09-03-2015, 02:11 PM
(09-03-2015, 08:43 AM)Maggot Wrote: The thing I find comical is that the people that are decrying Christian religious values and the results of laws created in the name of righteousness are the loudest bullhorns for this legislation that identifies with the religious extremists of Islam. Atheists should be the biggest mouthpieces against it.
I agree with this post . . . every word.
I don't believe war was an inevitable conclusion, with Iran, if this agreement (not Treaty) wasn't inked. No credible evidence has been presented to support this claim.
"Anytime, anywhere inspections." was an untruth.
Dono cites examples of the US engaging with "terrorists" almost as a justification to continue this behavior. I oppose many "past polices and attitudes" and hoped this direct and overt capitulation with extreme regimes would end, with this administration.
I view this deal about as effective as a vow of abstinence from a teenager.
As to user's concern about our outrageously over funded defense budget, she obviously has not been following budget negotiations.
As to Maggot's atheist analysis, I find it spot on.
It seems quite apparent that when religious views do not align with administration policies, those holding the contrary views are labeled zealots or haters.
However, when the same views are expressed by a regime AND they align with a "diplomatic" solution, they are down played and excused.
Germany, China and Russia are already conducting contractual discussions with Iran . . . BEFORE the US has agreed to the deal.
Russia will be providing air defense systems within the year.
The UN stated they don't have the funds to perform inspections.
Why didn't we negotiate withholding sufficient funds, from Iran, to allow these inspections?
And why didn't we negotiate the release of our citizens?
I'd bet if they were gay or illegal, they'd be home.