Impeaching Donald Trump

[JoeKitchen]

Talking about long term planning...The Chinese are thinking 40-50 years ahead... and eventually they will have the edge.

Not really.  The Chinese may take over for a decade, but their amazing screw up with the one child policy has created a country with 60 million more men at prima age then women.  Meaning there will be a significant drop in population middle of the century. even more then what happens with developed countries.  This will create a economy much like Japan's, but only worse since the Chinese are very anti-immigration. 

[LesPalenik]

Not really.  The Chinese may take over for a decade, but their amazing screw up with the one child policy has created a country with 60 million more men at prima age then women.  Meaning there will be a significant drop in population middle of the century. even more then what happens with developed countries.  This will create a economy much like Japan's, but only worse since the Chinese are very anti-immigration.

60 million single men can come handy in lending a helping hand to Africa or even in a war.

[JoeKitchen]

60 million single men can come handy in lending a helping hand to Africa or even in a war.

Yes, but not when trying to build a future economy with children. 

All projections of a decreasing population are pretty bad for any country. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

 

[Robert Roaldi]

A couple of the articles I've read point to the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal as the starting point of the current escalations. I can't remember, what was Trump's stated reason for pulling out of the deal? What was the upside, why do it. Could he have left well enough alone? By pulling out of the deal and re-instating sanctions (I believe they were re-instated, but please tell me if that's not the case), it was certain to provoke an Iranian reaction. I don't understand how any of it benefits the USA.

I understand that Iran plays a large role in funding/encouraging terrorist activities but they used to do that even when they were previously under sanctions. Was there evidence or a suggestion that they were increasing that kind of activity and needed to be stopped, because I don't recall hearing anything like that. I would have thought that people would be screaming it from the hilltops if that were the case, no reason to keep quiet about it.

[RSL]

You don’t remember why we “pulled out” of the “deal”? Here are two of the reasons: (1) They were cheating like hell. (2) There were no provisions for inspection that could verify they weren’t cheating. I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money, and like Chamberlain with Sudetenland, was willing to buy peace for our time by withdrawing our people and giving up Iraq.

You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? Let’s think about what actually might cause a war. Iran is going to go on trying to build a nuclear weapon. If there’s ever a nuke in the hands of a fanatic like Ali Khamenei, or for that matter, Soleimani, the world’s going to be a hard place in which to live. I have no doubt that if Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel will take it out. They have no choice. They’re a small country, and even a weapon in the kiloton range can kill their country. The biggest problem is that if confirmation that Iran is on the verge of a nuke comes too late Israel may have no choice but to use one of their own nukes to terminate the problem. At that point the fat really will be in the fire. Everybody: Europe, the U.S., China, Russia, etc., etc., suddenly is going to have to decide where they stand and whether or not to take defensive action. Again: You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? By reducing Iran’s ability to make trouble it may prevent a war – or at least delay a war.

[BernardLanguillier]

You don’t remember why we “pulled out” of the “deal”? Here are two of the reasons: (1) They were cheating like hell. (2) There were no provisions for inspection that could verify they weren’t cheating. I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money, and like Chamberlain with Sudetenland, was willing to buy peace for our time by withdrawing our people and giving up Iraq.

You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? Let’s think about what actually might cause a war. Iran is going to go on trying to build a nuclear weapon. If there’s ever a nuke in the hands of a fanatic like Ali Khamenei, or for that matter, Soleimani, the world’s going to be a hard place in which to live. I have no doubt that if Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel will take it out. They have no choice. They’re a small country, and even a weapon in the kiloton range can kill their country. The biggest problem is that if confirmation that Iran is on the verge of a nuke comes too late Israel may have no choice but to use one of their own nukes to terminate the problem. At that point the fat really will be in the fire. Everybody: Europe, the U.S., China, Russia, etc., etc., suddenly is going to have to decide where they stand and whether or not to take defensive action. Again: You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? By reducing Iran’s ability to make trouble it may prevent a war – or at least delay a war.

Except that it's the exact opposite that is going to happen.

The deal with Iran was effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, stepping our of the deal is going to cause proliferation.

Killing Soleimani is an act of war that had the great effect of uniting the Iranis around their government although the significant opposition was in the process of having democracy progress. Now they are all against the US... impressive result!

Trump has been totally inconsistent on Iran, going exactly against his own past disdain for what he used to describe as Obama's penchant towards a war against Iran.

It is all too obvious that this is just a political move targeted at his own voter's base made of man with big balls who prefer to wage wars rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy... all this being a pathetic attempt to distract the US voters from the on-going impeachment process. Killing a man out of cold blood for his own political interest. That should be added to the scope of impeachment.

Unsuprisingly, the first real foreign policy decision of Trump is a disaster in the making.

Have you read the last edition of Fortune by the way... "Why Trump is bad for business". Another commies magazine I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

. . .rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy...

The same way Neville Chamberlain understood them?

You might have to look him up, Bernard. He was a guy who really understood "the complexities of diplomacy." The result of his diplomatic comprehension was WW II. You've probably heard about that. Maybe you saw something about it on TV.

