• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 07, 2018, 02:30:59 PM
It doesn't affect anything? You're joking right? The other day he sent his latest lawyer Giuliani to say that three Americans held in NK would be released...The state department had no idea what he was talking about...

... You say it doesn't matter; Well what if in the not too distant future the USA/NATO faces a very serious situation that literally is life and death for all, and only very careful diplomacy will make the difference? Who will believe what he says? And why should they?

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 08, 2018, 09:22:46 PM
... Try looking at Trump's commentary and actions as negotiating tactics.  Learn to look at results instead of headlines and alarmism generated by the fake news media.  Who knows where that path might lead.


Apparently the ''lie'' about NK releasing our citizens wasn't a lie after all.  Often when the US meets with some dictator, concessions on human rights are made in advance, political prisoners are freed in advance, etc - so that it's not an issue at the summit.  Perhaps Trump's comments were a kick in the butt to get Kim to release these people now and not wait.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/trump-secretary-of-state-pompeo-heading-back-from-north-korea-with-3-released-prisoners.html   

I really think the yapping dogs hell bent on diverting Trump's attention, trying to tie up his agenda, or whatever it is their demented minds think it is they are doing should get out of the way.  They're damaging the country, not that they care about that. 

Either way, something tells me we won't hear another word from Pud about these 3 soon to be released prisoners, no credit for Trump, no retractions, no admission he doesn't know what he's talking about when he rails against Trump, nothing.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 11:20:30 AM
Oh please, spare the sanctimony. It'll choke you. You think the Iraqi debacle was about restoring Iraq to the Iraqis? There were seminars in the US at the time where oil execs were telling the assembled that Iraq was rich for the taking.

As for tyrants...You think? Yet Trump congratulated Putin's election win. The fact that there was no valid opposition (Because Putin made it illegal and imprisoned any that tried) is lost on Trump.. He's also pretty cosy with the rulers of Turkey (Where the current President made his term indefinite), Philippines (What justice/free press?), Egypt, and any number of despots...

Here's Pud.  Typical Lib.  Jumping off on some other subject when his foolishness on the original topic is pointed out.

Yes, he's diplomatic with some of the foreign leaders we need to work with on certain issues.  As opposed to Obama who didn't know how to do that with anyone, tried and failed, and was a disaster for US foreign policy and world peace and security across the board.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me one US ally, friend, or trading partner who is better off due to something Obama did, one relationship he strengthened.  I'm still waiting for someone to show me one enemy that isn't stronger due to his actions and inactions.  And Hilary Clinton was poised to do more of the same, hell as SecState she was the architect of much of it

So let's not act as though Trump is some disaster.  He's a refreshing change from eight years of failure.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 11:20:30 AM
Oh please, spare the sanctimony. It'll choke you...

There's some irony, and a bit of levity for the board - thanks!

Gd5150

No question cancelling Obama’s personal deal with the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world, Iran, is going against what Iran and its allies want. You know, the demokkkrat party. The demokkkrat media. Obama. Iran. And...


















Russia







Quote from: Gd5150 on May 09, 2018, 11:56:12 AM
No question cancelling Obama’s personal deal with the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world, Iran, is going against what Iran and its allies want. You know, the demokkkrat party. The demokkkrat media. Obama. Iran. And...





Russia

Sometimes just looking who is on one side of an issue is really all a person needs to know.

Pud is a stickler on Constitutional law, I'm certain the fact that Obama presented an unratified treaty to the UN as a done deal, handed over billions in cash when he had no authority to do so, and removed sanctions when he had no authority to do so will soon be the subject of a thoughtful post by him excoriating the former president.


starrmtn001

Wait, what?  The Iran Deal was never signed by Iran?!?!?  Is this true?
(Starts at about 32:02).

https://youtu.be/Li_9Idej5kU

Quote from: StarrMountain on May 09, 2018, 12:50:48 PM
Wait, what?  The Iran Deal was never signed by Iran?!?!?  Is this true?...

To be fair, the word of Iran's government officials doesn't mean anything anyway.

