Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Apr '18 01:09
    http://www.newsweek.com/iran-threatens-trump-strong-response-john-bolton-877306

    Iran’s leaders warned President Donald Trump he would regret pulling out of the nuclear deal with Tehran, and vowed a strong response if the U.S. withdrew, Reuters reported.

    The threat was made as John Bolton, who is well known for his hawkish stance on U.S. foreign policy, particularly toward Iran, began his tenure as Trump’s national security adviser. Tehran's message was no doubt intended to show that Iran would not be intimidated by the new White House national security team.

    “The new U.S. president—who has big claims and many ups and downs in his words and actions—has been trying for 15 months to break the JCPOA,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a Monday speech broadcast live on television. “But the structure of the JCPOA is so strong that it has not been shaken by such quakes.

    “Iran will not violate the nuclear deal, but if the United States withdraws from the deal, they will surely regret it,” Rouhani continued. “Our response will be stronger than what they imagine and they would see that within a week.”
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Apr '18 01:13
    Electing Trump could wind up being the single most catastrophic mistake ever made for America.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    10 Apr '18 01:22
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Electing Trump could wind up being the single most catastrophic mistake ever made for America.
    AMERICA? Try the whole frigging world.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Apr '18 01:29
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    AMERICA? Try the whole frigging world.
    Somehow, I think the world win turn us before that. More and more countries seem united in their hate for Trump, and the dumbass nation that voted for him.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '18 03:58
    Originally posted by @vivify
    http://www.newsweek.com/iran-threatens-trump-strong-response-john-bolton-877306

    Iran’s leaders warned President Donald Trump he would regret pulling out of the nuclear deal with Tehran, and vowed a strong response if the U.S. withdrew, Reuters reported.

    The threat was made as John Bolton, who is well known for his hawkish stance on U.S. foreign ...[text shortened]... response will be stronger than what they imagine and they would see that within a week.”
    That is not a threat.
  6. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19327
    10 Apr '18 04:43
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Electing Trump could wind up being the single most catastrophic mistake ever made for America.
    This is kind of interesting because you have chosen to interpret the words of Rouhani in the worst possible light, which could have any sort of horrors in store, and interpret that Pres. Trump is responsible for whatever would happen there...

    Which isn't too bad because, to some degree, he is supposed to be the protector of America, or even the "leader of the free world."

    ... But something also tells me that you haven't been going home each day and thinking "Wow, Pres. Trump has done a great job with denuclearization of North Korea. This is amazing. So much better than Pres. Obama."
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 04:48
    [i]Originally posted by @athousandyoung to Vivify[I]
    That is not a threat.
    I noticed. After the USA declares that it's pulling out of its agreement
    with Iran, why should Iran be expected to keep abiding by its terms?
  8. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    281467
    10 Apr '18 04:55
    And Iran also said they would start the enrichment process in a matter of days. The MIC is itchin for a war. Wouldn't be good for Iran.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Apr '18 10:491 edit
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    That is not a threat.
    “If the United States withdraws from the deal, they will surely regret it. Our response will be stronger than what they imagine and they would see that within a week.”

    How is that not a threat?
  10. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22121
    10 Apr '18 13:50
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Somehow, I think the world win turn us before that. More and more countries seem united in their hate for Trump, and the dumbass nation that voted for him.
    I take exception to that Viv.
    If, indeed, this jackass cheated to win. Our democratic and lawful process will remedy the situation.

    Hopefully, we can mitigate the damage now...and apologize to the planet later.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 21:27
    Originally posted by @vivify to AThousandYoung
    “If the United States withdraws from the deal, they will surely regret it. Our response will be stronger than what they imagine and they would see that within a week.”

    How is that not a threat?
    Consider this analogy in a case of harassment:
    A woman says this to a man who earlier agreed (restraining order) to stay away from her:
    "If you withdraw from your agreement, you will surely regret it. Our response will be
    stronger than what you imagine and you will see that within a week."

    So Vivify would believe that this woman was *threatening* this man (poor innocent victim), right?
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 21:341 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I noticed. After the USA declares that it's pulling out of its agreement
    with Iran, why should Iran be expected to keep abiding by its terms?
    Back in the 1980s, the USA sold F-16 fighters to Pakistan, for which Pakistan paid in advance.
    Then the US government decided that it would be illegal to deliver the F-16s to Pakistan.
    When Pakistan asked for a refund, the USA refused. The USA's position apparently was
    that a US corporation could keep Pakistan's money and the aircraft would stay in the USA,
    while Pakistan was being charged a considerable amount for storage costs every year.
    This situation continued for about eight years until Pakistan reluctantly accepted the offer
    of a partial (perhaps less than half of what was owed with interest) refund from the USA.
    (Pakistan could have tried to sue the US government in a US court, but Pakistan was
    worried that the American judge and jury would be partial toward the US government.)

