Tyndmyr wrote:A couple of dozen injuries on that day is not unexpected, given the rate at which they are happening.
Dozens of people have died today
. Thousands injured today
. This is a direct result of Trump's decision. This amount of deaths and shots fired is not par for the course.
Ah, understood. It was indeed deadlier than usual at the Gaza border. That said, the situation there is an ongoing situation. Washington Post and other news organizations have been running stories about mass shooting at the Gaza border for a while now. Here's one from before the whole embassy thing. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-palestine-gaza-march-of-return-protest-deaths-a8292601.html
Over a thousand injuries(and a bunch of deaths) in a single day. And that's in early april. Looks like it started March 30th.
Is that because they were pre-emptively reacting to the embassy opening? Or was it a delayed reaction to the Dec announcement of said opening?
There's some connection, in that the announcement is definitely symbolic support for the Israeli side, but calling it a direct result of Trump's decision is a reach. I mean...Trump didn't even make the original change. He simply stopped delaying it. I think it's highly likely that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict was going to light up anyways, regardless of Trump. Ultimately, the goals of the two groups just are at odds, and they're willing to use violence. So, the conflict is sort of inevitable. Israel having way, way more capacity to inflict violence, the results are obvious.
cphite wrote:But see, here's the problem... and please understand from the start, this is not an endorsement of Trump pulling the plug on this thing, but rather an observation of why he can pull the plug.
The Iran deal isn't an actual treaty, and it technically isn't even a formal agreement; it's basically nothing more than a political commitment by the Obama administration to adhere to the guidelines set forth. The other nations involved might have differing opinions in regards to their own (and even our) legal obligations; but as far as US law is concerned, the deal doesn't even carry the weight of an executive order; and there is no international law that exists that obligates the US (or any other country) to adhere to a political commitment, especially one made by a previous administration. You can argue that it's politically a bad idea to leave the agreement, that it's unjustified, and even that it's utterly stupid; but it's not illegal.
Absolutely. Obama never got the Senate to sign off on it. Without that, it's nothing more than an administration priority, not actual law. And I'm not overly surprised that Trump doesn't share the Obama administrations priorities.
Obama was very optimistic concerning his legacy, and didn't really believe that his legacy would be Trump. Not a lot of other people thought it would be either, so his mis-estimation wasn't very unusual. But hey, that's politics.
CorruptUser wrote:But you didnt say you would paint your mate's house, you said the guy you sold your house to will paint your mate's house.
But if the leader of a nation is just speaking personally that makes the word of a democracy worthless. When the leader of a nation makes a promise he is speaking as the representative of that nation, else his word is meaningless, and everything Trump says is meaningless too. Is that really what he (and, by extension America) wants?
*looks at election results* Yeah. Yeah it is. Folks voted in Trump. Clearly, they're not super worried about the next leader upholding Obama's priorities or promises. I don't think one could get a more clear message of not giving a crap about this promise business than by electing Trump. That was the "burn it all down" option, not the "consistent continuation of affairs as they are at present" choice.
freezeblade wrote:The world: "We are pissed that we the US isn't honoring their agreements"
Conservatives: "Well you shouldn't have trusted that agreement, anyway"
The world: "You can't just do that!"
Conservatives: "Don't worry, there will be another agreement later [that will be more beneficial to the USA], trust us."
*The world looks flabbergasted*
If Obama wanted it to be "the US's agreement", there was a way to get that. He didn't do that. So, no, it's just his administration's promise. Legally, it's super clear, and no, you shouldn't be at all surprised that Republicans do not feel bound by Obama's word without legal support. Clinton might have, but it was always blatantly obvious that the Republicans were not in lockstep behind Obama.