This is a country with a government set up to look like a republic, but on matters of any importance is run behind the scenes by the mullahs.  Their disgusting ''religion'' tells them to lie to infidels.

Let's face it, Obama's foreign policy was a mess, a complete failure.  A disaster for this country and the world in general.  His worldview is wrong.  Before taking office he was against any sanctions on Iran, and the ''progressives'' who have now taken complete control of his party have more or less sided with Castro for decades.  Obama wanted to undo US measures to contain Iran and Cuba, and apparently decided near the end of his term that would be his foreign policy ''legacy''.

Iran didn't want a deal, they wanted the sanctions removed and to play for time.  They pretended to negotiate, and each time Obama and Kerry thought they had a deal the Iranians would make more demands.  It got way past the point where Obama and Kerry should have walked away, but they capitulated to every new demand.  Finally, when the deal was cash and sanctions removed, toothless ''inspections'', and short term ''promises'', Iran really had no choice other than to accept the planeloads of cash and removal of sanctions, without giving up anything, other than a worthless, face-saving piece of paper of Obama to show everyone. 

So Obama ends up with the worst foreign policy agreement in the history of our country to go along with Obama care, the worst piece of domestic legislation in our history.  That same party then offered up Hilary Clinton to carry forward more of the same.  And have the gall to ignore all that and attack Trump.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 09, 2018, 01:41:09 PM
To be fair, the word of Iran's government officials doesn't mean anything anyway.

This is a country with a government set up to look like a republic, but on matters of any importance is run behind the scenes by the mullahs.  Their disgusting ''religion'' tells them to lie to infidels.

Let's face it, Obama's foreign policy was a mess, a complete failure.  A disaster for this country and the world in general.  His worldview is wrong.  Before taking office he was against any sanctions on Iran, and the ''progressives'' who have now taken complete control of his party have more or less sided with Castro for decades.  Obama wanted to undo US measures to contain Iran and Cuba, and apparently decided near the end of his term that would be his foreign policy ''legacy''.

Iran didn't want a deal, they wanted the sanctions removed and to play for time.  They pretended to negotiate, and each time Obama and Kerry thought they had a deal the Iranians would make more demands.  It got way past the point where Obama and Kerry should have walked away, but they capitulated to every new demand.  Finally, when the deal was cash and sanctions removed, toothless ''inspections'', and short term ''promises'', Iran really had no choice other than to accept the planeloads of cash and removal of sanctions, without giving up anything, other than a worthless, face-saving piece of paper of Obama to show everyone. 

So Obama ends up with the worst foreign policy agreement in the history of our country to go along with Obama care, the worst piece of domestic legislation in our history.  That same party then offered up Hilary Clinton to carry forward more of the same.  And have the gall to ignore all that and attack Trump.


I think you'll find that Trump hasn't come up with anything to improve on the Iran deal...He's of course ranted about sanctions--No doubt the toughest sanctions ever, big beautiful bigly sanctions...But why not ask the Sate Dept how that's going to be implemented..  ::)

albrecht

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 09, 2018, 01:41:09 PM
To be fair, the word of Iran's government officials doesn't mean anything anyway.

This is a country with a government set up to look like a republic, but on matters of any importance is run behind the scenes by the mullahs.  Their disgusting ''religion'' tells them to lie to infidels.

Let's face it, Obama's foreign policy was a mess, a complete failure.  A disaster for this country and the world in general.  His worldview is wrong.  Before taking office he was against any sanctions on Iran, and the ''progressives'' who have now taken complete control of his party have more or less sided with Castro for decades.  Obama wanted to undo US measures to contain Iran and Cuba, and apparently decided near the end of his term that would be his foreign policy ''legacy''.

Iran didn't want a deal, they wanted the sanctions removed and to play for time.  They pretended to negotiate, and each time Obama and Kerry thought they had a deal the Iranians would make more demands.  It got way past the point where Obama and Kerry should have walked away, but they capitulated to every new demand.  Finally, when the deal was cash and sanctions removed, toothless ''inspections'', and short term ''promises'', Iran really had no choice other than to accept the planeloads of cash and removal of sanctions, without giving up anything, other than a worthless, face-saving piece of paper of Obama to show everyone. 

