Trump deserves credit for bringing Iran to the table

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

devin553344

I believe in the Resurrection
Nov 10, 2015
3,607
2,249
Unkown
✟93,810.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,074
7,402
✟343,085.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Upvote 0

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What would such a better deal include? I hear plenty of people talking about how bad Obama's deal was without saying what a better deal would look like.

No nukes.
No money.

But, fair trade.
Which they need.

M-Bob
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
They consider nuclear capability to be vital to their national security. Why would they give that up?

People like to eat.

They also miss their American like days.

M-Bob
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,074
7,402
✟343,085.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
People like to eat.

They also miss their American like days.

M-Bob
While the Iranian economy could be better, it's not exactly a bottom tier economy. The US, for instance, has about a 13% poverty rate, and Iran has around 20% and has a per capita GDP in the top third of all countries.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi MM,

I'm just curious, but wasn't Iran at the table when the first agreement was made? Who brought them to the table then? Donald Trump?

I agree with another poster that I haven't yet been convinced that the initial agreement was particularly egregious. The other nations also a part of the initial agreement don't seem to think that it was a particularly bad deal. So, the question that comes to my mind is this: Do we side with the position of one nation and its leader who has shown himself to be particularly 'iffy' in his international knowledge? Or, do we side with a body of nations that still have fairly stable leadership by comparison who believe that the deal wasn't all that Donald Trump is telling his people that it is?

Should we actually make our decision based on knowledge and wisdom or the rantings of a man who has proven himself to be fairly unstable, despite his assurances to us that he is a 'stable genius'. My problem with his self evaluation is that when a person has to keep telling us the kind of person that he is to counteract what people in general are believing the kind of person that he is, there's a problem with one understanding. The evidence that I've seen so far is that President Trump is no 'stable genius'. He may be reasonably smart in some things, but 'stable genius'? No! He has repeatedly followed one direction and then switched, often for no reason that is apparent to others, to another direction. That's not the definition of stability.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jamsie
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi MM,

I'm just curious, but wasn't Iran at the table when the first agreement was made? Who brought them to the table then? Donald Trump?

I agree with another poster that I haven't yet been convinced that the initial agreement was particularly egregious. The other nations also a part of the initial agreement don't seem to think that it was a particularly bad deal. So, the question that comes to my mind is this: Do we side with the position of one nation and its leader who has shown himself to be particularly 'iffy' in his international knowledge? Or, do we side with a body of nations that still have fairly stable leadership by comparison who believe that the deal wasn't all that Donald Trump is telling his people that it is?

Should we actually make our decision based on knowledge and wisdom or the rantings of a man who has proven himself to be fairly unstable, despite his assurances to us that he is a 'stable genius'. My problem with his self evaluation is that when a person has to keep telling us the kind of person that he is to counteract what people in general are believing the kind of person that he is, there's a problem with one understanding. The evidence that I've seen so far is that President Trump is no 'stable genius'. He may be reasonably smart in some things, but 'stable genius'? No! He has repeatedly followed one direction and then switched, often for no reason that is apparent to others, to another direction. That's not the definition of stability.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Why should we side with anyone? Let us instead look for ourselves at the deal and decide by examining it whether it was or was not helpful to the interests of those that signed it. I certainly see the upside for Iran in the deal that they signed. What upside there was for the US? I do not see it. As for Trump's negotiating tactics, they seem to have been somewhat successful. It would seem that not being predictable may work well. I don't see Trump as a genius nor particularly stable( though not unstable either) but he seems to have shown over the course of his life a natural skill as a negotiator , usually getting the better of the deals he has entered into, which is a skill that many EX Presidents seemed to lack IMO.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why should we side with anyone? Let us instead look for ourselves at the deal and decide by examining it whether it was or was not helpful to the interests of those that signed it. I certainly see the upside for Iran in the deal that they signed. What upside there was for the US? I do not see it. As for Trump's negotiating tactics, they seem to have been somewhat successful. It would seem that not being predictable may work well. I don't see Trump as a genius nor particularly stable( though not unstable either) but he seems to have shown over the course of his life a natural skill as a negotiator , usually getting the better of the deals he has entered into, which is a skill that many EX Presidents seemed to lack IMO.

Hi GTAW,

Well, by upside for Iran, are you referring to their ability to trade more freely? If so, that's one of the parts of the agreement that made Iran want to sign it. I mean yea, we could have just agreed not to wipe them off the face of the globe if they stopped trying to enrich uranium beyond certain limits, but I imagine that would have been a hard sell to the other nations involved. Generally, in international negotiations, or in any matter of 'negotiating', there is a give and take. You give a little, they take a little. You take a little and they give a little. It is literally the definition of 'negotiate'.

Unions and companies 'negotiate' all the time. There is implied, in the act of negotiating, that offers are made where one party gets something while the other party gives up something. For example: We'll give the employees a better insurance package, but we will have to cut back a bit on your wage demands.

So, I think if one understands the term 'negotiate' that one should fully understand that both parties are trying to come to agreement by a give and take method of working things out. So yes, Iran was 'given' the ability to trade freely if they would stop enriching uranium. Iran agreed and so the U.S. got to walk away winning the battle to stop Iran from enriching its uranium up to weapons grade quality. So, both the U.S., and the other nations sided with us, got something out of the agreement also.

Now, President Trump came in and told you that they were walking all over us and that they weren't abiding by the agreement, but that's not what the other involved nations are saying. Who do we believe?

I believe it to not be an honest assessment of the agreement for anyone to say that the U.S. didn't 'get' something from the agreement. In fact, the U.S. got exactly what it wanted from the agreement. The promise from Iran that they would not enrich uranium to a certain level and that they would not proceed with trying to build a nuclear arsenal. That's what the U.S. got and, according to all parties involved, other than President Trump, is what Iran was living up to.

Oh, and BTW, as far as I am aware, Iran had representation at the table when these negotiations were ongoing and Donald Trump was not the person who brought them to that table.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi MM,

I'm just curious, but wasn't Iran at the table when the first agreement was made? Who brought them to the table then? Donald Trump?

I agree with another poster that I haven't yet been convinced that the initial agreement was particularly egregious. The other nations also a part of the initial agreement don't seem to think that it was a particularly bad deal. So, the question that comes to my mind is this: Do we side with the position of one nation and its leader who has shown himself to be particularly 'iffy' in his international knowledge? Or, do we side with a body of nations that still have fairly stable leadership by comparison who believe that the deal wasn't all that Donald Trump is telling his people that it is?

Should we actually make our decision based on knowledge and wisdom or the rantings of a man who has proven himself to be fairly unstable, despite his assurances to us that he is a 'stable genius'. My problem with his self evaluation is that when a person has to keep telling us the kind of person that he is to counteract what people in general are believing the kind of person that he is, there's a problem with one understanding. The evidence that I've seen so far is that President Trump is no 'stable genius'. He may be reasonably smart in some things, but 'stable genius'? No! He has repeatedly followed one direction and then switched, often for no reason that is apparent to others, to another direction. That's not the definition of stability.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

What happened at the Obama table?
We got the shaft thanks to Obama.
Didn't read your long post.
First sentence was enough --
M-Bob
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi MM,

I'm just curious, but wasn't Iran at the table when the first agreement was made? Who brought them to the table then? Donald Trump?

I agree with another poster that I haven't yet been convinced that the initial agreement was particularly egregious.

The problem with the initial agreement was that it wasn't ratified by the Senate as it should have been. The initial agreement held no real legal standing in US law and was always subject to the whims of the next President (who unwisely withdrew from the "agreement" I would add). Whatever wisdom was contained in the initial agreement was always overshadowed by imprudence in a failure to follow the constitutional process. Obama's calculation, which probably would have been a reasonable one under most circumstances, was that the next President would realize the value in adhering to the agreement and so would stick with it even though not required by law. But he didn't account well for the political reality. If there was anything egregious in the initial agreement, it was Executive Office overreach.

