The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
we're slowly realising that this century is going to be one of increased tension and pressures between states due to global warming, and so the idea of more states developing nuclear weapons should be the number one thing we try to avoid. We should be giving whatever damn concessions and negotiating endlessly to avoid states developing nukes. Trump and republican belligerence has possibly irrevocably damaged this approach. Its so fucking enraging.
If I had to pick between the Iranians and the Pakistanis to get nukes I'd personally fly to Tehran to give them the thumbs up.
Except the Saudis are standing right behind them and think the thumbs up is for them and oh isn't this 9-11/ Pearl Harbor mashup just a comedy of errors.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Look, I think Iran's usual argument that there is no reason why they shouldn't have the bomb, because it is their sovereign right to protect itself, and its enemies are nuclear armed as well and it is its rational self interest to obtain a bomb, frustratingly difficult to mount a strong argument against. Iran isn't crawling with terrorists and despite the government being shitty theocratic oppressive bullshit I think they actually have their shit together a whole lot better than nuclear-armed Pakistan.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
Also, you know, those nukes leaking out to one of the many other political/terrorist groups just kinda floating around there.
I mean, I guess the Pakistanis have managed to prevent this from happening, but I'm not really eager to be throwing them dice a few more times and hoping we get good rolls.
For now.
Nuclear states are not a single dice throw.
You have to roll each turn.
+9
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Look, I think Iran's usual argument that there is no reason why they shouldn't have the bomb, because it is their sovereign right to protect itself, and its enemies are nuclear armed as well and it is its rational self interest to obtain a bomb, frustratingly difficult to mount a strong argument against. Iran isn't crawling with terrorists and despite the government being shitty theocratic oppressive bullshit I think they actually have their shit together a whole lot better than nuclear-armed Pakistan.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
Also, you know, those nukes leaking out to one of the many other political/terrorist groups just kinda floating around there.
I mean, I guess the Pakistanis have managed to prevent this from happening, but I'm not really eager to be throwing them dice a few more times and hoping we get good rolls.
For now.
Nuclear states are not a single dice throw.
You have to roll each turn.
That's why there's only one thing you can do to reduce the sheer amount of nukes in the world, and that is prevent the state from getting one in the first place. Because that fruit is too sweet to resist once you get a bite, and it's a bell that can't be unrung, and other mixed metaphors about the inevitable spread of world ending destruction
Look, I think Iran's usual argument that there is no reason why they shouldn't have the bomb, because it is their sovereign right to protect itself, and its enemies are nuclear armed as well and it is its rational self interest to obtain a bomb, frustratingly difficult to mount a strong argument against. Iran isn't crawling with terrorists and despite the government being shitty theocratic oppressive bullshit I think they actually have their shit together a whole lot better than nuclear-armed Pakistan.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
Iran's argument is that it doesn't want nukes, isn't getting nukes, full stop. I've never heard them waver on that. They're party to the non proliferation treaty, so its illegal for them to develop nuclear weapons-- an argument they've made as well.
The rest I agree with. I'd like to see some efforts to really crack down on nukes, as a start getting Russia and the US to dramatically cut their stockpiles.
Pakistan and Saudi are pretty tight. I don't know how true it is, but I've heard Serious Commentators say that KSA bankrolled or assisted Pakistan in its nuclear program, and as a return of the favor Saudi can get a nuke if they need one.
Doesn't sound all that reputable to me, but the overall concept of Saudi being richer than god with a lot of influence rings more true. They could probably buy their way into the club relatively quickly, and the West would probably look the other way, especially if Iran got the bomb.
A world more full of nuclear weapons is bad news. Preventing countries from getting them is tough and will probably be impossible eventually. What I'd like to see is some treaty that limits countries to some "small" number of nukes. Getting the US and Russia to massively cut their stockpiles would be a great first start.
There is an international Nonproliferation Treaty already, and the US and Russia have been reducing their stockpiles since the 80's under various other treaties, the most recent under Obama getting them to low 4 figures.
The thing about the Iran deal is that technically they aren't building a bomb. They're building civil nuclear power plants that just happen to have breakout capacity. (Oh gosh, gee how'd that happen?) Which is their sovereign right under the NPT.
