Trump destroying Nuclear agreement with Iran.

Sorry, I'm going to be a bit lazy here. But what exactly is Mr. Trump saying that Iran did that violated the agreement?

They've done a few things that make it look like they're provoking the US. But I mostly see it as posturing to make themselves look good in the region.

I don't know how much actual nuclear weapon development they've done. But I believe if they go back to their old ways and move full steam ahead with weapons development, in a short time they'll develop devices that make Little Rocket Man look like an amateur.

-dex

a reply to: Woodcarver

The burden of proof lies with the parties trying to change a current status, we don't reason in a way that we always change things unless there's a reason not too, that's very unstable. We operate under the reasoning process that we go with what works until it doesn't not the other way round. As far as trumps repeal/action what have you, the burden or proof lies with him to prove Iran has violated the agreement so it should be scrapped not the other way round. I don't believe the burden of proof should ever be put on a party to prove they are innocent, that's just scary. That said, the debate has raged on ATS for a while and If I had intended to debate the validity of the agreement I would have put this in the political mud pit. My post only contains my opinion of the news article and the what fallout happens because of these types of actions.

I get the feeling users are annoyed that I'm not giving much ammo for the left vs right mud slinging to begin. I'm being told I'm supposed to support a view point that I don't profess which is a clear sign people are reaching.

Squelching on deals and deciding that the terms of an agreement can be changed willy nilly when one side feels like it is abhorrent in opinion. Going down the road of guilty until proven innocent is why I don't support the right or left, both parties have been heading that direction for years. I'd go so far to say these type of actions are un-american but in reality it's probably more un-american in theory than un-american in actual practice.

a reply to: nemonimity

In other words, a long winded way of saying that you can’t support your opinion.

a reply to: nemonimity

No, you just do not know what the hell you are talking about. No butt hurt here. Trump is in office. Why would I be upset.

The deal should never have been made because they are still holding US citizens. You act like Iran is a nice nation who wants peace and love and unicorns. Maybe in the 50's but they are the center of the Shia culture in the Middle East now. That is what the whole war in the ME is about. Look at a map. The Shia/Sunni and its breakaway factions. Obama liked the Shia. You can see it in who his administration supported.

So when you are ready to have a real conversation about why we SHOULD end the deal and not talk about how you hate Trump go ahead.

Since it is your OP give me 3 reasons we should stay based on the current agreement. How does it benefit us and our allies?

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Woodcarver

The burden of proof lies with the parties trying to change a current status, we don't reason in a way that we always change things unless there's a reason not too, that's very unstable. We operate under the reasoning process that we go with what works until it doesn't not the other way round. As far as trumps repeal/action what have you, the burden or proof lies with him to prove Iran has violated the agreement so it should be scrapped not the other way round. I don't believe the burden of proof should ever be put on a party to prove they are innocent, that's just scary. That said, the debate has raged on ATS for a while and If I had intended to debate the validity of the agreement I would have put this in the political mud pit. My post only contains my opinion of the news article and the what fallout happens because of these types of actions.

I get the feeling users are annoyed that I'm not giving much ammo for the left vs right mud slinging to begin. I'm being told I'm supposed to support a view point that I don't profess which is a clear sign people are reaching.

Squelching on deals and deciding that the terms of an agreement can be changed willy nilly when one side feels like it is abhorrent in opinion. Going down the road of guilty until proven innocent is why I don't support the right or left, both parties have been heading that direction for years. I'd go so far to say these type of actions are un-american but in reality it's probably more un-american in theory than un-american in actual practice.

So you don't know what the deal is do you? One question for you, is Iran holding up their end of the deal?

Where I am at with it is that Obama signed it unilaterally. Trump is throwing the re-certification back to congress. He is removing himself from the process. Our elected officials. That is what our republic was founded on.

So what is the problem here? I think it is a fantastic move ...

Connoisseurs of coincidences-that-probably aren't-coincidences-at-all will be delighted to learn that a report has just appeared stating that Iran was behind the hacking of the email accounts of British MPs earlier this year.

You probably don't remember that story, and who could blame you. It was just a straightforward "this thing happened" sort of story, just before the General Election and then briefly once more afterwards (June).

The other -non-coincidental dimension to this latest story is that of course the US and Iran have been playing cyber war-games for a few years now (e.g., there was a US-born "worm" that got into an Iranian nuclear facility and caused mayhem, a year or two ago).

