salttee wrote:

Polot wrote:

If they can’t do business with Iran they can’t do business with Iran. IR has a very skilled technical and maintence department, that is how they have survived so long together with salvaging from other aircraft as much as possible. But it will harder with modern aircraft where the software and components to run it is just as important as the hardware.

Pardon me for being a pest, but I don't think Airbus is prohibited from doing business with Iran, they are prohibited from transferring US technology to Iran. If the Europeans are willing to support Iran's used aircraft, that's none of our business.

And many of the parts of aircraft, including in Airbuses and RR engines, are of US origin. CFM is a 50/50 joint venture involving GE, a US company. Hard to service the planes if you can’t acquire the part you need because it involves transferring a US part to Iran.

The US worry is (and reason why civil aviation parts generally get sanctioned) is that when the Europeans/Americans go home Iran will take the part off the civil aircraft and use it for military purposes, or lie about why they need the part in the first place.

Well at least airbus managed to get 3 planes delivered.

Obama was one of many leaders who agreed to try to rehabilitate Iran. This is a lone run which has no international support and is typical of the autocratic personality type which Trump personifies. People will die directly and indirectly as a result of his actions, the middle east destabilizes still further, one of the few industries in which the U.S. enjoys a competitive and technological advantage suffers to the tune of tens of billions and you are so petty that you are arguing over whether an autocratic tyrannical dictatorial psychopath is or is not a dictionary definition of the noun Dictator.
Guess what, if there wasn't a market for a de-westernized SSJ100 or Chinese commercial airliner the day before yesterday, there sure as hell is a market for one now.

sas931 wrote:

No sales of Boeing aircrafts to Iran is also equal to job cuts at Boeing and the suppliers of aircraft parts to both Airbus and Boeing...and who can they thank for that.....The dictator in Washington

Before the sanctions were lifted no new build commercial aircraft have not been delivered to Iran for decades. I doubt Boeing or Airbus will hurt any from losing this deal. They survived several decades without Iran and will continue to do so.

Bricktop wrote:

Curious that people attack the US as so greedy, and yet they throw away $12 billion of sales for a major company like Boeing.

Do you think that even entered his tiny peanut sized brain. He doesn't want to be a lame duck, one term President and if that is the price that others need to pay for his re-election then so be it. MAGA politics for those with barely a second level education. NRA and Jewish Lobby must be kept on side at all costs for the next presidential campaign.

Judging by Iran’s statements today, they have been violating the turd of an agreement all along. Trump made the right call, and Iran’s statements alone support that. Airbus and Boeing, while may lose money in the short term for loss of airplane sales probably never legitimately banked on Iran actually taking that many planes. The real loser here is the Iranian people, who unfortunately live under a tyrannical, totalitarian, theocracy.

TranscendZac wrote:

Judging by Iran’s statements today, they have been violating the turd of an agreement all along.

source.

Perhaps Iran can order Comac jets from China or SSJ's from Russia.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Perhaps Iran can order Comac jets from China or SSJ'z from Russia.

Gliders maybe.

leghorn wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Curious that people attack the US as so greedy, and yet they throw away $12 billion of sales for a major company like Boeing.

Do you think that even entered his tiny peanut sized brain. He doesn't want to be a lame duck, one term President and if that is the price that others need to pay for his re-election then so be it. MAGA politics for those with barely a second level education. NRA and Jewish Lobby must be kept on side at all costs for the next presidential campaign.

I simply have no response to such "analysis". It's so ironic that the same people who sniffily say Americans are so clueless about the rest of the world are themselves so utterly clueless about the US.

bob75013 wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Obama was one of many leaders who agreed to try to rehabilitate Iran. This is a lone run ...

Obama's was also a lone run. The US constitution REQUIRES that treaties be approved by the US congress. That never happened.

So when Obama signed the document, he did it on behalf of Obama, and not the U.S.A.

That is the real lone run.

Obama was trying to execute the Iran nuclear deal as an "executive agreement" rather than as a treaty, because the Senate would never have ratified (quite rightly) the document which was written and the terms for giving back the $150 billion in Iranian assets frozen in the US. Perhaps the next time European partners want to get an agreement with the US, they should make sure that it is palatable to at least 2/3'rds of the the Senate in order for it to be ratified.

Just because the US can't gets its own self-interests served doesn't mean it should let the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket. We're so off the topic of aviation now.

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

Judging by Iran’s statements today, they have been violating the turd of an agreement all along.

source.

