Trump to Withdraw from Iran Nuclear Deal

[metis]

Not to follow orthodox catholic? They've murdered as well in the "name" of (their) god.

Then you have invented your own god because it is hypocritical for you to quote the Bible as you have done and then claim that Catholics don't worship the same God as found in the Bible. At every single mass there are at a minimum two Bible readings, and that's not even including that which is found in most of the prayers and songs.

So, I don't know what you're worshiping, but it certainly isn't the God in the Bible.

 

[Phantasman]

Then you have invented your own god because it is hypocritical for you to quote the Bible as you have done and then claim that Catholics don't worship the same God as found in the Bible. At every single mass there are at a minimum two Bible readings, and that's not even including that which is found in most of the prayers and songs.

So, I don't know what you're worshiping, but it certainly isn't the God in the Bible.

You're right. The god that slaughtered men by the thousands is not my god. I prefer the one that loves men so much he would rather give up his son to the murderer than to murder.

Clarity of who the Father (God) is escaped the Jews, the Pharisee's and the priests. They have that in common.

I follow the gospel of Christ, not the Bible.

John 17:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

The true God sent Jesus Christ to glorify him (make him known). Not Moses, not Abraham, not Isaiah. So I don't need their ignorance to influence my views.

So I don't quote the Bible, just the gospel (Word).

 

[metis]

I follow the gospel of Christ, not the Bible.

Oh, you mean like what's found in the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats about having basic compassion for all, along with not judging others?

No.

 

[`mud]

My `God` ! ! !

 

[Phantasman]

Oh, you mean like what's found in the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats about having basic compassion for all, along with not judging others?

No.

What's that have to do with anything? Compassion means pity. Do I pity all? Who do I judge?

 

[Sunstone]

European diplomats are so angry with Trump’s Iran decision that they’ve literally created a new anti-Trump word

 

[Sunstone]

Compassion means pity.

Never heard that one before.

 

[Phantasman]

Never heard that one before.

Dictionary description>

"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others"

.

 

[Sunstone]

Dictionary description>

"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others"

.

Still never heard that one before now. Lousy definition, by the way.

 

[Phantasman]

Still never heard that one before now. Lousy definition, by the way.

I guess. Probably why it appears very little in scriptures.

 

[Underhill]

Iran is on the border of Israel as I write this (through it's establishment in Syria). Expecting (all out) war at any minute. How did Iran get so many established areas in Syria? Where did the money come from, the weapons?

The minute Trump pulled out, why is Iran attacking Israel?

It's always been their goal to destroy Israel. Every Jew, as their book says. As well as their ideology. If war is inevitable, best to fight it before Iran gets nuclear, if they haven't already.

Trump just called their bluff. Nothing more. And Iran showed their hand.

I just choose a side an watch. And so far, my choice is right.

If Iran's goal were to destroy Israel, they would not go about it by launching 20 small rockets into a territory of Israel. There are factions within Iran that did not want the nuclear deal. They saw it as too restrictive. Nobody can say for sure, but my theory is that the attack was an attempt by one of these factions to undermine the deal. Otherwise it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

We will see. But if this devolves into war it will not be a positive for anyone. The last thing we need is more instability in the middle east.

 

[Underhill]

Your examples contain clauses granting the authority to to end those treaties. There is no such clause in this deal nor was one negotiated and ratified by Congress. Your source omitted those clauses as if the POTUS could end a treaty on a whim.

There is no such clause because there was no treaty from congress. But virtually all treaties have such clauses, especially treaties with nations where tensions are strained. They are there to allow the president to react quickly to problems that crop up. So the point is, any such treaty that congress makes the president can back out of. Which, ironically enough, is what I said to begin with.

 

[Shad]

There is no such clause because there was no treaty from congress. But virtually all treaties have such clauses, especially treaties with nations where tensions are strained. They are there to allow the president to react quickly to problems that crop up. So the point is, any such treaty that congress makes the president can back out of. Which, ironically enough, is what I said to begin with.

You only said it after I pointed it out

 

[Underhill]

You only said it after I pointed it out

I said he could have backed out of the treaty. You argued that he couldn't unless there was a clause that allowed it. I pointed out that all treaties of this kind have that stipulation built in.

You tried to claim I was wrong, I showed you I wasn't.

Now if you have anything else I can address, great. Otherwise I'm moving on.

 

[columbus]

Now if you have anything else I can address, great. Otherwise I'm moving on.

To me, the main question is not about Trump's authority to do it.

It's what makes anyone think that he can do better? He is in a far weaker position to negotiate. Iran already has their mega billions back. And the other three major powers, Russia, China, and EU, are not on board. They are all supporting Iran against Trump.
Trump just doesn't have much leverage. I don't see what he will accomplish, other than isolate the USA and damage business relationships that the other players will doubtless see as a big opportunity.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

To me, the main question is not about Trump's authority to do it.

It's what makes anyone think that he can do better? He is in a far weaker position to negotiate. Iran already has their mega billions back. And the other three major powers, Russia, China, and EU, are not on board. They are all supporting Iran against Trump.
Trump just doesn't have much leverage. I don't see what he will accomplish, other than isolate the USA and damage business relationships that the other players will doubtless see as a big opportunity.
Tom

I agree. The upside of pulling out of the deal is.....

 

[columbus]

I agree. The upside of pulling out of the deal is.....

That depends.
Suppose you are one of the US companies who's competition is heavily invested in business with Iran. They are taking a big hit and you are not.
Or, suppose that you are one of Trump's minions who knew that this was coming and invested in the companies who will benefit, and short sold the losers.

One of the problems with having a president known for self serving deceit and shady business dealings is this sort of suspicion. Trump stands to make a ton of money. But there is no apparent benefit to the USA.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

That depends.
Suppose you are one of the US companies who's competition is heavily invested in business with Iran. They are taking a big hit and you are not.
Or, suppose that you are one of Trump's minions who knew that this was coming and invested in the companies who will benefit, and short sold the losers.

One of the problems with having a president known for self serving deceit and shady business dealings is this sort of suspicion. Trump stands to make a ton of money. But there is no apparent benefit to the USA.
Tom

One could make the argument for military contractors who sell to both the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel...

 

[Shad]

I said he could have backed out of the treat. You argued that he couldn't unless there was a clause that allowed it. I pointed out that all treaties of this kind have that stipulation built in.

Nope. You linked an article which shows treaties ending without pointing out the clauses which gave the authority to do so. I pointed out those clauses not you nor the article

You tried to claim I was wrong, I showed you I wasn't.

No I didn't You have completely made that up.

Now if you have anything else I can address, great. Otherwise I'm moving on.

Get your story straight and try again.

 

[Underhill]

Nope. You linked an article which shows treaties ending without pointing out the clauses which gave the authority to do so. I pointed out those clauses not you nor the article



No I didn't You have completely made that up.



Get your story straight and try again.

How is that different than what I said? You pointed out clauses as though they invalidated what I said. I pointed out that any such treaties would have such clauses. I'm pretty sure I nailed it.