GM_Tood

14 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

@GM_Tood Thanks for taking a swing at that. I don't consume conservative media much, certainly not their mainstream stuff, so I don't know how they're all reacting to this or what the spin is. I could venture a guess, but it's better to hear from someone else.

 

I'm afraid I fall along the same lines as Knapp on your proposals. I can't see anyone else getting on board with that when they have an international pact that they all already agree is working and is easily enforceable with the IAEA inspectors. What you're describing is a much more aggressive sanctions-based approach that will essentially cripple Iran if they don't meet our demands. Some of that stuff would happen in an ideal world, but as a whole it seems akin to extortion. Neither Iran nor our allies are going to try to demand those things, outside of Netanyahu, who I assume is on board with Trump no matter what at this point.

 

I'm not too shocked Saudi Arabia would applaud this. They both hate Iran & don't want to rock the boat with Trump.

 

The main issue I had with this is that Iran's long range missile program was still allowed to continue. With the current sunset conditions, which would then remove various restrictions with regards to  Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons, they would have a clear, yet slow, path to nuclear capability.  To be honest I watched the POTUS speech and that all the news I watched today.  From browsing a couple channels the reactions are in line to what you think they would be from FOX/CNN. 

I might be a little too hung up on this being a deal rather than a Treaty...but I would have felt better if this agreement was put before Congress and approved.  If Trump designs whatever the next agreement not as Treaty I wont be happy with it.  (Same goes for the NK situation too fwiw) 

2 hours ago, commando said:

i have little hope that a new and improved deal will be made.

No I do not know any Iranians. But I did serve with IDF members that were killed by Iranian backed Hezbollah.  

My SA post was simply showing that a Strategic Ally to the US supports our stance on this deal. And since apparently you are the Middle East expert I wont need to go into any details on the US-Saudi strategic relationship.  

Your support of Iran tells me all i need to know. 

In the last few years Iran has used its newfound Obama cash to spread its tendrils into Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and even deeper into Lebanon. Hezbollah is on steroids and sitting at the Israeli border in the Golan. The whole deal was predicated on Obama's naive belief that Iran would turn into some progressive, capitalist wonderland, and instead all they did was spend it on weapons and facestomping their citizens. It's like "Arab spring" level of stupidity, just even worse because we already knew Arab Spring was a total failure.

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

This is insane. Why would Iran even come to the table to talk about any of these things?  China won't support Trump's sanctions. Russia won't support Trump's sanctions.  The EU won't support Trump's sanctions.  So they get nothing from America - oh well!  They have the rest of the world to negotiate with. 

 

There will be no "negotiate a better deal."  There will be no regime change.  And no matter how dangerous the Middle East is, we CANNOT leave it. To do so would be to give Russia and China all the more influence in the region.

 

My god, do people really believe any of that is possible now?  ESPECIALLY when everyone in that region thinks the United States is as guilty of #2 as any other nation in that region. 

 

I'm shocked that Vladimir Putin hasn't died from asphyxiation laughing that people actually believe any of this.  This has worked SO MUCH BETTER than he could have possibly imagined.

I guess we'll see wont we? 

43 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Let's be honest, Trump doesn't actually understand what he's doing, not in the slightest. He understands the JCPOA to the extent it has been downsized on Fox News. That is the only prism through which he's ever understood this pact. Oh, and he understands it was implemented under Obama, whom he hates.

 

This is a sterling example of a man who doesn't understand a lick of what he's doing being led astray by his party's talking points. The literal extent of his understanding is one part conservative rhetoric about how awful it is & one part Fox News vitriol. He's been aided & abetted by people who know better, like Pompeo & Netanyahu. Of course, the latter desperately wants the ability to posture more aggressively towards Iran. Both Netanyahu & Trump of course have their own domestic corruption problems they'd prefer to distract from, and this would be a useful way of doing so.

To the broader point in this thread - it's much easier to break things than it is to create them or fix them. Take Tillerson at the State Dept - showed up, drove out legions of our best talent, tried to dramatically cut their budget, was overruled on most everything by Trump, and left. Trump's been outstanding out the latter because it's easier. He's failed horribly at producing much in the way of new creations or solutions to serious problems we face, particularly in foreign policy. His domestic record isn't much better, IMO.

 

I'd love for an Iran Deal critic to go beyond the GOP Fox News talking points and explain why this is actually a smart move. Seems to me it's just another sad mark in his legacy of further isolating us & making us look weak & lost on the world stage.