For? Iran today announced continuing their pursuit of ballistic missles. You think they stopped development of platforms to carry a nuclear weapon without also continuing enrichment for said nuclear weapon? Come on, they basically got to cherry pick where and which facilities inspectors were allowed to go to. If you don’t think Iran is playing the West, well I’ve got some beachfront property in Tehran to sell you.

On topic, of course Boeing sells no airplanes. How may sanctions affect the ability to buy second or third hand? Can they be that far reaching?

The misunderstanding of the American governmental system is astounding. First off, the deal wasn’t a legal treaty to begin with. Obama couldn’t even get his own party to go with it, much less convert the 20ish Republican Senators necessary for the deal to be a treaty. Therefore calling the deal a treaty is a misconception and one that has caused a lot of needless debate here.
Second, if Iran had been smart they would have gone all Boeing. Europe wasn’t going to go back on the deal from the beginning, and Trump blatantly said in a debate that Iran ordering Airbus was a slap in the face to America and he would correct it. With the momentum that he had when Iran ordered Airbus, it wasn’t a smart decision on the off chance he gets elected. If Iran currently had 400 Boeing on order, Trump would likely be willing to deal. 100 or so aircraft that haven’t even been booked as orders is nothing relative to Boeing’s backlog. The US always had the highest chance of backing out because we didn’t actually approve it. Iran needed to play to that to have them on our good side as much as possible.
Trump’s approval rating is climbing rapidly, so whether or not NOKO was his doing or pulling out of the Iran deal the right decision, he is on the path to reelection and 57% of the country in a recent CNN poll believe the country is moving in the right direction.
3 months ago Trump was starting a nuclear war with NOKO, now there’s peace on the table, and possibly, unity across the Korean Peninsula. Many other ‘Trump Doomsday’ predictions have also been unfounded. So before determining an EU trade war to be iminent remember that the USA is a vital trade partner with the EU, certainly moreso than Iran. EU lawmakers, if they’re as smart and “for the people” as this forum claims, will not retaliate. Iran isn’t that important. In addition, Airbus wouldn’t sacrifice their momentum in the US and other US aligned nations where they dominate (Latin America) to teach Trump a lesson. Airbus has a lot more potential for orders in the US sphere of influence than in Iran.
To those of you saying not selling planes to Iran is like Trump lining up 150 Iranians on a wall and gunning them down, remember that a large amount of Americans (probably a majority) saw the Iran deal as Obama lining up 10 million Americans against a wall and vaporizing them. For the POTUS, that’s a pretty obvious decision. Bottom line- Iran had to buy all-Boeing to have a shot at getting new aircraft if anyone with an R by their name won the White House in 2016.

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

Judging by Iran’s statements today, they have been violating the turd of an agreement all along.

source.

For? Iran today announced continuing their pursuit of ballistic missles. You think they stopped development of platforms to carry a nuclear weapon without also continuing enrichment for said nuclear weapon? Come on, they basically got to cherry pick where and which facilities inspectors were allowed to go to. If you don’t think Iran is playing the West, well I’ve got some beachfront property in Tehran to sell you.

On topic, of course Boeing sells no airplanes. How may sanctions affect the ability to buy second or third hand? Can they be that far reaching?

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

Polot wrote:

I don’t think Cuba was so broke for so long that they could never afford any Airbuses, or get any help from Europe financing the planes if nobody in Europe had issues selling them planes. Your second argument about Europe benefitting from Cuba not being able to develop a reliable airline can easily be applied to Iran. Why would Europe like having strong European airline presence at Cuba at the expense of a weak Cubana but not enjoy the prospects of a strong European airline presence in Iran at the expense of a weak Iranair?

Come on, without Venezuela giving them free oil they wouldn't have been able to keep the lights on. Cuba had little access to hard currency and financing, two things that Iran has either directly or through Russia and China. Mahan Air did buy some used A340's while under sanctions, did they not?
And "Europe benefitting from Cuba not being able to develop a reliable airline can easily be applied to Iran" is not the same thing. The economic benefit of trade relations with Iran (not just from plane sales) is far, far greater compared to the small number of flights that Euro carriers had and have into Cuba. Iran is a sizable country both economically and socially, and with a fairly affluent diaspora around the world.

Time to boycott US and Israeli products and remove their visa free travel from Europe . They’re both aggressive nut cases

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

source.

