American voters are onto Trump's game

[Man With A Plan]

The first seems to me like a meaningless question. I'll demonstrate.

Ask the American people if they want, China, Russia, India, N-Korea or Pakistan to have nuclear weapons and they will say no. In fact, a considerable amount don't like the US to have nuclear weapons.

The relevant follow-up question here is, are you willing to pay this particular price to stop them.

So, you're right. Polling is about the questions you ask and yours was worse.

I'll answer the second bit too.

Trump's ripping up the Obama deal, a deal that would have taken their enriched uranium out of the country, put their production sites under international inspection up until 2025 has made Iran aquiring nuclear weapons more likely. To the point were bombing the facilities in the hope of stopping them, followed by a full blown war, was the option chosen. An option that's having severe worldwide consequences.

That is the reality behind the question.

I'm amused that you think anything in the deal that Obama struck with Iran would have kept them from enriching uranium, Forkup. You base that assumption on what...how the Mullahs have kept their word in the past? Your kind of naive would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous.

 

[forkup]

I'm amused that you think anything in the deal that Obama struck with Iran would have kept them from enriching uranium, Forkup. You base that assumption on what...how the Mullahs have kept their word in the past? Your kind of naive would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous.

No, I base that on the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which conditioned sanctions relief on intrusive, on-site inspections, not just of enrichment facilities, but across the supply chain, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This wasn’t about trusting Iran. It was about verifying what they were doing. At the time, the IAEA was verifying compliance with those limits.

In fact, you're spouting the same bs as the Bush administration during the secomd Gulf war. "Never mind what the imspectors say, we can't trust Saddam Hussein so we'll just attack." Remind me how that turned out?

If your argument is that withdrawing from that framework and relying on bombing makes a nuclear weapon less likely, you have to explain how. A bombing campaign removes visibility, you lose inspections, you lose monitoring, and you’re left hoping you’ve hit everything and that nothing was hidden or dispersed.

The obvious problem is that “just bombing” doesn’t solve that. Any durable solution still requires inspections and verification. That or a sustained ground war and occupation. In practice, that means something structurally similar to what already existed, only without the problems the world has now.

Trump in his wisdom has created a problem, that he tried to rectify by killing thousands of people and plunging large parts of the world in chaos. And as far as I can determine the best case scenario will end up in the exact place we started before Trump created the problem.