Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
Thing is, every political party has hacks. It's just a necessary reality of politics. The issue with Republicans today is there's nothing but hacks. In order to be part of the Republican party you have to embrace ideas that only the most shameless hacks will even consider. And then these are the same guys you rely on to write new policy. It's a grim place for a major political party to wander in to.

That statement should read "And then these are the same guys you watch attempting to write new policy." Because it's worth continuing to hammer the point that with control of all three branches Republicans have gotten a tax bill the opposite of the '86 one (with the opposite public opinion even), and

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.

Pakistan isn't included in the middle east, and India certainly isn't. While it can be argued that's largely an artefact of British colonial rule of that region causing it to be seperated, that argument only goes so far, as Pakistani politics looks eastward towards India, while India only looks west in terms of Pakistan and is mostly looking at China. And if you're going to include India and Russia, why not China as well? China is a bigger player in ME politics now than India is.

As to whether ME politics would be more stable with a nuclear armed Iran, well no it wouldn't be. Nuclear non-proliferation is always better than not, and beyond that Iran is not a stable country. While some of their external instability from the threat of Saudia Arabia/USA would be removed by Iran getting the bomb, Iran is also unstable because its a religious theocracy ruling over a country with a growing, moderate urban population. It's another Pakistan, and we really don't want another one of those.

That's why Russia and China signed up alongside the US, Britain, France and Germany to install the sanctions, then use those sanctions to require Iran to give up its nuclear program. Because even countries with so many opposing interests like that group all know the last the world needs is another Pakistan.

Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?

I don't believe it would help overall stability either, just that some believe it would. But in the end it is the better option for Iran as the dust on the Iran deal settles. We could try and help Iran not become Pakistan and develop more slowly towards normalized politics as the population is agitating for. What the US shouldn't be doing is playing India to Iran's Pakistan and make them terrified enough about survival that they go nuclear. It didn't work for NK, why the hell would it work for Iran?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?

Yes, Iran actually abandoned their efforts in 2003, which was verified by the IAEA, probably over the risk of what was happening next door. Now you blow the case wide open, the lack of trust while Iran is not doing anything is basically pressuring them to develop nuclear weapons, because the US doesn't trust them anyway and might go known unknowns on their ass. Better to have nuclear weapons out in the open in that case.

Edit: As Sebster mentions, the international community can observe, so I should have said "yes under the Iran deal" to be more precise.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That statement should read "And then these are the same guys you watch attempting to write new policy." Because it's worth continuing to hammer the point that with control of all three branches Republicans have gotten a tax bill the opposite of the '86 one (with the opposite public opinion even), and

Yeah, not just in result but in process it's the opposite of the '86 bill in a lot of ways. In '86 you had a long series of congressional committees talking to a lot of experts in accounting, tax law and economics, before a bi-partisan legislative process was begun, and only concluded about a year later. Trump's tax cut was written in draft form quite literally over a couple of weeks, by staffers of the key Republican legislators, with no input from any noted policy experts. The bill was hidden from the public until extremely late in the process, and tied to as tight a timeline as possible to avoid any public engagement.

As a result there was minimal offsets to the tax cuts. A handful of personal deductions that Republicans assessed would mostly impact blue states, but it was essentially just a deficit funded tax cut, which actually new special carve outs for high stakes property developers and hedge fund managers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?

Not trusted, no. That's why the deal wasn't built around trust, but around the IAEA having the power to put as many investigators as they wanted in the country, with power to review not just nuclear sites but also any supply chain points that might be used to move nuclear infrastructure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I don't believe it would help overall stability either, just that some believe it would. But in the end it is the better option for Iran as the dust on the Iran deal settles. We could try and help Iran not become Pakistan and develop more slowly towards normalized politics as the populatiin is agitating for. What the US shouldn't be doing is playing India to Iran's Pakistan and make them terrified enough about survival that they go nuclear. It didn't work for NK, why the hell would it work for Iran?

Oh sure, what's best for Iran, or more specifically the Iranian regime, is a very different question to what's best for the region or the world at large.

