Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 49 of 49

Thread: US issues warrant to seize Iranian tanker off Gibraltar

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So the US should tell other countries what they can do. What about sovereignty? Should we also follow when other countries tell us what to do?
    Thats how peace works, you make an agreement and both say You do this/I do this and both agree to the terms. Otherwise its war, cold or hot.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Thats how peace works, you make an agreement and both say You do this/I do this and both agree to the terms. Otherwise its war, cold or hot.
    There was an agreement. Trump said he would not honor it. Then he got upset when Iran said they may not honor it as well since the US wasn't abiding by it. Iran did continue to follow it (until they recently passed the limits on how much uranium could be processed to a minimum level).

    We are not at war with Iran- though some think we should be.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    There was an agreement. Trump said he would not honor it. Then he got upset when Iran said they may not honor it as well since the US wasn't abiding by it. Iran did continue to follow it (until they recently passed the limits on how much uranium could be processed to a minimum level).

    We are not at war with Iran- though some think we should be.
    The Obama administration rammed the Iran agreement through without listening to the concerns of the Republican party who said it was a bad deal and that they would cancel the deal. Maybe if they made a deal that both parties agreed to we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Democrats voted to filibuster and block American people from having a real vote on one of most consequential issues of our age

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I am just going off threads where me and you argued about border security and you said you plan on retiring in Mexico and don't want border security.
    And the fact that he opposes any measures to even know who or how many are crossing the borders let alone any limits.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    The Obama administration rammed the Iran agreement through without listening to the concerns of the Republican party who said it was a bad deal and that they would cancel the deal. Maybe if they made a deal that both parties agreed to we wouldn't be in this mess.
    What Trump is said to be seeking in a "new deal" sounds a lot like the Obama deal he said was terrible. But he did the same thing with NAFTA. Call it terrible, agree to basically the same thing, and declare victory.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-obama-1417801

    Trump’s better deal with Iran looks a lot like Obama’s

    Donald Trump has long trashed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever,” a “disaster” that didn’t cover nearly enough of the Islamist-led country’s nefarious behavior.

    In recent weeks, however, the president has indicated that the Barack Obama-era deal might not be so bad after all.

    Trump has repeatedly urged Iran to engage in negotiations with him, while saying that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are his chief concern — “A lot of progress has been made. And they'd like to talk,” Trump asserted Tuesday at the White House. His aides and allies, meanwhile, have recently suggested that Iran and other countries should follow the guidelines of a deal they themselves have shunned as worthless.

    At times, analysts and former officials say, it sounds like Trump wants to strike a deal that essentially mirrors the agreement that his White House predecessor inked — even if he’d never be willing to admit it. Iranian officials seem willing to egg him on, saying they’ll talk so long as Trump lifts the sanctions he’s imposed on them and returns to the 2015 Iran deal. And as European ministers warn that the existing deal is nearly extinct, Trump may feel like he is backed into a corner and running out of options.

    “Trump got rid of the Iran nuclear deal because it was Barack Obama’s agreement,” said Jarrett Blanc, a former State Department official who helped oversee the 2015 deal’s implementation. “If you were to present to Trump the same deal and call it Trump’s deal, he’d be thrilled.”

    The administration’s confusing messaging is a result of warring between two major factions, U.S. officials say, with Trump in his own separate lane. The infighting has been deeply frustrating to those involved in the debate. “In the past, even when I personally disagreed with a policy, I could explain its logic,” a U.S. official said. “Now I can’t even do that.”
    He’s said he’s “not looking for war,” wants to talk to Iran without preconditions and isn’t interested in regime change. He called off a military strike on Iran over its downing of an unmanned U.S. drone, overriding the advice of several top aides. His main public demand is that Iran not build nuclear weapons. In return, Trump has offered to help revive Iran’s sanctions-battered economy.

    To observers, that sounds suspiciously like the 2015 deal.

    “They can't have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said Tuesday. “We want to help them. We will be good to them. We will work with them. We will help them in any way we can. But they can't have a nuclear weapon
    ."
    Several European officials express astonishment at the audacity of the Trump administration demanding that Iran adhere to the deal when the U.S. the one who breached the agreement in the first place. Some said they were not surprised that Iran may have taken actions in the Persian Gulf as payback for the U.S. abandonment of the deal.

    Europeans “know that the original sin causing the current escalation in the Gulf is the U.S. violation of the Iran nuclear deal,” said Nathalie Tocci, an adviser to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. “At the same time, they are terribly concerned about the escalation and the threat it poses to the Middle East and to Europe itself.”

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What Trump is said to be seeking in a "new deal" sounds a lot like the Obama deal he said was terrible. But he did the same thing with NAFTA. Call it terrible, agree to basically the same thing, and declare victory.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-obama-1417801
    If Trump is asking for the same thing than why is Iran refusing to agree to it?