Between Obama's failure to follow the constitutional process, and Trump's failure to stick with the agreement, I think US foreign policy credibility has taken some damage.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What happened at the Obama table?
We got the shaft thanks to Obama.
Didn't read your long post.
First sentence was enough --
M-Bob

Hi MM,

That's generally what I find with those who support the current administration. They aren't particularly interested in reading anything studied and in depth. They just want to parrot what their 'fearsome' leader says and be done with it. I've often asked those who seem to think that the previous agreement, which wasn't really an agreement made only by President Obama, but was rather an agreement hammered out by a number of nation leaders, 'what' exactly about the agreement was so terrible. 'What' exactly is in the wording or the implementation of the guidelines of the agreement that seems to have been so terrible?

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with the initial agreement was that it wasn't ratified by the Senate as it should have been. The initial agreement held no real legal standing in US law and was always subject to the whims of the next President (who unwisely withdrew from the "agreement" I would add). Whatever wisdom was contained in the initial agreement was always overshadowed by imprudence in a failure to follow the constitutional process. Obama's calculation, which probably would have been a reasonable one under most circumstances, was that the next President would realize the value in adhering to the agreement and so would stick with it even though not required by law. But he didn't account well for the political reality. If there was anything egregious in the initial agreement, it was Executive Office overreach.

Between Obama's failure to follow the constitutional process, and Trump's failure to stick with the agreement, I think US foreign policy credibility has taken some damage.

Hi yedcidmij,

Ok, and why was that? If it should have been ratified, why wasn't it? Was there some reason that congress refused to complete the task? Again, I would posit that just like the ACA, these agreements and legislative initiatives are not necessarily 'what' President Obama wanted. They were negotiated by leaders from a number of nations and our president signed on along with the other leaders. It is the very definition of negotiating that not everyone gets exactly everything that one party of the negotiations want.

A prudent negotiator knows what things he can negotiate with and without in any hammered out agreement.

Everything that is written in the several hundred pages of the ACA are not all things that President Obama necessarily wanted. It was an agreement that was negotiated with give and take from all sides until a unanimous vote could carry the bill. Unlike our current leader, previous presidents have understood that they are not dictators and that their job is to accept the best that they can get for the nation. We needed a healthcare reform law and congress worked out such a law. It was voted on and agreed by a majority and became the law. President Obama didn't stand over anyone with a whip beating and berating into submission this group of lawmakers to pass some law that he had written.

Similarly, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that a number of nations worked out with Iran to gain some assurance that they would not continue to weaponize uranium, was a 'joint' effort of several nations. It wasn't President Obama's initiative and it wasn't Queen Elizabeth's initiative. It wasn't Vladimir Putin's initiative and it wasn't President Macron's initiative. Nor was it President Xi's initiative. It was a negotiated agreement among all of the concerned parties.

Some seem to think that despite the constitution's clear instructions that we are not, our leadership is a dictatorship and whatever the president says goes.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi yedcidmij,

Ok, and why was that? If it should have been ratified, why wasn't it?

Both you and I know that it never would have been ratified in the Senate (as it was unpopular with Republicans) and so Obama calculated that even though it wouldn't be ratified by the Senate he would agree anyway and the next President would exercise a degree of prudence and stick with the agreement though it didn't carry the force of law. Had it been someone other than Trump, he may have been right, though due to it's unpopularity with Republicans I could see any other Republican President withdrawing too.

But the fact that the Senate wouldn't ratify it doesn't excuse Executive overreach. The simple fact is that if an agreement was going to be made then it should have been ratified by the Senate in accordance with constitutional requirements. You and I can even agree that the content of the deal Obama made was good (I don't know that he could have gotten a better better agreement) and that Senate Republican's are just obtuse. But that's still the constitutional process. And if Senate Republican's were so obtuse as to not ratify Obama's agreement, then he should have seen that any Executive agreement would be subject to arbitrary withdrawal by a Republican President.

So the biggest problem with the initial agreement was that it didn't carry force of law as it wasn't ratified by the Senate in accordance with the constitution. This is because the Executive Office overreached it's treaty-making power and Obama simply mis-calculated political reality. In my view that was the biggest blunder in the initial agreement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
They consider nuclear capability to be vital to their national security. Why would they give that up?
They do NOT consider it vital to their national security. Of course they will say things like that, such as promising not to have any interest in having nuclear weapons in the first place, but only as camouflage for their intentions.
 
Upvote 0