    This incident convinced Pakistan that it could not regard the USA as trustworthy ally.
    Pakistan decided to pay 500 million USD (a comparative bargain) to China to develop
    a new fighter according to Pakistani specifications. In order to aid this project, Pakistan
    lent a F-16 (which it had bought earlier from the USA) to China in order to study.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14739
    11 Apr '18 12:55
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    This is kind of interesting because you have chosen to interpret the words of Rouhani in the worst possible light, which could have any sort of horrors in store, and interpret that Pres. Trump is responsible for whatever would happen there...

    Which isn't too bad because, to some degree, he is supposed to be the protector of America, or even the "lead ...[text shortened]... eat job with denuclearization of North Korea. This is amazing. So much better than Pres. Obama."
    Trump has done nothing to denuclearize NK. I doubt it will even happen. NK needs to be assured of regime survival and they don't trust the USA. This takes concessions from the USA I doubt will happen. The USA has always rejected a peace treaty. I think it is safe to assume a peace treaty has to happen. Why no talk of a peace treaty in DC?
  14. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22121
    11 Apr '18 15:44
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Back in the 1980s, the USA sold F-16 fighters to Pakistan, for which Pakistan paid in advance.
    Then the US government decided that it would be illegal to deliver the F-16s to Pakistan.
    When Pakistan asked for a refund, the USA refused. The USA's position apparently was
    that a US corporation could keep Pakistan's money and the aircraft would stay in th ...[text shortened]... ct, Pakistan
    lent a F-16 (which it had bought earlier from the USA) to China in order to study.
    That is, indeed, a debatable statement. The reality was far more complex.

    Because of the1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. and Pakistan shared a few common interests. Mainly, the funding and training of the mujaheddin.

    Aided by Congressman Charlie Wilson, the U.S. entered into mutually beneficial agreements with General Zia. The idea was to fund an insurgency to drive the communists out of Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone). Though, he scoffed at us when we gave him mere millions of dollars. Calling them "peanuts". By the end...he was into the U.S for like 5 and a half billion. A lot of loot in 1980s cash.

    However, the General had come to power by coup d'etat. He had many enemies in his own country. Much of this U.S. aid was "misspent" in trying to prop up his own regime.

    Eventually the relationship soured as he increased his anti-western "sharization" policies. And finally, as we feared he was embarking upon policies of nuclear proliferation...the Pressler Amendment came into being.

    The sales of our F-16s were halted due to concerns that General Zia was not an honest broker. I care not indulge in revisionist history here.

    But it seems that he would've been buying them with our own money anyway. No intrinsic loss to Pakistan.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Apr '18 23:281 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    That is, indeed, a debatable statement. The reality was far more complex.

    Because of the1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. and Pakistan shared a few common interests. Mainly, the funding and training of the mujaheddin.

    Aided by Congressman Charlie Wilson, the U.S. entered into mutually beneficial agreements with General Zia. The idea was t ...[text shortened]... eems that he would've been buying them with our own money anyway. No intrinsic loss to Pakistan.
    I was well aware of the USA's concerns about Pakistan developing nuclear weapons.
    The USA's professed (hypocritical) opposition to nuclear proliferation in the region served
    as a legal basis to deny delivering (already paid for) F-16 fighters to Pakistan.
    I note that the USA never has shown any reluctance in delivering its most advanced
    weapons to Israel, while turning its disingenuous blind eye to Israel's nuclear arsenal.

    Can Wolfe63 cite any specific evidence that Pakistan used only US military aid to pay
    completely for that purchase of F-16 fighters around 1988?

    I expect that few 'patriotic' Americans would believe that the USA unfairly treated Pakistan,
    even though Pakistan did nothing to violate the terms of its signed contract with the USA.
    (Its lawyers may have advised Pakistan that it would seem practically impossible to prevail
    against the US government in an American court with a jury of 'patriotic' Americans.)
    My point is that Pakistanis (including critics of their government) perceive it very differently from Americans.
    It explains why Pakistanis (apart from politicians flattering the USA) refer to China as their 'only reliable ally'.

    On one hand, Americans congratulate themselves as usual for always behaving well toward
    the rest of the world while, on the other hand, Americans wonder why so much of the rest
    of the world loathes the US government, US military, or Americans themselves.
Back to Top