For? Iran today announced continuing their pursuit of ballistic missles. You think they stopped development of platforms to carry a nuclear weapon without also continuing enrichment for said nuclear weapon? Come on, they basically got to cherry pick where and which facilities inspectors were allowed to go to. If you don’t think Iran is playing the West, well I’ve got some beachfront property in Tehran to sell you.

On topic, of course Boeing sells no airplanes. How may sanctions affect the ability to buy second or third hand? Can they be that far reaching?

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... ay-for-now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... llout.html

Iran says they will ‘continue’ spending for ballistic missles. You think they are developing ballistic missiles and no nuclear warhead to go with it. They’ve been provocative prior to and post nuclear accord. The Iranian regime doesn’t want peace.

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

source.

For? Iran today announced continuing their pursuit of ballistic missles. You think they stopped development of platforms to carry a nuclear weapon without also continuing enrichment for said nuclear weapon? Come on, they basically got to cherry pick where and which facilities inspectors were allowed to go to. If you don’t think Iran is playing the West, well I’ve got some beachfront property in Tehran to sell you.

On topic, of course Boeing sells no airplanes. How may sanctions affect the ability to buy second or third hand? Can they be that far reaching?

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... ay-for-now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... llout.html

Iran says they will ‘continue’ spending for ballistic missles. You think they are developing ballistic missiles and no nuclear warhead to go with it. They’ve been provocative prior to and post nuclear accord. The Iranian regime doesn’t want peace.

Galwayman wrote:

Time to boycott US and Israeli products and remove their visa free travel from Europe . They’re both aggressive nut cases

Please enlighten us -- what does your comment have to do with the Iran -Boeing deal?

MODS SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

For? Iran today announced continuing their pursuit of ballistic missles. You think they stopped development of platforms to carry a nuclear weapon without also continuing enrichment for said nuclear weapon? Come on, they basically got to cherry pick where and which facilities inspectors were allowed to go to. If you don’t think Iran is playing the West, well I’ve got some beachfront property in Tehran to sell you.

On topic, of course Boeing sells no airplanes. How may sanctions affect the ability to buy second or third hand? Can they be that far reaching?

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... ay-for-now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... llout.html

Iran says they will ‘continue’ spending for ballistic missles. You think they are developing ballistic missiles and no nuclear warhead to go with it. They’ve been provocative prior to and post nuclear accord. The Iranian regime doesn’t want peace.

You said they were violating the treaty. The links you provide don't say that or anything close to it.
Ballistic Missiles are used for a variety of purposes and are regularly used by Countries including the U.S. for striking targets. The payload doesn't have to be and almost always isn't Nuclear.
This is a country which was in a war with its neighbour where 1 million lost their lives. They need missiles for their own defence if there was another war like that and if fighting their direct neighbours they will not be loading a nuclear payload as the radioactive fallout respects no borders or boundaries.

Actually, thanks to the mods for keeping the thread open. For the most part, it's quite respectful.

While aviation comes into it tangentially, it is interesting to see the attitudes of others and to see in many cases how ill-informed they are about the US and how it works. Enlightening them likely will not change their minds, but at least their opinions can be based in more knowledge.

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

For? Iran today announced continuing their pursuit of ballistic missles. You think they stopped development of platforms to carry a nuclear weapon without also continuing enrichment for said nuclear weapon? Come on, they basically got to cherry pick where and which facilities inspectors were allowed to go to. If you don’t think Iran is playing the West, well I’ve got some beachfront property in Tehran to sell you.

On topic, of course Boeing sells no airplanes. How may sanctions affect the ability to buy second or third hand? Can they be that far reaching?

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... ay-for-now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... llout.html

Iran says they will ‘continue’ spending for ballistic missles. You think they are developing ballistic missiles and no nuclear warhead to go with it. They’ve been provocative prior to and post nuclear accord. The Iranian regime doesn’t want peace.

Let's face it, no country wants to develop its nuclear arsenal to attack. It is simply a deterrent weapon.
The moment Iran, and as a matter of fact, ANY country in the world would use a nuke in an offensive war, that country would be immediately wiped out of the map by a rain of nukes. No, Iran will not start shooting nukes to NY or LA. It would be the end of Iran.
What the US clearly doesn't want is a country as powerful as Iran having a say in a region of the world that the US considers its geopolitics playground. Oil, oil, and more oil is the issue. The moment they have nuclear capability, they have a say in regional matters.

