I had no issue with how things were progreasing prior to trump becoming beligerent with him. The way to it was through china, as they are essentially a Chinese client state. That's all gone now though. I don't know where this goes from here, if they don't disarm.
And because they are essentially a Chinese client state how would we isolate him to the point that he would step down? (your desired strategy over diplomacy or assassination). I am also surprised that you were happy with how things were progressing. Murdering people (that is something you specifically pointed out), lobbing missiles towards us, enriching uranium to attach to those missiles, threatening to turn the US to ash, etc.
By pressuring them through china, which was working to a point. There is no immediate magic solution, full scale war would kill millions on the peninsula, as they have artillary to crater Seoul at the drop of a hat. Not even considering nukes.
No. They didn’t. Even if you look past the illegality of Obama signing a treaty which did not pass the US Senate (as that pesky Constitution requires), it still wasn’t working. In fact, between our stupidly giving them $150B and unfreezing their assets, we’ve probably done more to advance their efforts than had we simply done nothing at all. That some liberals dual-pronged policy of “drown it in cash” + “wishful thinking” resulted in only making matters infinitely worse and terribly tragic is about the saddest of tired tropes, at this point. If only it just wasn’t so easily observable and almost always true. Here: Germany, Rubio, Cruz, Cotton...all crazy: But we can inspect their sites! So many inspections! All of the inspections: But, it’d be impossible to know how trustworthy Iran was being in adhering to the deal. It’s not like they just parade their violations down the street in broad daylight. Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wa...15/trump-should-end-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal/
I stopped reading when you falsely referred to the Iran agreement as a treaty in order to say it was unconstitutional. I don't have time to go point by point now, and it looks like there could be a lot of points with that kind of start.
I don't know. Last week 55 billion dollars is committed to help Veterans get better and faster care with less red tape and more common sense, and yesterday we meet with a leader who says we will see a different NK. Same punk was threatening to nuke Guam a couple months ago. Seems like a decent week to me.
You’re tired and slipping. trea·ty ˈtrēdē/ noun a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
If it were a treaty, the senate would have to pass it with a super majority. They didn't, they oversaw it through he iran nuclear agreement act which they passed. If it were a treaty, Trump couldn't have unilaterally ended it.
The last 5 years brought us enriched uranium, missiles that could reach us, threats of our destruction. I was less optimistic about the direction we were heading.
It wasn’t called a treaty in the same way that Obamacare wasn’t a tax. Because he couldn’t have gotten it approved, otherwise, and so he acted unilaterally without Congressional approval. Had be submitted and passed it as a treaty, as it was, Trump couldn’t have simply ended it without the same Congressional permission. If A = B, then B = ?
If it were a treaty, he couldn't have ended it. It's pretty simple. So you're unconstitutional remark would apply equally to Trump.
Hard for me to stomach the photo op with our flags side by side if all we got was a promise to work towards denuclearization.