Perhaps you’re not familiar with the American people. The concern about protecting Israel from Iranian nukes is a far, far bigger issue than protecting Japan and South Korea for Nork nukes.
Perhaps you should further categorize the term “American people”. I am an American person, and my concern for all three is equal.
The American people love trotting out the fallacy of composition. As it happens, you do, too.
I don’t know about the international community, but I’m aware of the domestic community.
It was enough of a concern to the Obama Administration that they invested a great deal of time and energy to negotiate the JCPOA.
I guess the prospect of Iran with nukes isn’t enough of a concern to Republicans to continue the agreement.
Weird that keeping nukes out of the hands of a radical Islamic nation should be more important to Dems than to Republicans, who are perpetually outraged by Muslims. But this whole timeline has gotten so weird that it’s hard to remember what ‘normal’ looks like anymore.
But seriously: why do Republicans want Iran to have nukes? I don’t get it.
I fail to see how I am doing that. You stated “the American People” as though all Americans feel more concerned about Israel being nuked than Japan or South Korea. I am an American Person, and don’t feel more concerned about Israel. Therefore, your statement of “the American People” is incorrect. I simply asked that you change it to state a more restricted group of people.
In a nutshell, that’s pretty much what he said in the CNN interview today. He wants to scuttle the deal in order for the hard fiscal sanctions to be brought back in, limiting Iran’s influence in the M.E., especially in close proximity to Israel, i.e.: Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, etc.
Blow it up and claim they have more…it’d be a risky bluff but if they expect an invasion it might change the calculus.
If they could work out how to smuggle one in, more might be possible, if they want nukes then that seems easier to me than trying to secretly build the whole infrastructure.
Big if obviously
Just because you double down on a fallacy doesn’t mean you’re improving your argument.
What are you talking about? You are generalizing the American People, and I’m telling you that you are wrong. I am not saying ALL American People share my view. I’m saying I don’t share the view that you have subscribed to “the American People”. Thus, you are incorrect to say “The American People”.
Doubling down on your incorrectness doesn’t improve your incorrectness.
Do you think the American people elected Obama in 2008?
They don’t want Iran to have nukes any more than they want there to be a lot of unwanted births out of wedlock. By abortion analogy, it’s like banning abortion *and *opposing contraception *and *also not wanting there to be many unwanted babies - the only way that happens is for there to be no unwanted pregnancy conceptions in the first place.
They want no Iranian nukes, but on American terms. The JCPOA deal is perceived as being “too nice” to Iran (and possibly allowing Iran to cheat and get nukes anyway, but that’s a different issue.) Republicans want Iran to 1) have no nukes, *and *2) get treated harshly in the process *and *3) submit to harsh treatment and obediently refrain from nuke-building.
For clarification, I don’t support either abortion or Iranian nukes, but just making the analogy.
Blow it up where?
North Korea’s regime must feel like a right bunch of nitwits.
Obviously.
Anywhere suitable for such. A tunnel deep underground, or an unmanned ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean, or whatnot.
Well, North Korea surely must be watching this back and forth on Iran, and questioning whether the U.S. is capable of standing by an agreement.
They might pick Tel aviv.
I think the Republican concern is that the negotiated conditions expire. One side believes that upon expiration the Iranians will immediately pull a bomb out of their hat, the other side believes that new negotiations will occur.
But they misrepresent when the restrictions (not conditions!) expire.
I had typed that initially, but chose to leave it as an open question.
Tragic as that would be for Israel, it would yield far more tragic consequences for Iran.
They’ve got plenty of empty land don’t they? Where did N.Korea test theirs?
North Korea didn’t have Israel blowing up all their sites and assassinating their scientists.
My only point was, if they really want a bomb, they’ve got lots of money and probably several countries that would sell them if they thought they could get away with it.
My point is, despite Israel blowing up their nuclear plants and killing their nuclear scientists, Iran chose to pursue a nuclear development program. Why? Perhaps it’s easier and more strategically advantageous than trying to get someone to sell you nuclear weapons.