Trump says US to strike 52 Iranian sites 'VERY FAST and VERY HARD’

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does it matter if he was authorized? The iran deal wasn't perfect but it prevented iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It also helped prevent this escalating situation that's happening now.

Trump got rid of the iran deal because he foolishly thought he could swoop in and use his "art of the deal" skills to negotiate a better one that could have his name on it.

a reply to: blueman12

Yes it matters. Treaties that exclude Congress are illegal.

Im unsure that it kept Iran from doing anything. Did we have inspectors go in to view/verify?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does it matter if he was authorized? The iran deal wasn't perfect but it prevented iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It also helped prevent this escalating situation that's happening now.

Trump got rid of the iran deal because he foolishly thought he could swoop in and use his "art of the deal" skills to negotiate a better one that could have his name on it.

And how were those on site inspections going to ensure the deal “prevented iran from getting a nuclear weapon”?

a reply to: Aluxe

It's only revealing who actually stands for something and who is a partisan hack.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: blueman12

Yes it matters. Treaties that exclude Congress are illegal.

Im unsure that it kept Iran from doing anything. Did we have inspectors go in to view/verify?

So the best option was just to get out of the deal and put more sanctions on iran? Well, that's working out just great!

And i believe the international atomic energy agency imspectors were to do the inspection. We could have sent our best inspectors to verify the data too. We could of had congresss vote on wether to legitimize the iran deal.

So many better options than simply pulling out because it was something Obama did...

But you know.. Trump can do no wrong because all his actions are 6-d chess moves.

a reply to: neutronflux

Read this. The deal took into account of covert enrichment sites and would make it much harder for iran to do so.

www.armscontrol.org...

a reply to: blueman12

Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure

BY SHASHANK BENGALI, RAMIN MOSTAGHIM
AUG. 30, 2017
11:43 AM

Inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities, have not requested access to military sites since the agreement went into effect, according to experts monitoring the process

a reply to: blueman12

Iran never could be trusted.

a reply to: neutronflux

You don't have to trust them for the deal to work. Like i said, the deal took into account of covert sites. Nobody trusted iran but a deal makes it much harder for iran to secretly build nuclear weapons.

How is a non-deal better? It's evidently worse. We ended up putting more sanctions on iran, increased hostility, and now are in this situation.

Trump failed in thinking he could simply come in and negotiate a better deal. Maybe we will get lucky and a deal will get struck in the near future and war won't happen.

Hopefully, but it's not looking that way.

a reply to: blueman12

Better to deal with Iran before they had a nuclear arsenal in 10 years. Iran is angry because Trump took away their breathing room to develope nuclear weapons in secret for the next ten years. If you think Iran wasn’t developing in secret, I feel sorry for you.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: chr0naut

The Intel was razor thin is what I am hearing.

Sounds more like an excuse than actual reasoning.

Get that news cycle off of impeachment because impeachment means he goes to jail in N.Y..

It actually looks like Soleimani was a past hero but had become an elder statesman of late. He never particularly cared to support US interests, though.

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: blueman12

Yes it matters. Treaties that exclude Congress are illegal.

Im unsure that it kept Iran from doing anything. Did we have inspectors go in to view/verify?

So the best option was just to get out of the deal and put more sanctions on iran? Well, that's working out just great!

How is it not working? What has actually happened that the "agreement" would have prevented?

And i believe the international atomic energy agency imspectors were to do the inspection. We could have sent our best inspectors to verify the data too. We could of had congresss vote on wether to legitimize the iran deal.

So many better options than simply pulling out because it was something Obama did...

Did they go? Or just "could have"? We gave away several billion on a hope and a prayer?

Do you have any real evidence Trump backed out because OBama did it? Or is that just speculation?

But you know.. Trump can do no wrong because all his actions are 6-d chess moves.

Trump does plenty wrong. Hyperbole makes you look foolish. We are talking about this issue, this instance. If you want to discuss other issues/instances please start a new thread and we can rehash all of it to your hearts content.

a reply to: sapien82

I think he sees it more of a kingdom that a collection of united democratic states.