It is basically inevitable that Iran develops its nuclear program. Nuclear capabilities development by more and more countries is an expected chain reaction started with the US in the 40's
If US has it, USSR had to have it too.
If USSR has it, France and UK had to get them also.
If US and USSR have it, China needs it too.
If China has it, India needs it, which in turn forces Pakistan to have it too.
If Israel has them, of course, Iran has to have them also. No brainer.
Next?
If Iran has it, Saudi Arabia will develop them also.
And so on...

About Boeing and Airbus orders, I don't understand how selling civil aircraft to Iran to fly around safely their common people (who are completely clueless and voiceless of any ballistic missile program), would in any form or shape help them develop nuclear weapons specially considering that all those involved in the development of those weapons for sure fly in military planes, not civilian.
Also, if it's such a concern for any nation that those billions of $$ that Iran got back are invested in weapons, why not make sure they're invested in Boeings and Buses?

QXAS wrote:

The misunderstanding of the American governmental system is astounding. First off, the deal wasn’t a legal treaty to begin with. Obama couldn’t even get his own party to go with it, much less convert the 20ish Republican Senators necessary for the deal to be a treaty. Therefore calling the deal a treaty is a misconception and one that has caused a lot of needless debate here.
Second, if Iran had been smart they would have gone all Boeing. Europe wasn’t going to go back on the deal from the beginning, and Trump blatantly said in a debate that Iran ordering Airbus was a slap in the face to America and he would correct it. With the momentum that he had when Iran ordered Airbus, it wasn’t a smart decision on the off chance he gets elected. If Iran currently had 400 Boeing on order, Trump would likely be willing to deal. 100 or so aircraft that haven’t even been booked as orders is nothing relative to Boeing’s backlog. The US always had the highest chance of backing out because we didn’t actually approve it. Iran needed to play to that to have them on our good side as much as possible.
Trump’s approval rating is climbing rapidly, so whether or not NOKO was his doing or pulling out of the Iran deal the right decision, he is on the path to reelection and 57% of the country in a recent CNN poll believe the country is moving in the right direction.
3 months ago Trump was starting a nuclear war with NOKO, now there’s peace on the table, and possibly, unity across the Korean Peninsula. Many other ‘Trump Doomsday’ predictions have also been unfounded. So before determining an EU trade war to be iminent remember that the USA is a vital trade partner with the EU, certainly moreso than Iran. EU lawmakers, if they’re as smart and “for the people” as this forum claims, will not retaliate. Iran isn’t that important. In addition, Airbus wouldn’t sacrifice their momentum in the US and other US aligned nations where they dominate (Latin America) to teach Trump a lesson. Airbus has a lot more potential for orders in the US sphere of influence than in Iran.
To those of you saying not selling planes to Iran is like Trump lining up 150 Iranians on a wall and gunning them down, remember that a large amount of Americans (probably a majority) saw the Iran deal as Obama lining up 10 million Americans against a wall and vaporizing them. For the POTUS, that’s a pretty obvious decision. Bottom line- Iran had to buy all-Boeing to have a shot at getting new aircraft if anyone with an R by their name won the White House in 2016.

So a US technicality destroys effort to reabilitate a once great country? What does Trump's approval rating realy have to do with a foreign matter? And what does the average american (or european ...) understand about Iran?
Trump may be popular in USA, but he is also antagonising the rest of the world including his usual alies.
And to be clear, the american way to solve this middle east crisis is to bully an entire contry to buy american and nothing else?

mig17 wrote:

QXAS wrote:

The misunderstanding of the American governmental system is astounding. First off, the deal wasn’t a legal treaty to begin with. Obama couldn’t even get his own party to go with it, much less convert the 20ish Republican Senators necessary for the deal to be a treaty. Therefore calling the deal a treaty is a misconception and one that has caused a lot of needless debate here.
Second, if Iran had been smart they would have gone all Boeing. Europe wasn’t going to go back on the deal from the beginning, and Trump blatantly said in a debate that Iran ordering Airbus was a slap in the face to America and he would correct it. With the momentum that he had when Iran ordered Airbus, it wasn’t a smart decision on the off chance he gets elected. If Iran currently had 400 Boeing on order, Trump would likely be willing to deal. 100 or so aircraft that haven’t even been booked as orders is nothing relative to Boeing’s backlog. The US always had the highest chance of backing out because we didn’t actually approve it. Iran needed to play to that to have them on our good side as much as possible.
Trump’s approval rating is climbing rapidly, so whether or not NOKO was his doing or pulling out of the Iran deal the right decision, he is on the path to reelection and 57% of the country in a recent CNN poll believe the country is moving in the right direction.
3 months ago Trump was starting a nuclear war with NOKO, now there’s peace on the table, and possibly, unity across the Korean Peninsula. Many other ‘Trump Doomsday’ predictions have also been unfounded. So before determining an EU trade war to be iminent remember that the USA is a vital trade partner with the EU, certainly moreso than Iran. EU lawmakers, if they’re as smart and “for the people” as this forum claims, will not retaliate. Iran isn’t that important. In addition, Airbus wouldn’t sacrifice their momentum in the US and other US aligned nations where they dominate (Latin America) to teach Trump a lesson. Airbus has a lot more potential for orders in the US sphere of influence than in Iran.
To those of you saying not selling planes to Iran is like Trump lining up 150 Iranians on a wall and gunning them down, remember that a large amount of Americans (probably a majority) saw the Iran deal as Obama lining up 10 million Americans against a wall and vaporizing them. For the POTUS, that’s a pretty obvious decision. Bottom line- Iran had to buy all-Boeing to have a shot at getting new aircraft if anyone with an R by their name won the White House in 2016.

