• 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!

Back us not Brussels on Iran, US ambassador tells Theresa May

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,867
Reaction score
8,344
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Every day, DJT says/tweets words which seem to have been written by Kremlin propagandists as the result often appears to be deliberate offensive statements against longtime allies. In this case, it is a bit different inasmuch it is the US ambassador to the UK with the demand, although we know every word was approved in the Oval Office.

Back us not Brussels on Iran, US ambassador tells Theresa May

Britain should side with Donald Trump rather than Brussels over Iran, the US ambassador to London declares on Saturday as he calls on America's "closest ally" to reverse its position on the controversial nuclear deal.

Writing for The Telegraph, Woody Johnson challenges the UK to abandon its European neighbours who are still backing a deal to trade with Iran and join forces with America to enforce hard-hitting sanctions.

Mr Johnson also delivers an explicit ultimatum to British companies, telling then to stop doing business with Iran or face "serious consequences" for your trade with America.
Click to expand...

How much of what comes out of the White House these days is meant more for Trump's base than for its stated target?
One Government minister said Mr Trump was simply throwing “red meat” to his support base and his strategy would be counter-productive, while a Foreign Office source reiterated the UK's support for the agreement.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Every day, DJT says/tweets words which seem to have been written by Kremlin propagandists as the result often appears to be deliberate offensive statements against longtime allies. In this case, it is a bit different inasmuch it is the US ambassador to the UK with the demand, although we know every word was approved in the Oval Office.



How much of what comes out of the White House these days is meant more for Trump's base than for its stated target?
Click to expand...

Why would one suppose that Russia wants the USA to re-impose sanctions on Iran?
 
Somerville said:
To disrupt international trade. Every bit of economic downtown in Europe and the USA is seen as beneficial to Russia.
Click to expand...

The Europeans are buying natural gas from Russia. An economic slowdown means they'll by less gas. How is that good for Russia?
 
Iran has done nothing wrong. They have kept to the legal international treaty made with them. One rogue state has reneged on that treaty, why should Britain support such capricious action?
 
Obama made a horrible deal with Iran bypassing Congress, yet it's the "US turning it's back on allies" when said allies reject the correct response by president Trump on Iran and somehow it's his fault...
 
Manc Skipper said:
Iran has done nothing wrong. They have kept to the legal international treaty made with them. One rogue state has reneged on that treaty, why should Britain support such capricious action?
Click to expand...

The United States never entered into a treaty with Iran.
 
digsbe said:
Obama made a horrible deal with Iran bypassing Congress, yet it's the "US turning it's back on allies" when said allies reject the correct response by president Trump on Iran and somehow it's his fault...
Click to expand...
The correct response is to adhere to the agreements made by your government.


Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
The United States never entered into a treaty with Iran.
Click to expand...
You entered into an agreement... you broke that agreement and that makes the US the one in the wrong.... or in this case the puppet of a racist Israeli government.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
digsbe said:
Obama made a horrible deal with Iran bypassing Congress, yet it's the "US turning it's back on allies" when said allies reject the correct response by president Trump on Iran and somehow it's his fault...
Click to expand...

Trump screwed the pooch on this one ........ it's all on Donny boy ........ but then, he can always change his mind (as he seems to do often) and agree to the agreement :lol: .............
 
PeteEU said:
You entered into an agreement... you broke that agreement and that makes the US the one in the wrong.... or in this case the puppet of a racist Israeli government.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, Obama entered into an agreement. The United States didn't agree to a damn thing.
 
cuban smokes said:
Trump screwed the pooch on this one ........ it's all on Donny boy ........ but then, he can always change his mind (as he seems to do often) and agree to the agreement :lol: .............
Click to expand...

Obama screwed the pooch by not negotiating a feasable deal that could have been made law.
 
apdst said:
No, Obama entered into an agreement. The United States didn't agree to a damn thing.
Click to expand...

The President of the United States of America has the power to commit the country to agreements. Even a black one.
 
apdst said:
Obama screwed the pooch by not negotiating a feasable deal that could have been made law.
Click to expand...

The deal was not only feasible (and multinational) it was working. Explain why all the partners should support the renegade?
 
Manc Skipper said:
The President of the United States of America has the power to commit the country to agreements. Even a black one.
Click to expand...

Not a legally binding treaty, though.

Read our Constitution and learn how our system works before trashing our country.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The deal was not only feasible (and multinational) it was working. Explain why all the partners should support the renegade?
Click to expand...

It was unenforcable; basically wortless.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Iran has done nothing wrong. They have kept to the legal international treaty made with them. One rogue state has reneged on that treaty, why should Britain support such capricious action?
Click to expand...

Because Britain aligns with the US, even in military aggression and other crimes. Remember the Downing Street Memo during the Bush time.
 
apdst said:
No, Obama entered into an agreement. The United States didn't agree to a damn thing.
Click to expand...
You do understand the concept of head 9f state and government right?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
You do understand the concept of head 9f state and government right?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Constitution requires treaties that are binding on the USA government to be ratified by the Senate.

That was made clear during the negotiations.

President Obama chose NOT to submit the agreement to the Senate as he knew it would never be ratified.
That was a gamble Mr. Obama and the international community took.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The deal was not only feasible (and multinational) it was working. Explain why all the partners should support the renegade?
Click to expand...

If you wish to be associated with Iran, feel free.
 
digsbe said:
Obama made a horrible deal with Iran bypassing Congress, yet it's the "US turning it's back on allies" when said allies reject the correct response by president Trump on Iran and somehow it's his fault...
Click to expand...
That's breathtaking. Trump flies to Asia to meet with Kim Jong-un of North Korea and signs an agreement, without Senate approval, on the back of an envelope -- then, flies home and makes unilateral tariffs, without Congress, but it's Obama that's the bad gut for bypassing Congress.

In any case, while you claim that Obama made a "horrible deal with Iran" the deal did what it was supposed to: keep Iran's level of enriched uranium to a limit set in the deal. How do I know it's working? Because watchdog groups have said so:
The International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium is 88.4kg (about 195lb), less than a third of the maximum allowed under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the official name of the 2015 agreement. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. The current stockpile is just over 1% of the pre-agreement level.

Trump violated the agreement because it was an agreement that Obama created. There is no other explanation, since the deal is better than no-deal.

So, why exactly should the other signators of the agreement back Trump, who abrogated the deal instead of living up to what they previous agreed?
 
PeteEU said:
You do understand the concept of head 9f state and government right?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The President of The United States isn't the head of the state and government.

Only the Senate has the authority to ratify treaties, per The Constitution.

You really need to learn how our governments works.
 
apdst said:
The President of The United States isn't the head of the state and government.

Only the Senate has the authority to ratify treaties, per The Constitution.

You really need to learn how our governments works.
Click to expand...

Then you need to let Trump know that, since he thinks he can make deals unilaterally.
 
MTAtech said:
Then you need to let Trump know that, since he thinks he can make deals unilaterally.
Click to expand...

When did he say anything contrary to The Constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom