Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 12, 2018

Iran says it is ready to restart its nuclear program on an "industrial scale" in the wake of the decision by US President Donald Trump to abandon the deal that curbs the country's nuclear ambitions. In a statement published Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said he would embark on a round of international diplomacy to try and save the deal. At the same time, the country would make preparations to restart its program of nuclear enrichment, he said.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

I'm just going to leave this right here ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I want Nullifidiand and Sheep to volunteer for this next war. It won't nearly be so much fun without them.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-11 11:20 AM | Reply

"The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China -- plus Germany) and the European Union." - en.wikipedia.org

SO, the US pulls out of Obama's weak deal (that didn't include releasing the 4 hostages) and Iran scraps the "agreement" they had with 4 other nations plus the EU.

It sounds like you're arguing that Trump's assessment was accurate: that Iran had no intentions of honoring the agreement.

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | POSTED BY ZED

Really Zed, just grow up.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 11:45 AM | Reply

"The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China -- plus Germany) and the European Union." - en.wikipedia.org
SO, the US pulls out of Obama's weak deal (that didn't include releasing the 4 hostages) and Iran scraps the "agreement" they had with 4 other nations plus the EU.
It sounds like you're arguing that Trump's assessment was accurate: that Iran had no intentions of honoring the agreement.

#2 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Lets put down the facts we know:
1. Inspections were going on and showed zero evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
2. The US market is the major signatory and major market.
3. US Generals, all Allies to the agreement, top Israelis including Ehud Barak, and the inspection teams all said the agreement was working.
4. Trump has shown no evidence Iran breached the deal and US generals have suggested Iran was in breach.
5. The US broke the agreement unilaterally.
6. Your head is shoved so far up Trump's ass that you can tell us what he had for breakfast.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump is a petty fool.
He wants to write a new deal to replace Obama's.
Why would anyone ever believe a Trump promise.
Iran is going to build nukes.
MIGA.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-11 12:57 PM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

If Iran had negotiated in good faith, they would have honored their commitment to the P4+1 regardless of Trump's actions.

This proves they did not. They also DID NOT release hostages.

Iran convinced Obama to drop sanctions in exchange for a slow-walk to nuclear weapons. That's not a good deal, except for Iran.

#6 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 01:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Well, duh. Of course they are going to restart their nuclear program. And switch it into full gear. Who didn't see that coming?

On a separate note, my personal perception is that this is exactly what Trump and the MIC have been wanting all along.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-05-11 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- what Trump and the MIC have been wanting all along.

To expose a bad-faith agreement?

which essentially gave Tehran the ability to continue working on nuclear weapons a slower pace.

Obama lifted the sanctions that kept pressure on, gave them their frozen billions, and kicked the can down a short road.

That's not diplomacy that benefits the US. Obama shouldn't have lifted ANYTHING while US hostages remained.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 01:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Sheeple, Sean Hannity couldn't have said it any better.

You are indeed a lamb. Not only because you don't understand what you are talking about. But rather because you are all too happy to be lead mindlessly along by those who manipulate you. Baaaaaaaaa.

#9 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-05-11 01:20 PM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
If Iran had negotiated in good faith, they would have honored their commitment to the P4+1 regardless of Trump's actions.
This proves they did not. They also DID NOT release hostages.
Iran convinced Obama to drop sanctions in exchange for a slow-walk to nuclear weapons. That's not a good deal, except for Iran.

#6 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Lets unpack the lies one by one...

Lie #1: "If Iran had negotiated in good faith, they would have honored their commitment to the P4+1 regardless of Trump's actions. This proves they did not."

This level of stupidity is incredible. There isn't even a common sense explanation for your claim. It's just downright idiotic. The deal wasn't between individual nations. It was between Iran and a coalition of nations. Iran was to drop the nuke program in exchange for access to all of these markets. The US just took the biggest market off the table. The deal has been breached. Iran can do what it pleases now. That's a basic fact. Stop lying, Snowflake.

