Trump..... (The Sophistry Thread)

Instead of walking away, why didn't the U.S. play the hard(er) line with those in the P5+1 deal? I need me some edu-ma-cation.
 
Zaf said:
They did a missile launch last year that received joint complaints to the UN from Britain, France and the US for being in breach of the agreement to cease any and all production of ballistic missile capable technology. If memory serves, they were test firing missiles in early 2016 as well, soon after the agreement had been signed. Not sure if it was verified but, but I remember reports of these missiles being inscribed with "Israel should be wiped from the earth".

You have a nation that has nuclear capabilities, that is continuing weapon testing on delivery methods for one, whilst yelling and screaming about a likely target when they get there. I can see a milder person in the presidency making the same decision here, and in that timeline they have a better delivery of the speech announcing it, but the effect would be the same and I think the rationale is fair, or at the very least the logic behind it can be followed (especially with the Israel involvement in it).
Click to expand...


So the solution is to just walk away? Disengaging from a process that, while not perfect, seems to be a little less ineffective than the previous approach which is where it is currently headed again? Choosing known failure to prove a point about how tough you are isn't a particularly good approach.
 
Zaf said:
They did a missile launch last year that received joint complaints to the UN from Britain, France and the US for being in breach of the agreement to cease any and all production of ballistic missile capable technology. If memory serves, they were test firing missiles in early 2016 as well, soon after the agreement had been signed. Not sure if it was verified but, but I remember reports of these missiles being inscribed with "Israel should be wiped from the earth".
Click to expand...

You seem to be arguig that ballistic missile tests by Iran are in contravention to the JCPOA, which is incorrect. The JCPOA addresses Iran's nuclear program, not its ballistic missile program - https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/

You have a nation that has nuclear capabilities,
Click to expand...

In terms of nuclear weapons this statement is also incorrect. Iran has a program capable of developing material, as Australia hass and as are many countries in the world that adhere to the NPT have. Iran has not tested a nuclear device and is not believed to have a device that can detonate nuclear material. In the sense of offensice capabilities, Iran is not considered a nuclear capable state.

Neither does the JCPOA force Iran to give up its abilities to enrich uranium and similar procedures for peaceful purrposes.

....that is continuing weapon testing on delivery methods for one, whilst yelling and screaming about a likely target when they get there.
Click to expand...

Whilst ignoring any threats made by any state is a dangerous mistake, taking Iran's threats against Israel on face value is facile and naive. I'm sure you don't take the words of Australian politicians on face value and unsure why you would Iranian. A more astute view of these threats would take in Iran's agenda of being a regional hegemon over Arabic and Middle Eastern countries, appealing to its own hardline domestic elements and perpetuating its revolution - among other reasons. Yes, Iran is an offensive state and no, the threats should not be ignored. But to think that if Iran ever gets a nuke that it's going to attack Israel misses out on many important details - for one, Iran knows that both Isreal and the US would then decimate much of Iran with their own nuclear aresenal and that Many other states in the Middle East would quickely develop their own arsenals, which would undermine Iranian security.

I can see a milder person in the presidency making the same decision here, and in that timeline they have a better delivery of the speech announcing it, but the effect would be the same and I think the rationale is fair, or at the very least the logic behind it can be followed (especially with the Israel involvement in it).
Click to expand...

Iran has an offensive state, no doubt. Iran's designs for the Mid East have to be opposed, no doubt. Was the JCPOA designed to deal with all of the challenges Iran posed to the region? No. Could these challenges have been addressed without the US pulling out of the JCPOA? Yes. Has addressing the challenge of Iran now become harder as a result of pulling out of the JCPOA? Yes. Has dealing with North Korea now become harder due to the US pulling out of the JCPOA? Yes.
 
Zaf said:
They're not "just walking away" they've re-instated the sanctions that they had previously (and extensively) slackened as part of the agreement. You didn't notice the dramatic drop in the Iranian dollar? It's also pulled the worlds attention to the matter again.
Click to expand...

It might surprise you that I don't really follow the exchange rate of Iranian currency too closely...

What you describe as not walking away is pretty much what I just called walkibg away. While everyday households probably don't discuss Iranian aggression in the middle east, I don't think it had fallen off the foreign policy agenda.

