Liberal Logic Regarding the Iran Deal

[jwoodie]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The agreement is nice but I couldn't care less.

Note to Iran, build your bomb. That is what nations do and that is the business of no other fucking nation on earth. It's not like Israel asked for permission. No one does, nor needs to.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

 

[jwoodie]

Gee, I even numbered the questions...

 

[jwoodie]

Gee, I even numbered the questions...

Tougher to evade, diffuse, dissemble, disrupt, divert, etc.?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

Given that Republicans have been whining for a war against Iran ever since this century began and that the US has gone to war against nations to both the east and west of Iran Obama must have been talking about what will happen if a Republican wins in 2016.

Oh, and just to prove that is the case the Republicans in Congress have all been threatening that even if this deal with Obama is approved (over their objections) the next Republican president won't adhere to it.

Only question that needs to be answered is why is the OP so woefully ignorant of his party's warmongering and bloodlust in the middle east?

 

[Davros]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

It would be better to say that the agreement is a path towards peace and rejecting that is choosing a path towards war. War is not imminent, but an agreement to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is better for avoiding war than no agreement.

It is not inevitable that Iran will get a bomb after the 10 years. Not at all. There will be more agreements then based on how well this agreement has gone.

It went to the UN and Congress at the same time. Congress wants 60 days to go over it.

Sanctions are not failing. But sanctions hurt them and so lifting sanctions is an incentive for them to stick with the agreement so that sanctions do not have to be re-imposed.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

nobody is whining for a war you idiot

if you knew anything at all about your own messiah you could recall he threatened iran with nuclear destruction as a CANDIDATE running in 2008; saying "i will do EVERYTHING IN MY POWER, and then repeated EVERYTHING, to see that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon

what does everything mean leftard?

 

[bedowin62]

it isnt a path towards peace;

you could kinda guess this, if you arent a brainwashed idiot, when you see Saudi Arabia and Israel agreeing on the matter

 

[bedowin62]

a whole new dynamic; a shift in allegiances is already forming because of the ineptitude of this President

 

[bedowin62]

saudi arabia is talking to HAMAS; more money will be flowing to Sunni-dominated ISIS

 

[bedowin62]

UM NO; lifting sanctions is an incentive to get them to hurry up and finish making the bomb. once they have it the whole thing will be moot

 

[bedowin62]

at least two side deals were made that pretty much trash and render useless the threat of returning to sanctions. but the Left is just playing salesman and doesnt really want to discuss the facts

 

[bedowin62]

a regional arms race is about to start; look for saudi arabia to want its own nuclear bomb

 

[Blackrook]

I am old enough to remember when the Iranian government, in flagrant disregard of the law of diplomacy that even the Communists didn't break, held American diplomats hostage.

How can anyone in his right mind trust such people to honor a treaty?

 

[bedowin62]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

Given that Republicans have been whining for a war against Iran ever since this century began and that the US has gone to war against nations to both the east and west of Iran Obama must have been talking about what will happen if a Republican wins in 2016.

Oh, and just to prove that is the case the Republicans in Congress have all been threatening that even if this deal with Obama is approved (over their objections) the next Republican president won't adhere to it.

Only question that needs to be answered is why is the OP so woefully ignorant of his party's warmongering and bloodlust in the middle east?

funny how more blood is being shed now i the Middle East; less of ours but MUCH MORE of others; and that's ok with you nutjobs on the Left

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

1. Why such urgency..? Obama wanted to get any deal done before he left office.....

2. The sanctions were not failing....in fact we had them over a barrel and could have crushed them further...

3. To further rip up our Constitution....Obama is a one world order marxist muslim...

4. why indeed...? just whose side is Obama on....?

 

[Davros]

it isnt a path towards peace;

you could kinda guess this, if you arent a brainwashed idiot, when you see Saudi Arabia and Israel agreeing on the matter

Israel and definitely not Saudi Arabia are not my compass for what's right and what's wrong.

 

[bedowin62]

it isnt a path towards peace;

you could kinda guess this, if you arent a brainwashed idiot, when you see Saudi Arabia and Israel agreeing on the matter

Israel and definitely not Saudi Arabia are not my compass for what's right and what's wrong.

right and wrong

is that what it's about?

you said it is a path toward peace; it isnt

 

[Davros]

UM NO; lifting sanctions is an incentive to get them to hurry up and finish making the bomb. once they have it the whole thing will be moot

Wrong again. They must follow inspections regime or else sanctions will be brought back.