And i would not be too sure he even kens how many there are nether.

a reply to: Bloodworth

Both our respective nations persecuted homosexuals and put people in gaol for what was considered to be a criminal act less than a century ago, It was illegal in Scotland right up until 1981 ffs.

So pot kettle and black there I'm afraid or people in glass houses should not through stones, take your pick really

Obviously Iran and the rest of the Islamic faith need to grow up and recognize the fact that a person's sexual preference is there own darn concern and nothing to do with God or Allah, but we are little better and just out the closet ourselves so to speak with regards to acceptance.

Drone strikes and the threat of disproportionate annihilation should they retaliate is hardly the way to educate them all the same imho.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does it matter if he was authorized? The iran deal wasn't perfect but it prevented iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It also helped prevent this escalating situation that's happening now.

Trump got rid of the iran deal because he foolishly thought he could swoop in and use his "art of the deal" skills to negotiate a better one that could have his name on it.

All they had to do was hiding it all deep underground and leave what's legit on top of it. I'm pretty sure it was quite easy with all the money they got

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Liquesence

So this is now Jimmy Carter's fault?

Among others, yes. Carter sheltered Mohammad Reza Shah. Do you deny that?

The Iranians stated they took our embassy in retaliation for the sheltering of Mohammad Reza Shah. Do you deny that?

We have been at odds with Iran ever since. Do you deny that?

TheRedneck

Well, the US pretty much did re-install him after the coup.

Regardless, the US pulling out of the nuclear deal and the subsequent killing of Soleimani is decidedly not Carter's fault. That's the point.

While there certainly have been tensions over the years, including Iranian Air 655, the current escalation/situation and flareup is Trump's fault, not Carter's. He pulled out of the deal. He gave the order to kill one of their heads of state. What happens next is on him.

And history will reflect accordingly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: blueman12

Iran never could be trusted.

America too apparently

Just like to add, re: targeting Cultural sites:

1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was adopted at The Hague (Netherlands) in 1954 in the wake of massive destruction of cultural heritage during the Second World War. It is the first international treaty with a world-wide vocation focusing exclusively on the protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict.

It covers immovable and movable cultural heritage, including monuments of architecture, art or history, archaeological sites, works of art, manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest, as well as scientific collections of all kinds regardless of their origin or ownership.

The States Parties to the Convention benefit from their mutual commitment, with a view to sparing cultural heritage from consequences of possible armed conflicts through the implementation of the following measures:

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954.

1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

a reply to: Liquesence

Regardless, the US pulling out of the nuclear deal and the subsequent killing of Soleimani is decidedly not Carter's fault. That's the point.

*sigh*

I never said it was.

I tried to explain why Iran hates us so much, and why the attack on Saddam Hussein happened after 911, and why Iraq was so important to Iran. I really did. Everything I said is in the history books already. None of it is speculation.

But it doesn't match your agenda, I'm afraid. Not everything can be pinned on Donald Trump. Perhaps if I threw in some cockamamie made-up story about how a young Donald Trump snuck into the White House in 1979 and whispered his nefarious plans into Jimmy Carter's ear while he slept, you might believe that.

While there certainly have been tensions over the years, including Iranian Air 655, the current escalation/situation and flareup is Trump's fault, not Carter's. He pulled out of the deal. He gave the order to kill one of their heads of state. What happens next is on him.

So Soleimani had nothing to do with it? He was a saint, correct? Halo and all? Those thousands of people he killed must have been conservatives?

No, this is raising my blood pressure too much. My country has been attacked and the attacker is now threatening to strike again. The only person who can defend us at this time is the President, and you, along with a handful of others, want these attacks to happen. You want to see Americans die. You want to see our cities bombed. Because that's the only way you can get to say "Looky what the mean man in the White House did!"

And now we have idiots, absolute moronic imbeciles in Congress, without a single functioning neuron to rub against their skull among the lot of them, trying to restrict Trump from doing anything to protect us. Leave everyone open to whatever Iran wants to do to us, right? Iran is the good country and we don't deserve to live?

You, I am sorry to say, are pathetic. May your desires never, ever come to pass.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Liquesence

If Trump, an by default America, decides to destroy any historical or cultural heritage sites in Iran there going to be in breach UN security charter, quite simple really.