Lie #2: "They also DID NOT release hostages."

You'll have to explain which hostages you are referring to that Iran was supposed to release as part of this agreement. They did release 4 prisoners. The only US prisoners currently in Iran were all detained after the agreement.

Lie #3: "Iran convinced Obama to drop sanctions in exchange for a slow-walk to nuclear weapons. That's not a good deal, except for Iran."

Just idiotic comment after idiotic comment. You obviously didn't bother to look into the deal. The "slow-walk" was how fast they could enrichment sufficient uranium to make a nuclear bomb given the limitations on their enrichment program under the agreement. The figure was put at 15 years based upon how much they could enrich under the agreement. And we had inspections to ensure they weren't even doing that.

God, you are too stupid to post here. Just leave.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 01:20 PM | Reply

Obama shouldn't have lifted ANYTHING

True.

#11 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-05-11 01:20 PM | Reply

I find it curious how Republican presidents' actions result in a stronger Iran, while Democratic president's actions result in a weaker Iran

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-11 01:26 PM | Reply

Obama made Iran stronger.

Iran started making trouble all over the place after Obama gave them confidence.

#13 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-05-11 01:31 PM | Reply

Bush made Iran stronger by creating a power vacuum next door to Iran.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-11 01:33 PM | Reply

God, you are too stupid to post here. Just leave.
#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You should expand your sources from the insulated MSM bubble:

Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure - www.latimes.com
Nuclear deal with Iran is full of holes - www.abqjournal.com
Iran Unveils Two Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missiles After Israel Attack On Syria - www.zerohedge.com
Iran's Compliance with UNSCR 2231: Alleged Violations Must Be Addressed - www.wisconsinproject.org
Trump pulled out of the Iran deal with a perfectly good reason - www.businessinsider.com
The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power - www.politifact.com

I doubt you'll even take the time to read.

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 01:50 PM | Reply

Lie #2: "They also DID NOT release hostages."

I'll concede that, with the exception of Levinson, I conflated the current hostages as being the same ones that had been there for years.

Levinson remains unaccounted for, the others are newer.

#16 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 01:53 PM | Reply

Iran's Support for Terrorist Groups - www.lawfareblog.com

#17 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 02:00 PM | Reply

OK, Sheep. But when people start not to enjoy themselves fighting Iran everyone will be thinking of you.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-11 02:09 PM | Reply

OK, Sheep. But when people start not to enjoy themselves fighting Iran everyone will be thinking of you.
#18 | POSTED BY ZED

We've been fighting Iran directly in at least 4 different countries since Bush was in office,

and throughout Obama's entire administration.

Plus, that doesn't include the terrorist orgs they fund, which is somewhere between 4 and 10.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 02:15 PM | Reply

God, you are too stupid to post here. Just leave.
#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
You should expand your sources from the insulated MSM bubble:
Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure - www.latimes.com
Nuclear deal with Iran is full of holes - www.abqjournal.com
Iran Unveils Two Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missiles After Israel Attack On Syria - www.zerohedge.com
Iran's Compliance with UNSCR 2231: Alleged Violations Must Be Addressed - www.wisconsinproject.org
Trump pulled out of the Iran deal with a perfectly good reason - www.businessinsider.com
The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power - www.politifact.com
I doubt you'll even take the time to read.
#15 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

You should expand your list of sources:

IAEA says Iran is complying with terms of agreement:
www.washingtonpost.com
www.timesofisrael.com

US Generals and Israeli Generals supported the Iran Deal
theintercept.com

Trump's top General says Iran honoring Nuke Deal
foreignpolicy.com

Was the agreement perfect? Nope. Was it working? All evidence points to yes.

And the alternative which you idiots left us with is Iran going full bore towards mass nuclear development.

But let me prove to everyone here what kind of idiot you are very simply and easily using your OWN sources.
The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power - www.politifact.com
If you had bothered to actually read the article, you'd know it was written prior to the nuke deal. It was written when Iran still had over 20,000 centrifuges. The article specifically states that if Iran was limited to about 5,000 centrifuges, it could produce enough uranium for a nuclear bomb. But it could also help supplement uranium purchases from Russia for its one nuclear power plant. We limited Iran to about 5,000 centrifuges.

It also said, Allowing about 5,000 would help. "With that, it would take 12 months for Iran to produce enough material for one bomb," Kimball said. "That would give you enough time to detect that activity."

Now, tell us, do you have a single shred of evidence that Iran was actually making nuclear weapons? This was the huge concern and you idiots just told Iran to go ahead and mass produce nukes.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 02:20 PM | Reply

#19

You haven't been fighting anyone. Volunteer. Maybe they'll make you a cook away from the front lines.

In that war you huckster for.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-11 02:20 PM | Reply

"Obama made Iran stronger."

And Obama made Pakistan stronger.

And America got stronger because of it, too.

Everyone got stronger. A war was averted. Iran was coming back into the world community.

A rising tide lifts all ships.

But, not any more.

America first now means America alone.

Definitely a weaker position. No matter how you want to spin it.

And now Trump owns it. He has taken on the task of making a better deal with Iran than America UK, France and Germany did after working on it for 12 years.

And he is gonna do it all by himself. Before Iran develops a Nuclear Weapon.

And all the while not allow America to get fooled (again) by lil Kim. And may I say what a cute jolly little fella that lil Kim is these days? Completely trustworthy now!

No way that guy was a paranoid dictator who resorted to taking out his own family in order to ensure that he alone remained in power.

Trump best send Jr on mission and lil Eric Trump on a long trip... just in case.


#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-05-11 02:23 PM | Reply

Iran's Support for Terrorist Groups - www.lawfareblog.com

#17 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Not part of the Nuke Agreement.

#23 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 02:30 PM | Reply

Lie #2: "They also DID NOT release hostages."
I'll concede that, with the exception of Levinson, I conflated the current hostages as being the same ones that had been there for years.
Levinson remains unaccounted for, the others are newer.
#16 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

So you lied.

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 02:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just answer one question:

How is the current situation better than when the nuke agreement was in place?

That's it. Really simple question.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 02:39 PM | Reply

With that, it would take 12 months for Iran to produce enough material for one bomb
#20 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Iran says it can enrich uranium to 20 percent in days - www.aljazeera.com

"President Hassan Rouhani has declared that Iran's nuclear industry is advancing at a faster pace, as one of his senior cabinet officials warned the country could ramp its uranium enrichment to 20 percent on short notice, if the United States withdraws from the nuclear agreement.

"I want to clearly say to the Iranian nation that our nuclear industry is moving faster than before with more energy, accuracy and more exact calculation," the Iranian leader declared on Monday in a speech in Tehran."

Sych, in this article from April, Rouhani says he'll stick to the agreement but that Iran is being provoked - which is a claim they have often repeated since the seventies. The fact is that Iran has always been openly hostile, and an active sponsor of terrorism. We are currently engaged in direct fighting with their forces, and Iran has proven untrustworthy in a myriad of diplomatic situations.

I DO NOT want war with Iran, or any other nation. I don't support war, I support diplomacy. Obama's plan was a temporary stopgap that slow-walked the process, but left the infrastructure in place, with spool=up incrementally increasing over only 10 years. I believe Obama should have left the sanctions in place and kept the money frozen. Now, $1.7 billion in cash is flowing into their military fighting us on multiple fronts. Iranian lawmakers chant Death to America and Israel on their parliament floor. This gov't is not to be trusted, and represents the most dangerous nation to ME stability, apart from Israel, Saudi's, and the US itself. It's a 40+ year conflict that hasn't produced much in the way of peace and mutual agreements. It's a terrible situation that I HOPE can be solved with diplomacy and sanctions.

