Six Obama redlines/concessions on the Iranian nuke deal

polecat wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.

The problem there is that PkrBum subscribes to a college freshmen brand of libertarianism, which is a school of thought that is generally against war.  That is why I'm curious as to what PkrBum's alternative is to the Iran deal.

Personally, I'm not going to knock a policy unless I'm aware of a better alternative, so I'm curious as to whether or not PkrBum actually has a better alternative in mind, or if his criticism is simply blind, parroted, partisan talking points.

I think we all know what the answer is there, though I wanted to give him the chance to clear that up.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Demssuck wrote:Israel's actions are always defensive and after the fact.

That is your bullshit opinion, PeeDawg.

gatorfan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.

Whatever its real or imagined flaws this treaty was a necessary accomplishment. One would hope that the Iranian people will benefit from easing of sanctions and pressure their government to cease support of terrorist entities and scale back the fanaticism of Islamists. The young folks of Iran want the same things every young person wants - a chance to be a success and live to enjoy it. Hopefully this treaty is a step in the right direction.

2seaoat wrote:The young folks of Iran want the same things every young person wants - a chance to be a success and live to enjoy it. Hopefully this treaty is a step in the right direction.

Probably the most intelligent thing posted on this thread, because it goes to the essence of why diplomacy was the only alternative.