And yeah, with the invasion of Iraq, constant speculation about war with Iran and now dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal, its like the 21st century policy of the Republican party is to make Iran feel it needs the bomb.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I don't believe it would help overall stability either, just that some believe it would. But in the end it is the better option for Iran as the dust on the Iran deal settles. We could try and help Iran not become Pakistan and develop more slowly towards normalized politics as the populatiin is agitating for. What the US shouldn't be doing is playing India to Iran's Pakistan and make them terrified enough about survival that they go nuclear. It didn't work for NK, why the hell would it work for Iran?

Oh sure, what's best for Iran, or more specifically the Iranian regime, is a very different question to what's best for the region or the world at large.

And yeah, with the invasion of Iraq, constant speculation about war with Iran and now dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal, its like the 21st century policy of the Republican party is to make Iran feel it needs the bomb.

A very different question indeed. But I indeed started off with mentioning that some Neorealists consider Iran getting the bomb to be good for regional stability, because it removes an element of anarchy. I don't agree with that approach or most of Neorealism for that matter. But the an academic opinion in support of Iran exists in the US.

The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.

Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.

It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.

Executive actions by a sittting POTUS are always subject to change by the next administration. This has been a well known fact since Washington became our first President. Quite often candidates run on platforms of 180 shifts in policy and agreements of the previous or incumbent POTUS. Obama ran on countermanding numerous executive orders and policies of the Bush administration. Anything done by a current POTUS can be undone by a future POTUS and anything done by a current session of Congress can be undone by a future session of Congress this has been true throughout US history and instances of it happening aren’t uncommon at all.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Honest question; could Iran be trusted to not work on building nuclear weapons?

Not on their words. That's why there's these things called "inspectors".

Now we are expected to trust Trump's word more than IAEA that they have broken the deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.

But has they interest in sticking to terms when not creating bomb will result in US invasion...What they can get from other countries? Quaranteed military intervention when US attacks? Like they would believe EU would send their forces into war against US.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.

Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.

It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.

Executive actions by a sittting POTUS are always subject to change by the next administration. This has been a well known fact since Washington became our first President. Quite often candidates run on platforms of 180 shifts in policy and agreements of the previous or incumbent POTUS. Obama ran on countermanding numerous executive orders and policies of the Bush administration. Anything done by a current POTUS can be undone by a future POTUS and anything done by a current session of Congress can be undone by a future session of Congress this has been true throughout US history and instances of it happening aren’t uncommon at all.

That isn't the point. The point is that these actions undermine US credibility for zero reason. There isn't one convincing argument to be made because having international oversight with less sanctions is far better than no oversight with sanctions. It benefits the US economically to stay in the deal. Iran isn't going to give in to Trump's demands and arguing about how Trump can do it is just a meaningless distraction from the wider consequences. Its trying to debate semantics with a firefighter while the house is burning down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.

But has they interest in sticking to terms when not creating bomb will result in US invasion...What they can get from other countries? Quaranteed military intervention when US attacks? Like they would believe EU would send their forces into war against US.

Exactly, that is the interesting part. Are the other parties willing to keep imposing sanctions if the US is the unreliable partner breaking the deals? Iran is not at fault, so are you going to punish them for not holding to a deal someone else already broke? The only deal at that. That is going to be most interesting from a European/Russian/Chinese perspective.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.

Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.

It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.

Executive actions by a sittting POTUS are always subject to change by the next administration. This has been a well known fact since Washington became our first President. Quite often candidates run on platforms of 180 shifts in policy and agreements of the previous or incumbent POTUS. Obama ran on countermanding numerous executive orders and policies of the Bush administration. Anything done by a current POTUS can be undone by a future POTUS and anything done by a current session of Congress can be undone by a future session of Congress this has been true throughout US history and instances of it happening aren’t uncommon at all.

That isn't the point. The point is that these actions undermine US credibility for zero reason. There isn't one convincing argument to be made because having international oversight with less sanctions is far better than no oversight with sanctions. It benefits the US economically to stay in the deal. Iran isn't going to give in to Trump's demands and arguing about how Trump can do it is just a meaningless distraction from the wider consequences. Its trying to debate semantics with a firefighter while the house is burning down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The main question mark is going to be if the rest of the nations can maintain the Iran deal as is when the US just sets it on fire. Its going to be interesting to see if Iran gains some concessions in exchange for sticking to the terms.