But I'll tell you this, if Trump skips diplomacy and Bolton takes us directly to war with Tehran, I'll be the first to condemn it. And I'll be first to call Trump a liar for implying he wants a better deal.

Don't Blow Up The Iran Deal. Trump's Strategy Is Working. - www.bloomberg.com - If I understand correctly, we'll know in about 90 days.

#26 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 02:51 PM | Reply

So you lied.
#24 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT A

Your a jackass. I conceded a single point of conflation and you ratchet it to a lie. ---- you. dishonest hack.

Levinson wasn't returned, you lied. jack ass.

#27 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not part of the Nuke Agreement.
#23 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

"I support terrorists to have ICBM's and Nukes" - Sycophant the Jackass

#28 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 02:55 PM | Reply

With that, it would take 12 months for Iran to produce enough material for one bomb
#20 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Iran says it can enrich uranium to 20 percent in days - www.aljazeera.com

#26 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Yes....and? That's still compliant.

And now they can go ahead and do that for nuclear weapons! Good job!

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 02:59 PM | Reply

But I'll tell you this, if Trump skips diplomacy and Bolton takes us directly to war with Tehran, I'll be the first to condemn it. And I'll be first to call Trump a liar for implying he wants a better deal.
#26 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

MAYBE it would have been a better idea to renegotiate the deal BEFORE pulling out of the old one.

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not part of the Nuke Agreement.
#23 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
"I support terrorists to have ICBM's and Nukes" - Sycophant the Jackass
#28 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Actually, that would be you. The Nuke deal prevent that. Now we have nothing. Nukes, dirty bombs, whatever they want to give terrorist groups, they can.

Nice work.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:01 PM | Reply

So you lied.
#24 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT A
Your a jackass. I conceded a single point of conflation and you ratchet it to a lie. ---- you. dishonest hack.
Levinson wasn't returned, you lied. jack ass.
#27 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

No. You said they hadn't returned the hostages (prisoners really). This was a lie. It looks like they returned 5 prisoners.

Levinson wasn't part of the nuke deal. Iran still claims they don't have him. If you have some secret CIA evidence that they do, lay it on us, hack.

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:05 PM | Reply

- The Nuke deal prevent that.

No, it did not. Who did Iran give all of their enriched uranium to? Russia.
It's like us turning over our surveillance state to the UK for "safe keeping".

At best, this was a five year plan, with 2 years already expired. The rest was a slow spool up.
Do you really believe Iran wouldn't have spooled it up? LOL

#33 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 03:07 PM | Reply

How is the current situation better than when the nuke agreement was in place?

Because we now can turn a blind eye when Natanz and Fordo have "unexpected" disasters that cause the underground facilities to collapse, rendering them useless for decades?

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-11 03:07 PM | Reply

- The Nuke deal prevent that.
No, it did not. Who did Iran give all of their enriched uranium to? Russia.
It's like us turning over our surveillance state to the UK for "safe keeping".
At best, this was a five year plan, with 2 years already expired. The rest was a slow spool up.
Do you really believe Iran wouldn't have spooled it up? LOL

#33 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

That's QUITE the stretch there. We had inspections of nuclear facilities. We had inspections of centrifuges and 24/7 video monitoring.

Now we have nothing.

Tell us again how the present situation is BETTER than the nuke agreement? It's a damn straight forward question.

#35 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:10 PM | Reply

How is the current situation better than when the nuke agreement was in place?
Because we now can turn a blind eye when Natanz and Fordo have "unexpected" disasters that cause the underground facilities to collapse, rendering them useless for decades?

#34 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

That was funny.

#36 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:19 PM | Reply

- That's QUITE the stretch there.

It's historically accurate as evidenced by Tehran's behavior since the 70's.

As I stated previously, I hope this leads to something long lasting and concrete -beyond the few years Obama agreed to.

