Too lazy to create a new thread, after earlier (IIRC) pointing out this thread has expired?

Yup!
But of course people need a place to vent their spleen... So, consider this an open-ended receptacle.

The guy doesn't seem to have a concept of mutual advantage.

I don't have any problem with someone who is not a traditional politician taking an office but the man can make heads shake. I do not think this modern nonsense of making tweets on the Net is very mature nor progressive. Some of what he comes out with is immature and silly for a man who is meant to be a Head of State.  Obama always running up long plane stairs was another groan and not very good either for a Head. I know America has only a part democracy system but Trump has little dignity and all that stuff with the French President made me groan as does all that European hugging and kissing stuff. Glad when i was in politics non-one did that stuff with me or a sore jaw would follow. 

At one point I tried to be kind of reasonable at who nutjoblanders out in as their leader but the more he goes on the dafter and a groan he is. Thought maybe someone not a routine politician might be a unique and okay change but nope just part and parcel of the daftness taken as normality over the pond. Routine sackings, daft tweets, threats and silly talk. His speech at the Rife lot was so immature and shocking it is no small wonder the country is in the state it is in. Both in Britain and FRrance Trump has been condemned for the immature speech he gave to that lot of brainless eejits.

His stance on Constitution rights, Iran and world issues are head shaking but what does it say about a place that puts in such people??

As for liberals or conservatives elsewhere in the world, it makes little difference who the current president in USA is. USA could just as well be without a president, it would hardly matter.

The US president matters to the world. Not only is this grifter now the third most powerful person in the world (after Xi and Putin, ahead of Merkel, Bezos, and Pope Francis), the power of the US presidency is primarily US foreign policy. The outside world might ignore the damage he is doing to his own country (it is self-inflicted after all, they voted for him), but there is significant collateral damage world-wide. We will all suffer the consequences. 

Indeed. The US diplomatic corps was overall a force for good in the world.  You could almost say that they're currently proactively failing to reach peaceful solutions when and where the option presents itself. How many countries don't have US ambassadors now exactly?

..

Donald Trump announces 'withdrawal'
from Iran Nuclear Deal



Source:    The Telegraph     

Donald Trump pulled America out of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, reimposing sanctions on the regime and delivering on an election campaign promise. 

The US president said the "defective" 2015 agreement would not stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb and signed a presidential memorandum enacting the US withdrawal.

Iran has been accused of failing to be honest about its nuclear ambitions while supporting terrorist groups and acting in an increasingly hostile way across the Middle East.

Britain, France and Germany condemned the move in a joint statement and promised to stay within the nuclear agreement claiming that it was the only way to prevent a Middle-Eastern nuclear arms race.

However, the White House announcement was welcomed by Israel - which released new intelligence on Iran's nuclear programme last week - and several Arab nations.

Mr Trump said: "It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

"The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen.

"In just a short period of time the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapon.

"Therefore I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal."

The US president added: "Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States."

Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, warned that if negotiations with other partners to the deal failed then the country's uranium programme will restart.

Shortly after the announcement, there were widespread reports of an explosion in Syria, possibly the result of an Israeli strike on Iranian forces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least nine pro-government fighters were killed, including members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The decision to reimpose sanctions raises fears that European companies who trade with the Iranian government and do business in America could be hit with sanctions.

Mr Trump has long been a critic of the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed by his predecessor Barack Obama and lifted sanctions in turn for the country's nuclear programme being curbed. Mr Obama criticised the decision as a "mistake".

Mr Trump said he was open to striking a new, wider deal with Iran that would address behaviour such as the country's ballistic missiles programme and involvement in Syria and Yemen.

The US president said he wanted a "real, comprehensive and lasting solution" that would thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.

He also made clear he was delivering on a 2016 election campaign pledge, saying: "The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them."

The re-imposition of sanctions will come into effect between three and six months from now. It includes sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the country's central bank, and Iranian businesses.

European companies with significant presences in the US could be caught up if they do not curtail business in Iran before the sanctions come into effect.

Some of them were exploring ways to continue doing business in Iran after making significant investments following the announcement of the nuclear deal three years ago.

The UK, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they "regret" the decision and making clear they would remain in the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The statement said: "Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement."

It went on: "We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements."

EU leaders are expected to meet within days to discuss how the deal can be rescued. Mr Rouhani, the president of Iran, said Iran would stay in the nuclear deal for now but was prepared to return to enriching uranium if its interests were not preserved.

He denounced Mr Trump's speech as "psychological warfare" against Iran but said his country would not bow to pressure. "Our people have always been victorious in the face of conspiracies and we will also emerge victorious at this juncture."

But he warned: "I have ordered Iran's atomic organisation that whenever it is needed, we will start enriching uranium more than before."

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister and a leading critic of the Iran deal, said Mr Trump had made a "brave and correct decision" to withdraw from the agreement.

"Israel fully supports President Trump's bold decision today to reject the disastrous nuclear deal," Mr Netanyahu said in a speech moments after Mr Trump's address.

The Israeli leader has consistently warned that the deal would pave the way for Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons and called the agreement a "recipe for disaster".

