I don't like it, but it's better than surrender. But we don't have to worry because Obama's a Muslim, right? He would never fight against his own people.
Not going to war isn't surrender. When presented with a problem, there are always more solutions than to do nothing or destroy something. BTW, we've had sanctions on Iran of one form or another for 35 years so you may want to rethink whether sanctions will do much of anything to stop their nuclear ambition.
It is shocking to find out that Iran knows more about how international agreements work and how our gov't works than our own Republican senators. They should be better than this, but are not.
...said the man into the mirror. Your delusion is shown by you continuing to claim that it is Obama refusing to work with Congress when all evidence points to the fact that the only people refusing to work across the aisle over the last 7 years have been Republicans. He was this wise, he tried repeatedly, bending over backward in his attempts, only to be rebuffed at every single turn, since literally day one. It is telling that you are unable to see who deserves the blame for a great many things. Your partisan bias is so strong that it causes you to ignore reality. Reagan negotiated with the USSR, the biggest actual threat (and enemy) this country has ever faced. The indefensible action in this situation is the unprecedented tampering in the President's constitutionally granted treaty negotiating power. Historically, the Congress has only gotten involved at the very END of the process, after negotiations have concluded. Never, not once in our nation's history, has Congress gotten involved in the middle of the process as they have in this instance. But you're such a biased partisan, you're able to ignore unprecedented activities, believing they are SOP because you don't like the President.
You answered your own question about a solution. If sanctions won't work, then we aren't faced with many solution, are we? I think everyone can agree that a deal with Iran without the sunset provision would be the best possible deal. But when it comes down to including the sunset provision or war, you are choosing between two evils. Answer this: which do you think stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
I think the idea that you can prevent developed countries from acquiring certain weapons in an age of rapid technological growth and proliferation by threatening to bomb and/or invade them is doomed to failure because when they call your bluff, you either go to war or lose all credibility. You think the Iranians want to blow up the world and I tend to doubt that, their rhetoric notwithstanding. They want to ensure their safety in the most dangerous region in the world as any country in their position would. If we could negotiate with the Soviet Union we can negotiate with Iran. Answering your question, we negotiate using all the leverage at our disposal.
Who knew... those merry GOP Senator pranksters... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/10/republicans-admit-that-iran-letter-was-a-dumb-idea.html
I was no fan of Obama, he largely ****ed the country…but to side with a genocidal crazy maniac over the country these people swore to serve is insane. Obama rightfully told bibi to suck a dick, and he went crying to the neocons who bent over for more AIPAC money. just read this thread; these people prioritize another country over the one they live in as wel as its support (financially and otherwise), over Americans the irony is this dumbass was funding hamass while the treasonous posters here supported him