But has they interest in sticking to terms when not creating bomb will result in US invasion...What they can get from other countries? Quaranteed military intervention when US attacks? Like they would believe EU would send their forces into war against US.

Exactly, that is the interesting part. Are the other parties willing to keep imposing sanctions if the US is the unreliable partner breaking the deals? Iran is not at fault, so are you going to punish them for not holding to a deal someone else already broke? The only deal at that. That is going to be most interesting from a European/Russian/Chinese perspective.

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

So did Obama unilaterally remove us from agreements made with other countries that were made by his predecessors?

 skyth wrote:
So did Obama unilaterally remove us from agreements made with other countries that were made by his predecessors?

Did he continue the rendition agreements for terrorists and terror suspects Bush had established with other nations?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.

The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.

The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.

It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did. Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that? No I shouldn’t because new administrations aren’t beholden to the policies of old ones. Obama had Hillary as SecState give Putin an actual reset button to highlight the fact that the Obama administration was a fresh start wholly independent from the previous Bush administration, this isn’t a new or radical concept. Iran mad early this season with the Obama administration knowing full well that it was not binding in any way for the next “idiot in chief” or the following one. Again, understanding that agreements with a given POTUS administration only last for the duration of that administration has been an accepted fact of the US govt/political system for the entirety of our existence.

Trump backing out of the Iran agreement undermines lots.

For a start it undermines the agreement.

It undermines the confidence of all of the USA's allies except the Saudis. (Nearly everyone, including loads of the Israeli military and security establishment, wants to leep the agreement.

No-one cares that Trump technically has the right to back out. He technically has the right to hand over the nuclear launch codes to Russia, shoot Melanie and pardon himself for it, and send troops into Canada for a "police action".

We're not saying we oppose Trump backing out because it was illegal. We oppose it because it's harmful.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump backing out of the Iran agreement undermines lots.

For a start it undermines the agreement.

It undermines the confidence of all of the USA's allies except the Saudis. (Nearly everyone, including loads of the Israeli military and security establishment, wants to leep the agreement.

No-one cares that Trump technically has the right to back out. He technically has the right to hand over the nuclear launch codes to Russia, shoot Melanie and pardon himself for it, and send troops into Canada for a "police action".

We're not saying we oppose Trump backing out because it was illegal. We oppose it because it's harmful.

I agree that Trump shouldn’t have backed out of the agreement because the agreement was good foreign policy. The US should have a better relationship with Iran that is important for the ME region and US interests. Backing out of the agreement undermines Trumps trustworthiness and makes him look weak and easily influenced by foreign interests (backing out makes the US look like a tool of KSA because this move really doesn’t help the US). The idea that this decision by Trump will undermine the ability of future presidents who aren’t Trump to make deals and agreements is hyperbolic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.

The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.

It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did. Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that? No I shouldn’t because new administrations aren’t beholden to the policies of old ones. Obama had Hillary as SecState give Putin an actual reset button to highlight the fact that the Obama administration was a fresh start wholly independent from the previous Bush administration, this isn’t a new or radical concept. Iran mad early this season with the Obama administration knowing full well that it was not binding in any way for the next “idiot in chief” or the following one. Again, understanding that agreements with a given POTUS administration only last for the duration of that administration has been an accepted fact of the US govt/political system for the entirety of our existence.

It would if Trump was a private citizen, but he is not. He represent the US on an international level. His actions damage the US wether we believe he is an idiot or not, because there is no guarantee another one like Trump doesn't get elected. So Trump damages US credibility by demonstrating that these periods of chaos could be normal practice in the US government.

I don't expect Iran will want to negotiate at all after 2020 unless the US makes more concessions, seeing as there is no guarantee Trump 2.0 might not get elected in 2024. The comment on Blair is just a non sequitur, its not that they have to do it, its creating uncertainty that they might do so again. Iraq demonstrated that the US might just invade other countries over known unknowns and international law be damned. That damaged the credibility of international law, the normative role of the US and the UN. Its no guarantee they are going to do it again, but Iraq shows that there is nothing holding back the US if it wants another go. That is the critical point. Why should countries trust the US when it comes to international law when it broke it with Iraq?

So what did Obama do to Bush's Russia policies then? Changing the direction of international policies isn't a bad thing, the bad thing is breaking deals and promises left and right because you're no longer seen as trustworthy. Everybody knows directions change and Bush being overfocused on the WoT required it, but that doesn't mean throwing all of it on a bonfire. You don't burn down your relations with a country just because the previous guy was more friendly towards it. There is no rhyme or reason behind anything, it is anarchy in its purest Neorealist form.

For everyone except the US it does not matter how it works internally, all that matters is what comes across externally, that is the vital difference.

Yes, I agree with you.

It undermines Trump's ability to make deals.

It may reflect on future possible Republican presidents if they are seen as pages from the same book. (That sort of thing would emerge during the campaign.)

Apart from that, I think the world will return to sanity once Trump has gone and the USA comes to be seen as a trustworthy nation once again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Apart from that, I think the world will return to sanity once Trump has gone and the USA comes to be seen as a trustworthy nation once again.

If a war doesn't happen until that time.

Let's not forget Trump's national security advisor is a man who publicly declared USA should invade Iran before the end of 2019.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG7DqFM6uxc

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.

The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.

NK came up during a conversation with a coworker this morning and he put forward an interesting theory.   His idea was that KJU hadn't changed at all, but that he has come to recognize that due to Trump's rhetoric, he's the prime candidate for Trump focusing us on something other than his personal messes.   Trump sees impeachment on the table or congress flips, that smart bombs start falling his way.He knows how the madman card works.  The madman card only works if you play it often enough to make people realize that you're willing to go to extremes, but not often enough that people get sick of your games and end your regime.   The Trump madman card is pretty badass.  It includes carrier groups, JDAMs, the best special forces in the world and enough naval ass to close them off from the world. KJU doesn't want to end up in those sights.   He plays nice, takes an attack on NK off the table until we have regime change and then spins his nuke program back up.


At least in my coworker's eyes, you have to look at KJU as having a singular goal - Stay in power at all costs.    There is no retirement from his line of work.  You either get a massive state funeral under the regime of your offspring or you get hung by piano wire in the public square.   So there is nothing he won't do to make sure that happens.  If that means playing nice until a bigger madman is out of power, he will.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.

The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.

It undermines Trumps credibility but not the US. I don’t expect Iran to want to negotiate with Trump but if we have a new President in 2020 I don’t expect other nations to not trust that new POTUS because of stuff Trump did. Blair committed to sending troops and supporting the US invasion of Iraq so should I presume that the current PM will send troops to help invade Iran if Trump decides to do that? No I shouldn’t because new administrations aren’t beholden to the policies of old ones. Obama had Hillary as SecState give Putin an actual reset button to highlight the fact that the Obama administration was a fresh start wholly independent from the previous Bush administration, this isn’t a new or radical concept. Iran mad early this season with the Obama administration knowing full well that it was not binding in any way for the next “idiot in chief” or the following one. Again, understanding that agreements with a given POTUS administration only last for the duration of that administration has been an accepted fact of the US govt/political system for the entirety of our existence.

It would if Trump was a private citizen, but he is not. He represent the US on an international level. His actions damage the US wether we believe he is an idiot or not, because there is no guarantee another one like Trump doesn't get elected. So Trump damages US credibility by demonstrating that these periods of chaos could be normal practice in the US government.

I don't expect Iran will want to negotiate at all after 2020 unless the US makes more concessions, seeing as there is no guarantee Trump 2.0 might not get elected in 2024. The comment on Blair is just a non sequitur, its not that they have to do it, its creating uncertainty that they might do so again. Iraq demonstrated that the US might just invade other countries over known unknowns and international law be damned. That damaged the credibility of international law, the normative role of the US and the UN. Its no guarantee they are going to do it again, but Iraq shows that there is nothing holding back the US if it wants another go. That is the critical point. Why should countries trust the US when it comes to international law when it broke it with Iraq?

So what did Obama do to Bush's Russia policies then? Changing the direction of international policies isn't a bad thing, the bad thing is breaking deals and promises left and right because you're no longer seen as trustworthy. Everybody knows directions change and Bush being overfocused on the WoT required it, but that doesn't mean throwing all of it on a bonfire. You don't burn down your relations with a country just because the previous guy was more friendly towards it. There is no rhyme or reason behind anything, it is anarchy in its purest Neorealist form.

For everyone except the US it does not matter how it works internally, all that matters is what comes across externally, that is the vital difference.

Again, Trump pulling out of the Iran agreement Obama made doesn't change anything that hasn't been true throughout US history. There is no guarantee the next POTUS elected will choose to continue programs, policies and treaties that previous administrations put in place. There is no guarantee that the next POTUS elected will be a good President and not a bad/incompetent President. Throughout US history working with this system in place has enabled Presidents and Congress to made deals and enact foreign policy even though everything they do can be undone by future administrations and sessions of Congress. There is nothing that a President or Congress can do that can't be undone by a successive President or Congress but that's never stopped current administrations from getting things done.

Just because we always could, doesn’t mean we always have.

There has been a certain expectation on how the US, through POTUS, will have a certain level of continuity regarding previous promises by a different POTUS on behalf of the US.

Hell, people bitch about Craftsman tools going down the drain. Yeah, whoever the owner or CEO is has the power to make lots of decisions and can change what previous owners did. There is nothing stopping the company from turning to gak, and it’s their right to become the next Harbor Freight. But people had a certain expectation of what Craftsman means and what they stand for. Even if they get a new CEO and/or owners who decides the company should return to the quality people were used to, the damage to the brand is done and it will take time to recover. People don’t see CEO Smith Tools, they don’t see Owner Bob Tools, they see Craftsman tools. And whatever decisions single people made, they were made by the Craftsman brand.

And the USA is a brand in the same regard, and the POTUS is the spokesperson for that brand. And in the same regard it wasn’t just POTUS Obama who made a deal and POTUS Trump who dumped the deal, it was the USA Brand who made a deal, and the USA Brand who dumped the deal.

I think Trump still has the mindset from his other business that “Trump the person” and “Trump the Brand” is the same thing. And with the mindset he treats the USA as Trump USA, that the country has become an extension of him. The USA represents the Trump brand, rather than Trump representing the USA.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Trumps backing out of the Iran agreement doesn’t undermine anything because Trump wasn’t the President that made the agreement in the first place. A commitment by the Executive branch that isn’t ratified by Congress does not and never has in US history compel any and every future administration to abide by it. Failing to abide by an obligation that doesn’t actually exist doesn’t undermine anything. Every new administration is a fresh start that isn’t beholden to any previous administration that has always been the case. Obama campaigned on reversing pretty much all of Bushs foreign policy decisions and nobody thought that was unusual because of Obamacare won nobody expected him to feel compelled to support the foreign policy of his predecessor. Obama won he changed US foreign policy and the ability of future presidents to negotiate with foreign powers wasn’t undermined forever. I’m not a fan of Trump either and I’m glad I didn’t vote for him but it’s ridiculous to invent unwritten rules to be mad at Trump for breaking.

How does it not undermine the North Korea talks or any future talks with Iran. International politics is more than just internal US justification, a lot of it is based on reputation and trust. If Trump goes around willy nilly breaking deals because he can that damages the US in the future too. Nobody is going to just make deals when the next idiot in chief can just say feth these people.

The unspoken rules of international politics have existed before Trump was even born, no need to invent them. And In case you missed it Obama fixed a lot of the international standing of the US after it took a nosedive under Bush over Iraq.

NK came up during a conversation with a coworker this morning and he put forward an interesting theory.   His idea was that KJU hadn't changed at all, but that he has come to recognize that due to Trump's rhetoric, he's the prime candidate for Trump focusing us on something other than his personal messes.   Trump sees impeachment on the table or congress flips, that smart bombs start falling his way.He knows how the madman card works.  The madman card only works if you play it often enough to make people realize that you're willing to go to extremes, but not often enough that people get sick of your games and end your regime.   The Trump madman card is pretty badass.  It includes carrier groups, JDAMs, the best special forces in the world and enough naval ass to close them off from the world. KJU doesn't want to end up in those sights.   He plays nice, takes an attack on NK off the table until we have regime change and then spins his nuke program back up.


At least in my coworker's eyes, you have to look at KJU as having a singular goal - Stay in power at all costs.    There is no retirement from his line of work.  You either get a massive state funeral under the regime of your offspring or you get hung by piano wire in the public square.   So there is nothing he won't do to make sure that happens.  If that means playing nice until a bigger madman is out of power, he will.

You should tell your coworker that his theory is just a rehash of the Bush one with the "axis of evil" speech but just with Trump. Nothing is new about what either the US or NK is doing, we have been through this song and dance before and as I said, its always been about stalling for time with NK. I don't think NK thinks Trump is a madman though, maybe they just think he is an idiot who might be more easily played than Bush could be. And Trump being an idiot might just give NK some wiggle room for improved economic conditions with South Korea without having to make nuclear concessions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Again, Trump pulling out of the Iran agreement Obama made doesn't change anything that hasn't been true throughout US history. There is no guarantee the next POTUS elected will choose to continue programs, policies and treaties that previous administrations put in place. There is no guarantee that the next POTUS elected will be a good President and not a bad/incompetent President. Throughout US history working with this system in place has enabled Presidents and Congress to made deals and enact foreign policy even though everything they do can be undone by future administrations and sessions of Congress. There is nothing that a President or Congress can do that can't be undone by a successive President or Congress but that's never stopped current administrations from getting things done.

Fine you don't agree. But the US has shown the world that the next POTUS could be pants on head crazy. You can still work with a bad or incompetent President when the rest of the admin runs ok. But the US government under Trump is just as batgak crazy as he is, there is a difference in bad President and Presidents living in an alternate reality. And that is the reality now, no longer will the US just have bad Presidents, they are going to have Presidents completely unhinged from reality. Every time the US tries to make deals on the international scenes, that is all the others are going to think about, "this deal is nice and all, but the next one might just declare war on the moon and quit because they think we're run by lizardpeople." Because those are the kinds of people the US has shown to be comfortable with running the country.

Man who once illegally covertly sold weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan terrorists, who is now somehow head of the NRA, also now thinks Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran.


http://thehill.com/policy/international/386871-oliver-north-trump-should-sanction-anyone-who-does-business-with-iran

Oliver North, who was once at the center of a controversy in which he sold weapons to Tehran to fund a rebel group in Nicaragua, said on Tuesday that President Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran, Fox News reported.

"If we sanction [Iran] again, we ought to sanction anybody else who does business with them," North, who was recently elected as the new leader of the NRA, told Fox News. "That'll stop the Euros from helping to bail them out while they cheat on this program."

I have...no words.

Lol the Euros. North can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Is Oliver North calling for sanctions on himself in a roundabout way, or what? Or does he only mean going forward?

That's funny. Yeah the NRA punched itself in the cojones with that one.

 Frazzled wrote:
That's funny. Yeah the NRA punched itself in the cojones with that one.

Only with people who have some kind of self-awareness.

I doubt the majority of NRA members will think twice and instead cheer about sticking it to the european socialists.

 Frazzled wrote:
That's funny. Yeah the NRA punched itself in the cojones with that one.

I dunno...

PR-wise it's definitely a nut punch.

But, if we're always going to hold someone at their worst... forgiveness would never happen and gak won't get done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also...

I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2018

This is unambiguously good news. A concrete confidence building measure from NK, at long last. And yet, it MUST be noted that this is why you take hostages. So that you can appear to be conceding something in a negotiation when in reality you've given up virtually nothing.

That doesn't absolve the NK regime of anything as it's still a massive human rights violating, murderous regime.

Makes me glad to have Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton on deck in this regard.

KEEP.YOUR.EYE.ON.THE.BALL!

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That's funny. Yeah the NRA punched itself in the cojones with that one.

I dunno...

PR-wise it's definitely a nut punch.

But, if we're always going to hold someone at their worst... forgiveness would never happen and gak won't get done.

Ollie North has been treated obscenely well in life, and I really do mean obscenely. He emerged from Iran-Contra with his skin intact and with no convictions thanks to a technicality, and went on to make gobs of money as a political partisan hack and presenting "hero" stories on Fox.

Forgiveness? The dude has been richly rewarded.


To now spout about Iran and "the euros" like this without even the pretext of a minimal amount of self awareness...? And now we're worried about forgiveness for poor Ollie North?


Again...I am left with no words.