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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Bloody hell! Talk about a blast from the past, because that is a name I have not heard in a long time...
Talk about the dead walking the earth...

 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.

Like always holding Iran at their worst

I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

The 1970s was a terrible decade for American prestige: Vietnam, Watergate etc etc but the hostage crisis was the cherry on the gak.

And If I were the North Koreans I'd be getting some nukes ASAP before 50,000 US Marines hit Inchon...

How can anybody trust the USA after this? Especially a POTUS who conducts foreign affairs by Twitter?

It was said that King Charles I of England would always act on the advice of the last person to talk to him, even if it meant reversing a previous decision.

I see a certain similarity here with Trump.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

The 1970s was a terrible decade for American prestige: Vietnam, Watergate etc etc but the hostage crisis was the cherry on the gak.

Exactly. Imagine if everyone carried 50 year old grudges, half the world would sanction the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It was said that King Charles I of England would always act on the advice of the last person to talk to him, even if it meant reversing a previous decision.

I see a certain similarity here with Trump.

Trump get all his ideas from hypnotoad... I mean Fox News.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.

This regime is not something that warrants the sweetheart deal agreed by previous administration.

The 1970s was a terrible decade for American prestige: Vietnam, Watergate etc etc but the hostage crisis was the cherry on the gak.

True dat.

And If I were the North Koreans I'd be getting some nukes ASAP before 50,000 US Marines hit Inchon...

They already *have* nukes.

How can anybody trust the USA after this?

How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".

You do that, it'll make sense.

If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.

The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.

It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.

Especially a POTUS who conducts foreign affairs by Twitter?

Can't argue against that... 99% of Trump's self-inflicted wounds are conducted there.

It was said that King Charles I of England would always act on the advice of the last person to talk to him, even if it meant reversing a previous decision.

I see a certain similarity here with Trump.

k.

Well, now there is no point for anyone talking to Trump unless he has 60 senators in tow to agree with whatever he proposes. If you are talking to POTUS or SoS, you’re not actually talking to the US.

Also... Mitch's staff are getting checky these days:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.

This regime is not something that warrants the sweetheart deal agreed by previous administration.

Unlike those other US allies doing the exact same things? I forget, what country was Trump doing the sword dance in again?

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

How can anybody trust the USA after this?

How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".

You do that, it'll make sense.

Must have forgotten that time that Obama as a private citizen went over to Iran to craft an international deal.

 whembly wrote:
If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.

The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.

It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.

Again with the treaty. If Obama wanted to ratify peace on earth it would have been voted down cause Obama!

Deeply unpopular amongst people being fed lies and voting for Trump? Well then Joe Schmo on the street is always the guy you should ask for complicated international issues.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, now there is no point for anyone talking to Trump unless he has 60 senators in tow to agree with whatever he proposes. If you are talking to POTUS or SoS, you’re not actually talking to the US.

You can have an executive agreement... just don't expect the next administration to honor it to the 't'.

C'mon D... the US Constitution isn't a state secret. Every international government knows this.

I mean, are you telling me that President Warren wouldn't rescind a Trump agreement at her discretion?

Unlike some not all politicians are vindictive narcisists who don't recognize a good deal when it's peeing in their face.

 whembly wrote:
Also... Mitch's staff are getting checky these days:

That looked like the end of a certain movie for a second and it made me hopeful that he was disappearing

Whembly, as I said earlier, GW Bush was the original architect of this Iran deal.

A fact that was mentioned time and time again by John Kerry during the Senate/Congress hearings.

I've banged on about that many a time on these forums, and it was all brought about by me having to wait all day for a workman to turn up, but I'm glad it happened, because what I learned from those hearings

is a perfect antidote to the bullgak I've heard coming out of the right-wing US media these past days.

I'm reasonably informed that GW Bush is not Obama. I'm also led to believe that GW Bush was a Republican and that Obama was a Democrat, and that they are two separate people.

Crazy, I know, but in this fake news age, I might be wrong...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.

This regime is not something that warrants the sweetheart deal agreed by previous administration.

Unlike those other US allies doing the exact same things? I forget, what country was Trump doing the sword dance in again?

So... because everyone is a bad actor... no one is? Really?

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

How can anybody trust the USA after this?

How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".

You do that, it'll make sense.

Must have forgotten that time that Obama as a private citizen went over to Iran to craft an international deal.

President does not have authority to unilaterally enter the US into a binding agreement.

Are you disputing any of this?

 whembly wrote:
If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.

The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.

It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.

Again with the treaty. If Obama wanted to ratify peace on earth it would have been voted down cause Obama!

