Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Archers Road said:
Eh?

This makes no sense at all. What is 'Presidential decree' in either France or the USA, and why does it only apply to certain Presidents (ie the ones you don't like)?
Click to expand...
http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/61445/executive-orders-how-a-us-president-can-rule-by-decree

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...forms-new-france-union-protests-a7962141.html

Nope. I am commenting on how people are banging on about Trump while it is OK for others to push policy through bypassing parliament. Something I hear a lot of moaning about these days r.e. Brexit. "Must go through parliament."

Obama, Trump. Should both go through their parliament as should Macron as should Brexit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
Puck said:
I'm half-tempted to wind you up here by saying "Fake News" but that's a bit too Trump-ish for my taste. Let's just say I think you're over-stating this. It's far from established fact that Iran has recently been working hard to create nuclear weapons.

As reported in the Guardian (link), in 2015 the IAEA (the UN's nuclear inspectors) "judged that substantial work on nuclear weapons development ceased in 2003, and that there was no evidence of weapons research after 2009." The IAEA has recently (1st May) released a statement quoting that same report from 2015.

Also worth noting that the US's own intelligence agencies didn't believe in 2007 (link) or 2012 (link) that Iran was trying to try develop a nuclear weapon.

Of course on the other side Israel does believe Iran has been working hard to develop nuclear weapons and Mossad is a formidable organisation... but then Israel also claims Iran is "cheating" on the existing deal and it should be torn up.
Click to expand...

But the Guardian is fake news. They put an article up a few years back supposedly from Owen Jones saying that Labour should be championing leaving the EU. Must be fake. Surely.
 
Puck said:
You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see this. I think Ian Hislop summed it up quite nicely on HIGNFY last night when he said something like "Of course it's a bad deal. Everyone knew that. This very complex deal between Iran and the rest of the world is really simple - we give them a shedload of cash and they don't blow us up with weapons."
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time on this one. You are debating with people who all agree "A bad deal is better than no deal." They've been saying this for ages becuase their leaders say it so they repeat it.
 
Onionman said:
In which case, why did the west bother to create Stuxnet to damage Iranian uranium enrichment (read up on it, fantastic tale), released around 2009/10?

And as for the money side of it, allowing Iran to trade again is a good thing, surely? You don't kill people with whom you do business.

Vin
Click to expand...

Unless you are Saudi training up Jihadi's
 
ImpSaint said:
You are wasting your time on this one. You are debating with people who all agree "A bad deal is better than no deal." They've been saying this for ages becuase their leaders say it so they repeat it.
Click to expand...


You seem to be struggling today Imps. You should be happy; Saints are still in the PL, Imps are in the play-offs, the Tories are still in government, and Brexit is turning into the car crash leave voters claim they always wanted, so what's the problem?
 
Archers Road said:
You seem to be struggling today Imps. You should be happy; Saints are still in the PL, Imps are in the play-offs, the Tories are still in government, and Brexit is turning into the car crash leave voters claim they always wanted, so what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Damn, does that mean we are stuck with Pellegrino then?
 
Onionman said:
In which case, why did the west bother to create Stuxnet to damage Iranian uranium enrichment (read up on it, fantastic tale), released around 2009/10?

And as for the money side of it, allowing Iran to trade again is a good thing, surely? You don't kill people with whom you do business.

Vin
Click to expand...
You'd need to ask them to be certain but I'd say the answer would be that the aim was to make Iran less capable of building a nuclear weapon rather than anything to do with active Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon. While they didn't believe Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon, they were concerned Iran was becoming more capable of developing one and might change their mind and start to pursue such a weapon.

On the economics, there are plenty of situations where people kill those they trade with. The other point is that Iran is highly unlikely to openly attack the USA or UK. It's ultimately a question of balance and Iran has been given a lot of concessions and access to huge sums of money in return for not agreeing not to build a nuclear weapon and allowing some inspections to confirm that. As the independent nuclear inspectors say Iran hasn't really been trying to build a nuclear weapon since 2003 that doesn't seem to me be a particularly good deal. Others will disagree. With a bit of luck they'll offer me a large sum of money if I agree not to join the Pompey Supporters' Club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
Puck said:
You'd need to ask them to be certain but I'd say the answer would be that the aim was to make Iran less capable of building a nuclear weapon rather than anything to do with active Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon. While they didn't believe Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon, they were concerned Iran was becoming more capable of developing one and might change their mind and start to pursue such a weapon.

On the economics, there are plenty of situations where people kill those they trade with. The other point is that Iran is highly unlikely to openly attack the USA or UK. It's ultimately a question of balance and Iran has been given a lot of concessions and access to huge sums of money in return for not agreeing not to build a nuclear weapon and allowing some inspections to confirm that. As the independent nuclear inspectors say Iran hasn't really been trying to build a nuclear weapon since 2003 that doesn't seem to me be a particularly good deal. Others will disagree. With a bit of luck they'll offer me a large sum of money if I agree not to join the Pompey Supporters' Club.
Click to expand...
How is them giving us a lot of money for something they were not going to do anyway not a good deal for us?

Boeing alone is losing a 20bn contract to sell planes to Iran Air.
 
Last edited:
Grenfell Tower:

Me: I saw the tower burn with my own eyes and it was the inflammable cladding that spread the fire killing 72 people. Ban inflammable cladding.

Government: hold umpteen reviews costing millions of pounds over the next few years, do absolutely nothing. Some learned official even said "banning something doesn't ensure that someone won't use it anyway"
 
SaintinSerbia said:
Grenfell Tower:

Me: I saw the tower burn with my own eyes and it was the inflammable cladding that spread the fire killing 72 people. Ban inflammable cladding.

Government: hold umpteen reviews costing millions of pounds over the next few years, do absolutely nothing. Some learned official even said "banning something doesn't ensure that someone won't use it anyway"
Click to expand...
Inflammable cladding is and was banned though, which included the stuff used on the tower. so i'm really confused at what they are getting at.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44148694

Just to clarify the review (not the Government) into Grenfell did not recommend banning inflammable cladding in their findings. The Government were not happy with that and have therefore announced the consultation. They could have done nothing. The quote in SiS's post (or similar) was made by the independent report's author, Dame Judith Hackitt.

Maybe it's difficult for them to just ban the cladding without a recommendation so they are trying to get one.

Just trying to be fair here with the facts available instead of being political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back