Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, September 5, 2025 17:42
VIEWED: 5414
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
The paper suggests that the US focus on Iran’s many ethnic minority groups to spark unrest and an eventual overthrow of the government. This is virtually the same road map that the US has followed in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on. The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster. - KIKI

Wasn't Obama supporting the dictators/disasters of those 3? Protecting the evil from the locals, squashing unrest?- JSF
I dunno, that description is too broad-brush to be accurate. Obama's relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq was post USA-invasion, and could best be described as "propping up the CIA-supported national government".

On the other hand, Obama himself initiated and completed the destruction of Libya, and nearly destroyed Ukraine and Syria, so his relationship with THOSE nations was to destabilize/depose/destroy the then-current leadership.

Quote:
The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster.- KIKI

Depends on what their goal was, dun'it?- CC
Well, if the goal was to replace functioning national governments with smoking ruins of failed-states crawling with jihadists, and to represent the Saudi and Israeli national interests by destroying other nations, then I say they scored bigtime!

Wasn't Obama in Iraq just undercutting the Government? I don't recall him supporting anything he was gifted.
That was the whole point, remember? CHANGE. Once Iraq started to stabilize, Obama was annointed to Change the Middle East situation back to it's multi-millenial history, war and strife.
A lot of blood and treasure was expended in Iraq, so that Obama could squander away all progress.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, why is Kerry creeping around Iran, trying to salvage the Iran deal? Isn't he behaving as a private citizen negotiating with a foreign nation against current national policy? Isn't he providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the USA? When DOES treason and/or the Logan Act come into play?

*****

In any case .... thinking ahead ... a lot of what happens next depends on what the EU (France, Germany, the UK) decide. They would probably buck the Iranian sanctions if the USA would let them by working with non-dollar payments and keeping their transactions out of USA-located branches, but Bolton has already suggested that the USA might sanction any nation which breaks the Iranian sanctions. So if Trump and Bolton are serious about that, any large French, UK, or German transnational which does a large amount of business with the USA (which is probably all of them) won't risk sanctions.

Along this path, that means that China and Russia will complete their stranglehold/ warm embrace of Iran. We can see the outlines already: China is ready to step in if Total (French oil) bows out.
Quote:
China's CNPC ready to take over Iran project if Total leaves: sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-cnpc-total/chinas-cnpc
-ready-to-take-over-iran-project-if-total-leaves-sources-idUSKBN1IC0TE

Also, if there is a complete rupture between the EU and Iran, and further payments and deal-making are out of the question, then the ayatollahs and other government functionaries who were in on the deal are free to tell all.

*****

Trump supporters would say that this was his plan to get the deep state out of the Iranian government. Just sayin'.

butbutbutbut Trump! Russia! Are you saying Trump ended the fictional pretense of a deal so that his buddy Putin could have Iran? Will this not pit USA against Russia? Or will this give USA access to Iran thru the backdoor of Putin, thereby cutting EU out of the loop?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:54 PM

Quote:
The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster.- KIKI

Depends on what their goal was, dun'it?- CC

Well, if the goal was to replace functioning national governments with smoking ruins of failed-states crawling with jihadists, and to represent the Saudi and Israeli national interests by destroying other nations, then I say they scored bigtime!
So just ooc, what WERE those goals, do you suppose? - SIGNY

So just ooc, what WERE those goals, do you suppose? CC (GSTRING) ... any thoughts?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster.- KIKI

Depends on what their goal was, dun'it?- CC

Well, if the goal was to replace functioning national governments with smoking ruins of failed-states crawling with jihadists, and to represent the Saudi and Israeli national interests by destroying other nations, then I say they scored bigtime!
So just ooc, what WERE those goals, do you suppose? - SIGNY

So just ooc, what WERE those goals, do you suppose? CC (GSTRING) ... any thoughts?

My answer hasn't changed - why are you asking again? Did you miss it the first time? Scroll up!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:35 PM

Yes, I missed it the first time, sorry.

Quote:
Chaos and distractions and infighting

Do you mean here, or there? Because in the initial stages, we're (mostly) all rah-rah-rah about R2P or WMD or whatever. The infighting (here) only comes afterwards.

Also, don't forget this seems to have been the goal of both Presidents Bush AND Obama.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, May 17, 2018 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster.- KIKI

Depends on what their goal was, dun'it?- CC

Well, if the goal was to replace functioning national governments with smoking ruins of failed-states crawling with jihadists, and to represent the Saudi and Israeli national interests by destroying other nations, then I say they scored bigtime!
So just ooc, what WERE those goals, do you suppose? - SIGNY
So just ooc, what WERE those goals, do you suppose? CC (GSTRING) ... any thoughts?

You forgot the alias pizmobeach with CC/G.

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 17, 2018 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, I missed it the first time, sorry.

Quote:
Chaos and distractions and infighting
Do you mean here, or there? Because in the initial stages, we're (mostly) all rah-rah-rah about R2P or WMD or whatever. The infighting (here) only comes afterwards.

Also, don't forget this seems to have been the goal of both Presidents Bush AND Obama.

I wasn't rah rah anything Middle East. I have been rah rah it's a black hole, get the hell out. You don't remember?

I have never absolved any US president of anything. Cites? Do you remember me posting all those negative things I said about nominee Hillary after you said I never did? That's why we never have a decent discussion - you ignore shit or make shit up or lately, just forget.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:27 PM

Quote:
Yes, I missed it the first time, sorry.= SIGNY

Chaos and distractions and infighting ... CC

Do you mean here, or there? Because in the initial stages, we're (mostly) all rah-rah-rah about R2P or WMD or whatever. The infighting (here) only comes afterwards. - SIGNY

I wasn't rah rah anything Middle East. I have been rah rah it's a black hole, get the hell out. You don't remember?- CC

(a) No, I don't remember. You spend so much of your time attacking other posters, it's hard to find an actual ... yanno... opinion in all of that trolling and

(b) perhaps you didn't notice when I posted that we were we're (mostly) all rah-rah-rah about R2P or WMD or whatever. I know that there are exceptions, but if YOU feel tarred as being a cheerleader for war that's on you.

Quote:
Also, don't forget this seems to have been the goal of both Presidents Bush AND Obama. - SIGNY

I have never absolved any US president of anything. Cites? Do you remember me posting all those negative things I said about nominee Hillary after you said I never did? That's why we never have a decent discussion - you ignore shit or make shit up or lately, just forget.- GSTRING

Have you ever criticized Obama for his warmaking? Just curious.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 17, 2018 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Have you ever criticized Obama for his warmaking? Just curious.

I'm not sure if I have ever "criticized Obama for his (alleged) warmaking" here. I have never supported or defended it here or anywhere, either.

Fwiw:

1. As you might expect, I don't believe everything I've heard attributed to him or Hillary by you and others. There's so much reflexive hate focused on them that there's no way to trust a lot of it to be more than that. I need a lot more convincing.
2. I was biggly against his administration's drone policy.
3. I often doubted if he was able to stand up to those who pushed for military solutions in whatever form or whatever kind. Not an excuse, just an observation.

Overall, it's pretty hard to judge simply up or down, Obama's warmaking:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctri
ne-wars-numbers/474531/

To be fair, defining U.S. “military involvement” is tricky, partly because there are many levels of engagement between no military involvement and full-scale invasion, and partly because so much of the U.S.’s military activity is done from the shadows. That’s why, in consultation with Anthony Cordesman at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Chris Harmer at the Institute for the Study of War, I’ve limited the definition of military involvement to countries that the United States is consistently bombing (overtly or covertly); where regular U.S. troops are engaged in combat; or where regular U.S. troops are providing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in support of another military force that is engaged in combat. By that definition, the U.S. is currently fighting in roughly eight countries. (For sanity’s sake, my definition excludes special-operations forces; Ken McGraw, a spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, told me in early February that special-operations personnel were deployed in 82 countries that week alone.)

In many ways, Obama has kept his word. He ended Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom—the combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively, that Bush bequeathed to him—and drastically reduced U.S. troop levels from their peaks in both countries. In the midst of the Arab Spring, the president led a limited military campaign against Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi with the support of the United Nations and a multinational coalition. He has been reluctant to intervene in Syria’s civil war in any significant way despite intense pressure to do so from both inside and outside his administration. In 2013, Obama announced his intention to shift the United States away from “a perpetual wartime footing.” He said, “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end.” And Obama has repeatedly shown his commitment to diplomacy by reestablishing relations with Burma and Cuba, and by striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

And yet while America’s military footprint abroad is fainter today than when Obama took office, it’s also more dispersed. Not counting the probable expansion of the anti-ISIS campaign to Libya and other parts of Africa in the near future, the U.S. military is, by my reckoning, involved in more countries now than when Obama took office in 2009, albeit to varying degrees.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:54 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure if I have ever "criticized Obama for his (alleged) warmaking" here. I have never supported or defended it here or anywhere, either.

Yes, I know. You spend so much time trolling you rarely discuss THE ISSUES.

Quote:
To be fair, defining U.S. “military involvement” is tricky, partly because there are many levels of engagement between no military involvement and full-scale invasion,

Except in Ukraine, when what can best be described as a "proxy war" becomes a full-out "invasion", in your book.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE