Macron believes Trump will drop Iran nuclear

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

French President Emmanuel Macron has said he may have failed in efforts to persuade Donald Trump to stick to an international nuclear deal with Iran.

"My view is... that he will get rid of this deal on his own, for domestic reasons," Mr Macron said at the end of a three-day state visit to the US.

Mr Trump has until 12 May to decide on the deal, which aimed to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

So, with Bolton and Pompeo spearheading the charge, it looks like the US will likely soon be at war with Iran. Bolton in a recent speech to Iranian dissidents said he expected the country to be conquered by the beginning of 2019, Pompeo is similarly positioned towards Iran and Trump in an interview in the 80s or 90s outright stated the US should invade Iran and take their oil. 'Let them have the rest, we'll just take their oil' was roughly what he said.

Madness.

Edited April 26, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[RoofGardener]

LOL.... I really don't think there will be a war between the US and Iran. Above all, I REALLY can't see any kind of ground-invasion. That would be madness. (ask the Iraqi's). 

 

[ExpandMyMind]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

LOL.... I really don't think there will be a war between the US and Iran. Above all, I REALLY can't see any kind of ground-invasion. That would be madness. (ask the Iraqi's). 

You have three people in three of the most important positions of power who have all stated at some point or other their desire to do exactly that.

I don't know the logistics of how it would happen, but when has being a stupid idea ever spared the US of any of their previously unsuccessful wars? 

Edited April 26, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s Iran cash story oft-told, still bogus

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump likes to tell a story about the U.S. paying out billions of dollars to Iran as part of the multinational deal freezing its nuclear program and easing sanctions against it. What he doesn’t say is that most of that money was Iran’s to begin with. The rest relates to an old debt the U.S. had with Iran.

.......

TRUMP: “The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking about it.” — remarks before a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. At a news conference Tuesday, he spoke about “giving them, Iran, $150 billion at one point.”

THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.

The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.

 

[aztek]

lamo. nothing but scare tactic. we do not even know what the deal includes, yet media is trying hard to shape our opinion.  

[+OverSword]

oops, my bad

Edited April 26, 2018 by OverSword

[ExpandMyMind]

20 minutes ago, aztek said:

lamo. nothing but scare tactic. we do not even know what the deal includes, yet media is trying hard to shape our opinion.  

To which deal are you referring?

[Dark_Grey]

...why would we trust Iran to play by the rules? This is Iran we are talking about - Iran. Weren't they aiding ISIS 2 years ago? Didn't US troops find logbooks in a blown out bunker that tied ISIS directly to Iranian authorities?

Also, Obama's part in this cannot be understated. His Iran Nuclear deal (2015) was heralded as a crowning achievement of his legacy. In short, his deal included allowing continued nuclear power under close observation and with limitations so as to prevent the creation of nuclear bombs. However, for some odd reason...

Bloomberg

Quote

while the U.S. and other great powers were negotiating a deal to bring transparency to Iran's nuclear program, top officials in Obama's government dismantled a campaign, known as Operation Cassandra, intended to undermine Hezbollah's global drug trafficking and money laundering network. 
[...]
The Obama administration believed cracking down on Hezbollah's trafficking would undermine nuclear negotiations. As David Asher, a former Pentagon illicit finance analyst and a key player in Operation Cassandra, told Meyer: “This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision. They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”

How close are Hezbollah and Iranian authorities that Obama felt he had to trade drug trafficking for "sanctions"? Iran is run by terrorists - expecting them to drop all development of nuclear bombs is very naive but it's a great photo-op to shake hands anyway.

Quote

So was all of this worth it? We know what the West got out of the nuclear deal: a temporary suspension of Iran's nuclear program and increased transparency into its stockpiles, enrichment facilities and laboratories. At the time the Obama administration told us that in exchange, the U.S. had to lift only the crippling nuclear sanctions against Iran. It turns out the price was much higher.

 We aren't going to war with Iran but if Iran had their bombs, they would no doubt be going to war with us. 

[RoofGardener]

8 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

.........

 We aren't going to war with Iran but if Iran had their bombs, they would no doubt be going to war with us. 

Meh.. they'd have used them all attacking Israel ! The West is a much lower priority. 

[ExpandMyMind]

8 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

why would we trust Iran to play by the rules?

Because we don't have to trust them to play by the rules. The IAEA have released something like 11 reports that tell us they are complying, fully. 

10 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Weren't they aiding ISIS 2 years ago? Didn't US troops find logbooks in a blown out bunker that tied ISIS directly to Iranian authorities?

Considering they are fighting ISIS in Syria and supporting Assad in his fight, I would be surprised if this was fully accurate.

Even if true, it has nothing to do with the nuclear deal.

12 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

How close are Hezbollah and Iranian authorities that Obama felt he had to trade drug trafficking for "sanctions"?

This is actually unverified and has been denounced as ridiculous by Obama staffers (as you would expect, regardless of true or not).

But for me it's not a problem. The US ignored and even supported drug cartels in South America during the fight against 'communism'. Looking the other way with regards to smaller issues is often a part of international deals. If you had to choose between no nuclear deal or no drug money for Hezbollah, which would you choose?

16 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Iran is run by terrorists - expecting them to drop all development of nuclear bombs is very naive but it's a great photo-op to shake hands anyway

How is Iran run by terrorists? 

This deal ensures that the IAEA can inspect literally any part of their country, with Iran having 24 days to comply. Uranium has a half life of hundreds of millions of years. I think it would be quite the achievement to clean up any evidence of running programs, don't you?

It would be naive to believe they would comply if they were left unsupervised, but under the current terms of the deal there is no way that they could possibly do so. 

[ExpandMyMind]

23 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

We aren't going to war with Iran but if Iran had their bombs, they would no doubt be going to war with us. 

What makes you think this? The whole reason that nations even aspire to having nukes is to prevent war with other powerful nations. 

You seriously believe Iran would go to war with the West? I'm sorry, but that notion is simply ridiculous. Not only because they haven't ever attacked another country, that I know of, but also because no one on the planet, including them, could ever believe that there would be any chance of them winning.

[Dark_Grey]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Because we don't have to trust them to play by the rules. The IAEA have released something like 11 reports that tell us they are complying, fully. 

I read that as well. I trust the organization but not Iran.

Quote

Considering they are fighting ISIS in Syria and supporting Assad in his fight, I would be surprised if this was fully accurate.Even if true, it has nothing to do with the nuclear deal.

Sure it does. It assumes even more motivation to develop nuclear weapons. It's also possible that Iran could be both supporting ISIS on one front and fighting them on the other. 

Spoiler

Hezbollah is many things: a Lebanese political party, a militia and a Shiite religious movement. It is also an arm of Iranian foreign policy. Hezbollah shock troops fight alongside Iran's Revolutionary Guard commanders in Syria and Iraq. Iran uses the group's operatives for international terror attacks in Latin America. Hezbollah's advanced arsenal is supplied by the Iranian state. Hezbollah's drug trafficking provides the revenue it needs to spread mayhem. To curb that trafficking is to starve Iran's primary proxy.

Quote

This is actually unverified and has been denounced as ridiculous by Obama staffers (as you would expect, regardless of true or not).

It sounds pretty verified according to Politico and Pentagon analysts in the article

8 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

]But for me it's not a problem. The US ignored and even supported drug cartels in South America during the fight against 'communism'. Looking the other way with regards to smaller issues is often a part of international deals. If you had to choose between no nuclear deal or no drug money for Hezbollah, which would you choose?

I do understand making deals. I pointed that out to further emphasize the close relationship between Iran and Hezbollah

Quote

This deal ensures that the IAEA can inspect literally any part of their country, with Iran having 24 days to comply. Uranium has a half life of hundreds of millions of years. I think it would be quite the achievement to clean up any evidence of running programs, don't you?

It would be naive to believe they would comply if they were left unsupervised, but under the current terms of the deal there is no way that they could possibly do so. 

Then I will take your word for it. Other than sending investigators over there, what can we do? Send Trump himself to verify they are complying? This needs to be under a microscope at all times

[Dark_Grey]

8 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What makes you think this? The whole reason that nations even aspire to having nukes is to prevent war with other powerful nations. 

You seriously believe Iran would go to war with the West? I'm sorry, but that notion is simply ridiculous. Not only because they haven't ever attacked another country, that I know of, but also because no one on the planet, including them, could ever believe that there would be any chance of them winning.

Martyrdom. You can't intimidate someone who believes they will go to paradise for taking your life along with their own. The religious element is much stronger for them than it is for us which also makes the situation much more volatile. 

[ExpandMyMind]

7 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Martyrdom. You can't intimidate someone who believes they will go to paradise for taking your life along with their own. The religious element is much stronger for them than it is for us which also makes the situation much more volatile. 

You realise that Iranians are not Saudis? They, especially their leadership, have no interest in being martyrs. 

How do you even end up believing such a thing? Do you think that all Muslims are terrorists? There is a massive difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims and Iran is practically a different world compared to some other Muslim countries.

14 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

read that as well. I trust the organization but not Iran.

Luckily the deal ensures that we don't have to trust Iran. Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany and until recently the US all agree on this. 