Shortly before Mr Trump's speech, Israel's military said it had detected "irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria" and ordered Israelis on the Golan Heights to ready their bomb shelters.

Israeli officials have been saying for several weeks that they expected Iran to retaliate for a suspected Israeli strike against the T4 airbase in Syria, which killed seven Iranians. 

IMHO, the original deal was defective to it's core, & didn't hinder the Iranians from advancing their ambitions one bit.

The President made the right call, & will seek to force a better deal on Iran.

If Europe can't understand that, they can collectively piss up a rope, the US President is not going to backpedal due to Europe's piss-poor protest. 

Europe should remember which side their bread is buttered on, & after they get over their latest "hissy-fit", they should stand up strongly behind the USA, & help force Iran back to the table to sign a more equitable & accountable Nuclear arms agreement, not the porous deal they laughingly penned with the former Vacillator-in-Chief, Barrack Hussein Obama. 

"Most powerful person in the world" or "overall a force for good^[1] in the world" happens regardless who the president is. The United States is a country whose policies just happen, this is why I say the president does not matter. Do not overestimate him.

For example, Trump is obviously incompetent. The proof is all over the place, yet the country is not collapsing. If it were up to the president, the US should be in ruins by now. There is something else holding the country up, regardless of the president.

When W and Al Gore were running, I heard some people say that W would be better, because Gore's running mate had a Jewish name, so Gore would probably be too pro-Israel and likely to start a war or something. Now we know what wars W started. And I would not lay those wars only on W. USA starts wars at regular intervals. When there is no war for a while, you can be sure that USA will start one. That's why it had to happen during W's era regardless of the president.

As to Iran, USA has been making it worse all the time. W's wars surrounded Iran. This is the worst pressure possible on a country. Whoever says that Iran should be pressured even more must be meaning war directly against Iran and is therefore out of his mind.

¹ Easily disputable adjective. For example, everything that is bad and evil in the Middle East this century is directly the fault of USA.↵

It is awkward when your oldest classmate gets hit by a stone and becomes brain damaged. He was always a little fickle, but now he is unstable and stupid.

The Iran affair was utterly predictable. Sooner or later Trump would run out of advisers to constrain him, here and elsewhere. What I hope European leaders would do is to play the long game, though they would probably go for the quick fix if they can. There could be an "improved" and renamed Gold-Plated Trump-Is-Such-A-Master-Negotiator Iran deal for instance, and there would be much rejoicing in the White House.

Predictable or not, it is lousy timing. The one positive outcome that would normally be a boon, a weakened Iranian regime with internal strife, would not be be one in today's Extended Middle East (a chastened one could though), while all the other, negative, consequences will be amplified.

"Most powerful person in the world" or "overall a force for good^[1] in the world" happens regardless who the president is. The United States is a country whose policies just happen, this is why I say the president does not matter. Do not overestimate him.

That's the way things should be in a proper country. While not a guarantee for success, the opposite would be a very strong indicator that we're looking at a deeply dysfunctional country. Indeed, we're talking about a long-term trend going back two or three decades (including under Obama). Yet the sheer scale and speed with which the Trump administration has dismantled American diplomacy is still something special.

Easily disputable adjective. For example, everything that is bad and evil in the Middle East this century is directly the fault of USA.

Diplomacy is fraught with nasty compromises, executed by flawed human beings. But when I say that American diplomacy is overall a force for good it's not necessarily the most relevant counter-example to bring up a US administration that sidelined diplomacy and randomly went to war. Diplomacy is a large but not the only part of foreign policy.

Diplomacy is fraught with nasty compromises, executed by flawed human beings. But when I say that American diplomacy is overall a force for good it's not necessarily the most relevant counter-example to bring up a US administration that sidelined diplomacy and randomly went to war. Diplomacy is a large but not the only part of foreign policy.

The problem here is that you seem to see diplomacy as one aspect of foreign policy and war as another. Europeans tend to shun wars a bit now post-WWII, which is nice of us, but inapplicable to USA.

USA's foreign policy does not see any distinction. Diplomacy and war are both equally viable options in their foreign policy, and foreign policy is always directed to promote US international trade objectives. It says so in Kissinger's Diplomacy. No matter who the US president is, Trump or Hillary, s/he goes by that book.

There could be an "improved" and renamed Gold-Plated Trump-Is-Such-A-Master-Negotiator Iran deal for instance, and there would be much rejoicing in the White House.

I won't hold my breath. Iran is on the war list like there was Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Sudan.

Trump is only a lousy actor (clown) playing the part he has to. The script for the part (future wars and humanitarian bombings) was written by others years ago... 

March 2007, General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

All diplomacy is a continuation of wars by other means. The US administration is wilfully reducing their capacity to wage that political war, which is stupid of them, and harmful to those whose interests mostly align with the interests of the US. For the US self-inflicted harm seems the rule of their game. This extends to economic warfare. 

That's the second time in as many month Trump has attacked European economic interests, and Trump can ill afford a two-front trade war. The harm EU can do to the US economy neatly complements the harm China can do. However, even if the European powers could, it is unlikely they should. The Trumps will be kicked out one day, while the damage from a global trade war will be lasting. A series of small squeezes would be a better course of action.

