I stopped about the second paragraph.Can you be honest for more than one sentence? This is the basic problem with your posts: you get things wrong and then deny it or deflect instead of admitting it and moving on. Thats why you have zero credibility here.Most of Congress has not read the deal. Does that mean they're not qualified to vote on it?You certainly implied that by citing a poll of Israeli support for a strike. You understand what "imply" means, right?
Yes, I know what the word "imply" means. And no, I didn't imply it.
For the last time, I ask you: have you read the deal, and I mean, all of it?
Because if you have not read it, you are not qualified to be bitching about it?
Of course you implied it. That's obvious.
More weaseling from the chief troll of Planet USMB.
So, you have not read the deal.
Got it.
And I see you are getting personal again.
Do you even have the ability to debate for just two minutes without getting angry at someone?
Can you honestly maintain that this deal, which does not fulfill the administration's opening rules, is good for Israel or the United States?
First, I am going to grant you one point.
Yes, I am somewhat implying that there is a correlation between American Jews supporting the Iran deal and only a plurality, but not a majority, of Israelis supporting a pre-emptive strike against Iran. The correlation comes pretty automatically with Netanyahu's bullish stance on a pre-emptive strike since he is unhappy with the deal. So, yes, I will grant you that.
Now, I asked you a question three or four times, and you refused to answer it.
You are now asking me a question and unlike you, I will answer it right away.
First, the deal does in effect fullfill the administration's opening rules. So, I don't agree with your opening presumption.
As far as Israel itself, neither I nor you live there, so I am not qualified to answer that question. I'll let you speak for yourself.
And though I currently am not in the USA, I am a US citizen and am qualified to answer the middle part of your question:
YES, it is good for the USA.
Even if it kicks the can down the road 15 years, those are 15 years where we do not wage war, at least in Iran.
One less war = one less strain on our economy and less deficit, also less debt.
The reason I keep asking you whether you read the deal or not is simple. I don't think you really know when sanctions would be lifted and under what specific conditions, or what time frame this all is supposed to happen in, amirite?
That being said, should Israel suddenly detect something foul in Iran and decide to launch a pre-emptive strike, as it did in Iraq in, I believe, 1982, I wouldn't stand in their way.
Obama said a nuclear Iran was unacceptable.
Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic
Now a nuclear Iran is acceptable.
The agreement fails to fulfill basic US aims. By that measure alone it is a bad deal.
Additionally we see how well Obama's deals work out. Recall the deal on Syrian chemical weapons was supposed to deprive Syria of chemical weapons. It provided for inspections as well.
Syria not only has chemical weapons, produces chemical weapons, but also uses chemical weapons. Is Obama bombing Syria?
Recall that Obama said Assad had to leave. That was US policy.
Assad must go Obama says - The Washington Post
Have you seen Assad leaving? Has the US done anything to remove him?
No and no.
Obama's foreign policy decisions and agreements are the worst in history.