So yeah, Trump's bashing of Iran is about nuclear facilities, as is the US-Iran cyberwar, and now it turns out that "Iran" *cough* bull5h1t *cough* has hacked Britain's parliament. Despite there being no motive, nothing of interest being there anyway, no apparent results therefrom, and no existing conflict between Iran and the UK.

Perhaps of interest: British defence specialist Duncan Campbell reports that Parliamentary emails are routinely intercepted by Britain's GCHQ, sometimes routed overseas, and sometimes cloud-stored.Which is the security equivalent of filling in a "home address" tag, tying it to your front door key, and then leaving it on a table in the roughest bar in town. Except the bar is also equipped with a professional 24/7 locksmith and key-cutting shop so you'd be wasting your time trying to get your original key back, because you'd still be screwed anyway.

a reply to: Jubilation T Cornpone

I tried to explain this earlier. He is laying the 'burden of responsibility' on Congress as he should. It is a business move.

a reply to: whywhynot

you mad.

a reply to: nemonimity
Iran is very familiar with our laws and constitution. They KNEW this was a non-binding, nearly unconstitutional agreement. They gained a lot from the deal, so they said lets do it!

If they were serious about it, they would have demanded Obama make it a treaty ratified by 2/3 congress, instead they played Obama for a fool. They knew a future president would eventually renege on the deal and then have the upper hand to call us with egg on our face.

If Obama thought this was truly a good deal, he should have ratified it through congress to make it legally binding, but he did not. This mess is entirely Obama's for having the mentality of having 'a pen and a phone' to legislate foreign policy.

Hate on Trump all you want, but he's actually the one doing this properly per the laws of our land. Congress needs to deal with it.

a reply to: matafuchs

I know it's par for the course here on ATS to deal with broken records so feel free to keep repeating yourself and I'll keep doing the same. I'm not reposing what is available to read it's in the OP.

That's fine that you choose some side you believe is right, it's your god given right and more power to ya. But I don't care about teams, I care about actions and their perceptions and more so about Integrity and the character people have, which has no race or regional boundaries.

Trump is dumb for trying to ixnay the deal, it makes us look bad and is sorely lacking in integrity and character.


I still haven't had anyone attempt to refute how these actions get perceived or Trumps dumbness. You just want to argue the validity of the original deal which once again (playing the part of the broken record) has already been debated to death on ATS and should stay in those threads.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Iran has met all the obligations under the deal as it is spelled out. If there is proof otherwise I'm happy to entertain it.

a reply to: Vector99

I'm not a proponent of Obama, but he worked within the same frame work Trump is working under. Just as it was garbage of Obama and Bush before him, unilateral executive orders to bypass congress is crap, saying you'll do it yourself if congress doesn't play ball is called extortion.

Love on trump all you want but he's a crap leader, just like the ones before him.

I do not believe for one minute Iran stopped there nuclear program.

I believe they just joined up with north korea and are doing everything there.

North korea and Iran have long been working in partnership on weapons.
www.tabletmag.com...

I believe at least one of the NK nuclear test may have been of a Iranian weapon.
www.newenglishreview.org...

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Woodcarver

Iran has met all the obligations under the deal as it is spelled out. If there is proof otherwise I'm happy to entertain it.

Uh.... nope.

"This is a clear violation of Annex B paragraph 3 of UNSCR 2231 (2015) and a test case for the Obama administration to make it clear to Iran that a violation of UNSCR 2231 will be considered a violation of the JCPOA despite Iranian regime protestations to the contrary," Dubowitz said.

Iran is prohibited under this resolution from testing missiles and "any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons."

freebeacon.com...

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Woodcarver

The burden of proof lies with the parties trying to change a current status, we don't reason in a way that we always change things unless there's a reason not too, that's very unstable. We operate under the reasoning process that we go with what works until it doesn't not the other way round. As far as trumps repeal/action what have you, the burden or proof lies with him to prove Iran has violated the agreement so it should be scrapped not the other way round. I don't believe the burden of proof should ever be put on a party to prove they are innocent, that's just scary. That said, the debate has raged on ATS for a while and If I had intended to debate the validity of the agreement I would have put this in the political mud pit. My post only contains my opinion of the news article and the what fallout happens because of these types of actions.

I get the feeling users are annoyed that I'm not giving much ammo for the left vs right mud slinging to begin. I'm being told I'm supposed to support a view point that I don't profess which is a clear sign people are reaching.

Squelching on deals and deciding that the terms of an agreement can be changed willy nilly when one side feels like it is abhorrent in opinion. Going down the road of guilty until proven innocent is why I don't support the right or left, both parties have been heading that direction for years. I'd go so far to say these type of actions are un-american but in reality it's probably more un-american in theory than un-american in actual practice.

nope, you literally don't even know why Trump wants to get rid of the original deal. If you can explain it in your own words, why Trump is making this decision I'll give you five bucks.

Again, your OP and now defend it.

Give me 3 reasons we should stay based on the current agreement. How does it benefit us and our allies?

As far as this...

I still haven't had anyone attempt to refute how these actions get perceived or Trumps dumbness. You just want to argue the validity of the original deal which once again (playing the part of the broken record) has already been debated to death on ATS and should stay in those threads.

No broken records. You went on a rant about how Trump should not cancel it. Well, those who feel differently want to know why. Perceived? As strong and not weak. I am not about making friends with people who take and our country should not either. I do not care to be honest how any country looks at us. I am worried about my country. It is like worrying about how you look but being a homeless drug addict. Priorities and how it affects you and those around you here. In the USA. Not Iran. That is not our country. they did not deserve one dime that was paid back. Not one.

Trumps dumbness? Well, that is already debated in a million threads also but he is not dumb. He is a very smart man who is simply trying to do what is best for the country as a whole and not just certain groups. It is true. 2 years from now are you going to be crying over the wall?

a reply to: nemonimity

What?

The time frame for this deal was established when Obama himself decreed it. Trump has already signed off on it multiple times, and he shouldn't have at all. This isn't a trade agreement, this is supposed to be a nuclear non-armament diplomatic foreign agreement....aka a treaty. CONGRESS is responsible for treaties, not presidents with pens and phones.

a reply to: Woodcarver

The article you linked was somewhat informative.

So, the Iranians actually violated a Security Counsil resolution. But because Iran had not violated the letter of the JCPOA agreement, the Obama administration concluded that Iran was not in violation. However, there were others in the government that disagreed with Obama.

Another excerpt from the article:

The test came several days after Iran’s parliament issued a report declaring that Tehran would violate the JCPOA’s restrictions on weapons. A translation of the report performed by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted that the parliament was rejecting U.N. resolutions that are "apparently the JCPOA’s only legal backing."

So, Iran's Parliament specifically knew that their weapons test would at least violate the spirit of the agreement, if not the letter of the agreement.

"But even if the launch doesn't violate the agreement, it’s a blatant violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution that gave the agreement force under international law,"

Seems to me Iran thumbed its nose at the UN Security Council and violated the very law that gave the Iran agreement International standing.

Looks like a pretty straightforward answer to me. Since this article was written two years ago, it appears to me that they have been in violation for quite some time. I agree that the Iran Nuclear deal should be suspended. Even though I have no idea what that means in the real world.

If this is the reason for suspending the deal, then I must note the irony that the Trump administration only seems to be interested in what the International community has to say when it benefits them.

-dex

a reply to: nemonimity

Thanks for starting this thread to begin with. This recent activity by President Trump is something that needs to be discussed, whichever side you choose. That being said, there's a few points that have only been touched on, but need a little clarification.

1) The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is neither a Treaty or an Executive Agreement as far as the USA is concerned. Don't take my word on it, a few minuets searching can make that clear. JCPOA is part of a Law passed by Congress (H.R.1191) called "The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act" passed 22May15. Because it's not a treaty (something that has to be ratified by 2/3 Majority), it doesn't carry the same weight as a treaty.

2) The Law stipulates that the Executive Office (POTUS) has to send Congress a re-certification at regular intervals stating that Iran is upholding their end of the JCPOA. This means the burden of proof lies on the POTUS to prove Iran is upholding their end, and to then certify this to Congress. President Trump chose not to certify that portion of the Law, which was entirely within his scope to do so. If any "prof" might be needed; the Ayatollah has not allowed UN inspectors within military facilities, and has limited their access to civilian facilities, that fact alone demonstrates that Iran is not willing to uphold their end of JCPOA. It's now up to Congress on what to do.

As far as hurting our standing to the rest of World, remember, this was never ratified as Treaty or even made as an Executive Agreement. The POTUS is not changing the agreement, he just did not certify Iran as upholding their end.