If Trump is just using it as a pretext to war? I'll be here to condemn it. count on that.

#37 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 03:26 PM | Reply

Sheeple is part of the "Blame America First" crowd.

I never knew such people actually existed, I always figured it was just a right wing myth, like spitting on veterans.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-11 03:37 PM | Reply

- That's QUITE the stretch there.
It's historically accurate as evidenced by Tehran's behavior since the 70's.
As I stated previously, I hope this leads to something long lasting and concrete -beyond the few years Obama agreed to.
If Trump is just using it as a pretext to war? I'll be here to condemn it. count on that.

#37 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

This isn't the 70's. We didn't have an agreement in place then.

Now answer the question asked at least 3 times by now: How is the present situation BETTER than the nuke agreement?

#39 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:42 PM | Reply

- How is the present situation BETTER than the nuke agreement?

We'll likely know in about 90-120 days. If we get a more concrete, long lasting deal.

If Trump is just making excuses as a pretext to a war that was already decided, I'll be here denouncing it.

But if a war was pre-decided in advance? This deal/no deal wouldn't even matter. We'll see what happens.

#40 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 03:54 PM | Reply

- How is the present situation BETTER than the nuke agreement?
We'll likely know in about 90-120 days. If we get a more concrete, long lasting deal.
If Trump is just making excuses as a pretext to a war that was already decided, I'll be here denouncing it.
But if a war was pre-decided in advance? This deal/no deal wouldn't even matter. We'll see what happens.

#40 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

So we aren't in a better situation now, but we COULD be if Trump can get a better deal in 90-120 days? ...Seriously?

Wow. So the poster of Trump above your bed, how big is it?

#41 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 03:56 PM | Reply

Better deal?
Like the Paris accord
And nafta
And tpp
Yep I'll hold my breath

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-05-11 04:16 PM | Reply

Saudi Arabia said they would start a nuclear program if Iran resumes theirs.

I feel safer already!

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-11 04:20 PM | Reply

"So we aren't in a better situation now, but we COULD be if Trump can get a better deal in 90-120 days? ...Seriously? "

Seriously. Only 90-120 days ago, Dotard and RocketMan were trading insults.

Today, an historic meeting has been set that may eventually reunite Korea. Go figure.

#44 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 04:56 PM | Reply

Wow sheeple is in full blown Trump ball cupping mode.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-11 06:06 PM | Reply

"So we aren't in a better situation now, but we COULD be if Trump can get a better deal in 90-120 days? ...Seriously? "
Seriously. Only 90-120 days ago, Dotard and RocketMan were trading insults.
Today, an historic meeting has been set that may eventually reunite Korea. Go figure.

#44 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

And then a mountain collapsed on the NKorea nuclear test facility. And pretty sure NKorea still has nukes and isn't getting rid of them.

But you're right. Because a week ago Iran was not trying to make a nuclear weapon according to inspections. Now they are.

So you are refusing to answer the question then? Or are you just admitting we are not in a better position now and hoping a miracle happens in 90-120 days?

#46 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 06:23 PM | Reply

Today we're in a better position. Obama's weak agreement has been rescinded, which paves the way for diplomacy and sanctions.
Or hopefully, a better deal in 90-120 days, with the goal being: the nuclear disarmament of Iran.

Obama's solution was: You can continue your program incrementally and progressively over the next ten years, until it sunsets.

At which time, Obama's agreement says NOTHING to the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
If Iran wants to be included in the worlds affairs and commerce, then it needs to stand down in it
s rhetoric and hostility, and state-sponsored support of terrorism.

As I stated, this is my hope of Trump's intentions. I have no way of knowing for certain. I light of what's happening in NPK, I have hope.

And If Trump/Bolton are using this as a smokescreen for an already decided war, then I will be the first to denounce it.

#47 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

10 years of negotiations broken down into 3 months of negotiations, when Trump has 12 months of foreign policy experience.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. UNLESS, however, the intent is to go to war. Then? You're lining yourself juuuuuuuuust right.

#48 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-05-11 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

U.S. to help North Korea economy if it gives up nuclear weapons, Pompeo says - www.latimes.com

Iran will be watching.

#49 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 07:01 PM | Reply

Iran will be watching.

Why? Iran already knows how valid US "help" is.

#50 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-05-11 07:29 PM | Reply

#49 No the norks are watching what Trump did to Iran.
I predict a lot of talk but the norks will keep there nukes.

#51 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-11 07:44 PM | Reply

Why? Iran already knows how valid US "help" is.
#50 | POSTED BY REDIAL

And now so should NK.

NK comes down to China. Whatever China tells them to do, they'll do. And somehow, Kim will hold onto power; with or without nukes.

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-05-11 08:06 PM | Reply

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 02:20 PM
Sheeple posts links that show the deal isn't expansive enough.
Sheeple posts links that exposes the holes in the deals.
Shepple posts links that show where evidence of breaking the deals can't be discovered, because it isn't covered by the deals.

You respond by saying that all the evidence (that we can see) shows that Iran is following the (flawed) deal. We don't have ANY evidence (because we don't have access to it) that they are breaking the deal. So everything must be fine!

I'm not sure if you are intentionally or unintentionally blind to the flaws in your argument, and if you are even aware of the logical fallacy of 'we can't see if there is evidence, so there is no evidence'.

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-12 08:05 AM | Reply

Iran already knows how valid US "help" is.
when only signed onto by the president and not the folks (Senators) who need to actually ratify such "help".
Of course they knew that ahead of time as well, thanks to the open letter that the Senate penned reminding them of such.

#54 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-12 08:14 AM | Reply

I predict a lot of talk but the norks will keep there nukes. - #51 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-11 07:44 PM

Lets say that talks go Really well, and NK offers to give up their nukes for dropping sanctions on their country.
They're willing to allow inspectors into the country to tour locations and verify no nukes.
Except they can't go on any military facilities.
All good, right?
If Trump signs that agreement and the Senate does not ratify it as a treaty...is the next President required to honor it?

#55 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-12 08:19 AM | Reply

The best strategy for every nation is to become a nuclear power. Trump has shown America is not to be trusted to stand by it's own promises.

#56 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-05-12 01:55 PM | Reply

What's the point of the NK summit now? If any deals with America?

#57 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-05-12 01:57 PM | Reply

What's the point of the NK summit now? If any deals with America? - #57 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-05-12 01:57 PM
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: "He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
Same as it ever was. The point of this summit is to forge an agreement, like any that bind our country, that the President negotiates and brings back for the United States, via their representatives, to concur on.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-12 02:24 PM | Reply

Iran foreign minister sets off on tour to save nuclear deal - www.reuters.com

#59 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-12 04:56 PM | Reply

The agreement between Iran, the USA and EU under a UN process is internationally popular and is seen to be working effectively in denying Iran the ability to develop a nuclear device. The US is isolating itself, except for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Trump seems to have enjoyed the procession of European leaders from Emmanuel Macron to Boris Johnson asking for compromise, only to go away empty-handed. This is a repeat of his cancellation of the Paris accord.

The EU must preserve the Iran agreement or resign themselves to irrelevancy. But with or without the EU, the US can exert enormous pressure on Banks and companies terrified of incurring the ire of the US Treasury and facing massive fines for even an unintentional breach of sanctions.

Iran may be weak economically, but politically and militarily it is in a strong position in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the countries likely to provide the main arena for the coming crisis. In all three places it is Iran's fellow Shia who are in control and see the US as an ally of the Sunni states in what is in large part a sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict.

Don't think for a second that Trump has thought through any of this. Add John Bolton and the crisis is beginning to feel like the BS buildup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Patrick Cockburn)

#60 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-05-12 07:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#58 you miss the point that any agreement is no longer an agreement. We are weak.