Trump really knows how to salt the wounds too. His transfer of the US embassy in Israel links neatly with his stance on Iran. His aggressive stance on this isn't exactly a calming influence.

I eagerly await the day that Iran is able to achieve some stability again...it has some very hefty snow fall that I'd like to visit!
 
Zaf said:
@johnny Yeah, I was aware that they weren't breaching sanctions related to the Nuclear Agreement. It's kind of a semantic point though given it still breaches the Security Council Resolution 1929 that outlines:
Click to expand...

It's more than semantics given that you are arguing that these tests bear a relationship with the JCPOA and the US decision to pull out of the agreement.

My nuclear physics might be a little rusty, but pretty sure if you can make a reactor you've got Nuclear weapon capabilities; as when the reactor is critical, it is a controlled "explosion". If you can get it into a critical state, you can weaponise it by letting the reaction go unchecked.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, that is not correct. A nuclear reactor works by controlling the reaction between isotopes in water, graphite, etc. This is done in a controlled and contained environment, which boils water to drive turbines, etc. A nuclear blast is created by 'splitting atoms' by way of firing a neutron into an atom, splitting off other neutrons that split other atoms, etc in a rapid and uncontrolled way. That is the most basic 'gun device', then you have implosion devices and hydrogen, etc. etc., which bear little to no resemblence to a nuclear reactor. Lastly, for peaceful purposes the need to enrich past 20% U235 is relatively rare. To make a nuclear explosion you need a minumum of 80% U235..., minimum

When you're discussing nuclear weapons, security, bombs and all that stuff nuclear capable means that a nation has the ability to develop a device that can cause a nuclear explosion (a nuclear meltdown is a different thing. Look at Fukashima and compare it to Hiroshima for a clear display of this difference). A country is only considered nuclear capable after it has tested a reliable device (which means multiple successive successful attempts, the like we see in DPRK). To consider a nation a nuclear power they need to have displayed the ability to successfully deliver a nuclear device onto a predetermined target.

I guess we can ignore threats like that from Iran as they're just blowing steam for votes, sort of like Saddam was with the Kurds?
Click to expand...

Sarcasm? That's all you've got after I specifically stated that ignoring them is NOT a choice? Should I take this as an indication that you've exhausted your knowledge on the matter and only have straw men and veiled ad homenim left as an argument?
 
@Zaf fair enough. It's pretty esoteric shit that the general media, FB discussions and today's general discourse does little justice to. Even after spending years in the game I feel like I can still only scratch the surface.

For me, the greatest threat we face due to the withdraw of the US from the JCPOA is increased tensions between the US and Europe. Many European companies have invested large amounts since the JCPOA and are now being forced to consider losing that investment. These companies and their governments are hoping to tell the US that they intend on honoring the JCPOA and that American withdrawal should not, by default, become European withdrawal. The White House has responded by threatening sanctions against European companies that deal with Iran under the stipulations of the JCPOA.

That is a major problem for alliances and any future concerted approaches on similar situations that may involve Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Russia, China, etc. A great part of American power since WWII has been the ability to lead the world (it's also been a bit of a problem sometimes, taking 2003-Iraq as an example) and that leadership has been a huge net benefit for the world. Losing that leadership increases the power of overtly authoritarian states such as China, Russia, Iran, etc., countries that do not share the same values as human rights, democracy, market based economies, international law, etc. as us.

That's a big problem for a middle power state like Australia that doesn't have the resources to defend ourselves against great powers, and relies on a rules based system to protect our interests.
 
Last edited:
I know these talks were set on such a firm, well thought out lead up that the cancelling comes as a shock to us all, but I do pray that the fearless leader trump is still on for a nobel prize. He has done so, so much. So many tweets, so, so many. Bigly tweets too, bigly strong tweets.
Actually, come to think of it maybe the talks fell over because NK didn’t pay Cohen for some face to face time with Rumpy?
 
pineapplehead said:
Bring it on.. Is this confirmed?
Click to expand...
Yep. The ‘100’s of thousands, possibly millions’ of Cohens documents he was claiming clients/lawyer privilege on were/are being independently reviewed to see if protected.
8 boxes in, only 14 documents, possibly irrelevant to Trump anyway, were deemed protected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top