am i an expert on the deal? of course not. do i have enough cursory knowledge to characterize something a bit off of your opinion? of course.

again it just comes back to how "not decent" impacts you. and as im fairly anti govt overall i dont consider many deals to be decent overall, further giving semantic leeway.

the simple fact that i didn't like it but was against breaking it should show how i characterize "not decent". my guess is that label would land on something you'd want tossed out for you, im just different. and that's fine.

you yourself labeled one of my reasons for characterizing it that way as a "half truth", rather than entirely false. really there's not much distance between our opinions other than a simple characterization of "not decent" vs whatever label you think is applicable. our opinions of reality and what should be done are the same, your only problem really is the label and nothing more.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 6 2020 09:50am

i just find it funny that you tend to make it about semantics (usually by claiming that i made it about that), i guess because that's easier for you than simply admitting you're not that well informed. kinda reminds me of the the whole 'i was just being hyperbolic' thingy (even though i don't remember the topic), haha.

whatever, i just think there's plenty of stuff obama did actually do wrong to be 'centrist' about, so this deal seemed like an odd sacrifice, especially considering how unanimous the verdict by reasonable people around the world is about it. that said, i will admit that the most important distinction here concerns trump's unilateral breaking of the deal, as the main difference between warmongers and those that prefer a diplomatic solution - and yes, we're on the same page regarding that indeed.

I characterize it as "not decent", you characterize it otherwise. how isn't that semantic? we're in complete agreement about what needs to be done in reality, it's only the language here that is a gap. that's about as semantic of a disagreement as you can have.

it does remind me also of that time i was being hyperbolic and you resorted to calling me a liar so that you could continue on taking me super seriously also.

well, stating the opposite of something is still not hyperbole though - but let's not expand that here, it's entirely irrelevant now, and this is an interesting thread on its own...

The part you focused on:


The part you should be focused on:

So should I worry bout getting drafted or nah? Scrolled through 30 pages of this shit already!!

'nah'

well, had it indeed been hyperbole, it probably would not have been taken seriously. since the first condition was not met, however, it simply was not hyperbole - by definition. obviously i get what you're trying to suggest, but your logic falls a bit short. that said, totally my bad (it's easy, you see?) for bringing it up in the first place, should have anticipated it wouldn't sit well with you, and i'd really rather keep this on topic.


let's discuss something i really wouldn't mind an american perspective on: some EU leaders (like merkel and macron) are intensifying their efforts to keep iran in the deal, which unsurprisingly already drew criticism of the trump administration. do you think there is a chance that under a different administration both parties could be brought back to the table, or do you think that the decades of diplomatic efforts made prior to the deal are basically wasted, considering the massive escalation in the last couple of days? has it, in your opinion, crossed the point of no return on the american side?

from an idealistic standpoint it is of course commendable that more level-headed world leaders are trying to salvage the situation, but neither iran nor america are rational actors at this point, and i'm wondering if the EU should risk additional repercussions from a vindictive administration by trying to save something that is realistically already lost?

This post was edited by fender on Jan 6 2020 11:21am

I think the reality is that Trump will never come to the table again even if Iran offered a sweetheart deal, AND Iran will never come to the table as long as Trump is in office.

from the perspective of the 2020 or 2024 election, i would say a democratic Potus could maybe get them to stick in the deal or re-up it in a sense. but i dont know how Iran deals regime change with regards to hurt feelings. like even if Bernie Sanders wins in 2020 will the Iranian regime trust him enough to stay in the deal?

from the American side most people who were not for the specifics of the Iran deal still prefer it to no deal and an unhinged Iran i'd say. I think i'm in the majority there, even among people who deeply distrust Iran and didn't like the cash payout still prefer a deal because it brings with it surveillance and oversight.

EU leaders may draw the ire of Trump, but what is he gonna do to the EU leaders? trade boycotts? hardly, we're in 1 trade war already and mitigating losses by bolstering trade with the EU. 2 trade wars = bad bad bad recession. Trump's tweets are about all to fear there. even from a potential GOP potus in 2024, i dont see gripes carrying over.

sure, that's why i specified 'under a different administration'. trump was obviously never interested in a diplomatic solution, that's why he didn't even TRY to negotiate a 'better deal', despite suggesting it would have been easy to get one.



what iran will do is incredibly difficult to predict imo. on the one hand, the fact that they remained in the deal until now - despite trump's decision to break it, and the additional crippling sanctions america imposed on them - illustrates that there was a genuine interest to normalise relations with the west, and find diplomatic common ground. it will, however, be difficult for the current leadership to justify re-entering negotiations with a possible democratic administration given the precedent trump set, basically demonstrating that a deal with america is barely worth the paper it's written on. in that regard, this administration will have a lasting impact on american foreign policy, even long after trump will be out of office.

for the short term, it seems that trump effectively rallied the iranian population behind their leaders and radical forces within the country, and severely diminished the chances of a new deal having any kind of support. if, however, the adults on the table could convince iranian leadership that this is just temporary, not all might be lost - but i really struggle to see how that would still be realistic given the recent statements out of iran. do you figure that the support for a political solution by 'most people' makes it realistic for democratic hopefuls to address that directly, and promise iran a possible deal, or would that be political suicide because 'most people' just say that, but would still buy into the predictable "they support terrorists over america" narrative that warmongers would inevitably make?

as to consequences for the EU: trump might be reluctant (well, his advisors might be) to start another outright trade war, but isolated sanctions, like he already threatened them with if they ignored US sanctions against iran, and for building a pipeline to russia, are probably still on the table.