So a US technicality destroys effort to reabilitate a once great country? What does Trump's approval rating realy have to do with a foreign matter? And what does the average american (or european ...) understand about Iran?
Trump may be popular in USA, but he is also antagonising the rest of the world including his usual alies.
And to be clear, the american way to solve this middle east crisis is to bully an entire contry to buy american and nothing else?

It's not a mere technicality. The US Senate is not just a rubber stamp for treaties.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

QXAS wrote:

The misunderstanding of the American governmental system is astounding. First off, the deal wasn’t a legal treaty to begin with. Obama couldn’t even get his own party to go with it, much less convert the 20ish Republican Senators necessary for the deal to be a treaty. Therefore calling the deal a treaty is a misconception and one that has caused a lot of needless debate here.
Second, if Iran had been smart they would have gone all Boeing. Europe wasn’t going to go back on the deal from the beginning, and Trump blatantly said in a debate that Iran ordering Airbus was a slap in the face to America and he would correct it. With the momentum that he had when Iran ordered Airbus, it wasn’t a smart decision on the off chance he gets elected. If Iran currently had 400 Boeing on order, Trump would likely be willing to deal. 100 or so aircraft that haven’t even been booked as orders is nothing relative to Boeing’s backlog. The US always had the highest chance of backing out because we didn’t actually approve it. Iran needed to play to that to have them on our good side as much as possible.
Trump’s approval rating is climbing rapidly, so whether or not NOKO was his doing or pulling out of the Iran deal the right decision, he is on the path to reelection and 57% of the country in a recent CNN poll believe the country is moving in the right direction.
3 months ago Trump was starting a nuclear war with NOKO, now there’s peace on the table, and possibly, unity across the Korean Peninsula. Many other ‘Trump Doomsday’ predictions have also been unfounded. So before determining an EU trade war to be iminent remember that the USA is a vital trade partner with the EU, certainly moreso than Iran. EU lawmakers, if they’re as smart and “for the people” as this forum claims, will not retaliate. Iran isn’t that important. In addition, Airbus wouldn’t sacrifice their momentum in the US and other US aligned nations where they dominate (Latin America) to teach Trump a lesson. Airbus has a lot more potential for orders in the US sphere of influence than in Iran.
To those of you saying not selling planes to Iran is like Trump lining up 150 Iranians on a wall and gunning them down, remember that a large amount of Americans (probably a majority) saw the Iran deal as Obama lining up 10 million Americans against a wall and vaporizing them. For the POTUS, that’s a pretty obvious decision. Bottom line- Iran had to buy all-Boeing to have a shot at getting new aircraft if anyone with an R by their name won the White House in 2016.

So a US technicality destroys effort to reabilitate a once great country? What does Trump's approval rating realy have to do with a foreign matter? And what does the average american (or european ...) understand about Iran?
Trump may be popular in USA, but he is also antagonising the rest of the world including his usual alies.
And to be clear, the american way to solve this middle east crisis is to bully an entire contry to buy american and nothing else?

It's not a mere technicality. The US Senate is not just a rubber stamp for treaties.

You are right, but the signature of a two time elected US president and autorites from all the UN permanant concil plus Germany and of course Iran isn't nothing either and Trump throw it all out the window on his own.

mig17 wrote:

So a US technicality destroys effort to reabilitate a once great country? What does Trump's approval rating realy have to do with a foreign matter? And what does the average american (or european ...) understand about Iran?
Trump may be popular in USA, but he is also antagonising the rest of the world including his usual alies.
And to be clear, the american way to solve this middle east crisis is to bully an entire contry to buy american and nothing else?

My friend, what you call a "technicality", we call the United States Constitution and the rule of law.
"D" or "R" is of no matter to me. Substitute Obama, Bush 41 or 43, Clinton, any of them all way the back to George Washington,
the answer is the same. That's why we have elections, and for the most part, respect the result.

mig17 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

So a US technicality destroys effort to reabilitate a once great country? What does Trump's approval rating realy have to do with a foreign matter? And what does the average american (or european ...) understand about Iran?
Trump may be popular in USA, but he is also antagonising the rest of the world including his usual alies.
And to be clear, the american way to solve this middle east crisis is to bully an entire contry to buy american and nothing else?

It's not a mere technicality. The US Senate is not just a rubber stamp for treaties.

You are right, but the signature of a two time elected US president and autorites from all the UN permanant concil plus Germany and of course Iran isn't nothing either and Trump throw it all out the window on his own.

In the United States, it means absolutely nothing. It’s all about checks and balances. It’s what prevents a lame duck president, such as Obama, from makin treaties harmful to the country. Obama or Trumps signature to abide by a treaty without congressional approval means nothing. And it should mean nothing to Iran and the rest of the world. Agree with that or not, that’s how it is. It’s not the US bullying the world, it’s a nationalist government protecting national interests. The POTUS’ job is to “defend and protect the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic”. Pulling out of a treaty made unconstitutionally due to being without senatorial approval is well within that description. Like it or not, that’s how the American system works. Clearly the administration saw something from Iran indicating that remaining in the deal did not protect and defend. The Obama signature of the deal had nothing protecting it because of how Obama forced it through. Therefore Trump has the same power to revoke the signature without congressional approval.

QXAS wrote:

Trump’s approval rating is climbing rapidly, so whether or not NOKO was his doing or pulling out of the Iran deal the right decision, he is on the path to reelection and 57% of the country in a recent CNN poll believe the country is moving in the right direction.

To say his approval rating is "climbing rapidly" would be a gross exaggeration; he is still the most unpopular President in modern times. Considering how low it was, it really didn't have anywhere else to go. His party has suffered greatly in all the recent special elections, so let's see how this fall's elections come out before crowing about his new-found popularity.

leghorn wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... ay-for-now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... llout.html
Iran says they will ‘continue’ spending for ballistic missles. You think they are developing ballistic missiles and no nuclear warhead to go with it. They’ve been provocative prior to and post nuclear accord. The Iranian regime doesn’t want peace.

You said they were violating the treaty. The links you provide don't say that or anything close to it.
Ballistic Missiles are used for a variety of purposes and are regularly used by Countries including the U.S. for striking targets. The payload doesn't have to be and almost always isn't Nuclear. This is a country which was in a war with its neighbour where 1 million lost their lives. They need missiles for their own defence if there was another war like that and if fighting their direct neighbours they will not be loading a nuclear payload as the radioactive fallout respects no borders or boundaries.

Restrictions on missiles were never a part of the agreement; that is a red herring that is being thrown out by opponents who will never accept the fact that Iran has been living up to its end of the bargain. The fact is: Netanyahu has played him like a fiddle, albeit with support from Adelson and his cash promises, and Bolton and his ilk from the let's-bomb'Iraq-first-and-see-what-happens crowd. All the international agencies and inspectors agree that they have honored the agreement; it will be the USA that goes down as being an untrustworthy party.

QXAS wrote:

The Obama signature of the deal had nothing protecting it because of how Obama forced it through. Therefore Trump has the same power to revoke the signature without congressional approval.

The "Obama signature" is most likely the main reason Trump cancelled the deal; he has already shown that he just can't stand being compared (negatively, by all but the most biased - or racist - observers ) to his predecessor, and has gone out of his way to destroy anything beneficial that happened under Obama's presidency.

bob75013 wrote:

MODS SHUT THE THREAD DOWN.
It has degenerated into political B.S.

To which you have contributed the most B.S.

nine4nine wrote:

socialist pacifist leader of Germany.

Her political party is the CDU, not the SPD? That's not a socialist party although they would be more to the left of what U.S. Republicans or Democrats would consider the middle. If you want to troll then slip in to the character of a Trump supporter and own it, not a half-ar$ed caricature of a Good Ol' Boy.

Sorry guys, but the number one contributor of state sponsored terror, Iran, should not and can not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. You guys don’t get it. Iran won’t use it themselves. What they’ll do is sell or give a weapon to radical group and let that group claim responsibility. Iran doesn’t want peace making the statements they make, for example Israel should be wiped off the map, etc.

And for them to continue to pursue long range ICBMs means they are intending to use nuclear weapons, period. That’s why their comments were so telling in regards to continuing to invest in missile systems. They simply are playing the West. No I don’t believe for a minute they will outright lob a nuke at the West or anybody, but I believe they will attach it to a missile system and hand it over to someone else to do it. Absolutely. They routinely arm terrorist organizations. Most recently Yemeni rebels against the Saudis.

That's the narrative the powers that be have decided to go with. Uncritical minds will accept it.

tommy1808 wrote:

Planeyguy wrote:

Why do people think that EU would risk trade with the US over Iran? .

Because they where perfectly willing to do the same over Cuba? Why do people think the EU would allow the US, or anyone else, to decide who EU companies can or can not sell their products too?

Then why don't I see European cars or planes in Cuba? Shouldn't Cuba be doing fine if they are receiving so much trade from the EU? Last time I check they were still in the 60s with Soviet planes. So just because the EU don't agree with what the US is doing they would risk a trade war with the US? They would sacrifice one of their largest markets for a country that they themselves sanction too in the past. You are assuming that the US wouldn't enforce any sanctions on EU companies.

subramak1 wrote:

dz09 wrote:

I think Boeing and Airbus will be fine. Trump is only doing what he thinks is good for the interests of the US. the consequence of this will be higher oil prices which is going to be good for the global economy. I also think that Iran will be forced to reconsider its policies and come to its senses just like North Korea is doing.

I expect Saudi and the UAE to absorb the orders placed by Iran.

Higher oil prices are not good for US customers first or customers anywhere. They are only good for oil producing countries. You obviously don't remember the difficulties from 1973 oil embargo or from the 2007 oil price highs. This deal was negotiated painstakingly with multiple partners to assume that Iran took 6 smart nations for a ride is too hard to believe.

We will see where this lands

Subu

Guess who is becoming the world's largest oil producer? The only need for inpored oil right now is supply chain constraints getting it to the coasts. They are currently building a pipeline across Arkansas to directly feed the Memphis refinery and get off the rails, reducing transport cost. America has more natural gas than it knows what to do with. America got it's Energy independence on in the last decade.

patineta89 wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

leghorn wrote:

source. reputable source please, not paraphrasing or your perceived interpretation of what was reported.

http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... ay-for-now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... llout.html

Iran says they will ‘continue’ spending for ballistic missles. You think they are developing ballistic missiles and no nuclear warhead to go with it. They’ve been provocative prior to and post nuclear accord. The Iranian regime doesn’t want peace.

Let's face it, no country wants to develop its nuclear arsenal to attack. It is simply a deterrent weapon.
The moment Iran, and as a matter of fact, ANY country in the world would use a nuke in an offensive war, that country would be immediately wiped out of the map by a rain of nukes. No, Iran will not start shooting nukes to NY or LA. It would be the end of Iran.
What the US clearly doesn't want is a country as powerful as Iran having a say in a region of the world that the US considers its geopolitics playground. Oil, oil, and more oil is the issue. The moment they have nuclear capability, they have a say in regional matters.

It is basically inevitable that Iran develops its nuclear program. Nuclear capabilities development by more and more countries is an expected chain reaction started with the US in the 40's
If US has it, USSR had to have it too.
If USSR has it, France and UK had to get them also.
If US and USSR have it, China needs it too.
If China has it, India needs it, which in turn forces Pakistan to have it too.
If Israel has them, of course, Iran has to have them also. No brainer.
Next?
If Iran has it, Saudi Arabia will develop them also.
And so on...

About Boeing and Airbus orders, I don't understand how selling civil aircraft to Iran to fly around safely their common people (who are completely clueless and voiceless of any ballistic missile program), would in any form or shape help them develop nuclear weapons specially considering that all those involved in the development of those weapons for sure fly in military planes, not civilian.
Also, if it's such a concern for any nation that those billions of $$ that Iran got back are invested in weapons, why not make sure they're invested in Boeings and Buses?

I'd be more concerned about Saudi having nukes. If the al Saud family is overthrown, they might turn their eyes on Iran and Israel, though I think Iran is a bigger threat to Israel. I don't see either as a direct threat to the U.S. other than the fact we will step into any conflict Israel is involved in. As long as the current political climate exists, Iran's like;y going to be continuing to fly aircraft that in other countries would have been parked years ago.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

dz09 wrote:

I think Boeing and Airbus will be fine. Trump is only doing what he thinks is good for the interests of the US. the consequence of this will be higher oil prices which is going to be good for the global economy. I also think that Iran will be forced to reconsider its policies and come to its senses just like North Korea is doing.