This isn't unheard of, of course, you want to corral doubters to your side, "you are with us or against us", and Europe is much more with US than against them. It's pretty transparent, but Europe should play the game as well, taking advantage of the US weakness, and consider what is in European long-term interests. 

The harm EU can do to the US economy neatly complements the harm China can do. However, even if the European powers could, it is unlikely they should.

I disagree a bit here. The EU could and also should harm the USA economically, because the USA has fully deserved it and harms the EU all the time. However, it is unlikely that the EU would, because the EU was always more of a disunion than a union when it comes to any sort of foreign (extra-EU) policy.

...Europe should play the game as well, taking advantage of the US weakness, and consider what is in European long-term interests.

I agree here, but again, it's unlikely that the EU would do it. We saw it just recently: Trump threatened global steel tariffs, some EU member countries (Germany, Sweden, and France in particular) ran to negotiate separate deals with the USA, instead of acting as a union from Svalbard to Malta and Azores to Peipus like they should. The EU is ridiculously brittle.

I won't hold my breath. Iran is on the war list like there was Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Sudan.

Toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran is a US policy goal, and after all it is a horrible regime.  A democratic Iran is desirable  However toppling horrible regimes hasn't worked out so well, and that was for the relatively simple cases. Invading Iran is not on the cards, that's why the regime can harbour the idea of foregoing nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately the way the US is likely to go about this is by strengthening Saudi Arabia, an even worse regime.  However it is a regime that pays well, and those billions have made any qualms go away. SA is losing political clout, oil isn't quite what it used to be, but money still talks, and Saudi money is likely to do more mischief in the future.

I disagree a bit here. The EU could and also should harm the USA economically, because the USA has fully deserved it and harms the EU all the time. However, it is unlikely that the EU would, because the EU was always more of a disunion than a union when it comes to any sort of foreign (extra-EU) policy.

That's what I meant by "if they could, should they?" Of course the EU should protect European interests, complicated by that there is a rather modest EU power, and stronger, but often diverging powers of UK, France, and Germany. In this case the interests converge. Spats and US insanity aside, Europe and US have more in common than in opposition, and more in common than with other partners. It is moving though towards a more open relationship, seeing others, sooner than I had hoped.

Furthermore Europe lives off trade and tourism. We wouldn't benefit by cutting the nose to spite the face. The West, and that includes the US, have in large parts China to thank for our economic boom. The hope is that this can continue even if/after China loses steam, with India and the rest of the once-poor world. We don't want to break that.

So many people hoping EU to decide something. EU will never decide anything, it's role is to survive after other's mistakes.
We don't lead anymore. Let the others kill themselves.Then, Europe's destiny will be fulfilled again.

Never a dull moment with this administration anyways. Finally, a reality TV show I can follow.

So many people hoping EU to decide something. EU will never decide anything, it's role is to survive after other's mistakes.
We don't lead anymore. Let the others kill themselves.Then, Europe's destiny will be fulfilled again.

Not the EU as much as Britain, Germany, France, conveniently called the E3. These are languages with an army, navy and wallet, while the rest of EUs mostly add diversity and a trading block. With Brexit the E3 becomes slightly more complicated, more like E2+1, and the power play becomes slightly more interesting.

Before Brexit the E3 was not only the real power behind EU, they also had a blocking minority. The-rest-of-EUs has 58% of the population, while 65% is needed for a qualified majority. You could get a majority against one E3 power, in principle even two, but not against all three. Now, with Brexit, Britain is out of the voting game. As they do no longer count the-rest-of-EUs now have 66% of the population. So, come 2019, we could come in the position that the EU could vote for something that all of Germany (19%), France (15%), and Britain (0%) were against. I don't know what that could possibly be, but it would be a milestone. 

Before Brexit the E3 was not only the real power behind EU, they also had a blocking minority. The-rest-of-EUs has 58% of the population, while 65% is needed for a qualified majority. You could get a majority against one E3 power, in principle even two, but not against all three. Now, with Brexit, Britain is out of the voting game. As they do no longer count the-rest-of-EUs now have 66% of the population. So, come 2019, we could come in the position that the EU could vote for something that all of Germany (19%), France (15%), and Britain (0%) were against. I don't know what that could possibly be, but it would be a milestone.

Interesting reasoning. If considering the non "E3" are able to get a common position about anything.

I keep believing that "South Union against Northern Union" to be the more desirable way of ruling the EU, considering both realities, not the E3 "we own we decide" position. They don't own it, not at all.

Well the south is less good economical than the north which is more progressive in many ways.

the north which is more progressive in many ways.

Like silly cockroaches. Progressive cockroaches.

But not completely progressive but they do fund the south......

Trump's Ancestral Village Abounds With His Relatives. Few Will Admit It.

KALLSTADT, Germany -- Herbert Trump did not want to talk about it. Neither did Ilse Trump. Ursula Trump, who runs the Trump bakery in the next village, eventually relented, palms upturned, and sighed: "You can't choose your relatives, can you?"

I think I saw that exact same article in Der Spiegel one or two years ago.

That village spends a lot of time neither confirming nor denying.