  9. #37
    Trump seems to sometimes hate things just because Obama did them.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48978484

    New leak claims Trump scrapped Iran nuclear deal 'to spite Obama'

    The Mail on Sunday reports that Sir Kim wrote to Mr Johnson informing him Republican President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" - because the pact had been agreed by his Democrat predecessor, Barack Obama.

    Under the 2015 deal backed by the US and five other nations, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
    More at link.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    If Trump is asking for the same thing than why is Iran refusing to agree to it?
    Would you sign an agreement with somebody who unilaterally decided to cancel the previous one (and has done so with many other agreements)? He can't be trusted to honor any deal.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-17-2019 at 04:16 PM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Would you sign an agreement with somebody who unilaterally decided to cancel the previous one? He can't be trusted to honor any deal.
    Why would they go back to the 2015 agreement than if the agreement is the same and we can't be trusted?

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Would you sign an agreement with somebody who unilaterally decided to cancel the previous one (and has done so with many other agreements)? He can't be trusted to honor any deal.
    If the agreement restored my economy and was good for my people and I thought that the other party was going to follow through with the agreement and not send mixed signals that they wouldn't abide by the terms than why the hell not. If the agreement is just a power play by a bad actor to destablilze your country even further than no. In order to convince me you would need to prove that you would follow through with it. Why not though if it would help my people get the food and healthcare and defence that they need?



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    If the agreement restored my economy and was good for my people and I thought that the other party was going to follow through with the agreement and not send mixed signals that they wouldn't abide by the terms than why the hell not. If the agreement is just a power play by a bad actor to destablilze your country even further than no. In order to convince me you would need to prove that you would follow through with it. Why not though if it would help my people get the food and healthcare and defence that they need?
    So to get an agreement, Trump should promise healthcare and food for Iranians.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So to get an agreement, Trump should promise healthcare and food for Iranians.
    Just like the last agreement, we got them to the table by helping their economy recover. If you wreck someones sandcastle and than ask them for a truce afterwards shouldn't you help them restore their sandcastle as part of the truce?

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Just like the last agreement, we got them to the table by helping their economy recover. If you wreck someones sandcastle and than ask them for a truce afterwards shouldn't you help them restore their sandcastle as part of the truce?
    Trump put sanctions on them for not abiding by a treaty he quit. Now he wants to be rewarded for his actions with another treaty. Obama released funds which already belonged to Iran that the US froze long ago in response to the hostage crisis.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Trump put sanctions on them for not abiding by a treaty he quit. Now he wants to be rewarded for his actions with another treaty. Obama released funds which already belonged to Iran that the US froze long ago in response to the hostage crisis.
    Well maybe we should offer a better deal than Obama did, and make a lasting treaty with Iran. It wouldn't be capitulating to Iran to make a deal with them, its called being the better man.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    What part of fake deal do you not understand? Even Iran knew it was a fake deal. If I know its a fake deal than they do, they aren't stupid.
    7 countries agreed to a fake deal?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    7 countries agreed to a fake deal?
    Yeah it turns out other countries don't like us as much as they pretend to like us out of fear. We tend to set sort of an example around the world and other countries have to deal with citizens that want the same things that we have.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Yeah it turns out other countries don't like us as much as they pretend to like us out of fear. We tend to set sort of an example around the world and other countries have to deal with citizens that want the same things that we have.
    All those other countries continued to abide by the deal even after we dropped out. That doesn't sound like a fake deal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    All those other countries continued to abide by the deal even after we dropped out. That doesn't sound like a fake deal.
    That doesn't sound like they like us either, because while they abide by the deal they make us look like an $#@! for leaving it. Perception management is fundamental with geopollitics. Often times optics matters more than substance. There are players that don't want us to go to war with Iran that are in the deal and that was the main reason why the deal was created. The original deal included a section that even if Israel attacked Iran we would have to defend Iran. That was one of the main things that brought Iran to the table and why the politicians didn't want to accept the deal. Israel has too many spies here and too much media control so they can destroy someeones political career if they don't do what is good for Israel. Israel wants to be able to attack Iran if they feel threatened by Iran, theerefore only a substantial agreement with Iran that includes Israel and what they want will be politically viable, anything else is fake.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post


    This is noninterventionism?


    ^This.

    Have to admire swordsmyth's consistent and principled stand for noninterventionism.


    If more in MAGA crowd started raising their voices with courage against interventions, foreign-first lobbies and neocons funded politicians' globalist interventions would become a thing of the past alongwith parasitic neocons and perpetual wars profiteering deplorables.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Iran oil tanker: Gibraltar orders release of Grace 1
    By Zippyjuan in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-07-2019, 07:11 PM
  2. Fake News? CNN Claims Iran Tried To Seize UK Tanker
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2019, 12:27 PM
  3. Iranian official threatens to seize British oil tanker
    By Zippyjuan in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 07-11-2019, 12:23 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-10-2019, 07:13 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2018, 03:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •