Conquer Club

We can now dismiss all hope that Trump’s campaign promises to pull out of Syria, normalize relations with Russia and stop the offshoring of American jobs will ever become US policies. By dishonoring the US government’s word and pulling out of the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement, an agreement signed by the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran, President Trump has revealed that his regime is totally in the hands of the Zionist warmongers.

It was already evident, but America’s renewal alone in the world of the fabricated conflict with Iran is proof that US foreign policy is in the hands of Israel. All you have to do is to watch Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, groveling at the feet of AIPEC, to watch US Secretary of State Pompeo groveling at the feet of Netanyahu, to see the glee all over the face of neoconservative Israeli agent John Bolton, the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, from his realization that his conflict agenda with Iran has prevailed. Indeed the entire Trump regime are such dedicated grovelers at Israel’s feet that the Trump regime comes across as a barbaric tribe groveling before the King of Kings.

Washington’s major European vassals said that they will stick to the agreement. We will see if they can withstand the pressures and the sums of money that will be thrown at them to change their minds.

This means a new test for Russia. Can the Russian government stand the destabilization of Iran any more than it can the destabilization of Syria? Can Russia again muster the determination to protect her southern flank?

One wonders if Trump’s ill-considered decision has finally taught Putin, Lavrov and the Atlanticist Integrationists who have for so long resisted reality that the agreements that they so desperately want to make with Washington are completely worthless before they even make them.

Will Russia finally wake up and stop inviting more dangerous situations by her extraordinary indecisiveness?

PCROBERTS

True story, sad but true.

Tfw even the lizardpeople folks recognize that the US and Israeli regime are less reliable than the Irianian government. If only there weren't all that extra baggage.

I think the most interesting development here is not the weird Russia nonsense but how this affects North Korea. Another demonstration of US caprice could be received as evidence of what will happen to them if they decide to denuclearize. Diplomacy couldn't protect Iran from sanctions even when Iran stuck by the bargain; why should Korea take the chance? If Kim and especially Moon still manage to work something out despite Trump almost literally shitting on everything, they both absolutely deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for whatever that is worth these days.

I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

@thegreekdog

""US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense."?

Interesting.

It's "Freedom!" I thought everyone knew that.

How does one decide if it's the whole country's word?

If I keep MY word, does that count as America keeping its word? Or is that simply an American keeping his word? What id a group of 10 do it? Or 100??

I'm confoozed....

"I Shall Return"

We kept our word.

HitRed

armati wrote:We can now dismiss all hope that Trump’s campaign promises to pull out of Syria, normalize relations with Russia and stop the offshoring of American jobs will ever become US policies. By dishonoring the US government’s word and pulling out of the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement, an agreement signed by the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran, President Trump has revealed that his regime is totally in the hands of the Zionist warmongers.

It was already evident, but America’s renewal alone in the world of the fabricated conflict with Iran is proof that US foreign policy is in the hands of Israel. All you have to do is to watch Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, groveling at the feet of AIPEC, to watch US Secretary of State Pompeo groveling at the feet of Netanyahu, to see the glee all over the face of neoconservative Israeli agent John Bolton, the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, from his realization that his conflict agenda with Iran has prevailed. Indeed the entire Trump regime are such dedicated grovelers at Israel’s feet that the Trump regime comes across as a barbaric tribe groveling before the King of Kings.

Washington’s major European vassals said that they will stick to the agreement. We will see if they can withstand the pressures and the sums of money that will be thrown at them to change their minds.

This means a new test for Russia. Can the Russian government stand the destabilization of Iran any more than it can the destabilization of Syria? Can Russia again muster the determination to protect her southern flank?

One wonders if Trump’s ill-considered decision has finally taught Putin, Lavrov and the Atlanticist Integrationists who have for so long resisted reality that the agreements that they so desperately want to make with Washington are completely worthless before they even make them.

Will Russia finally wake up and stop inviting more dangerous situations by her extraordinary indecisiveness?

PCROBERTS

The deal that Trump abandon was EU's creation, so the losses that EU will suffer will be only comparable to the Iranian. It is still unknown how much can EU protect its companies from Trumps harassment. If they fail to do this effectively staying in the deal for any remaining side doesn't have any meaning.
Iran Deal: The EU Has The Most To Lose

How much can Russians do to protect others from Trumps harassment is also questionable considering limited resources Putin has at his disposal, and at this point they are more or less alone in those battles. Americans will only enforce economical sanctions and put a pressure on EU so the biggest problem for the Iranians are not the Americans but American proxies of Israel and Saudi Arabia. When it comes to Israel and Saudi Arabia, Russia will do nothing, absolutely nothing.

There is another question for the whole story... China. Everyone expects China to do the same that Russia did in Syria in the next 10 years. The question is when will the feel bold enough to do it, now or in around 10 years. Unfortunately I'm putting my money in the second half of the next decade. Until then the Iranians will have to survive the harassment.

While I, regrettably, must disagree with the president's decision on the Iran agreement, he obeyed the terms of the agreement precisely. The agreement had an exit clause built in that could be activated at periodic intervals. The exit clause was agreed upon by all parties in advance and formed part of the agreement. The United States, under Trump, simply exercised rights granted to it by the other parties. The US did not break its word.

It is now important Trump impose draconian sanctions on the EU if it fails to obey as he has pledged. Again, it's unfortunate the president took this action but our individual preferences must sometimes he sacrificed for the greater good of the national reorganization.

While I disagree with Trump I still stand behind him because our strength comes from unity and our unity comes from Trump.

thegreekdog wrote:I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

a) Just like America's Republic and Democratic Parties, the leadership and factional politics within the Communist Party have both regularly changed and shifted over the past few decades. The Communist Party of 2018 is very different to the Communist Party of 1988.

b) Either way, whatever your excuse is for the US being unreliable, it's still just an excuse

The American government signed a deal. Just because everyone knows the country's leadership are fickle and unreliable doesn't mean it can't be criticized for it. Every four to eight years, the pendulum swings wildly in the US. That's a diplomatic problem.

But not a problem for the diplomats - because America doesn't have any left

What are you talking about? We have esteemed diplomats like Nikki fucking Haley at the United fucking Nations.

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

a) Just like America's Republic and Democratic Parties, the leadership and factional politics within the Communist Party have both regularly changed and shifted over the past few decades. The Communist Party of 2018 is very different to the Communist Party of 1988.

b) Either way, whatever your excuse is for the US being unreliable, it's still just an excuse

The US has been around for like 300 years and has, as far as I can tell, been a constitutional republic typically with 2 major parties that differ in opinion on nearly every issue. Therefore, not only should it not be a surprise that the Red Team removed the country from the Blue Team's agreement with Iran, it should have been expected. As someone on fivethirtyeight.com said, withdrawing from the Iran deal is not a Trump thing, it's a Red Team thing. So if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or whomever was president, this likely would have also been the result.

It's kind of like how President Trump removed DACA. DACA was a President Obama creation. Regardless of what you think of DACA (including how it was implemented, which is what I have a problem with), there's a new president and that new president is on a different team, and he's going to get rid of it. I heard similar arguments against the removal of DACA ("How could the president remove what the last president did?"). Putting aside that if Congress had actually passed a law DACA would have not existed at the whim of the president, President Trump can do whatever he wants relative to what President Obama did. AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISING!

Tl;dr - The US is unreliable. This is not a new thing.

Neoteny wrote:What are you talking about? We have esteemed diplomats like Nikki fucking Haley at the United fucking Nations.

That esteemed body deserves an esteemed diplomat. Seems like a good fit.

thegreekdog wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

a) Just like America's Republic and Democratic Parties, the leadership and factional politics within the Communist Party have both regularly changed and shifted over the past few decades. The Communist Party of 2018 is very different to the Communist Party of 1988.

b) Either way, whatever your excuse is for the US being unreliable, it's still just an excuse

The US has been around for like 300 years and has, as far as I can tell, been a constitutional republic typically with 2 major parties that differ in opinion on nearly every issue. Therefore, not only should it not be a surprise that the Red Team removed the country from the Blue Team's agreement with Iran, it should have been expected. As someone on fivethirtyeight.com said, withdrawing from the Iran deal is not a Trump thing, it's a Red Team thing. So if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or whomever was president, this likely would have also been the result.

It's kind of like how President Trump removed DACA. DACA was a President Obama creation. Regardless of what you think of DACA (including how it was implemented, which is what I have a problem with), there's a new president and that new president is on a different team, and he's going to get rid of it. I heard similar arguments against the removal of DACA ("How could the president remove what the last president did?"). Putting aside that if Congress had actually passed a law DACA would have not existed at the whim of the president, President Trump can do whatever he wants relative to what President Obama did. AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISING!

Tl;dr - The US is unreliable. This is not a new thing.

The CCP has internal factions that pull backwards and forwards between themselves as well. See for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20203937

Maybe the US has always been a flip flopper, but I'm not aware of it previously having flip flopped so regularly and dramatically. Seems like these days, America's two factions aren't really interested in governing the country - just throwing sand in each other's eyes.

It's okay. The grown ups have arrived to restore some order.

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

a) Just like America's Republic and Democratic Parties, the leadership and factional politics within the Communist Party have both regularly changed and shifted over the past few decades. The Communist Party of 2018 is very different to the Communist Party of 1988.

b) Either way, whatever your excuse is for the US being unreliable, it's still just an excuse

The US has been around for like 300 years and has, as far as I can tell, been a constitutional republic typically with 2 major parties that differ in opinion on nearly every issue. Therefore, not only should it not be a surprise that the Red Team removed the country from the Blue Team's agreement with Iran, it should have been expected. As someone on fivethirtyeight.com said, withdrawing from the Iran deal is not a Trump thing, it's a Red Team thing. So if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or whomever was president, this likely would have also been the result.