+5
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Look, I think Iran's usual argument that there is no reason why they shouldn't have the bomb, because it is their sovereign right to protect itself, and its enemies are nuclear armed as well and it is its rational self interest to obtain a bomb, frustratingly difficult to mount a strong argument against. Iran isn't crawling with terrorists and despite the government being shitty theocratic oppressive bullshit I think they actually have their shit together a whole lot better than nuclear-armed Pakistan.
But I DO find the proliferation argument extremely persuasive, and any additional state in the volatile Middle East generally that decides it wants the bomb and gets it will inevitably set off an arms race, and the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear exhange triples or quadruples as we get a bunch of little Pakistan-India nuclear standoffs all over the region, and that scares the fuck out of me
Iran's argument is that it doesn't want nukes, isn't getting nukes, full stop. I've never heard them waver on that. They're party to the non proliferation treaty, so its illegal for them to develop nuclear weapons-- an argument they've made as well.
And Israel still officially maintains that the Nagev facility outside Dimona was purely for scientific research and clearly not for generating weapons grade plutonium. The US has been trying to coax an official statement of Israel's nuclear capability since Rabin (as Ambassador to the US) and Golda Meier (as Prime Minister) pulled a fast one on the Kennedy administration (JFK offered them a deal to stop weapons development at Dimona by agreeing in principle to sell Israel Hawk anti-aircraft missles and F-4 Phantoms, but Jack didn't want the public getting wind of Israel's attempts to get nukes so he never officially linked the conditions, so Israel bought a shitload of missiles and jets, and then politely said "What plutonium?") and they've been obfuscating ever since.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Getting the US and Russia to massively cut their stockpiles would be a great first start.
That was what Obama was doing, but y'know - now Trump is running the show.
That is literally what Obama won his Nobel Prize for.
He got a Nobel prize for talking about it, and unofficially for not being Bush.
His actual accomplishments are minor at best. There's still more than enough nuclear weapons in the US arsenal to end human civilization. I know there's complex political reasons behind this, but the fact itself should be a black mark of shame.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, we’ve gone from 4,950 operational nuclear warheads in 2010, the year the New Start Treaty was signed, to 4,700 weapons in 2015. That’s a reduction of about 5%. [...] Judging from the numbers collected by FAS, the US reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile at a much faster pace under George W Bush than under President Obama, where the US cut its active weapons from over 10,000 in 2000 to just over 5,000 by the time Bush left office.
It’s also curious that he’s claiming he reduced the “role” of nuclear weapons in the United States’s national security strategy, considering the administration has indicated that the US government would spend over $1tn over the next few decades to “modernize” our nuclear weapons program. Instead of retiring or destroying weapons that are out of date, they will be spending a huge amount of money to make sure the mass killing machines survive decades longer and that they are easier to use.
The new figures, released by the Pentagon, also highlight a trend — that the current administration has reduced the nuclear stockpile less than any other post-Cold War presidency.
Have there been any peeps from the White House or Congress about the Kurdish or Catalonian referendums?
While the Kurdish referendum obviously falls under something the US should be concerned about, the iron fisted response to the Catalan referendum is likely to gain growing international interest. Not that I expect Trump to address either of these issues.
Have there been any peeps from the White House or Congress about the Kurdish or Catalonian referendums?
While the Kurdish referendum obviously falls under something the US should be concerned about, the iron fisted response to the Catalan referendum is likely to gain growing international interest. Not that I expect Trump to address either of these issues.
President Trump said Tuesday that the United States opposes an independence drive in the Spanish region of Catalonia, telling reporters that such secession would be “foolish.”
“I think Spain is a great country, and it should remain united,” Trump said during a news conference with the visiting Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy.
The president's remarks mark a departure from the official position of the United States, which, as recently as Monday, was that a planned nonbinding Catalonia referendum Sunday to separate from Spain was an internal matter.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert had said earlier this month that the United States took no position on the referendum.
“We will let the government and the people there work it out, and we will work with whatever government or entity that comes out of it,” Nauert said.
“I think the people of Catalonia have been talking about this for a long time.” Trump said. “I'm just for a united Spain,” he said, adding that if accurate polling were done in the region “you’d find out people of Catalonia love their country, they love Spain.”
