All of the Republican gasps of horror are more political Obama bashing than based on the content of the agreement. It is a good agreement and it is a lot better than another trillion dollar war.The Republican premise is Iran can’t ever be trusted so let’s bomb them to get our way.
When Europe went to war in 1914, most people cheered their politicians and soldiers on. Then, after the carnage dragged on for years, they cursed their leaders. As the 1930’s brought back the “Germany” problem, NO ONE, except the Germans, wanted a rematch. So desperate were they to avoid another blood-letting, appeasement was given the chance, but only served to prolong the inevitable. .The Iranians DO have legitimate reasons to not like us, but it the Islamic mullahs who are in charge. Islam is a religion, a way of life, that is coalescing and is on the rise. This deal is buying time, but who will benefit most?
The ONLY options for definitively stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons are either DIPOLMACY or START ANOTHER MIDDLE EAST WAR. The same failed losers who got us into two failed wars to enrich their “defense contractor” buddies of the military-industrial complex who profiteer off the deaths and suffering of our heroes again think we should listen to them after they have never ever gotten one single thing right.Fact: this deal includes internationally verifiable and enforceable provisions to ensure that Iran will NOT be able to get a nuclear weapon. The nonsense about 24 days for verification shows that someone (like Netanyahu, who has been pushing that) is either lying outright or does not understand that: a) that is only for previously unidentified sites, to determine validity, not previously known sites which require no advance notice; and b) that nuclear by products cannot be cleaned up in 24 months; the evidence is too intractable and takes too long to remove. The alternative is either to do NOTHING or, worse, start yet another unwinnable Mideast war. And here’s what else Netanyahoo, the Republicans and Faux “News” are not reminding of you. This is an INTERNATIONAL agreement with many of our European allies (England, Germany, France as well as China and Russia). If the U.S. does not participate in this agreement, the international sanctions — which brought Iran to their knees and forced massive concessions — will end. If we wanted to continue those sanctions, they would no longer be international in scope, it would just be the United States acting along which would do nothing. The alternative? Lose the sanctions — and any pressure we now have — so we have zero leverage and then the only thing left is go to war. Good for defen$e contractor$, Not healthy for children and other living things.
Wow. The idiots are out in force. As Obama said, “what’s your alternative?” I’ve heard from three different arms control experts, and unlike the irrational hate-the-president-at-all-costs crowd, they all think that this deal is remarkably good. Without the deal, Iran gets a bomb within a few years, a repeat of North Korea during Bush’s terms. With the deal, it doesn’t. Look at the track record of the people who oppose the deal.
" Today, a deal has been concluded; but it is less good than the deal that could have been reached a decade ago"
Iran was willing to do a whole lot before the US showed just how silly it was invading Iraq, changing the whole dynamic in the region and allowing Iran to see what a paper tiger it was.
To support Chris Patton from your article above, I was looking for a site that would explain the situation shortly after Sept 11th, 2001 and the 2003 Iraqi invasion and found this website (haven’t vouchsafed it but it appears at first glance ok):
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Strategic Consequences for Iran
I’m sure Michael can provide us an excellent link to Stratfor which explains something similar.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member almost 9 years ago
All of the Republican gasps of horror are more political Obama bashing than based on the content of the agreement. It is a good agreement and it is a lot better than another trillion dollar war.The Republican premise is Iran can’t ever be trusted so let’s bomb them to get our way.
bdcharrelson almost 9 years ago
But look at all the money republicans make when we go to war—no wonder they hate peace.
moosemin almost 9 years ago
When Europe went to war in 1914, most people cheered their politicians and soldiers on. Then, after the carnage dragged on for years, they cursed their leaders. As the 1930’s brought back the “Germany” problem, NO ONE, except the Germans, wanted a rematch. So desperate were they to avoid another blood-letting, appeasement was given the chance, but only served to prolong the inevitable. .The Iranians DO have legitimate reasons to not like us, but it the Islamic mullahs who are in charge. Islam is a religion, a way of life, that is coalescing and is on the rise. This deal is buying time, but who will benefit most?
kaffekup almost 9 years ago
This is getting boring. Doesn’t GoComics have any toons representing the other side?
DD Wiz Premium Member almost 9 years ago
The ONLY options for definitively stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons are either DIPOLMACY or START ANOTHER MIDDLE EAST WAR. The same failed losers who got us into two failed wars to enrich their “defense contractor” buddies of the military-industrial complex who profiteer off the deaths and suffering of our heroes again think we should listen to them after they have never ever gotten one single thing right.Fact: this deal includes internationally verifiable and enforceable provisions to ensure that Iran will NOT be able to get a nuclear weapon. The nonsense about 24 days for verification shows that someone (like Netanyahu, who has been pushing that) is either lying outright or does not understand that: a) that is only for previously unidentified sites, to determine validity, not previously known sites which require no advance notice; and b) that nuclear by products cannot be cleaned up in 24 months; the evidence is too intractable and takes too long to remove. The alternative is either to do NOTHING or, worse, start yet another unwinnable Mideast war. And here’s what else Netanyahoo, the Republicans and Faux “News” are not reminding of you. This is an INTERNATIONAL agreement with many of our European allies (England, Germany, France as well as China and Russia). If the U.S. does not participate in this agreement, the international sanctions — which brought Iran to their knees and forced massive concessions — will end. If we wanted to continue those sanctions, they would no longer be international in scope, it would just be the United States acting along which would do nothing. The alternative? Lose the sanctions — and any pressure we now have — so we have zero leverage and then the only thing left is go to war. Good for defen$e contractor$, Not healthy for children and other living things.
ARodney almost 9 years ago
Wow. The idiots are out in force. As Obama said, “what’s your alternative?” I’ve heard from three different arms control experts, and unlike the irrational hate-the-president-at-all-costs crowd, they all think that this deal is remarkably good. Without the deal, Iran gets a bomb within a few years, a repeat of North Korea during Bush’s terms. With the deal, it doesn’t. Look at the track record of the people who oppose the deal.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
It’s a good deal, and they have far more cause to distrust us and our “key ally”, than we them.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 9 years ago
" Today, a deal has been concluded; but it is less good than the deal that could have been reached a decade ago"
Iran was willing to do a whole lot before the US showed just how silly it was invading Iraq, changing the whole dynamic in the region and allowing Iran to see what a paper tiger it was.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 9 years ago
To support Chris Patton from your article above, I was looking for a site that would explain the situation shortly after Sept 11th, 2001 and the 2003 Iraqi invasion and found this website (haven’t vouchsafed it but it appears at first glance ok):
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Strategic Consequences for Iran
I’m sure Michael can provide us an excellent link to Stratfor which explains something similar.