So Obama ends up with the worst foreign policy agreement in the history of our country to go along with Obama care, the worst piece of domestic legislation in our history.  That same party then offered up Hilary Clinton to carry forward more of the same.  And have the gall to ignore all that and attack Trump.
You are still viewing Obama as a normal President, or a normal US citizen who actually, even if he had some wrong beliefs or politics, wants the US, and the people, to be successful. He was neither. While his citizenship, indeed even his name, renames a mystery like much of his background his goals for the US was for failure, accepting bad economies, bowing and kowtowing to any despot or royalty he could find, apologizing for everything America (and by extension Western Culture) has done, supporting Islam where ever possible, opening the border to anyone including hardcore cartel members, devisively dividing people on race, income, etc,and doing everything possible to undermine the country, traditional values, Western culture, Christianity, and national unity.
He was very successful with his agenda. The problem was the agenda was anti-American.

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 02:06:49 PM

I think you'll find that Trump hasn't come up with anything to improve on the Iran deal...He's of course ranted about sanctions--No doubt the toughest sanctions ever, big beautiful bigly sanctions...But why not ask the Sate Dept how that's going to be implemented..  ::)

It's statements like the above that have made you the legendary blowhard that you are.  The many things wrong with the deal have been spelled out many times herein in clear unambiguous terms.  One would think that even you could put your thinking cap on and come up with revisions to the agreement that would make it something more than total capitulation to Iran's nuclear ambitions  drawn out over a ten year period.   However, since you have posted nothing that would lead anyone to suspect that you have any problem at all with an unstable apocalyptic theocracy possessing nuclear weapons beginning in 2025, I doubt that you've given it any consideration, preferring instead to focus on posting unhinged anti Trump rhetoric. 






Gd5150

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on May 09, 2018, 06:21:03 PM
It's statements like the above that have made you the legendary blowhard that you are.  The many things wrong with the deal have been spelled out many times herein in clear unambiguous terms.  One would think that even you could put your thinking cap on and come up with revisions to the agreement that would make it something more than total capitulation to Iran's nuclear ambitions  drawn out over a ten year period.   However, since you have posted nothing that would lead anyone to suspect that you have any problem at all with an unstable apocalyptic theocracy possessing nuclear weapons beginning in 2025, I doubt that you've given it any consideration, preferring instead to focus on posting unhinged anti Trump rhetoric.

This should explain things...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lemming

Quotelemming -
A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on May 09, 2018, 06:21:03 PM
It's statements like the above that have made you the legendary blowhard that you are.  The many things wrong with the deal have been spelled out many times herein in clear unambiguous terms.  One would think that even you could put your thinking cap on and come up with revisions to the agreement that would make it something more than total capitulation to Iran's nuclear ambitions  drawn out over a ten year period.   However, since you have posted nothing that would lead anyone to suspect that you have any problem at all with an unstable apocalyptic theocracy possessing nuclear weapons beginning in 2025, I doubt that you've given it any consideration, preferring instead to focus on posting unhinged anti Trump rhetoric.

Blah blah blah...C'mon then submariner, what would YOU do. Neither of us is a diplomat, neither of us is likely to be. The only reason Trump has pulled the plug on this is because Obama was the POTUS at the time. It isn't just Iran; He's got his fellow swamp life to basically undo everything (or try to) that had Obama's signature on it. Which is why less fuel efficient and dirtier vehicles can now be built, though the makers probably won't. It's why oil companies and coal mine owners can pollute rivers and lakes with impunity. Obama didn't get it all right, but he didn't get it all right either. Trump is just a petulant child. If he can't have the glory, he doesn't want anyone else to either. The sanctions will make a lot of things more expensive because countries that use Irans oil are major exporters. Yes, that includes the States too.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 09:35:39 AM
You're seriously suggesting Trump knows more than the rest of the world? Jesus H.

By the ''rest of the world'' do you mean UK, France, and Germany?  Because those three countries are so foolish they are importing huge numbers of terrorists and terrorist supporters - to the point of changing their national identities.  Security there is now at the level of third world nations.  That's whose opinions were supposed to follow and take seriously?

You know who does agree with us on tearing up this one sided piece of garbage?  Our allies in the region who are most affected by it?  Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and the gulf states. 



Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 07:43:55 PM
... The only reason Trump has pulled the plug on this is because Obama was the POTUS at the time...

Well, you can say that as many times as you like.  It's really just another example of you getting your information only from sources who all share the same agenda, who all share the same narrative, and who don't provide any more or any less information than what serves that.  Or if they do, in order to be able to point back to it when questioned, place it where it will get the least amount of traffic.  In other words you're getting far less than the whole picture, and a good portion that simply isn't true. 

We could start a new thread just of information that you out of your posts, that you are completely unaware of, and that people then point out to you if thy respond to your posts at all.  If it were me, I'd be pretty unhappy to have news sources I put my trust in so routinely shown to lie, spin, and omit on so many issues - I certainly wouldn't just move on to the next article and proceed to take it as gospel.  The odd part is you ignore completely any information beyond what you've been fed, and before too much time passes you post a nearly identical comment with that same information omitted.  It's a little odd, to say the least.


GravitySucks

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 07:43:55 PM
Blah blah blah...C'mon then submariner, what would YOU do. Neither of us is a diplomat, neither of us is likely to be. The only reason Trump has pulled the plug on this is because Obama was the POTUS at the time. It isn't just Iran; He's got his fellow swamp life to basically undo everything (or try to) that had Obama's signature on it. Which is why less fuel efficient and dirtier vehicles can now be built, though the makers probably won't. It's why oil companies and coal mine owners can pollute rivers and lakes with impunity. Obama didn't get it all right, but he didn't get it all right either. Trump is just a petulant child. If he can't have the glory, he doesn't want anyone else to either. The sanctions will make a lot of things more expensive because countries that use Irans oil are major exporters. Yes, that includes the States too.

If Obama had followed the constitution then Trump couldn’t be undoing all these things. Have you noticed a pattern?

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on May 09, 2018, 06:21:03 PM
... since you have posted nothing that would lead anyone to suspect that you have any problem at all with an unstable apocalyptic theocracy possessing nuclear weapons beginning in 2025, I doubt that you've given it any consideration, preferring instead to focus on posting unhinged anti Trump rhetoric.

It's more of an anti-Trump derangement syndrome.  Trump is apparently supposed to have done the exact opposite of everything he's done up to this point.  Of course then that would have been wrong too, so it's a bit of a head scratcher.

Just from reading Pud's posts, Trump has handled Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, China, North Korea, Cuba, NATO, our trading partners, and Iran all wrong.  With some, he's too friendly, with others too harsh - and scary. 

He should really let the op-ed editorial writers at the Washington Post determine our foreign policy like, you know, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Kerry did - because that's the look of success.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 09, 2018, 08:19:23 PM
It's more of an anti-Trump derangement syndrome.  Trump is apparently supposed to have done the exact opposite of everything he's done up to this point.  Of course then that would have been wrong too, so it's a bit of a head scratcher.

Just from reading Pud's posts, Trump has handled Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, China, North Korea, Cuba, NATO, our trading partners, and Iran all wrong.  With some, he's too friendly, with others too harsh - and scary. 

He should really let the op-ed editorial writers at the Washington Post determine our foreign policy like, you know, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Kerry did - because that's the look of success.

Instead of Sean Hannity?  ???

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on May 09, 2018, 08:16:23 PM
If Obama had followed the constitution then Trump couldn’t be undoing all these things. Have you noticed a pattern?


You think Trump follows the Constitution? He didn't know what the 4th Amendment was until he was informed by Priebus.  ;D That Trump is trying to undo things is less important than the fact he doesn't have a viable alternative...See healthcare (Cheaper, more cost effective, easy access, universal-remember?)..And the tax 'reform' scam wasn't for normal people, it was for such as him.  What a surprise eh? What else? He has an EPA secretary who travels first class because he's too good to fly in coach, has a soundproof telephone booth, and about a dozen other ways he's feathered his next, or those of his friends.

And then we're left with Cohen who has received a few bob that was destined for who? Well, we know why; It was to get access to his former boss, because Trump has thrown him under the bus.  :-\  And he's pleading the fifth... Who knows why that might be?  ???

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 07:43:55 PM
Blah blah blah...C'mon then submariner, what would YOU do. Neither of us is a diplomat, neither of us is likely to be. The only reason Trump has pulled the plug on this is because Obama was the POTUS at the time. It isn't just Iran; He's got his fellow swamp life to basically undo everything (or try to) that had Obama's signature on it. Which is why less fuel efficient and dirtier vehicles can now be built, though the makers probably won't. It's why oil companies and coal mine owners can pollute rivers and lakes with impunity. Obama didn't get it all right, but he didn't get it all right either. Trump is just a petulant child. If he can't have the glory, he doesn't want anyone else to either. The sanctions will make a lot of things more expensive because countries that use Irans oil are major exporters. Yes, that includes the States too.


Most of the regulations that Trump eased were imposed before Obama was even on the scene by both Democrat and a Republican administrations but don't try to change the subject.

In 2015 the house of Representatives passed a bill to block the Iran Deal which the Dem controlled Senate killed.  The vote on the procedural motion was 58 to 42, falling two votes short of the 60 votes needed to consider the resolution rejecting the agreement.  Given the vote count it is a virtual certainty that  the bill would have passed handily if Reed had not resorted to procedural chicanery and allowed it be considered on a straight up or down vote.   At the time prominent Democrats like Shumar, Nadler, Menéndez and Engel came out against the deal in strong terms.   Has the deal improved with age? 









Yorkshire pud

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 09, 2018, 08:07:56 PM
Well, you can say that as many times as you like.  It's really just another example of you getting your information only from sources who all share the same agenda, who all share the same narrative, and who don't provide any more or any less information than what serves that.  Or if they do, in order to be able to point back to it when questioned, place it where it will get the least amount of traffic.  In other words you're getting far less than the whole picture, and a good portion that simply isn't true. 

We could start a new thread just of information that you out of your posts, that you are completely unaware of, and that people then point out to you if thy respond to your posts at all.  If it were me, I'd be pretty unhappy to have news sources I put my trust in so routinely shown to lie, spin, and omit on so many issues - I certainly wouldn't just move on to the next article and proceed to take it as gospel.  The odd part is you ignore completely any information beyond what you've been fed, and before too much time passes you post a nearly identical comment with that same information omitted.  It's a little odd, to say the least.


And what do you use for your news sources? Anything Trump likes? Because if you like, I could pull uo your threads where you're quite vitriolic against Trump.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on May 09, 2018, 08:58:00 PM

Most of the regulations that Trump eased were imposed before Obama was even on the scene by both Democrat and a Republican administrations but don't try to change the subject.

In 2015 the house of Representatives passed a bill to block the Iran Deal which the Dem controlled Senate killed.  The vote on the procedural motion was 58 to 42, falling two votes short of the 60 votes needed to consider the resolution rejecting the agreement.  Given the vote count it is a virtual certainty that  the bill would have passed handily if Reed had not resorted to procedural chicanery and allowed it be considered on a straight up or down vote.   At the time prominent Democrats like Shumar, Nadler, Menéndez and Engel came out against the deal in strong terms.   Has the deal improved with age?


It wasn't an American deal with Iran though...It was the UN security council, plus the EH. The EU have a far bigger vested interest in Iran not having nuclear weapons than the USA. But now, its in flux. The rest of the SC and the EU will likely honour it if they can, but the alleged sanctions that Trump is going to try and impose will simply provoke Iran to say fuck you. They have a population of about 80 million, and quite highly educated at that. The only countries that will suffer are ones that the USA need to be on their side; Trump doesn't understand that, nor does he care. I wonder what the appetite would be for US military action on Iran? I think very low, especially as Trump said that the wars that went before were wrong.

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 08:58:18 PM

And what do you use for your news sources? Anything Trump likes? Because if you like, I could pull uo your threads where you're quite vitriolic against Trump.

That's  exactly the point.  I have also criticised Trump on this and other threads.  Look It Up.  The adults In this discusión are not as blindly partisan as you are and SERare willing to concede fair points and criticise those whose polítical philosophy Is the same or similar to ours. 

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 09:09:37 PM

It wasn't an American deal with Iran though...It was the UN security council, plus the EH. The EU have a far bigger vested interest in Iran not having nuclear weapons than the USA. But now, its in flux. The rest of the SC and the EU will likely honour it if they can, but the alleged sanctions that Trump is going to try and impose will simply provoke Iran to say fuck you. They have a population of about 80 million, and quite highly educated at that. The only countries that will suffer are ones that the USA need to be on their side; Trump doesn't understand that, nor does he care. I wonder what the appetite would be for US military action on Iran? I think very low, especially as Trump said that the wars that went before were wrong.

Hold on a sec.  UN Security Council?  They didn't have a thing to do with it until Obama presented the unratified treaty as a done deal.  Other than encouraging the lifting of sanction by any means necessary so they could sell weapons to the mullahs without getting a negative reaction from the US, they were only involved after the fact. 

The EU?  There's no leadership there, just as there has been very little here.  The EU went along for the ride, this was an Obama/Kerry operation from the beginning to the end - although like politicians everywhere they're happy to take credit, but all they did was sit in the room, if that.

That the quislings in the EU are bleating about it now is pure politics.  They're afraid to stand up to Iran, afraid to rock the boat, afraid to not follow public opinion in their countries.  They'd rather appease Iran and kick the can down the road.  This is how regimes like North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran get these weapons in the first place.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 08:58:18 PM

And what do you use for your news sources? Anything Trump likes? Because if you like, I could pull uo your threads where you're quite vitriolic against Trump.

There are plenty of reputable sources.  Take a look at Drudge once in awhile and see where some of those links lead.  Read a few respectable periodicals that aren't all-in for the Libs all the time - you can read many free online.  Read some conservative columnists.  Listen to Rush, Levin, and Savage once in awhile.  Really pay attention, don't just jump when you hear something that doesn't support the narrative you've been told.

By the way, just because columnists and advocates are paid to offer their opinions doesn't make the information they bring forward is wrong or inaccurate - it's a mix of opinion, information that the fake news media ignored, or information the media spun their way presented without their spin (often lengthy sound clips that the fake news media only pulled a few words out of, or didn't cover at all).  The Fake news Media have become opinion advocates as well, they just aren't honest about it.

Just one example is Trump's comments about the crowd in Charlottesville:  someone asked an immediate follow up did he mean the white supremists were good people, and he emphatically said NO.  Somehow that has always been left out of the story.  Why do you think that is, and do you think it was fair and accurate to do so?

Don't believe the Main Stream Media have become advocates?

Quick, what is their position on gun control?
On gay marriage?
On the Iran deal?
On abortion?
On the left wing violent rioters in the streets?
On the death penalty?
On illegal aliens?

On any number of political issues.  In fact what political issues out there does the ''main stream media'' NOT have an obvious opinion on, what political issues out there do they not advocate for one side or the other?

And knowing that, why would you not be interested in hearing the other side on any of the issues?  Why just assume you would be in full agreement if you were aware of all the facts, and not be interested in making sure?  Why allow one side to define the other side for you?

Metron2267

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 02:06:49 PM

I think you'll find that Trump hasn't come up with anything to improve on the Iran deal...He's of course ranted about sanctions--No doubt the toughest sanctions ever, big beautiful bigly sanctions...But why not ask the Sate Dept how that's going to be implemented..  ::)

How does one improve on a corrupted deal which was a toothless sweetheart for Iran?

By exiting it, obviously.

As for "beautiful bigly sanctions" - ask Lil' Kim how long his nation was really going to last with China throttling their fuel supplies.

