Vietnam - over and over and over that we would protect them from the North (for better or worse). Our Ambassador in Saigon, literally days before the city fell in April 1975 was assuring the South Vietnamese that our government would not turn its back on the them.JohnStOnge wrote:
I am willing to listen and if it's true it's true. But do you have an example of a situation in which we did something like what we did with the Iran agreement? I'm talking about we make a high profile agreement involving a bunch of nations with one particular antagonist being featured. Then the antagonist honors its side of the agreement and we welsh on our end just because we changed Presidents.
If you've got an example of us doing something like that before then it is what it is. But I don't recall it.
I’m sure you’ll parse this as not counting because there was no “formal” agreement, but I would remind you that the JCPOA was also a nonbinding, informal agreement.
Would you like more examples of American foreign policy fecklessness?
Well I predicted you’d do it and you did it anyway.JohnStOnge wrote:Yes because I do not consider that an example of what I'm talking about. Iran is a "foe." We and our allies made an agreement with that foe. The foe agreed to do certain things and we agreed to do certain things. By all accounts the foe generally lived up to its end of the bargain. Then we had a Presidential election, a new President took office, and we reneged on our end of the bargain.CID1990 wrote:
We promised South Vietnam - over and over and over that we would protect them from the North (for better or worse). Our Ambassador in Saigon, literally days before the city fell in April 1975 was assuring the South Vietnamese that our government would not turn its back on the them.
I’m sure you’ll parse this as not counting because there was no “formal” agreement, but I would remind you that the JCPOA was also a nonbinding, informal agreement.
Would you like more examples of American foreign policy fecklessness?
BTW I do not agree with what we did with Vietnam. There's a whole big deal there where the US won a resounding victory in repelling the Tet Offensive and it was somehow translated into a defeat. I can remember reading an account by a North Vietnamese general who said the North was about to give up because they got their ass kicked then they saw the cultural reaction in the US and realized they could exploit it.
But I don't think any of that relates to what I'm talking about with the Iran deal. We very publicly made an agreement with an adversary. The adversary lived up to its end of the bargain. We did not.
When you say, "we and our allies". Who exactly are you referring to as we? Obama? Congress? The American people?JohnStOnge wrote:Yes because I do not consider that an example of what I'm talking about. Iran is a "foe." We and our allies made an agreement with that foe. The foe agreed to do certain things and we agreed to do certain things. By all accounts the foe generally lived up to its end of the bargain. Then we had a Presidential election, a new President took office, and we reneged on our end of the bargain.CID1990 wrote:
We promised South Vietnam - over and over and over that we would protect them from the North (for better or worse). Our Ambassador in Saigon, literally days before the city fell in April 1975 was assuring the South Vietnamese that our government would not turn its back on the them.
I’m sure you’ll parse this as not counting because there was no “formal” agreement, but I would remind you that the JCPOA was also a nonbinding, informal agreement.
Would you like more examples of American foreign policy fecklessness?
BTW I do not agree with what we did with Vietnam. There's a whole big deal there where the US won a resounding victory in repelling the Tet Offensive and it was somehow translated into a defeat. I can remember reading an account by a North Vietnamese general who said the North was about to give up because they got their ass kicked then they saw the cultural reaction in the US and realized they could exploit it.
But I don't think any of that relates to what I'm talking about with the Iran deal. We very publicly made an agreement with an adversary. The adversary lived up to its end of the bargain. We did not.
I think we should honor agreements and avoid war when possible. But that’s just me.SeattleGriz wrote:When you say, "we and our allies". Who exactly are you referring to as we? Obama? Congress? The American people?JohnStOnge wrote:
Yes because I do not consider that an example of what I'm talking about. Iran is a "foe." We and our allies made an agreement with that foe. The foe agreed to do certain things and we agreed to do certain things. By all accounts the foe generally lived up to its end of the bargain. Then we had a Presidential election, a new President took office, and we reneged on our end of the bargain.
BTW I do not agree with what we did with Vietnam. There's a whole big deal there where the US won a resounding victory in repelling the Tet Offensive and it was somehow translated into a defeat. I can remember reading an account by a North Vietnamese general who said the North was about to give up because they got their ass kicked then they saw the cultural reaction in the US and realized they could exploit it.
But I don't think any of that relates to what I'm talking about with the Iran deal. We very publicly made an agreement with an adversary. The adversary lived up to its end of the bargain. We did not.
Most international agreements these days are either sole executive agreements or agreements based on prior Congressional authorization that may have remote relevance to the actual subject matter of the agreement. Very few are Article II treaties that require Senate ratification. It’s part of the shift of power to the Executive Branch. I wrote a term paper on this last term, using the JCPOA as a case study. Want a copy?kalm wrote:I think we should honor agreements and avoid war when possible. But that’s just me.SeattleGriz wrote:When you say, "we and our allies". Who exactly are you referring to as we? Obama? Congress? The American people?
Sure!Ivytalk wrote:Most international agreements these days are either sole executive agreements or agreements based on prior Congressional authorization that may have remote relevance to the actual subject matter of the agreement. Very few are Article II treaties that require Senate ratification. It’s part of the shift of power to the Executive Branch. I wrote a term paper on this last term, using the JCPOA as a case study. Want a copy?kalm wrote:
I think we should honor agreements and avoid war when possible. But that’s just me.
No because the Democrats are working with Iran, even the blind can see that.CitadelGrad wrote:Is it strange or predictable that the Dems,media and Iran all seem a little disappointed that Trump didn't retaliate?
PM me your e-mail address, and I’ll send it to you.kalm wrote:Sure!Ivytalk wrote:
Most international agreements these days are either sole executive agreements or agreements based on prior Congressional authorization that may have remote relevance to the actual subject matter of the agreement. Very few are Article II treaties that require Senate ratification. It’s part of the shift of power to the Executive Branch. I wrote a term paper on this last term, using the JCPOA as a case study. Want a copy?
Obama's Iran policy deserved heckling.Chizzang wrote:Trump 2 year ago: "Sanctions on Iran don't work"
Yesterday goes ahead with new sanctions
Trump was pretty pretty good at heckling from the sidelines