Deeply unpopular amongst people being fed lies and voting for Trump? Well then Joe Schmo on the street is always the guy you should ask for complicated international issues.

You keep strawmanning here... Are you sure this isn't simply a reflection reaction by you to defend Obama's policy? Or, are you honest-to-god believe this Iran deal was a good deal for the US?

I get why the other P+5 nations are pissed, because they want access to Iranian markets... but, if the US goal is to eliminate the Iran's ability from developing nukes, this agreement was flawed from the get-go.

So we agree that any Trump deal is worthless and that there is no point dealing with him.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembly, as I said earlier, GW Bush was the original architect of this Iran deal.

A fact that was mentioned time and time again by John Kerry during the Senate/Congress hearings.

I've banged on about that many a time on these forums, and it was all brought about by me having to wait all day for a workman to turn up, but I'm glad it happened, because what I learned from those hearings

is a perfect antidote to the bullgak I've heard coming out of the right-wing US media these past days.

I'm reasonably informed that GW Bush is not Obama. I'm also led to believe that GW Bush was a Republican and that Obama was a Democrat, and that they are two separate people.

Crazy, I know, but in this fake news age, I might be wrong...

The final Iran deal looks nothing like Dubya's overture...

That's like saying ObamaCare was a Heritage plan. The idea may have started there... but the end result of the plan are virtually unrecognizable from the original form. So, it's disingenuous to claim, "hey, it was *his* idea! why you no like me when I do it??? HATER!".

You need to stop banging on those publicized Senate/Congress hearings. They're a side-show... the real governance happens outside of the cameras.

Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.

This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.

At this point, if I was NK, I would sit down with Trump and then ask “why are you here? I need to take someone with permanent power, where is Mitch?”

 d-usa wrote:
So we agree that any Trump deal is worthless and that there is no point dealing with him.

His word means something as long as his POTUS... afterwards, it's up to the next POTUS to either continue it or rescind it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
At this point, if I was NK, I would sit down with Trump and then ask “why are you here? I need to take someone with permanent power, where is Mitch?”

That's Cocaine Mitch™ dude.

For anybody who missed it, which is 99.9% of the US population

here's a short summary of John Kerry's appearance at the Senate/Congress hearings on the Iran nuclear deal.

John Kerry: We've just building on what President Bush proposed some years earlier.

GOP: President Bush? Never heard of him.

John Kerry. It's not a perfect deal, but I'm open to hearing a better alternative.

GOP: Could you give me 5 minutes? I left the paperwork in my car. Awkward shuffling, screeching of tyres. Tumbleweed rolls past.

I may actually make the above my signature...

Trump has reduced POTUS to an empty figurehead. We’ve explained why, but maybe I need to write a Tweet.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think there is a certain strand in Washington that will never forgive Iran for humiliating the USA back in the 1970s.

Stop ignoring the Iranian actors in Syria/Yemen/Africa now.

This regime is not something that warrants the sweetheart deal agreed by previous administration.

Unlike those other US allies doing the exact same things? I forget, what country was Trump doing the sword dance in again?

So... because everyone is a bad actor... no one is? Really?

When you talk about not making deals with bad regimes when Trump is doing exactly that, it comes across as hypocritical.

You know what won't help Iran clean up its act? Treating it like the enemy regardless of the improvements its trying to make.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

How can anybody trust the USA after this?

How 'bout this. Recognize that *this* was Obama's agreement. Not the "USA".

You do that, it'll make sense.

Must have forgotten that time that Obama as a private citizen went over to Iran to craft an international deal.

President does not have authority to unilaterally enter the US into a binding agreement.

Are you disputing any of this?

I'm disputing the BS that Obama did not represent the US government in his 8 year as President of the United States.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If the international community wanted something more permanent, that can survive the whims of a POTUS every 4 years, then work to get it ratified as a TREATY as well.

The arguments that Congress wouldn't pass it DOESN'T GIVE OBAMA carte blanche to enter into a binding international agreement.

It couldn't even PASS the 40% approval rating in congress. It was/is deeply unpopular by the public.

Again with the treaty. If Obama wanted to ratify peace on earth it would have been voted down cause Obama!

Deeply unpopular amongst people being fed lies and voting for Trump? Well then Joe Schmo on the street is always the guy you should ask for complicated international issues.

You keep strawmanning here... Are you sure this isn't simply a reflection reaction by you to defend Obama's policy? Or, are you honest-to-god believe this Iran deal was a good deal for the US?

I get why the other P+5 nations are pissed, because they want access to Iranian markets... but, if the US goal is to eliminate the Iran's ability from developing nukes, this agreement was flawed from the get-go.