Herewith some reality waypoints to blunt your personal Trump temper tantrum, enjoy:

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/china-is-said-to-back-fresh-un-sanctions-on-north-korea-fuel/url]
December 21, 2017, 9:35 PM MST
Petroleum product sales may be cut by 90 percent: proposal
Move would come in retaliation for late-November missile test

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-fuel-prices-surge-after-china-cuts-oil-sales-2017-7/url]
SEOUL, July 17 (Reuters) - Gasoline and diesel prices surged in North Korea in the weeks after a Chinese state oil company suspended fuel sales to the reclusive state, according to data reviewed by Reuters and an interview with a North Korean defector.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Metron2267 on May 10, 2018, 09:21:49 AM
How does one improve on a corrupted deal which was a toothless sweetheart for Iran?

Funny because both Mattis and Pompeo say the arrangement works...


Quote
By exiting it, obviously.

As for "beautiful bigly sanctions" - ask Lil' Kim how long his nation was really going to last with China throttling their fuel supplies.

Hmm, Compare and contrast... What does the west buy from NK? Roughly? How will sanctions materially affect the west? Then compare with Iran.. And their geographical location..

Comparing Iran with NK is chalk and cheese.

Quote
Herewith some reality waypoints to blunt your personal Trump temper tantrum, enjoy:

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/china-is-said-to-back-fresh-un-sanctions-on-north-korea-fuel/url]
December 21, 2017, 9:35 PM MST
Petroleum product sales may be cut by 90 percent: proposal
Move would come in retaliation for late-November missile test

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-fuel-prices-surge-after-china-cuts-oil-sales-2017-7/url]
SEOUL, July 17 (Reuters) - Gasoline and diesel prices surged in North Korea in the weeks after a Chinese state oil company suspended fuel sales to the reclusive state, according to data reviewed by Reuters and an interview with a North Korean defector.

How exactly will gas and diesel prices materially affect the average North Korean; A population so starved that many are reduced to eating grass and bark? When you have nothing, taking more away doesn't exactly hurt the poor. Iran on the other hand are the gate keepers to the Straits of Hormuz. How do you think that might play out if things got loud in that area?

Metron2267

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 09, 2018, 07:43:55 PM
Blah blah blah...C'mon then submariner, what would YOU do. Neither of us is a diplomat, neither of us is likely to be. The only reason Trump has pulled the plug on this is because Obama was the POTUS at the time. It isn't just Iran; He's got his fellow swamp life to basically undo everything (or try to) that had Obama's signature on it. Which is why less fuel efficient and dirtier vehicles can now be built, though the makers probably won't. It's why oil companies and coal mine owners can pollute rivers and lakes with impunity. Obama didn't get it all right, but he didn't get it all right either. Trump is just a petulant child. If he can't have the glory, he doesn't want anyone else to either. The sanctions will make a lot of things more expensive because countries that use Irans oil are major exporters. Yes, that includes the States too.

No, Trump exited this because it was toothless scam that enriched the Mullas and did virtually nothing to impede Iran's nuclear threat. 

And as with most of Obama's "legacy" the aim was to weaken the USA in almost all ways possible.

Obama was America's Trojan horse and you stuttering Limey simpletons are culturally and morally in no position to do anything more than play the sycophant to his nakedly treasonous policies. Thank the Creator that you haven't the sway to do more here than mutter moronically on this board and spread your pallid disinformation.

Oil companies and coal mine owners have not been given any legal accommodation to "pollute with impunity", what a load of disinformation again.

As for the US's "oil use" from Iran, try some facts:

[url]https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIM_NUS-NIR_2&f=A/url]

U.S. Imports from Iran of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Decade   Year-0   Year-1   Year-2   Year-3   Year-4   Year-5   Year-6   Year-7   Year-8   Year-9
  1970's            223   469   280   298   535   555   304
  1980's   9   0   35   48   10   27   19   98   0   0
  1990's   0   32   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
  2000's   0   0                        

Wow.

Just freaking wow.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod