Do you agree with H.Action that “proposing a military-strikes-now action during a period of Iranian compliance…” is reasonable? Why would anyone classify that bad policy as reasonable?
You have not yet caught on. It should not be that difficult. The Senate does not have to approve an international deal between Iran and the EU, Russia, Australia, Canada, India, and China, Argentina, South Africa, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan etc. for it to happen. What makes you think that it does?
The ACA is beginning to provide political rewards for its proponents. And now its getting harder to find those ‘plenty of Democrats’ who are angry at needing to explain why its a good thing to relax sanctions on Iran? For reasonable people it needs no explanation why forging a deal rather than bombing Iran is a good thing.
Read more: Senate Democrats Back Off Iran Sanctions Vote | HuffPost Latest News
‘Reasonable’ doesn’t mean ‘your opinions’, so no, it doesn’t mean the same to me as it does to you.
There is great dissent within the country. So much so the government is looking for incoming cash flow. Given the unrest in Egypt, Libya and other countries the world is in a position to bring down the Government without firing a shot.
You said: 'The US Senate would be seen as a bunch of warmongering fools" for increasing sanctions. Maybe it’s that whole English language thing you seem to have a problem with but words mean things. Sanctions do not equal war so maybe you could find different words to string together to make a sentence that doesn’t need translating.
What’s considered “great”? And given the models of democracy we’ve had in other ME countries, what makes you think that it will be a group of westernized youth that will be the new rulers? Whatever new regime comes into power in a hypothetical Iran of the future will include some form of undesirables. I’m saying that the chances are too great that it will turn out like Pakistan or Iraq so having the mullahs be in charge now is preferable to that uncertainty
The problem is “THE WORLD” is not interested in 'bringing down the Government *(even if could be done) *without firing a shot" as you and John Bolton and as some of the 'Saboteur Senators" are. You and Bolton are not the WORLD. Sorry if you think you are.
The World is interested in being certain that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. They can do that without firing a shot.
If the current negotiations continue and Iran cooperates fully with inspectors then there is no way that more sanction are going to be enacted and those already in place will be lifted.
You will never get the “WORLD” to come together as they have to implement sanctions as they have the past five years to get the results we are now getting.
And does your idea that the WORLD would not have to fire a shot… assumes that the regime in Iran will fall to protesters without firing a shot at them? Do the protesters or opposition have weapons to shoot back?
42 Republican Senators hung out to dry for being the war mongering fanatics they are. Now even AIPAC opposes their attempts to sabotage a peaceful deal.
For the umpteenth time, sanctions aren’t war.
For the umpteenth time plus one - i am not saying that sanctions are or equals or means war. And for the love of Jesus I have explained as many times why a US Senator is mongering for war by demanding a vote for future sanctions during a period when Iran has softened and acquiesced to existing sanctions already in place, could result in destroying the means to peaceful resolution and therefore leave war as the only remaining viable option.
And now even AIPAC agrees with the peace makers in the White House and not the warmongers in the Senate.
And I celebrate that organization’s support for peace and our president on this issue.
Speaking of Jesus, I’m certain he wept after reading those two sentences. You want to say they are warmongers by calling for sanctions, but sanctions don’t mean war. As is usual, you want it both ways.
If sanctions don’t mean war, then calling for sanctions can’t mean calling for war.
I hate to have to keep telling you this, but A = A.
Nope you recite what I wrote without the full context. I have no idea why you can’t click on what I wrote and respond to that. Here’s what Im saying in full.
“… a US Senator is mongering for war by demanding a vote for future sanctions during a period when Iran has softened and acquiesced to existing sanctions already in place.”
and passing that Bill/Resolution could result in destroying the means to peaceful resolution and therefore leave war as the only remaining viable option." Sanctions are not a means to war. Passing a bill at this time is a provocation and therefore an act that could likely aggravate a war/military strikes.
And Republicans now stand pretty much alone as warmongering fools. Good for them for removing all doubt that they are fools. Not even AIPAC backs their extremely dumb idea that could provoke a war.
Reported.