Obama's policy, you do realize the EU which I am part of also backed it independently? It was a good deal for all of us, because at least we had some insight in what was happening instead of going back on the Rumsfeld tour.

If the US goal is to eliminate Iran's ability then the Iran deal was a great start. Normalizing relations and pulling Iran into the US sphere would have been a great way to make Iran back off nukes, as US beligerence has been the primary motivator for them.

But it worked so well on preventing North Korea getting nukes so what do I know right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
At this point, if I was NK, I would sit down with Trump and then ask “why are you here? I need to take someone with permanent power, where is Mitch?”

Feth, I just laughed out loud in a train full of people

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.

This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.

Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.

But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.

This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.

Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.

But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?

There is no place for sound logic in the Trump administration, just Grima Wormtongues and people who nod yes convincingly.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.

This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.

Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.

But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?

There is no place for sound logic in the Trump administration, just Grima Wormtongues and people who nod yes convincingly.

Sadly, it's not unique to the USA, as British politics has shown us.

As for Trump, it's like he's on permanent campaign mode. Maybe that's all he knows?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, it was "Obama's" agreement...in his capacity as President of the United States, negotiated through the state department in good faith with the P5+1 group.

This continal attempt to blame Obama for this is silly. It's the very definition of the futurama "technically correct" joke. Ultimately, the US made an agreement, involving lots of careful negotiation over many years with partners, allies and rivals that Trump chose to blow up, without any buy in from anyone else (and ensuring that Iran will have ready and wlling workarounds for ang US sanctions)...because reasons, while setting a precedent for US agreements to not be worth squat after a new election.

Yeah, trust takes years to gain, seconds to squander. I'm not arguing for a minute that the Iran deal was perfect, it wasn't.

But if you were really concerned with what Iran was really up to, does it not make sense to have the ready made excuse of inspectors to sneak other things in at the same time, just to get a feel for the situation?

There is no place for sound logic in the Trump administration, just Grima Wormtongues and people who nod yes convincingly.

Sadly, it's not unique to the USA, as British politics has shown us.

As for Trump, it's like he's on permanent campaign mode. Maybe that's all he knows?

True, but British politics isn't likely to invade Iran soon either. One is worse than the other.

As for Trump, he doesn't have the interest in actually doing a complicated job. He just wants the attention it gets him. Campaigning is the only part he actually like until he gets his military parades.

 whembly wrote:

The South Korean PM would disagree with you there.

This is a few pages too late, but this is very wrong. The quote was mistranslated and lost it's subtlety what he was saying was "we don't care about any awards, we just want peace".

Edit:

aftli_work: Sounds like, in other words, "He can have the thing - we don't care and we're not interested in that. We're just here to make peace.", and that nuance got lost in translation.

Matt5327: Sounds to me more like "if anyone should get the prize it's Trump, but that's not what we're going after. " Still, lost nuance. It'd be nice to have a Korean user to read the original quote.

accidentalpolitics: “노벨상은 트럼프 대통령이 받고 우리는 평화만 가져오면 된다”

Seems to me aftli_work’s interpretation is more correct. I’d have to hear the intonation to be more sure, but he doesn’t really say “should” just “Trump can take the Nobel prize, we just need to bring peace”.

Maybe if he said something like, “노벨상은 트럼프 대통령이 받아야한다. 우리는 평화를 가져오고.” It would fit your interpretation.

Anyone else excited to see the absolute proof of the tail wagging the dog? Trump tweets the "91% negative news" factoid that was completely made up by Fox the night before? The absolute proof of Trump's malignant narcissism? That he lives alternative reality where, regardless of facts, all negative news = fake news?

I'm sure that this time will be the last straw that finally pulls the wool from the Trumpet's eyes, right? All this unbelievable insanity, straight from the golden calf's mouth? Sigh. Of course it won't.

If the same Iran deal was made under Bush and Obama had ended it Whembly would be outraged at the undermining of US credibility.

Not whembly specifically here, but I do wonder if “Obama does not speak for America” and “Obama does not make deals for America” is an extension of “Obama is not an American” for some.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If the same Iran deal was made under Bush and Obama had ended it Whembly would be outraged at the undermining of US credibility.

No... because I can look at this deal in isolation from who advocated for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Not whembly specifically here, but I do wonder if “Obama does not speak for America” and “Obama does not make deals for America” is an extension of “Obama is not an American” for some.

...just wanted to jump in and say that Obama is unequivocally and American.

Those how claims he's not, or he's a Muslim Kenyan or something makes me wanna roll my eyes such that I can see the back of my head.