Quote

Sure it does. It assumes even more motivation to develop nuclear weapons. It's also possible that Iran could be both supporting ISIS on one front and fighting them on the other

It's possible they could be, but completely unverified and pure speculation. It also doesn't make sense, since they are actually also fighting ISIS within Iran.

I'm still not sure how you go from supporting ISIS to motivation for wanting nukes. You seem to be making a leap of logic between two completely unrelated issues.

22 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

do understand making deals. I pointed that out to further emphasize the close relationship between Iran and Hezbollah

Again, completely unrelated to any desire they would have for nukes. The two are entirely different subjects and are not in any way mutually exclusive.

23 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Then I will take your word for it. Other than sending investigators over there, what can we do? Send Trump himself to verify they are complying? This needs to be under a microscope at all times

We already have investigators there. Constantly. 

We know they are complying because said investigators have unrestricted access to every nuclear facility in the country. They literally have cameras that watch every single action of every single employee in these facilities. They are under complete and total observation at all times.

It is patently impossible for them to reneg on the deal without us immediately becoming aware of it. The deal is iron-clad.

You can be sure of two things, however, if Trump voids the deal:

They will have no reason not (and every reason to) start an actual nuclear weapons program.

And that it will destroy the US' credibility for any future deals. Why would NK ever come to the table if the US could go back on a deal made only 3 years ago?

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s Iran cash story oft-told, still bogus

 

1- Money from a deal made by the very Govt they destroyed, not very convincing.  I would like to see an exact break-down of the funds, and how much of the new total is considered interest and adjustments for inflation... if you want to get technical.

2- did the defense industry pay that sum.... or did the US taxpayers?

3- why wasn't that money forfeit by the seizure of the US Embassy?

That last was a completely unprecedented act that eliminated any chance of normalized relations between the USA and Iran to this very day. Nobody ever did anything like that, not even the Axis powers in WW2.

 

And now I suppose it is time to trot out 1953 for the moral equivalence needed to justify all of the bad behavior from those religious fanatics since 1979. This happens every time any of the following comes up;

The embassy and the 444 days the hostages seized there were held.

Iran's brutal repression of its own people (including the communists that helped the Mullahs take power) rivaling Stalin at his worst.

Iran's status as the world's #1 State Sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Kidnapping for ransom every chance they get.

Funding and equipping terrorists going into Iraq to kill Americans.

Propping up Hamas when even the Palestinians themselves have had enough constant violence.

The mass-slaughter of the Greens when they protested the Mullah's stealing the 2009 election. In that case, the support of Terror Fronts paid good dividends for the Ayatollah; when even the Revolutionary Guards became squeamish about machine-gunning unarmed protestors, they flew in some Hamas operatives. Those guys will kill anyone for the sheer thrill of it, and a good paycheck, apparently. 

 

So no, I don't buy it, and I don't think that giving these monsters billions of our dollars is a good idea in any case.

Why does the Left support that kind of behavior, anyway? 

[ExpandMyMind]

None of the above disputes the fact that the US didn't give Iran money. They returned money owed. It's a very important distinction.

[Farmer77]

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 11:37 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

But for me it's not a problem. The US ignored and even supported drug cartels in South America during the fight against 'communism'.

Reagan is a god for doing it, Obama should be hung.  

[Raptor Witness]

The plan likely is for Israel to attack Iran, when Trump attacks North Korea.

This provokes both China and Russia, and we enter a new zone.

I see the Angel of Death.

[+and-then]

On 4/26/2018 at 10:49 AM, Dark_Grey said:

Then I will take your word for it. Other than sending investigators over there, what can we do? Send Trump himself to verify they are complying? This needs to be under a microscope at all times

 

They regularly refuse scrutiny at some sites and have actually bulldozed one site, excavated the soil and disposed of it.  Anyone who says they trust them is either an idiot or doesn't care what they do so long as their politics are agreeable.  The REAL madness will be that when the Iranians assemble their weapon, the deniers will still be making excuses for them.  I guess they actually believe they won't be affected if Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state.  The whole world will be affected and, frankly, I hope the idiots who are carrying water for the mullahs are the first to suffer.

eta:  I was blanking on the name of the site but found it - 

https://in.reuters.com/article/nuclear-iran-parchin/buildings-at-iran-military-site-razed-u-s-think-tank-idINDEE84U0DY20120531

Edited May 7, 2018 by and then

[+and-then]

On 4/26/2018 at 10:52 AM, Dark_Grey said:

Martyrdom. You can't intimidate someone who believes they will go to paradise for taking your life along with their own. The religious element is much stronger for them than it is for us which also makes the situation much more volatile. 

Arguing with a person who sincerely believes that God is imaginary, is a fruitless pursuit.  You'd think that all the chaos and bloodshed we've seen over the last few decades might weigh in the calculations of such a one but nope, not so.  It so happens that the leaders of the current Iranian regime are avid "TWELVERS"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver

These guys not only believe their "rightly guided one" will come, they believe it is their duty to expedite his coming by creating the conditions that will prepare the way.  Fools in the west who are so blinded by their hatred of those around them who differ politically, are willing to believe that these leaders of a Theocracy for heaven sake, can be trusted to be completely rational.  It's madness or stupidity.  Difficult to know which but the results will be the same.

[Farmer77]

5 hours ago, and then said:

These guys not only believe their "rightly guided one" will come, they believe it is their duty to expedite his coming by creating the conditions that will prepare the way.  Fools in the west who are so blinded by their hatred of those around them who differ politically, are willing to believe that these leaders of a Theocracy for heaven sake, can be trusted to be completely rational.  It's madness or stupidity.  Difficult to know which but the results will be the same.

I think on a certain level its a matter of choosing to believe the best in the individual will overcome the worst of the religion. 

A societal shift away from that thought process probably wouldn't end well for you. 

5 hours ago, and then said:

These guys not only believe their "rightly guided one" will come, they believe it is their duty to expedite his coming by creating the conditions that will prepare the way. 

This is why it wouldn't end well for you ^^^ 

The exact same argument can be made about Christians. How many billions have been spent on Israel to create and ensure the continuity of the conditions for the second coming of Christ? An event that will kill hundreds of millions

 

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Farmer77

[ExpandMyMind]

6 hours ago, and then said:

They regularly refuse scrutiny at some sites and have actually bulldozed one site, excavated the soil and disposed of it.  Anyone who says they trust them is either an idiot or doesn't care what they do so long as their politics are agreeable.  The REAL madness will be that when the Iranians assemble their weapon, the deniers will still be making excuses for them.  I guess they actually believe they won't be affected if Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state.  The whole world will be affected and, frankly, I hope the idiots who are carrying water for the mullahs are the first to suffer.

eta:  I was blanking on the name of the site but found it - 

https://in.reuters.com/article/nuclear-iran-parchin/buildings-at-iran-military-site-razed-u-s-think-tank-idINDEE84U0DY20120531

This guy clearly has no idea of what he's talking about or what the current deal actually entails. Every single aspect of their nuclear production us now under surveillance. Cameras watching everything, inspectors given access to any part if the country they want. All of it completely monitored.

That article is dated years before this deal was even signed. He's forming his opinion on long outdated and irrelevant information. It'd be like the UK throwing away peace with the IRA for actions they took before peace was made. The lack of logic is astounding, but ultimately what might pave the way for war with Iran.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I think on a certain level its a matter of choosing to believe the best in the individual will overcome the worst of the religion. 

A societal shift away from that thought process probably wouldn't end well for you. 

This is why it wouldn't end well for you ^^^ 

The exact same argument can be made about Christians. How many billions have been spent on Israel to create and ensure the continuity of the conditions for the second coming of Christ? An event that will kill hundreds of millions

 

 

I hear this ALL THE TIME, Farmer.  Explain what conditions are being created and nurtured for Christ's return and more importantly, cite the Biblical verse(s) that sets such conditions.  I'll wait.   

[RoofGardener]

Dunno about Christ, but I think most of those "billions" that have been spent, where spent to prevent the FIRST coming of the (then) Soviet Union, rather than any SECOND comings ? The US in particular was VERY modest in its aid for Israel, UNTIL the Soviets started massively arming the Syrians and using the arms sales to extend its influence in the region. At THAT point they poured money in like water. 

Well, probably not like water as it is an arid region. Umm...like a tsunami of olives ? 

Well, make a metaphor up for yourselves

Edited May 7, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I hear this ALL THE TIME, Farmer.  Explain what conditions are being created and nurtured for Christ's return and more importantly, cite the Biblical verse(s) that sets such conditions.  I'll wait.   

You know I'm talking about the temple being rebuilt. While its not exactly scriptural there is a very large percentage of Christiandom who view that as a prerequisite for Christs return. 

This actually is a wonderful example of what I was referring to. The religion has fostered a belief. I choose to believe that the vast majority wont make decisions based on that belief because I believe that overwhelmingly humans are better than their religions. 

However, going back to my original point,  it would be very easy to look at the death destruction and chaos that we have supported in Israel and say it was due to Christians in our government working towards their goal of seeing biblical justice in their lifetimes.