US issues warrant to seize Iranian tanker off Gibraltar

With the open border Ender and PAF are always advocating for there could be 10's of thousands of them here already gathering inteligence and setting up shop.

LOL, you guys keep repeating it so often that you begin to believe yourselves and completely misrepresent anything that I say. I have stated more than several times that I am not pro or anti “open borders”. It is unfortunate that you do not think past the media rhetoric. Don’t ask me to explain it yet again, you can simply use the search function.
 
LOL, you guys keep repeating it so often that you begin to believe yourselves and completely misrepresent anything that I say. I have stated more than several times that I am not pro or anti “open borders”. It is unfortunate that you do not think past the media rhetoric. Don’t ask me to explain it yet again, you can simply use the search function.

LOL- yep- same here!
 
Facts don't defend ourselves from people who radicalize terrorists in the middle east. The only way this ends is when they end their radicalization of terrorism and arms race with a real deal or get destroyed completely with overwhelming force.

The US is the biggest radicalizer of terrorists in the world.

Get. A. Clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
LOL, you guys keep repeating it so often that you begin to believe yourselves and completely misrepresent anything that I say. I have stated more than several times that I am not pro or anti “open borders”. It is unfortunate that you do not think past the media rhetoric. Don’t ask me to explain it yet again, you can simply use the search function.

I am just going off threads where me and you argued about border security and you said you plan on retiring in Mexico and don't want border security.
 
So because we started it, we should just let them develop weapons that defeat our defenses and our interests in the region? That's about the dumbest idea I have ever heard of.

Should the US tell a country what sort of defense they should/ can have? Should other countries tell us what sort of military we can and cannot have?

China and Russia are developing weapons that can defeat our defenses and our interests in the world. Should we sanction/ attack them?
 
Should the US tell a country what sort of defense they should/ can have? Should other countries tell us what sort of military we can and cannot have?

China and Russia are developing weapons that can defeat our defenses and our interests in the world. Should we sanction/ attack them?

Yeah we should be able to do it if we are at peace with them. We aren't at peace with Russia and China that I know? We do sanction Russia and we have a trade war with China.
 
Yeah we should be able to do it if we are at peace with them. We aren't at peace with Russia and China that I know? We do sanction Russia and we have a trade war with China.

So the US should tell other countries what they can do. What about sovereignty? Should we also follow when other countries tell us what to do?
 
So the US should tell other countries what they can do. What about sovereignty? Should we also follow when other countries tell us what to do?

Thats how peace works, you make an agreement and both say You do this/I do this and both agree to the terms. Otherwise its war, cold or hot.
 
Thats how peace works, you make an agreement and both say You do this/I do this and both agree to the terms. Otherwise its war, cold or hot.

There was an agreement. Trump said he would not honor it. Then he got upset when Iran said they may not honor it as well since the US wasn't abiding by it. Iran did continue to follow it (until they recently passed the limits on how much uranium could be processed to a minimum level).

We are not at war with Iran- though some think we should be.
 
There was an agreement. Trump said he would not honor it. Then he got upset when Iran said they may not honor it as well since the US wasn't abiding by it. Iran did continue to follow it (until they recently passed the limits on how much uranium could be processed to a minimum level).

We are not at war with Iran- though some think we should be.

The Obama administration rammed the Iran agreement through without listening to the concerns of the Republican party who said it was a bad deal and that they would cancel the deal. Maybe if they made a deal that both parties agreed to we wouldn't be in this mess.

Democrats voted to filibuster and block American people from having a real vote on one of most consequential issues of our age
 
I am just going off threads where me and you argued about border security and you said you plan on retiring in Mexico and don't want border security.
And the fact that he opposes any measures to even know who or how many are crossing the borders let alone any limits.
 
The Obama administration rammed the Iran agreement through without listening to the concerns of the Republican party who said it was a bad deal and that they would cancel the deal. Maybe if they made a deal that both parties agreed to we wouldn't be in this mess.

What Trump is said to be seeking in a "new deal" sounds a lot like the Obama deal he said was terrible. But he did the same thing with NAFTA. Call it terrible, agree to basically the same thing, and declare victory.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/17/trump-iran-deal-obama-1417801

Trump’s better deal with Iran looks a lot like Obama’s

Donald Trump has long trashed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever,” a “disaster” that didn’t cover nearly enough of the Islamist-led country’s nefarious behavior.

In recent weeks, however, the president has indicated that the Barack Obama-era deal might not be so bad after all.

Trump has repeatedly urged Iran to engage in negotiations with him, while saying that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are his chief concern — “A lot of progress has been made. And they'd like to talk,” Trump asserted Tuesday at the White House. His aides and allies, meanwhile, have recently suggested that Iran and other countries should follow the guidelines of a deal they themselves have shunned as worthless.

At times, analysts and former officials say, it sounds like Trump wants to strike a deal that essentially mirrors the agreement that his White House predecessor inked — even if he’d never be willing to admit it. Iranian officials seem willing to egg him on, saying they’ll talk so long as Trump lifts the sanctions he’s imposed on them and returns to the 2015 Iran deal. And as European ministers warn that the existing deal is nearly extinct, Trump may feel like he is backed into a corner and running out of options.

“Trump got rid of the Iran nuclear deal because it was Barack Obama’s agreement,” said Jarrett Blanc, a former State Department official who helped oversee the 2015 deal’s implementation. “If you were to present to Trump the same deal and call it Trump’s deal, he’d be thrilled.”

The administration’s confusing messaging is a result of warring between two major factions, U.S. officials say, with Trump in his own separate lane. The infighting has been deeply frustrating to those involved in the debate. “In the past, even when I personally disagreed with a policy, I could explain its logic,” a U.S. official said. “Now I can’t even do that.”

He’s said he’s “not looking for war,” wants to talk to Iran without preconditions and isn’t interested in regime change. He called off a military strike on Iran over its downing of an unmanned U.S. drone, overriding the advice of several top aides. His main public demand is that Iran not build nuclear weapons. In return, Trump has offered to help revive Iran’s sanctions-battered economy.

To observers, that sounds suspiciously like the 2015 deal.

“They can't have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said Tuesday. “We want to help them. We will be good to them. We will work with them. We will help them in any way we can. But they can't have a nuclear weapon
."

Several European officials express astonishment at the audacity of the Trump administration demanding that Iran adhere to the deal when the U.S. the one who breached the agreement in the first place. Some said they were not surprised that Iran may have taken actions in the Persian Gulf as payback for the U.S. abandonment of the deal.

Europeans “know that the original sin causing the current escalation in the Gulf is the U.S. violation of the Iran nuclear deal,” said Nathalie Tocci, an adviser to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. “At the same time, they are terribly concerned about the escalation and the threat it poses to the Middle East and to Europe itself.”
 
Trump seems to sometimes hate things just because Obama did them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48978484

New leak claims Trump scrapped Iran nuclear deal 'to spite Obama'

The Mail on Sunday reports that Sir Kim wrote to Mr Johnson informing him Republican President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" - because the pact had been agreed by his Democrat predecessor, Barack Obama.

Under the 2015 deal backed by the US and five other nations, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.

More at link.
 
If Trump is asking for the same thing than why is Iran refusing to agree to it?

Would you sign an agreement with somebody who unilaterally decided to cancel the previous one (and has done so with many other agreements)? He can't be trusted to honor any deal.
 
Last edited:
Would you sign an agreement with somebody who unilaterally decided to cancel the previous one? He can't be trusted to honor any deal.

Why would they go back to the 2015 agreement than if the agreement is the same and we can't be trusted?
 
Would you sign an agreement with somebody who unilaterally decided to cancel the previous one (and has done so with many other agreements)? He can't be trusted to honor any deal.

If the agreement restored my economy and was good for my people and I thought that the other party was going to follow through with the agreement and not send mixed signals that they wouldn't abide by the terms than why the hell not. If the agreement is just a power play by a bad actor to destablilze your country even further than no. In order to convince me you would need to prove that you would follow through with it. Why not though if it would help my people get the food and healthcare and defence that they need?
 
Back
Top