OutByEaster? Posted October 12, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2017 The US is becoming increasingly an isolationist empire of the oldest school. NATO only really exists as a set of customers under threat to maintain their military budgets. The US has no interest in international relations other than in their impact on corporate USA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: The US is becoming increasingly an isolationist empire of the oldest school. NATO only really exists as a set of customers under threat to maintain their military budgets. The US has no interest in international relations other than in their impact on corporate USA. Taking their football and going home 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Would Mattis & Kelly tackle Trump to stop him launching nukes? Quote Mr Sherman said: “I just want to put into context a conversation that I had with a very prominent Republican today, who literally was saying that they imagine General Kelly and Secretary Mattis had conversations about if Trump lunged for the nuclear football, what would they do? "Would they tackle him? I mean literally, physically restrain him from putting the country at sort of a perilous risk, and that’s the kind of situation we’re in." When asked to explain the source's relationship to the Trump administration, Mr Sherman replied: "These are the kind of conversations that they have, on very good authority, are taking place inside the White House." 25th amendment can't be too far off if this is the sort of thing that they are discussing. I don't know the rules, but could it not be considered treason to discuss intervening in this fashion? I can understand why they would want to physically stop Trump from launching nukes as he is in my mind quite obviously unfit to make such a decision, but it would be a constitutional crisis for them to do so. Obviously I'd much rather a constitutional crisis than a nuclear one, but if this is a serious concern they are surely duty bound to use the 25th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 13, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2017 Playing by the rules doesn't matter to him either - Iran agreed a deal with Obama for a small step back into the international community in exchange for promising not to build nuclear weapons - Trump has slammed the door on that, even though it's widely accepted that Iran are keeping to the terms. In line with the new feeling on any dissenting voice, he's pretty much saying, "Go on then, build one, so I can blow the whole country to hell". Great. World's not quite dangerous enough for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I'm not so sure about this as all he has really done is punt this to congress and they are the one that have to do something. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a new lick of paint put on things, some doom & gloom consequences inserted and then it goes back his way, and they declare a huuuge victory. Optics and bluster. Though the other way of seeing this is as bait to the Iranian hardliners to give the US/Israel casus belli (real or perceived), so as to continue their balkanization of the middle east/construction of a greater Israel project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) He's talking to himself again. Edited October 13, 2017 by Davkaus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 10 hours ago, Straggler said: Would Mattis & Kelly tackle Trump to stop him launching nukes? 25th amendment can't be too far off if this is the sort of thing that they are discussing. I don't know the rules, but could it not be considered treason to discuss intervening in this fashion? I can understand why they would want to physically stop Trump from launching nukes as he is in my mind quite obviously unfit to make such a decision, but it would be a constitutional crisis for them to do so. Obviously I'd much rather a constitutional crisis than a nuclear one, but if this is a serious concern they are surely duty bound to use the 25th? The president can’t launch nukes on his own anyway I thought ? Two man rule and all that means the secretary of defence has to agree ... though then it gets messy as the president can then fire the secretary if he doesn’t .... but hopefully whislt that is going on someone can get all Oswald on the president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: Playing by the rules doesn't matter to him either - Iran agreed a deal with Obama for a small step back into the international community in exchange for promising not to build nuclear weapons - Trump has slammed the door on that, even though it's widely accepted that Iran are keeping to the terms. In line with the new feeling on any dissenting voice, he's pretty much saying, "Go on then, build one, so I can blow the whole country to hell". Great. World's not quite dangerous enough for him. haven’t Iran breached the terms of Obama’s deal numerous times not least by test launching ballistic missiles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 13, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2017 41 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: haven’t Iran breached the terms of Obama’s deal numerous times not least by test launching ballistic missiles ? According to the UN body that administer checks, no. They came out about five minutes after Trump declared he wouldn't be continuing the deal and said so. They also said that no single nation can end sanctions anyway, as the sanctions were from the UN. That'll give us another chance to see whether the US gives a fig for global opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted October 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted October 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: According to the UN body that administer checks, no. They came out about five minutes after Trump declared he wouldn't be continuing the deal and said so. They also said that no single nation can end sanctions anyway, as the sanctions were from the UN. That'll give us another chance to see whether the US gives a fig for global opinion. I think we already know the answer to that one 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: According to the UN body that administer checks, no. They came out about five minutes after Trump declared he wouldn't be continuing the deal and said so. They also said that no single nation can end sanctions anyway, as the sanctions were from the UN. That'll give us another chance to see whether the US gives a fig for global opinion. Weird as the JCPOA agreement appears to be the nuclear agreement between P5+1 and Iran is crystal clear in stating that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity and they clearly have been launching ballistc missiles , even if the one in Sept appears to have been fake footage , it was still re-run footage of a failed launch from Feb time this year , wasn’t it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 13, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2017 I'm not sure if they have, or if it's part of the agreement, but there are at least a couple of international bodies that say they haven't broken the agreement, and it was being widely reported as the case that they haven't just about everywhere in the build up to Trump deciding he didn't care. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41613314 Quote EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini called the deal "robust" and said there had been "no violations" by Iran. She said it was not in the power of "any president in the world" to terminate the agreement. That and the fact that pretty much all of Trumps allies (except Israel obviously) have all said they think it would be wrong for him to pull the deal suggests that he really doesn't care whether they did or didn't break the terms, or for the opinions of the global community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 13, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote 'We cannot afford as the international community to dismantle a nuclear agreement that is working' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-eu-federica-mogherini-netanyahu-israel-a7999556.html The EU don't like his decision - and indeed, May, Merkel and Macron have released a pretty blunt joint statement telling him so, the Russian's don't like it either (although I guess they wouldn't) and internationally, the only two nations that have shown support for the move are Israel and Saudi Arabia. For my money, if you're in a position where the only two nations that support you are Israel and Saudi Arabia, you're in the wrong position. Quote Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, says all parties to the Iran nuclear deal agree that the accord is being implemented as planned and U.S. complaints about other Iranian behavior should be discussed outside the context of the agreement. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-nuclear-deal-european-union-federica-mogherini/ And again, no breach of the agreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 13, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2017 It'll be interesting now to see how Congress reacts - he's both made his position clear, and abdicated responsibility for it to a Congress that voted strongly to keep the deal in place in July - it's a test for how much influence he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post il_serpente Posted October 14, 2017 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted October 14, 2017 I have a suspicion that the whole idea of throwing it to Congress is something Mattis, Tillerson and Kelly came up with to allow him to follow through on his posturing while still preserving a possibility of continuing to abide by the agreement. Trump has painted himself into a corner with all his bluster, most of which probably started prior to him having anything close to sufficient understanding of the complexities to make an informed decision on the matter. It appears that most of the adults in the room have not wanted to scrap it, but we all know that Trump ever admitting he was wrong about something is never going to happen, particularly something that he's said with such frequency and conviction. This lets him decertify as he threatened and continue to criticize Iran and the agreement without immediately throwing everything into (further) chaos. A number of congressmen, including Republicans, who were against the agreement in 2015 have now gone on the record as saying that we should stick with it as long as Iran complies and work on eliminating the sunset and address the other aspects of Iran's behavior that they object to via some separate initiative. If Congress leaves it alone, this is about as close to a win-win as they can get on this issue. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 China has large oil contracts with Iran. Coupled with Russia, that's at a minimum 2 permanent SC members that will tell the US to do one. This says nothing for how they would react were the US to be more stupid. This was not the case when the moron Bush was beating the war drum. The empire doth protest too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 A nail bomb was left in a Carolina airport last week. Chap arrested was white, non Muslim and claimed that he was trying to start a war on US soil. Strangely, he also claims he never primed the device. Despite this, you'd think it would be more newsworthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 jus' exercisin' his constitootional right' to bear a nail bomb. And war's are a good deal, good for business, anyone who helps business gotta be patriotic, yes sir. Don't be taking out news on these patriot types! war at home, saves on travel costs. Sounds like your man for a financial crisis. Smart! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted October 17, 2017 22 hours ago, Xann said: A nail bomb was left in a Carolina airport last week. Chap arrested was white, non Muslim and claimed that he was trying to start a war on US soil. Strangely, he also claims he never primed the device. Despite this, you'd think it would be more newsworthy? He's not brown. Doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts