• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Withdraws U.S. From ‘One-Sided’ Iran Nuclear Deal

iguanaman said:
Trump is changing all that and the world is looking for new alliances without us. I can't believe you are surprised by this. It has been Trump and Putin's plan all along. You need to get with the program. America 1st means really means no more world influence. Like a turtle, we are retreating into our shell, and like an ostrich if we can't see danger there is none.
Click to expand...

Trump and Putin's plan? :lamo
 
Barnacle said:
Saudi Ambassador to the US - Read the tweets from the 5th tweet upwards:
Click to expand...

The Saudi are already up to their necks in trouble. I was implying Trump gets to wear that dress..
 
apdst said:
Fine, let France and England pay for the UN and spend as much as do on NATO. Let's see it.
Click to expand...

If you think NATO and UN are so bad, then do it. But do not expect other countries to hurt their own interests by picking Trump's whims over their national interests.

France and Germany told Bush going into Iraq was a bad idea and Bush ignored them, who was proven right?

Trump is just a ruder version of Bush, they are cut from the same cloth.
 
Pretty sure the endgame for the nutcases in charge is war with Iran?
 
apdst said:
Trump and Putin's plan? :lamo
Click to expand...

Who got stronger by our withdrawing from this agreement? The U.S. or Putin's Russia? Who is the rogue nation that no one (and especially our allies) trusts anymore?
 
Well America, congratulations :roll:

This is what happens when stupid people elect stupid people.
 
JoeTrumps said:
and don't forget: he just wiped away the last remnants of anything Barrack Obama could call a "legacy". His accomplishments were small, now they are zero. He will be nothing but a trivial pursuit question about the first black president, and that's it.

.
Click to expand...

Obama will always have a legacy of decency, intelligence, poise and class. Trump, having little to none of that, has identified the mission of his Presidency as undoing what he can of Obama's contributions to the country and the world. It is a sad thing from a small man.l
 
Lursa said:
I'm not particularly focusing on this but we threatened sanctions on Iran if they didnt join/comply.
Click to expand...

When it came to the Iran Deal that is correct. They didn't have a choice. The reason that we are able to bully them into compliance is because they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If they had never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty then we would not have bullied them. But they did. So because of that we can bully them. Because they agreed to be bullied when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty along with 182 other countries. The Non-Proliferation Treaty predates the Iran Deal by several decades. And no one was threatened into joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty. No one.
 
JackA said:
Obama will always have a legacy of decency, intelligence, poise and class. Trump, having little to none of that, has identified the mission of his Presidency as undoing what he can of Obama's contributions to the country and the world. It is a sad thing from a small man.l
Click to expand...

With the Paris climate deal dead, the Iran nuclear deal on life support, and Obamacare eviscerated, Obama's only real legacy at this point is the presidency of Donald Trump.
 
JANFU said:
Nor can the US survive alone.
Click to expand...

Can you spell NATO!



Albania (2009)
Belgium (1949)
Bulgaria (2004)
Canada (1949)
Croatia (2009)
Czech Republic (1999)
Denmark (1949)
Estonia (2004)
France (1949)
Germany (1955)

Greece (1952)
Hungary (1999)
Iceland (1949)
Italy (1949)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Luxembourg (1949)
Montenegro (2017)
Netherlands (1949)
Norway (1949)

Poland (1999)
Portugal (1949)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Spain (1982)
Turkey (1952)
The United Kingdom (1949)
The United States (1949)

Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies. The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States
 
Kal'Stang said:
When it came to the Iran Deal that is correct. They didn't have a choice. The reason that we are able to bully them into compliance is because they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If they had never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty then we would not have bullied them. But they did. So because of that we can bully them. Because they agreed to be bullied when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty along with 182 other countries. The Non-Proliferation Treaty predates the Iran Deal by several decades. And no one was threatened into joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty. No one.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that being a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is going to stop them from getting a bomb if they decide to resume their nuclear weapons program?
 
iguanaman said:
Who got stronger by our withdrawing from this agreement? The U.S. or Putin's Russia? Who is the rogue nation that no one (and especially our allies) trusts anymore?
Click to expand...

The deal is useless. If the Brits and the Franks are too stupid to understand that, then that's their problem. The United States isn't going to be a part of the deal and we aren't going to make their problems our problems.
 
apdst said:
The deal is useless. If the Brits and the Franks are too stupid to understand that, then that's their problem. The United States isn't going to be a part of the deal and we aren't going to make their problems our problems.
Click to expand...

If the deal is "useless" then so are our alliances. Can you see now how the plan is working to weaken us? We have backed out of any chance of negotiating with Iran just like we backed out of the Syrian negotiations. This leaves the new big kids in the room to make their deals without us and without our interests in mind.
 
Last edited:
Yes_Minister said:
If you think NATO and UN are so bad, then do it. But do not expect other countries to hurt their own interests by picking Trump's whims over their national interests.

France and Germany told Bush going into Iraq was a bad idea and Bush ignored them, who was proven right?

Trump is just a ruder version of Bush, they are cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...

I wish we would disband the UN. NATO is a good idea, but the other members need to start paying their agreed upon share of the bills.

The Iranians are building a nuke, anyway. Only difference is, with the deal in place, we would be helping them do it.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Sick, sick comment!! Do you have any idea what cancer does to a person? A truly vile thing to say!
Click to expand...

True, but not much worse than "We like men who don't get captured." He's just emulating his idol.
 
4-5-18

Haley: ‘The Iran Nuclear Deal Was Designed to Be Too Big to Fail’

She criticized the way the Obama administration negotiated the deal.

"The Iran nuclear deal was designed to be too big to fail. For years, not just the United States, but our allies in Europe have overlooked Iranian ballistic missile launches, support for terrorists, and the oppression of the Iranian people in order to preserve the nuclear deal," Haley said.

Nikki Haley: 'The Iran Nuclear Deal Was Designed to Be Too Big to Fail'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom