Donald Trump

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

How is it Obama gets the NB simply for not being a Bush despite his military interventions, but the first guy to get the NK dictator to the table does not? Liberal bias.

Clue; Obama probably shouldn't have got it, but then again, Trump has had very little, of anything, to do with Korea.

It's all be down to S Korea and collapsing N Korea nuclear bunkers.

I see that colonial mentality has moved across the Atlantic and firmly taken root.

Didn't Obama sort something out with Iran? And isn't Trump desperate to abandon that agreement in spite of everyone telling him it's a bad idea?

Got that after, not before.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

How is it Obama gets the NB simply for not being a Bush despite his military interventions, but the first guy to get the NK dictator to the table does not? Liberal bias.

Clue; Obama probably shouldn't have got it, but then again, Trump has had very little, of anything, to do with Korea.

It's all be down to S Korea and collapsing N Korea nuclear bunkers.

I see that colonial mentality has moved across the Atlantic and firmly taken root.

Didn't Obama sort something out with Iran? And isn't Trump desperate to abandon that agreement in spite of everyone telling him it's a bad idea?

Would that be the nuclear deal 6 years after getting his peace prize? Or perhaps the deal where he flew $1.7 bn to Iran on the same day 4 Americans were released?

ballysmate

Apparently the money was entirely in untraceable cash.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

rick_chasey

Enjoying how a lot of people who bemoan 'snowflakes' are all whining that the roasting at the the White House correspondents’ dinner was too harsh.

Haaaaa.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Apparently the money was entirely in untraceable cash.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

The article you post doesn't quite frame it in the way you're suggesting, Bally.

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism

TheGardenGnome

It is what it is, a ransom payment. A strong US president would not succumb to this.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Apparently the money was entirely in untraceable cash.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

The article you post doesn't quite frame it in the way you're suggesting, Bally.

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism

As the Gnome said, a ransom payment.
The US State Dept reports that Iran is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and Obama ships them 1.8 billion dollars in used readies. What could possibly go wrong?

Edit
Mea culpa. It was only 1.7 billion.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Apparently the money was entirely in untraceable cash.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

The article you post doesn't quite frame it in the way you're suggesting, Bally.

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism

As the Gnome said, a ransom payment.
The US State Dept reports that Iran is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and Obama ships them 1.8 billion dollars in used readies. What could possibly go wrong?

Edit
Mea culpa. It was only 1.7 billion.

Yeah I think it's a bit more complex than that. In the contest of the nuclear deal, sanctions, etc.

rick_chasey

I mean, on the subject, what's the bally take on the Iran nuclear deal?

The open, independently verified promise to not develop nuclear weapons in return for the lifting of sanctions. Is that so bad?

TheBigBean

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Apparently the money was entirely in untraceable cash.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

The article you post doesn't quite frame it in the way you're suggesting, Bally.

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism

As the Gnome said, a ransom payment.
The US State Dept reports that Iran is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and Obama ships them 1.8 billion dollars in used readies. What could possibly go wrong?

Edit
Mea culpa. It was only 1.7 billion.

Does the US State Dept analyse US spending when determining the world's largest sponsor of terrorism?

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah I think it's a bit more complex than that.

No it isn't. International politics and negotiations are really very simple and there is only black or white, right or wrong, never any shades of grey.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

How is it Obama gets the NB simply for not being a Bush despite his military interventions, but the first guy to get the NK dictator to the table does not? Liberal bias.

Clue; Obama probably shouldn't have got it, but then again, Trump has had very little, of anything, to do with Korea.

It's all be down to S Korea and collapsing N Korea nuclear bunkers.

I see that colonial mentality has moved across the Atlantic and firmly taken root.

Didn't Obama sort something out with Iran? And isn't Trump desperate to abandon that agreement in spite of everyone telling him it's a bad idea?

Would that be the nuclear deal 6 years after getting his peace prize? Or perhaps the deal where he flew $1.7 bn to Iran on the same day 4 Americans were released?

Apologies, my memory of the timing of various international diplomatic incidents was a little off. I was never entirely sure what Obama received his peace prize for but my point about Trump and Iran stands.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, on the subject, what's the bally take on the Iran nuclear deal?

The open, independently verified promise to not develop nuclear weapons in return for the lifting of sanctions. Is that so bad?

It is worth noting that Obama followed it by putting visa requirements on anyone who has been to Iran (in the last five years) and anyone who was born there. It wasn't a very sporting move.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, on the subject, what's the bally take on the Iran nuclear deal?

The open, independently verified promise to not develop nuclear weapons in return for the lifting of sanctions. Is that so bad?

It is worth noting that Obama followed it by putting visa requirements on anyone who has been to Iran (in the last five years) and anyone who was born there. It wasn't a very sporting move.

Agreed. I understood that was to placate some people in washington to get it through, though I may be wrong.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Apologies, my memory of the timing of various international diplomatic incidents was a little off. I was never entirely sure what Obama received his peace prize for but my point about Trump and Iran stands.

He received it because he offered hope after years of Bush, bombs and torture. He then prosecuted more whistle blowers, dropped more bombs, failed to prosecute any torturers and failed to close Guantanamo Bay.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, on the subject, what's the bally take on the Iran nuclear deal?

The open, independently verified promise to not develop nuclear weapons in return for the lifting of sanctions. Is that so bad?

I am all for limiting the nuclear proliferation and any deal towards this end has to be welcomed.
But any deal has to be rigorously monitored.

According to the Huffington Post, Iran had violated the terms of the deal by May 20 2016

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-ra ... 77768.html

The White House response

The US has stopped short of calling Iran’s actions as violations of UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama will continue to overlook Iran’s belligerent actions, including ballistic missile launches and the detention of US sailors by the Iranian forces, until he leaves office. He desires what he sees as his crowning foreign policy “achievement”, the nuclear agreement, to remain intact.

President Obama is concerned that holding Iran accountable for these violations might force the Iranian leaders to abandon the nuclear deal, thus causing its failure.

France and Britain's reaction

Furthermore, France, Britain and other European countries have less incentive to publicly hold Iran responsible, because of the increasing economic and trade ties with Tehran particularly in the energy sector (oil and gas).

TheGardenGnome

The only way out of this conflict is for Iran to follow the way of the Saudis. Nothing to gain from being an outsider, and being Shia doesn't help. Saudis are America's and Britain's bestest allies. Ideology is why Iran is stuck.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, on the subject, what's the bally take on the Iran nuclear deal?

The open, independently verified promise to not develop nuclear weapons in return for the lifting of sanctions. Is that so bad?

I am all for limiting the nuclear proliferation and any deal towards this end has to be welcomed.
But any deal has to be rigorously monitored.

According to the Huffington Post, Iran had violated the terms of the deal by May 20 2016

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-ra ... 77768.html

The White House response

The US has stopped short of calling Iran’s actions as violations of UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama will continue to overlook Iran’s belligerent actions, including ballistic missile launches and the detention of US sailors by the Iranian forces, until he leaves office. He desires what he sees as his crowning foreign policy “achievement”, the nuclear agreement, to remain intact.

President Obama is concerned that holding Iran accountable for these violations might force the Iranian leaders to abandon the nuclear deal, thus causing its failure.

France and Britain's reaction

Furthermore, France, Britain and other European countries have less incentive to publicly hold Iran responsible, because of the increasing economic and trade ties with Tehran particularly in the energy sector (oil and gas).

You're quoting a lot of stuff which could indeed lead to a conflict of interest.

But what the International Atomic Energy Agency investigators have found is public knowledge; they release that information and they've found Iran to be adhering to the agreement.

So for all the conflict of interest, it seems Iran is adhering to its side of the bargain and in return your average Iranian is less poor and can engage in international trade. Both are good things, no?

TheBigBean

I always felt that Iran had reasonable grounds to be a bit miffed with the international community starting with the Iran-Iraq war, but including things like failing to offer support to Mohammad Khatami. It is a very misunderstood country.

ballysmate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33521655

The aim of the agreement was to apparently lengthen the time it would take Iran to construct a bomb from 3 months to 12 months. Not setting the bar very high is it?
The Huff Post article I posted earlier stated that Iran was testing longer range ballistic missiles with a multiple warhead capability in contravention.
The Iranians may well be adhering to the number of centrifuges and heavy water production, but with the west and the UN opting to look the other way, once the ballistic missiles are developed...
12 months isn't very long is it? Tick tock.

But nothing should spoil Obama's legacy eh?

imposter2.0

TheGardenGnome wrote:

The only way out of this conflict is for Iran to follow the way of the Saudis.

The defenders of Shia Islam 'following the way' of the defenders of Sunni Islam? That's just not going to happen.

TheBigBean

TheGardenGnome wrote:

The only way out of this conflict is for Iran to follow the way of the Saudis. Nothing to gain from being an outsider, and being Shia doesn't help. Saudis are America's and Britain's bestest allies. Ideology is why Iran is stuck.

I'd say that is your best yet. Subtle and informed enough to catch some people out, but still knowingly ridiculous.

PhilipPirrip

Stormy sues for defamation;

https://apnews.com/37b0ee1598f14c118885 ... ssion=true

That adds to the defamation case brought by Summer Zervos, undoubtably with others to follow.

Nobel Peace Prize? Not a hope in hell. They've been accused of being blind in the past but even they must see how dumb it would be to reward this scum.

TheGardenGnome

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43952196
Disturbing. Not everyone has the right to possess nukes, that has to be earned. Those photos and personal testimony should convince everyone that Israel has a right as does Saudi Arabia to defend them elves preemptively.

pblakeney

Nobody has the right to possess nuclear weapons.
Except us. Obviously.

Matthewfalle

TheGardenGnome wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43952196
Disturbing. Not everyone has the right to possess nukes, that has to be earned. Those photos and personal testimony should convince everyone that Israel has a right as does Saudi Arabia to defend them elves preemptively.

I agree - Having seen the Lord of the Ring videos I think that in order to defend them elves nukes are needed.

imposter2.0

TheGardenGnome wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43952196
Disturbing. Not everyone has the right to possess nukes, that has to be earned. Those photos and personal testimony should convince everyone that Israel has a right as does Saudi Arabia to defend them elves preemptively.

Why should uncorroborated evidence convince anyone? Or are you just easily led?

rjsterry

Imposter wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43952196
Disturbing. Not everyone has the right to possess nukes, that has to be earned. Those photos and personal testimony should convince everyone that Israel has a right as does Saudi Arabia to defend them elves preemptively.

Why should uncorroborated evidence convince anyone? Or are you just easily led?

Was that what that was? A creaky PowerPoint presentation and an IKEA bookcase with some empty lever-arch files? It was like something out of The Office.

PhilipPirrip

rjsterry wrote:

Imposter wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43952196
Disturbing. Not everyone has the right to possess nukes, that has to be earned. Those photos and personal testimony should convince everyone that Israel has a right as does Saudi Arabia to defend them elves preemptively.

Why should uncorroborated evidence convince anyone? Or are you just easily led?

Was that what that was? A creaky PowerPoint presentation and an IKEA bookcase with some empty lever-arch files? It was like something out of The Office.

Don't forget the White Houses' attempt to spin this by first claiming ' Iran has a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program' only to then state when challenged that ' Iran had a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program', thereby admitting this is old news and nothing new.

imposter2.0

Netanhayu was presenting as 'news' pretty much everything that the Obama administration reported in 2009. Nothing new at all. Can't believe anyone is falling for this sh1t.