[Alan Klein]

So the president's speech this morning quiets the situation.  He's going to add some more economic penalties on them but nothing militarily.  He did the right thing getting rid of Soleimani.  He knows how to use American power, something others in the past don't understand how to use, always afraid.  Like when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem.  Everyone made a big deal of these things for about 1 1/2 days.  Then nothing happened.  Same with Soleimani. 

I think it;'s interesting that Trump repeated my suggestion to let European NATO countries  go there to defend their oil as we're independent of ME oil.  The formula has changed for America.  We don;t need to protect the ME since we don;t need their oil.  Europe does.  We'll see how Germany, France, Britain and others respond to his request to get more involved directly over there defending the Strait of Hormuz and free passage of their oil. 

[Alan Klein]

A couple of the articles I've read point to the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal as the starting point of the current escalations. I can't remember, what was Trump's stated reason for pulling out of the deal? What was the upside, why do it. Could he have left well enough alone? By pulling out of the deal and re-instating sanctions (I believe they were re-instated, but please tell me if that's not the case), it was certain to provoke an Iranian reaction. I don't understand how any of it benefits the USA.

I understand that Iran plays a large role in funding/encouraging terrorist activities but they used to do that even when they were previously under sanctions. Was there evidence or a suggestion that they were increasing that kind of activity and needed to be stopped, because I don't recall hearing anything like that. I would have thought that people would be screaming it from the hilltops if that were the case, no reason to keep quiet about it.

Our game plan is to permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb and creating conflict throughout the Middle East.  The JCPOA did not do that.  Iran upped their interference in the ME especially after the sanctions came off and we turned over 150 billion to them including 1 1/2 billion in cash.  Obama tried the soft approach.  It didn't work. Iran went on their way causing more problems in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.  We don't need a reborn Persia.  They had their chance for 400 years. It's over.

[Alan Klein]

Except that it's the exact opposite that is going to happen.

The deal with Iran was effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, stepping our of the deal is going to cause proliferation.

Killing Soleimani is an act of war that had the great effect of uniting the Iranis around their government although the significant opposition was in the process of having democracy progress. Now they are all against the US... impressive result!

Trump has been totally inconsistent on Iran, going exactly against his own past disdain for what he used to describe as Obama's penchant towards a war against Iran.

It is all too obvious that this is just a political move targeted at his own voter's base made of man with big balls who prefer to wage wars rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy... all this being a pathetic attempt to distract the US voters from the on-going impeachment process. Killing a man out of cold blood for his own political interest. That should be added to the scope of impeachment.

Unsuprisingly, the first real foreign policy decision of Trump is a disaster in the making.

Have you read the last edition of Fortune by the way... "Why Trump is bad for business". Another commies magazine I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard

You're totally wrong on all points influenced by your hatred of Trump.  Just like the liberal press and the Democrats.  There's no war with Iran and they will have more sanctions imposed limiting their influence in the ME.  This also will drive more Iranians to hate their government.  Meanwhile the terrorist Soleimani is dead. His great ability as a military leader is gone limiting Iran's plans to hurt America and dominate the Middle East.

[Alan Klein]

Just who knows how to play chess?

[Peter McLennan]

Our game plan is to permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb and creating conflict throughout the Middle East. 

Oh, the irony.

[kers]

Thanks to the Iranians things are not leading to war; There response was very mild, knowing a uncontrolled and devastation war was looming if they were going to far. Still i am sure they gave a message showing what they are capable of.
I think Trump was also relieved that he was not put in position to counter attack.
So in this case again it is the Iranians that used common sense to de-escalate.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks to the Iranians things are not leading to war; There response was very mild, knowing a uncontrolled and devastation war was looming if they were going to far. Still i am sure they gave a message showing what they are capable of.
I think Trump was also relieved that he was not put in position to counter attack.
So in this case again it is the Iranians that used common sense to de-escalate.

Yes.  The ayatollahs are wonderful people.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes.  The ayatollahs are wonderful people.

Indeed.

[Dale Villeponteaux]

As I remember, the original Obama deal with Iran didn't solve the Iranian nuclear problem;
it just kicked the can down the road and gave Iran some breathing space.

Regards,
Dale

p.s. It's hard to type with keys that either stick or don't print
p.p.s. Note to self: Don't spill sugared coffee on the keyboard.

[EricV]

... I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money ...

Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution.  Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered.  The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest.  It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.

[Robert Roaldi]

Every report/analysis I've ever heard or read about the Iranian nuclear deal stated that they were complying, complete with frequent on-site inspections (every 6 months rings a bell, but don't trust my memory on that).

But at least two respondents on this thread said that they weren't complying, i.e., cheating.

Both these versions cannot be true.

Anyway, we'll see.

[RSL]

Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution.  Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered.  The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest.  It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.

So you’re convinced that the revolution didn’t change anything as far as accounting was concerned? Instead of cash (it was real cash in bills) maybe Obama should have delivered the arms to the revolutionaries. Maybe that would have worked out better.

Good grief! I see that your age is N/A and that you don’t live anywhere, but Good Grief man!