The Trump administration strongly opposed another nonbinding independence referendum held Sunday in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
Also, is kind of a complicated affair. One one hand, the Rajoy administration handled it badly, they should have just said that the referendum was not-binding and send the troops after. On the other hand, is a secessionist movement, so the actual act or result of the referendum doesn't matter. No country is going to allow a chunk of it to just split off and ignore federal authority, as the US is keenly aware.
Apparently the US voted against a UN Human Rights Council resolution to condemn the death penalty for same-sex relationships.
I guess the underlying motivation is not about gays, but that the US objected to the resolution's language declaring the death penalty is a human rights violation and a form of torture.
Apparently the US voted against a UN Human Rights Council resolution to condemn the death penalty for same-sex relationships.
I guess the underlying motivation is not about gays, but that the US objected to the resolution's language declaring the death penalty is a human rights violation and a form of torture.
The US is terrible when it comes to incarceration in general. Has been for ages. Part of that is the gross human rights violation that is the death penalty.
Apparently the US voted against a UN Human Rights Council resolution to condemn the death penalty for same-sex relationships.
I guess the underlying motivation is not about gays, but that the US objected to the resolution's language declaring the death penalty is a human rights violation and a form of torture.
Russia has a permanent Court imposed moratorium on the death penalty, and has since either 1996 or 2009 depending on quibbles. It's easy to grandstand on something you're already doing.
Good for Iran, though.
+1
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Rodriguez is the Senior Producer of Morning Joe, but maybe that can't be helped.
Anyway, this is fun. If Rex is booted or leaves on short notice, it keeps the dysfunction and "Look at all the departures from the well-oiled machine" themes going. If Tillerson stays, the president has to keep going with the ignominy of knowing the secretary of state of the US has called him a "moron" and got away with it.
Rodriguez is the Senior Producer of Morning Joe, but maybe that can't be helped.
Anyway, this is fun. If Rex is booted or leaves on short notice, it keeps the dysfunction and "Look at all the departures from the well-oiled machine" themes going. If Tillerson stays, the president has to keep going with the ignominy of knowing the secretary of state of the US has called him a "moron" and got away with it.
His job is primarily done anyway, he's destroyed the US State department.
+23
Doctor DetroitNot a doctorTree townRegistered Userregular
Rodriguez is the Senior Producer of Morning Joe, but maybe that can't be helped.
Anyway, this is fun. If Rex is booted or leaves on short notice, it keeps the dysfunction and "Look at all the departures from the well-oiled machine" themes going. If Tillerson stays, the president has to keep going with the ignominy of knowing the secretary of state of the US has called him a "moron" and got away with it.
His job is primarily done anyway, he's destroyed the US State department.
Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.
Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.
The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.
As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
During the hearing, Senator Angus King (I-Maine) asked Mattis: “Do you believe it’s in our national security interest at the present time to remain in the JCPOA?” (The JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is the formal term for the Iran deal.)
“Yes, Senator, I do,” Mattis responded.
He also stated that “If we can confirm that Iran is living by the agreement, if we can determine that this is in our best interest, then clearly we should stay with it … I believe at this point in time, absent indications to the contrary, it is something that the president should consider staying with.” Iran's Press TV pointedly featured the comments on its social media accounts.
Mattis, known for his antipathy toward Iran, is hardly the sort of official whom conservatives can deride as an appeasenik — nor was he the only Marine in the room to back the deal. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Iran “is not in material breach” of the deal and that the agreement's implementation has “delayed the development of nuclear capability by Iran” — precisely as the Obama administration intended.
Have there been any peeps from the White House or Congress about the Kurdish or Catalonian referendums?
While the Kurdish referendum obviously falls under something the US should be concerned about, the iron fisted response to the Catalan referendum is likely to gain growing international interest. Not that I expect Trump to address either of these issues.
President Trump said Tuesday that the United States opposes an independence drive in the Spanish region of Catalonia, telling reporters that such secession would be “foolish.”
“I think Spain is a great country, and it should remain united,” Trump said during a news conference with the visiting Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy.
The president's remarks mark a departure from the official position of the United States, which, as recently as Monday, was that a planned nonbinding Catalonia referendum Sunday to separate from Spain was an internal matter.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert had said earlier this month that the United States took no position on the referendum.
“We will let the government and the people there work it out, and we will work with whatever government or entity that comes out of it,” Nauert said.
“I think the people of Catalonia have been talking about this for a long time.” Trump said. “I'm just for a united Spain,” he said, adding that if accurate polling were done in the region “you’d find out people of Catalonia love their country, they love Spain.”
The Trump administration strongly opposed another nonbinding independence referendum held Sunday in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
Also, is kind of a complicated affair. One one hand, the Rajoy administration handled it badly, they should have just said that the referendum was not-binding and send the troops after. On the other hand, is a secessionist movement, so the actual act or result of the referendum doesn't matter. No country is going to allow a chunk of it to just split off and ignore federal authority, as the US is keenly aware.
Hilarious, considering how big he was on brexit; guess russia hadn't formed an opinion on that for him yet.
Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.
Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.
The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.
As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
I was reading something from the Economist from late September, just this morning. It suggested this same tactic, and said that this would effectively punt things to congress. De-certifying doesn't kill the agreement outright, but it does let congress impose new sanctions on the matter, which obviously Iran wouldn't tolerate.
So basically doing his best to allow others to kill the deal, seems to be the idea.
+2
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.
Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.
The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.
As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
I was reading something from the Economist from late September, just this morning. It suggested this same tactic, and said that this would effectively punt things to congress. De-certifying doesn't kill the agreement outright, but it does let congress impose new sanctions on the matter, which obviously Iran wouldn't tolerate.
So basically doing his best to allow others to kill the deal, seems to be the idea.
This administration is always trying to have its cake and eat it too. It won't work, though.
Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.
Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.
The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.
As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
I was reading something from the Economist from late September, just this morning. It suggested this same tactic, and said that this would effectively punt things to congress. De-certifying doesn't kill the agreement outright, but it does let congress impose new sanctions on the matter, which obviously Iran wouldn't tolerate.
So basically doing his best to allow others to kill the deal, seems to be the idea.
Eh, this seems more like finding a way to be able to hate on things Obama did while keeping the generals and the military from screaming at him.
He's passing the buck to Congress on the assumption they won't kill the deal.
Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.
Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.
The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.
As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
I was reading something from the Economist from late September, just this morning. It suggested this same tactic, and said that this would effectively punt things to congress. De-certifying doesn't kill the agreement outright, but it does let congress impose new sanctions on the matter, which obviously Iran wouldn't tolerate.
So basically doing his best to allow others to kill the deal, seems to be the idea.
Eh, this seems more like finding a way to be able to hate on things Obama did while keeping the generals and the military from screaming at him.
He's passing the buck to Congress on the assumption they won't kill the deal.
Is Trump the one punting or is it possible his team's the ones who are trying to punt this away before trump gives up a safety?
Europe’s governments look to bypass Trump to save Iranian nuclear deal
[...]
When Trump threatened to withhold certification by a congressional deadline of 15 October, the UN general assembly in mid-September was seen by the European signatories of the agreement – the UK, France and Germany – as the last best chance to convince Trump of the dangers of destroying it.
But according to the accounts of several diplomats involved, the effort got nowhere.
Angela Merkel, in the final stages of an election campaign, could not attend, so it was left to Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron to use their meetings with the US president in New York to make a personal plea to keep the deal alive.
The French president made no headway. To his consternation, Trump kept repeating that under the deal, the Iranians would have a nuclear bomb in five years, and nothing Macron could say would persuade him otherwise.
May’s session with the US president two days later was equally fruitless. She used half the 50-minute meeting trying to engage Trump on the merits of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but he grew testy in response. He said he had decided on what to do, but flatly refused to tell her what that was. And he shrugged off her arguments, telling her “You make your decisions; I’ll make mine”. A British diplomat described it later as a “robust” conversation.
Another opportunity for the Europeans to defend the deal came on the evening of 20 September, when the foreign ministers of all signatory nations attended a meeting of the Joint Commission charged with implementing it, chaired by the EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini.
The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, both attended the meeting around a long table in one of the security council’s meeting rooms, marking the first high-level meeting between Tehran and the Trump administration.
There was no chance of any personal chemistry breaking the ice, however. It was a perfunctory meeting, with Tillerson later observing drily that the two men at least “didn’t throw shoes at one another”. Mogherini convened the session observing that Iran had been abiding by the terms of the agreement.
When it was Tillerson’s turn, he did not repeat the arguments the administration made in public that Iran was somehow in violation. Instead, he conceded that Tehran was keeping to its obligations but he observed that he served a president, and had been confirmed by a Congress, who reflected the will of the people – and they did not like the deal.
The former oil executive suggested the other countries around the table had made a “mistake” in striking a deal with the Obama administration which implemented it through executive order and did not seek congressional ratification. We want to renegotiate the terms, Tillerson said, but if other parties refuse, what are we to do?
[...]
America is going to be 100% entirely at fault for this shitstorm, especially if an attempt to have Congress pass a law making it so the deal doesn't need to be recertified every 90 days goes to heck.
I kinda feel sorry for Iran. They were trying to work on themselves, be more of a regular country and less of a mad theocracy, and what do they get for it? Double-crossed.
No-one can trust America. The country is bipolar. When the Democrats are in power, they act like a regular first world country, making deals and talking reasonably. Then, every 8 years, America goes off its meds and goes on a manic bender and breaks every deal the Democrats made and declares war on somewhere random.
Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.
Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.
The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.
As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
I was reading something from the Economist from late September, just this morning. It suggested this same tactic, and said that this would effectively punt things to congress. De-certifying doesn't kill the agreement outright, but it does let congress impose new sanctions on the matter, which obviously Iran wouldn't tolerate.
So basically doing his best to allow others to kill the deal, seems to be the idea.
Eh, this seems more like finding a way to be able to hate on things Obama did while keeping the generals and the military from screaming at him.
He's passing the buck to Congress on the assumption they won't kill the deal.
Is Trump the one punting or is it possible his team's the ones who are trying to punt this away before trump gives up a safety?
My suspicion is that they've talked him into it because he's a stubborn racist idiot and is desperate to kill the deal and so they want to give him a "win" while also being like "But it won't be bad either, see?".
At a time when North Korea is banned from selling almost anything, the country is sending tens of thousands of workers worldwide to bring in an estimated $200 million to $500 million a year. That could account for a sizable portion of North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs, which South Korea says have cost more than $1 billion.
Basically North Korean migrants who send all their money to the government
Posts
Do you mean Saudi? Pakistan already has nukes.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Except the Saudis are standing right behind them and think the thumbs up is for them and oh isn't this 9-11/ Pearl Harbor mashup just a comedy of errors.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And I'd rather Iran have nukes than Saudi, too.
For now.
Nuclear states are not a single dice throw.
You have to roll each turn.
That's why there's only one thing you can do to reduce the sheer amount of nukes in the world, and that is prevent the state from getting one in the first place. Because that fruit is too sweet to resist once you get a bite, and it's a bell that can't be unrung, and other mixed metaphors about the inevitable spread of world ending destruction
NNID: Hakkekage
Iran's argument is that it doesn't want nukes, isn't getting nukes, full stop. I've never heard them waver on that. They're party to the non proliferation treaty, so its illegal for them to develop nuclear weapons-- an argument they've made as well.
The rest I agree with. I'd like to see some efforts to really crack down on nukes, as a start getting Russia and the US to dramatically cut their stockpiles.
That was what Obama was doing, but y'know - now Trump is running the show.
There is an international Nonproliferation Treaty already, and the US and Russia have been reducing their stockpiles since the 80's under various other treaties, the most recent under Obama getting them to low 4 figures.
The thing about the Iran deal is that technically they aren't building a bomb. They're building civil nuclear power plants that just happen to have breakout capacity. (Oh gosh, gee how'd that happen?) Which is their sovereign right under the NPT.
That is literally what Obama won his Nobel Prize for.
And Israel still officially maintains that the Nagev facility outside Dimona was purely for scientific research and clearly not for generating weapons grade plutonium. The US has been trying to coax an official statement of Israel's nuclear capability since Rabin (as Ambassador to the US) and Golda Meier (as Prime Minister) pulled a fast one on the Kennedy administration (JFK offered them a deal to stop weapons development at Dimona by agreeing in principle to sell Israel Hawk anti-aircraft missles and F-4 Phantoms, but Jack didn't want the public getting wind of Israel's attempts to get nukes so he never officially linked the conditions, so Israel bought a shitload of missiles and jets, and then politely said "What plutonium?") and they've been obfuscating ever since.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Because while we don't know, for any reasonable discussion, we must assume they do.
He got a Nobel prize for talking about it, and unofficially for not being Bush.
His actual accomplishments are minor at best. There's still more than enough nuclear weapons in the US arsenal to end human civilization. I know there's complex political reasons behind this, but the fact itself should be a black mark of shame.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/obama-claims-nuclear-weapons-reductions-start-treaty
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/science/nuclear-weapons-obama-united-states.html
While the Kurdish referendum obviously falls under something the US should be concerned about, the iron fisted response to the Catalan referendum is likely to gain growing international interest. Not that I expect Trump to address either of these issues.
Trump kinda addressed the Catalonian referendum when asked on his press conference with Rajoy before the referendum.
Also, is kind of a complicated affair. One one hand, the Rajoy administration handled it badly, they should have just said that the referendum was not-binding and send the troops after. On the other hand, is a secessionist movement, so the actual act or result of the referendum doesn't matter. No country is going to allow a chunk of it to just split off and ignore federal authority, as the US is keenly aware.
I guess the underlying motivation is not about gays, but that the US objected to the resolution's language declaring the death penalty is a human rights violation and a form of torture.
So... cooooool.... :?
The US is terrible when it comes to incarceration in general. Has been for ages. Part of that is the gross human rights violation that is the death penalty.
Russia has a permanent Court imposed moratorium on the death penalty, and has since either 1996 or 2009 depending on quibbles. It's easy to grandstand on something you're already doing.
Good for Iran, though.
Rodriguez is the Senior Producer of Morning Joe, but maybe that can't be helped.
Anyway, this is fun. If Rex is booted or leaves on short notice, it keeps the dysfunction and "Look at all the departures from the well-oiled machine" themes going. If Tillerson stays, the president has to keep going with the ignominy of knowing the secretary of state of the US has called him a "moron" and got away with it.
His job is primarily done anyway, he's destroyed the US State department.
I’m pretty sure he had help on that one.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-243427
ie - a bunch of bullshit posturing that endangers an important international agreement for no reason other then that Obama did it and he hates Obama so goddamn much
It's unclear to me from this article or others what decertification even means on it's own. If it stops the inspections it's as good as killing the deal anyway. But given that the Europeans seem to be involved, I'm thinking it's hopefully just a bunch of wankery.
Also Mattis has kind of sort of spoken in favour of the deal, which is at least something:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/04/trumps-generals-thwart-him-on-the-iran-deal/
Hilarious, considering how big he was on brexit; guess russia hadn't formed an opinion on that for him yet.
edit: moving this to what I guess is the right thread?
I was reading something from the Economist from late September, just this morning. It suggested this same tactic, and said that this would effectively punt things to congress. De-certifying doesn't kill the agreement outright, but it does let congress impose new sanctions on the matter, which obviously Iran wouldn't tolerate.
So basically doing his best to allow others to kill the deal, seems to be the idea.
This administration is always trying to have its cake and eat it too. It won't work, though.
NNID: Hakkekage
Eh, this seems more like finding a way to be able to hate on things Obama did while keeping the generals and the military from screaming at him.
He's passing the buck to Congress on the assumption they won't kill the deal.
Is Trump the one punting or is it possible his team's the ones who are trying to punt this away before trump gives up a safety?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/04/iran-nuclear-deal-europe-trump-congress America is going to be 100% entirely at fault for this shitstorm, especially if an attempt to have Congress pass a law making it so the deal doesn't need to be recertified every 90 days goes to heck.
No-one can trust America. The country is bipolar. When the Democrats are in power, they act like a regular first world country, making deals and talking reasonably. Then, every 8 years, America goes off its meds and goes on a manic bender and breaks every deal the Democrats made and declares war on somewhere random.
My suspicion is that they've talked him into it because he's a stubborn racist idiot and is desperate to kill the deal and so they want to give him a "win" while also being like "But it won't be bad either, see?".
I have many questions.
Oh here's the story
Basically North Korean migrants who send all their money to the government