It's kind of like how President Trump removed DACA. DACA was a President Obama creation. Regardless of what you think of DACA (including how it was implemented, which is what I have a problem with), there's a new president and that new president is on a different team, and he's going to get rid of it. I heard similar arguments against the removal of DACA ("How could the president remove what the last president did?"). Putting aside that if Congress had actually passed a law DACA would have not existed at the whim of the president, President Trump can do whatever he wants relative to what President Obama did. AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISING!

Tl;dr - The US is unreliable. This is not a new thing.

The CCP has internal factions that pull backwards and forwards between themselves as well. See for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20203937

Maybe the US has always been a flip flopper, but I'm not aware of it previously having flip flopped so regularly and dramatically. Seems like these days, America's two factions aren't really interested in governing the country - just throwing sand in each other's eyes.

It's okay. The grown ups have arrived to restore some order.

Nah, it's pretty much always been like that. I'm happy to give you some examples, but the two biggest ones I can think of happened in the late 19th century. The first that thankfully didn't end up happening was McClellan's presidential run against Lincoln during the Civil War where McClellan would have ended the war. The second is effectively the reversal of reconstruction.

Those sound like internal matters though. No one cares what Timmy is doing in the comfort of his own house.

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

a) Just like America's Republic and Democratic Parties, the leadership and factional politics within the Communist Party have both regularly changed and shifted over the past few decades. The Communist Party of 2018 is very different to the Communist Party of 1988.

b) Either way, whatever your excuse is for the US being unreliable, it's still just an excuse

The US has been around for like 300 years and has, as far as I can tell, been a constitutional republic typically with 2 major parties that differ in opinion on nearly every issue. Therefore, not only should it not be a surprise that the Red Team removed the country from the Blue Team's agreement with Iran, it should have been expected. As someone on fivethirtyeight.com said, withdrawing from the Iran deal is not a Trump thing, it's a Red Team thing. So if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or whomever was president, this likely would have also been the result.

It's kind of like how President Trump removed DACA. DACA was a President Obama creation. Regardless of what you think of DACA (including how it was implemented, which is what I have a problem with), there's a new president and that new president is on a different team, and he's going to get rid of it. I heard similar arguments against the removal of DACA ("How could the president remove what the last president did?"). Putting aside that if Congress had actually passed a law DACA would have not existed at the whim of the president, President Trump can do whatever he wants relative to what President Obama did. AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISING!

Tl;dr - The US is unreliable. This is not a new thing.

The CCP has internal factions that pull backwards and forwards between themselves as well. See for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20203937

Maybe the US has always been a flip flopper, but I'm not aware of it previously having flip flopped so regularly and dramatically. Seems like these days, America's two factions aren't really interested in governing the country - just throwing sand in each other's eyes.

Just taking their cue from Dale Gri- er, Rusty Shackleford:

POCKET SAND!



SH-SH-SHA!

thegreekdog wrote:I agree. It's weird how governments that manage to not change their leadership manage to keep their word.

I believe Russia's leadership is on their fourth term and I believe terms are 6 years so that's, what, 18 years in power? Let's see, that's Trump, Obama, Bush II, and whoever was before Bush II.
I believe the Communist Party in China consistently wins, but I could be wrong about that. So they've been in power since, I guess 1950ish?

Whether or not I agree with unilaterally withdrawing from this particular treaty is a good idea (I don't think it is), I chuckled when I read some of these things. I get criticizing the decision; we should criticize it. But to criticize it under the rubric of "US not keeping its word" is silly nonsense. Russia keeps its word because it's been run by the same dude for 20 years. China keeps its word because it's run by the same party for 60 years.

Do Russia and China really keep their words though?

Neoteny wrote:The American government signed a deal. Just because everyone knows the country's leadership are fickle and unreliable doesn't mean it can't be criticized for it. Every four to eight years, the pendulum swings wildly in the US. That's a diplomatic problem.

"The American government signed a deal"? You mean a US President signed an agreement between himself and Iran. The US is a repbulic and so if it were to be a binding, lasting agreement, it would have required the support of a majority of the senate; Obama knew he couldn't get that so he attempted to force an agreement by signing it on his own which he had no authority to do. Or at least no lasting authority, as shown by Trump scrapping the worthless deal.

Ray Rider wrote:

Neoteny wrote:The American government signed a deal. Just because everyone knows the country's leadership are fickle and unreliable doesn't mean it can't be criticized for it. Every four to eight years, the pendulum swings wildly in the US. That's a diplomatic problem.

"The American government signed a deal"? You mean a US President signed an agreement between himself and Iran. The US is a repbulic and so if it were to be a binding, lasting agreement, it would have required the support of a majority of the senate; Obama knew he couldn't get that so he attempted to force an agreement by signing it on his own which he had no authority to do. Or at least no lasting authority, as shown by Trump scrapping the worthless deal.

This is incorrect- the JCPA was not a deal between the US and Iran, but a multi-party deal between Iran and several countries, mainly the UN security council nations and also the EU.

President Obama certainly had the authority to make the deal, just as President Trump has the authority to break it.