The deal lifted the sanctions and normalized the Islamic Republic in exchange for NOTHING. The ink was barely dry on the deal and Iran unleashed the IRGC to wage proxy wars from Syria to Yemen. It was a s#!t deal imo.  We need massive, closely-enforced sanctions on everything Iran imports to shatter their economy. Once their people finally free themselves from the Mullahs, THEN we can deal.  Do sanctions work if Iran goes to China and Russia for help? Ask NK how that worked out.

The below article has what I would want as part of the pull out.  Would Trump agree to any of the below? I can't answer that.

"1. To negotiate a better deal, one that corrects the original agreement's flaws by including permanent restrictions on enrichment, a ban on ballistic missile development and a more intrusive inspection regime. 

2. To negotiate a bigger deal, one that not only fixes the flaws in the old deal but that also addresses Iran's malign regional activities. This factor - Tehran's support for terrorism, subversion, and Shiite expeditionary militias in Syria and Iraq - has transformed the region's security situation, alarming Arabs and Israelis alike

3. To launch a policy of regime change. This audacious approach would result from an assessment that the Tehran regime is so venal that no agreement with it is worthwhile. The president could argue that Iran's pursuit of regional supremacy poses a clear and present danger to U.S. interests. 

4. To implement a strategic retrenchment from the Middle East, shrinking America's exposure to the region's dangerous and insoluble problems. Obama may have designed the nuclear deal as a tool to extricate America from the Middle East swamp, but Trump could argue that we are as stuck there as ever. "Let us not be bound like Gulliver to a burdensome agreement that keeps us tied up in knots with Iran for years to come," one can envision the president declaring. "Let us be free to choose when and where we act.""

http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/385536-if-trump-pulls-out-of-the-iran-deal-whats-our-new-strategy?amp=1

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

If America intended to be true to their word, it wouldn't matter if it was a treaty, a deal or a handshake.  Integrity matters.

 

Or, maybe Trump shouldn't be working against America's interests. 

Trump campaigned on this...why is it such a surprise?  Another promise kept. As he said in his speech today, Negotiation table is open if Iran is willing to talk.  I would rather have a 0% chance of a Nuclear Iran than a 100% Nuclear Iran when this deal expired. 

The NK nuclear agreement better be a Treaty....with Congress approval...other than a wink wink deal. 

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Maybe Obama should have made it a Treaty instead of a deal? 

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

And our allies are taking it appropriately.

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/386540-for-europe-the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-all-about-trade

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Getting pumped for this Fridays FFDP concert at Westfair. 

21 minutes ago, commando said:

i can't listen to the weasel for 20 minutes.   care to summarize what he said and why you think it's either good or bad?

“If you cross the Southwest border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you,” Sessions said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”

“Eleven million people are already here illegally,” Sessions said in his speech. “That’s more than the population of the state of Georgia. ... We’re not going to stand for this. We are not going to let this country be invaded. We will not be stampeded. We will not capitulate to lawlessness.”

Should change the title of this thread as the phones were not "tapped". There was a pen register used to monitor the call logs.  Good investigative process MSNBC. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/3/nbc-news-corrects-michael-cohen-wiretap-story-feds/

I understand what you are saying.  

I guess one answer to your question would be: Do not invite the VP or PoTUS to speak at one of your conventions as you would be full aware of the laws that are on the books the Secret Service enforces when it comes to guns (other than the ones the SS wears) in proximity to one of their protections.  

As a NRA member with a CCW I would be inconvenienced by having to remove and store my weapon, to go into a specific Hall, when the rest of the Arena is CCW friendly.

'If' this all comes to fruition he will win it IMO.

The NRA is abiding by the Law.

Seeing articles that are saying/insinuating the NRA is enforcing the ban on weapons when VP and Pres speak this week when that's not the case.   Yes, I see the irony in the whole deal...

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Where are you going with this? 

Nowhere. 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

There is a certain irony in this that is, unfortunately, lost on some people.

Lawfully arm. 

3 hours ago, commando said:

sounds like you need a new irony detector.   the secret service says the only way to keep people safe is to disarm everyone.   the NRA says the only way to keep people safe is to arm everyone.   

I don't need anything, thanks for your concern though. 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

 

Sounds like Fred needs to brush up on US Code Sections.....i.e 3056 and 1752.

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

How many refugees have committed a terrorist act in the US since 9/11?

The answer is zero.