That is not a response to my post and I don’t really know what you’re responding to.
Sure it is. It has the appropriate to and from. Handy-dandy clipped segue. See? <g>
It is fair to debate whether cancellation was the best option — an entirely different question.
Indeed, an entirely different question. You keep supporting abrogating the agreement with the argument that it wasn't a good deal. Whether or not it's a good deal is a question for when you're making the deal. That's history now. Now the question is "whether cancellation was the best option." You're the one answering the wrong question as if your answer mattered to the right question.
So why might one keep ignoring the right question while providing answers to some different question?
No informed person believes it was a good deal, Trump was elected on voiding it and fixing it. But there would appear to be no downside in withdrawal. As I said at the time this stupidest of deals was made, obama once again half-assed it and as such in depends to be renegotiated or scrapped.
So, there we go. Yes, he was elected on that. And on screw our allies who have been taking advantage of us, not pulling their weight, undermining our sovereignty with all this collaboration nonsense. Also, there's the mission to wipe out everything Obama ever did. So, he did what he said he would. Bully for him (pun unintentional).
And there is no downside.
I will choke back challenging that assertion at this time.
I will, instead, simply get to the point, which is that nowhere have I seen an argument for why abrogating it was a good thing to do other than to feed the base, which is a good thing for Trump but not necessarily for the country. You haven't argued why we're better off without it, only that it was a bad deal and, now, that there's no downside to dumping it. I haven't seen any indication of an argument for an upside to dumping it. Even if it was a bad deal and even if there is no downside, should there not be an upside? I suppose not if all one wants to do is feed the base and flip off Trump.
How are we better off without it? Our performance in the bargain was paid upfront. We paid for performance by Iran over a long period of time. If we let them off the hook, we get less that what we bargained for. If it was a bad deal, if we agreed to give too much for too little, still we were getting something. Something is more than nothing.
So, how do we benefit from throwing away that something? The only upside that I have heard comes from those who are pushing for regime change, you know, those folks who are into intervention and nation building and foreign adventurism. Was that not something that Trump campaigned against?
So, unless I uncover some rational argument for how we are better off with Iraq no longer obligated to meet it's commitment to lay off the nukes, I gotta call this move reckless and stupid to the max.
Do you, perchance, have such an argument? |
