Hindsite wrote:For all practical purposes, the USA supplement their prescription drug prices too.
Yes, that's something that really needs to change. Trump has made some changes, but it needs to go further.
Torus34 wrote:Reading through the last few posts, the discussion, such as it is, seems to have strayed from the Iranian situation.
Indeed. The idea that Trump supporters want war with Iran (they don't) because they are racist (they aren't) is absurd and frankly not worth debating.
Torus34 wrote:The United States of America has withdrawn from the multinational treaty which provided it with a level of control over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
That is worth debating. It may have provided the illusion of control, perhaps. However, we've had agreements like that with North Korea. They just developed nukes anyway. So will Iran.
Torus34 wrote:The remaining signatories have made little concerted effort one way or the other.
This is why multilateral agreements are effectively meaningless. They only seem to matter if the US is a signatory. Germany and France would be happy to enable Iran achieve its nuclear ambitions for the opportunity to sell into Iranian markets. Iraq was a similar story as Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein were long time friends.
Torus34 wrote:The Congress of the United States of America, with its constitutional power to declare war upon other nations, appears focussed on the 2020 elections.
Yes. There will not be a war with Iran. Toughened sanctions. Maybe a retaliatory strike at some point. There will be no war with Iran though.
noemon wrote:I am talking about the Trump supporters that are calling for war with Iran.
Like who? You haven't named anybody. How are we to determine if they are racist when you won't even name them?
noemon wrote:No dear, Trump has ceded foreign territory to another nation regardless if it is American or not and has declared that as far as the US and its legal system is concerned the houses, churches and properties belonging to a certain Christian and Muslim group of people are now part of a hostile nation that seeks to ethnic-cleanse them against their own safety, wishes and aspirations. Trump has decided to hand over land & properties from one group of people to another and uniquely in history has decided to do that for absolutely nothing in return.
The US doesn't control the territory. We cannot cede territory we do not control. The terms 'cession' and 'cede' have a legal meaning.
noemon wrote:That is indeed unprecedented and along with the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal, it has totally discredited the US in the international stage and that is why Turkey and Iran are so emboldened but also why US allies find it difficult to fall behind the US like they used to.
There is nothing unprecedented about a country withdrawing from an international agreement. It was Obama's deal. It was not a treaty. It was not ratified by the Senate. It did not have widespread support in the United States.
noemon wrote:Would you or would not criticise Hillary if she made unilateral moves against foreign nations without the support of any the US's allies and for absolutely nothing in return!
It depends on the circumstance. I think the US has the right to act unilaterally in its own interest. If I thought it was in the US interest, and Hillary acted unilaterally, I don't think I would disagree. For example, people criticized Bill Clinton for using air power against Serbia, and suggested he was a war criminal. I was fine with him being impeached. However, if a foreign nation tried to arrest and try him as a war criminal, I would certainly be in favor of using military force against that nation to effect the release of President Clinton or conduct whatever reprisals deemed appropriate.
Deutschmania wrote:It's the United States who backed Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Iran .
Iraq is responsible for its own actions. The US had a far superior air force to Iraq and Iran; although, Iran had F-14s and F-4s. The US at the time had F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-111s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, and B-52, not to mention E3 (Boeing 707s with AWACS), KC-135s, ship and sub launched cruise missiles, etc. If the US was backing Saddam militarily, Iran would have gotten its ass kicked in. The US was happy to see Iraq, a former Soviet client with recent purchases of French military hardware, weaken the rogue regime in Iran. The Iraqis even shot a French-made Exocet missile into the USS Stark from a French-made Mirage F1 fighter. That's not exactly a friendly thing to do.
Nonsense wrote:I maybe wrong here, but isn't the President, 'judge, jury & executioner' in the American system, that can declare war on another state by virtue of a dual role of also being the, 'Commander-in-Chief'?
Declaring war is no longer done, since everyone purports to operate under the UN. Congress has the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal.
Nonsense wrote:In the U.S.A, the President derives that power through the Congress, which can declare war & which then conveys the direction of that war through the President, by nomination as, Commander-in-Chief.
The president IS commander in chief. He's not nominated by Congress. Congress makes a political decision to declare war, which it hasn't done since WWII. Congress also appropriates funding.
anasawad wrote:Furthermore, it is the US breaking international law and going against the international community. It is the US that broke the deal, not Iran.
It's just an agreement. It isn't international law. To have the force and effect of law in the United States it would have to have been a treaty ratified by the Senate.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden