peabody2018
Well-Known Member
Right now, it’s what I’m saying to you
Trump trashes Iran nuclear accord
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
...at Iran's main uranium enrichment complex near the city of Natanz, a small team of international inspectors studies information transmitted around the clock by surveillance cameras, online monitors and fiber-optic seals on nuclear equipment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency describes the transcontinental monitoring program it operates as the toughest and most technologically advanced inspections regime put in place to prevent a country from developing an atomic bomb.
source: The LA Times - http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-inspections-2017-story.html
The International Atomic Energy Agency describes the transcontinental monitoring program it operates as the toughest and most technologically advanced inspections regime put in place to prevent a country from developing an atomic bomb.
source: The LA Times - http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-inspections-2017-story.html
Trump then claimed after being proven wrong (yet again) about their compliance that it wasn't doing anything about their other military programs. Those were never part of the deal to begin with. In other words, Trump pulled out of the deal and once again moved towards war for no other reason than he wanted to.
As part of the terms imposed on a defeated Iraq in 1991, the UN Security Council had ordered Iraq to destroy or render harmless all its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), under UN supervision. Inspectors had gone in, and large quantities of WMDs were destroyed. In March 1995, the Iraqi government delivered its “Full, Final and Complete Disclosure” of all its weapons, and demanded in return an end to sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.
After the Crawford summit, British intelligence and the diplomatic corps knew what they had to do - they had to persuade the UN Security Council to issue an ultimatum that put the onus on Saddam Hussein to prove that his country held no WMDs, with the implied threat that if he failed, military action would follow.
The diplomatic half of this mission was a startling success. On 8 November 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, which gave the Iraq government “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Though it did not specify what would happen if Iraq failed to comply, or who would make that judgement, getting the resolution adopted was all the same a considerable achievement.
The problems were in the other half of the mission, when it came to producing evidence that Iraq still held WMDs. This takes us into one of the most contentious questions of the whole Iraq debacle - did Tony Blair lie when he claimed that there were WMDs still in Iraq? Over the years, the suspicion that he did has hardened into certainty.
But just as the Prime Minister could not know for certain that there were no WMDs left in Iraq, neither could he have known that there were any. He was not lying. He was presenting to Parliament a series of guesses made by the intelligence services - but he dressed them up as if they were hard facts backed by solid intelligence.
The Iraqis responded to UN resolution 1441 by allowing a team of weapons inspectors headed by Hans Blix into the country. On 7 December - the very day that the New York Times reported that the US would have assembled enough manpower and military kit in the Gulf to launch an invasion in January - the inspectors were handed a 12,000-page declaration asserting that there were no WMDs left in Iraq. The White House said that the document would have to be analysed to see if it was credible. On the same day, Saddam Hussein belatedly apologised to Kuwait for invading their country in 1990, a gesture which did not impress Kuwait's rulers.
By February, the Iraqis' claims and the weapons inspectors' visits had all become academic. Having built up a force in the Gulf big enough to overrun Iraq, President Bush had no intention of standing it down.Similarly, with the British invasion force also in position, Blair was not going to renege on his promise to stand ”shoulder to shoulder“ with the USA. All that remained was to see how many other governments could be persuaded to endorse what had, in effect, already been decided.
Source: The Independant - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-iraq-war-inquiry-tony-blair-george-bush-us-uk-what-happened-a7119761.html
They lied. They were told there were no WMD's many times. Fact is, they wanted a war and they were going to war no matter what.After the Crawford summit, British intelligence and the diplomatic corps knew what they had to do - they had to persuade the UN Security Council to issue an ultimatum that put the onus on Saddam Hussein to prove that his country held no WMDs, with the implied threat that if he failed, military action would follow.
The diplomatic half of this mission was a startling success. On 8 November 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, which gave the Iraq government “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Though it did not specify what would happen if Iraq failed to comply, or who would make that judgement, getting the resolution adopted was all the same a considerable achievement.
The problems were in the other half of the mission, when it came to producing evidence that Iraq still held WMDs. This takes us into one of the most contentious questions of the whole Iraq debacle - did Tony Blair lie when he claimed that there were WMDs still in Iraq? Over the years, the suspicion that he did has hardened into certainty.
But just as the Prime Minister could not know for certain that there were no WMDs left in Iraq, neither could he have known that there were any. He was not lying. He was presenting to Parliament a series of guesses made by the intelligence services - but he dressed them up as if they were hard facts backed by solid intelligence.
The Iraqis responded to UN resolution 1441 by allowing a team of weapons inspectors headed by Hans Blix into the country. On 7 December - the very day that the New York Times reported that the US would have assembled enough manpower and military kit in the Gulf to launch an invasion in January - the inspectors were handed a 12,000-page declaration asserting that there were no WMDs left in Iraq. The White House said that the document would have to be analysed to see if it was credible. On the same day, Saddam Hussein belatedly apologised to Kuwait for invading their country in 1990, a gesture which did not impress Kuwait's rulers.
By February, the Iraqis' claims and the weapons inspectors' visits had all become academic. Having built up a force in the Gulf big enough to overrun Iraq, President Bush had no intention of standing it down.Similarly, with the British invasion force also in position, Blair was not going to renege on his promise to stand ”shoulder to shoulder“ with the USA. All that remained was to see how many other governments could be persuaded to endorse what had, in effect, already been decided.
Source: The Independant - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-iraq-war-inquiry-tony-blair-george-bush-us-uk-what-happened-a7119761.html
And in the bitter end, Bush admits it:
greg nr
Well-Known Member
This was just a gift to russia. Nothing more. Well, that and the fact that doing stuff like this is for him what starting a fire is to an arsonist.
It has driven oil prices up, which russia badly needed to fund social efforts to prop up putin's government.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/9/1763198/-Donald-Trump-gave-a-huge-gift-to-Vladimir-Putin-and-may-have-saved-the-Russian-government
It has driven oil prices up, which russia badly needed to fund social efforts to prop up putin's government.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/9/1763198/-Donald-Trump-gave-a-huge-gift-to-Vladimir-Putin-and-may-have-saved-the-Russian-government
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
^^^BINGO^^^
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
This ties in with rolling back mileage requirements by the auto companies.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
they are still busy counting the 150 billion that Obama dropped off in barrels.
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
They are going to sit back and watch what all our old friends do, (thanks Trump, because they all hate us now) like China, Russia. France, GB, Germany and the EU, (all of whom hold Trump in such high regard )
Iran will have too wait and see if they (the aforementioned) have got the ball's to stand up to Trump, and they better grow some, quick, or we're going to war, which is exactly what Israel is hoping for.
Trump thinks he is the fucking King of the Planet, and the rest of the world better wise up and slap that bitch, or we're all fucked.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
What would standing up to Trump mean for the EU? I could see the EU enforcing the nuclear deal they have with Iran and Trump not doing serious sanctions on EU countries.
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
i think NATO should vote us out. and tell trump we will reconsider when america puts an adult in charge.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Who would pay for it then?
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
step away from Faux News and turn on some music...
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
I'll take that as a retraction of your previous statement? You must know that EU is not going to dissolve NATO, or kick the US out when we pay for more of it.
Last edited:
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
i am telling you what i want to happen.
at this point i want america to suffer because of donald trump. i want whole god damned country to turn on the piece of shit.
soybean farmers already learned. fucking retards deserve what they get. they can try to eat dirt this winter. fucking idiots...
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
So you're a real patriot?
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
more so that any trump voter.
america needs to hit bottom and kill fucking hillbilly racists again...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you literally celebrated trump's illegitimate victory alongside several avowed white supremacists and jew haters
southern ganga
Active Member
how was it illegitimate?