I expect Saudi and the UAE to absorb the orders placed by Iran.

Higher oil prices are not good for US customers first or customers anywhere. They are only good for oil producing countries. You obviously don't remember the difficulties from 1973 oil embargo or from the 2007 oil price highs. This deal was negotiated painstakingly with multiple partners to assume that Iran took 6 smart nations for a ride is too hard to believe.

We will see where this lands

Subu

Guess who is becoming the world's largest oil producer? The only need for inpored oil right now is supply chain constraints getting it to the coasts. They are currently building a pipeline across Arkansas to directly feed the Memphis refinery and get off the rails, reducing transport cost. America has more natural gas than it knows what to do with. America got it's Energy independence on in the last decade.

So why are gas prices creeping up? Airlines have cited higher fuel costs in their financial earnings reports. I get gas for my truck at one place for fuel points and credit card points. While I don't always look, it's up about 15 cents a gallon from a couple months ago when I look at my receipts. Big Oil doesn't want Americans to know were are becoming energy independent. Trouble in the Middle East will guarantee higher prices.

mig17 wrote:

QXAS wrote:

The misunderstanding of the American governmental system is astounding. First off, the deal wasn’t a legal treaty to begin with. Obama couldn’t even get his own party to go with it, much less convert the 20ish Republican Senators necessary for the deal to be a treaty. Therefore calling the deal a treaty is a misconception and one that has caused a lot of needless debate here.
Second, if Iran had been smart they would have gone all Boeing. Europe wasn’t going to go back on the deal from the beginning, and Trump blatantly said in a debate that Iran ordering Airbus was a slap in the face to America and he would correct it. With the momentum that he had when Iran ordered Airbus, it wasn’t a smart decision on the off chance he gets elected. If Iran currently had 400 Boeing on order, Trump would likely be willing to deal. 100 or so aircraft that haven’t even been booked as orders is nothing relative to Boeing’s backlog. The US always had the highest chance of backing out because we didn’t actually approve it. Iran needed to play to that to have them on our good side as much as possible.
Trump’s approval rating is climbing rapidly, so whether or not NOKO was his doing or pulling out of the Iran deal the right decision, he is on the path to reelection and 57% of the country in a recent CNN poll believe the country is moving in the right direction.
3 months ago Trump was starting a nuclear war with NOKO, now there’s peace on the table, and possibly, unity across the Korean Peninsula. Many other ‘Trump Doomsday’ predictions have also been unfounded. So before determining an EU trade war to be iminent remember that the USA is a vital trade partner with the EU, certainly moreso than Iran. EU lawmakers, if they’re as smart and “for the people” as this forum claims, will not retaliate. Iran isn’t that important. In addition, Airbus wouldn’t sacrifice their momentum in the US and other US aligned nations where they dominate (Latin America) to teach Trump a lesson. Airbus has a lot more potential for orders in the US sphere of influence than in Iran.
To those of you saying not selling planes to Iran is like Trump lining up 150 Iranians on a wall and gunning them down, remember that a large amount of Americans (probably a majority) saw the Iran deal as Obama lining up 10 million Americans against a wall and vaporizing them. For the POTUS, that’s a pretty obvious decision. Bottom line- Iran had to buy all-Boeing to have a shot at getting new aircraft if anyone with an R by their name won the White House in 2016.

So a US technicality destroys effort to reabilitate a once great country? What does Trump's approval rating realy have to do with a foreign matter? And what does the average american (or european ...) understand about Iran?
Trump may be popular in USA, but he is also antagonising the rest of the world including his usual alies.
And to be clear, the american way to solve this middle east crisis is to bully an entire contry to buy american and nothing else?

Ah... no. The United States Senate is not a technicality. If a President wants a legacy, he needs to do more than agree with murderous regimes using a "phone and a pen." He needs to present what's called a "treaty" (look it up), and have that treaty ratified by the Senate. That process is outlined in what Americans call the "Constitution." You seem to know about as much about it as does Obama, meaning zero.

Galwayman wrote:

Time to boycott US and Israeli products and remove their visa free travel from Europe . They’re both aggressive nut cases

Good luck with that...

Thread has gone off topic and will be locked