#61 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-05-12 10:47 PM | Reply

#58 you miss the point that any agreement is no longer an agreement. We are weak.

Federal Indian Policy... ***facepalm***

#62 | Posted by horstngraben at 2018-05-12 11:23 PM | Reply

Trump is trying to full fill PNAC doctrine in that doctrine it mentions overthrowing Iran.

trump also knows that war will make the stupid americans rally around trump. it is a win for trump and the neo-cons

FHK Trump

#63 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-05-13 12:09 AM | Reply

The only way Iraq was able to hold back Iranian troops was with chemical weapons of mass destruction supplied by Germany and the United States. War may quickly overshadow impeachment, but Trump will become another loser like Bush and Nixon. War profiteering will soar, of course.

#64 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-05-13 06:49 AM | Reply

The real goal is to drive up the price of oil to save Russia's economy. They are the only ones who win in this situation. And Republicans (including sheeple) are happy to comply.

#65 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-05-13 02:29 PM | Reply

"The real goal is to drive up the price of oil to save Russia's economy. "

Coincidentally, that is also a tremendous boon for Iran's economy.
They might even be able to afford to restart their nuclear program now.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-13 02:33 PM | Reply

Lets say that talks go Really well, and NK offers to give up their nukes for dropping sanctions on their country.
They're willing to allow inspectors into the country to tour locations and verify no nukes.
Except they can't go on any military facilities.
All good, right?
If Trump signs that agreement and the Senate does not ratify it as a treaty...is the next President required to honor it?

#55 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Depends what military facilities, but for the most part, yes. That would be agreeable. And I think the next President should definitely honor it so long as inspections are showing no evidence of nuclear production.

What tiny little minds like yours seem completely unable to grasp is how hard it is to hide nuclear development.

#67 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-14 12:35 AM | Reply

EVERYONE in the USA and United Nations, that is an expert in nuclear power and weapons development, has long recognized and reported to their higher ups that Iran does not have a weapons program. Iran has been exercising its rights under its international non-proliferation agreement to reprocess fuel. Leaders in the US and Israel have insisted, in spite of all the contrary information provided them, that Iran's ultimate intent is to manufacture nuclear weapons. Iran was then forced into an agreement based on a lie. Trump has seized on that lie to go one step further and deny Iran the right to concentrate any fuel to the 3% necessary for use in a nuclear power plant. 90% is needed for weapons. There is no evidence Iran has ever exceeded 3%.

Israel, on the other hand, has refused to ever comply with any international non-proliferation agreement and has built many nuclear weapons. Israel's weapons carry an implied threat of annihilation of the entire region, if not the planet, just like the US and Russian nuclear stockpiles.

None of this matters. Moslem nations have no right to equal treatment under the law. The West, Israel and everyone that already has nuclear weapons have more rights than anyone else and that's just how it is. If you don't like it, we will kill you.

#68 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-05-14 06:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Lets say that talks go Really well, and NK offers to give up their nukes for dropping sanctions on their country.
They're willing to allow inspectors into the country to tour locations and verify no nukes.
Except they can't go on any military facilities.
All good, right?
If Trump signs that agreement and the Senate does not ratify it as a treaty...is the next President required to honor it?
#55 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE
Depends what military facilities, but for the most part, yes. That would be agreeable. And I think the next President should definitely honor it so long as inspections are showing no evidence of nuclear production.
What tiny little minds like yours seem completely unable to grasp is how hard it is to hide nuclear development.
#67 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Oh damn. That wasn't the answer you were looking for? Sorry to disappoint...

#69 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-14 01:54 PM | Reply

If Trump signs that agreement and the Senate does not ratify it as a treaty...is the next President required to honor it?
#55 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Only if you want the world to think America's word is worth anything.

#70 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-05-14 09:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort