Quote:When you become president of the united states, you do not swear an oath to the business interests of France and Russia or to cower to the will of Britain.  You swear an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America and as such accept the responsibilities there in to protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and Domestic with the understanding that the power vested in the Executive branch to broker foreign policy is to inherently serve that end.  

 

It is the responsibility of Barrack Obama to execute Foreign policy that best serves our national interests from the standpoint of both security and economic stability.  his entire foreign policy as a whole has done NEITHER! 

 

So first, I really don't care how happy Europe would be if we didn't let them unilaterally expand trade with a international sponsor of terror.  At what point do they worry about how happy we will be if they back an enemy sworn to our destruction that has actively undermined our international military efforts and killed our soldiers? 

 

As far as the p5 plus 1 talks over the last two years I have said it before and I will say it again realistically we are the only country that can offer a credible military enforcement mechanism against Iran.  The French can't, the brits can't and China/Russia are on their side.  As such the only strength in the negotiations would come from us.  When they looked down to John Kerry at the end of the table and asked "well John how far are you willing to go with this" you really expect us to believe that John Kerry got up and did his best rendition of the St/. Crispens day speech promising that America would spend all its blood and treasure to prevent a nuclear Iran?  In the absence of American leadership this is what happens.  And frankly, everyone here should darn well know better.  Otherwise all of Europe would still be speaking German.  That's why the deal is fundamentally capitulation. 

 

Moreover, its not just the financial interest of doing business with Iran.  It's also the solution that we have come up with to deal with ISIS.  It is the unofficial position of this white house that we should allow Iran to Strengthen itself to counterbalance ISIS in the region.  So its not bad enough that we have ceded our authority to the international community, we have outsourced our national security interests to the Ayatollah of   Iran that has sworn to our mortal destruction. 

 

So in the interest of cheap gas for France, while we begin the long hard road of EPA regulations on coal to combat CLIMATE CHANGE, we have given 150 billion dollars to an enemy that to this day swears to kill us and is guided by a form of religious/political zeal that FORBIDS THEM to recognize non muslim sovereignty in any form while we courteously dismantle the greatest military that the world has ever seen for the faint promise that Europe might like us more if instead of the leading political economic and military power in the world we take our place as some pathetic also rand that has to bow at the alter of the international body that gets the majority of funding from our tax payers. 

 

That's change you can believe in. 

 

how stupid are we?

Man, you still don't get it or your driving your American exceptionalism agenda is just too important to you.

 

America does not answer to any nation, except perhaps now Israel.  Thanks Boehner.  But we do work with other nations on an international scale to an end of nuclear non-proliferation, and should continue to do so.

 

We are far from the only military power in the world.  The EU, Russians, or Chinese could mount a successful invasion of Iran tomorrow if they chose, but they will choose not to do so, because they are sensible and pragmatic in their international diplomacy, not because they are afraid of Tehran.

 

In this issue, you seem to think there is no middle ground:  total capitulation of Iran, or, as you just stated, total capitulation of the US.  You call my "middle ground" failure.  Failure, to me, is another war we can't afford.  A nuclear Pakistan still hasn't attacked a nuclear India, nor has North Korea, which may not even have a bomb, been able to attack their hated, and far more successful, rival to the south.  Why?  Because use of that weapon will elicit an attack on that country by not just the US, but every other military power on the globe. 

 

The US will remain the only country that "got away" with using one (er, two).

 

I think under this framework, Iran may actually achieve a nuclear weapon in 10 - 15 years.  Without this framework, they will achieve it in about 5 years.  The choices are this deal, all out war, or remaining sanctions under which Iran still gets a weapon.  There is no fourth way, even if Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, and Charlton Heston magically reappear tomorrow and summon the Iranian foreign minister to Switzerland.

 

And one last thing that really hasn't been mentioned:  Yes, the angry mob in front of Iranian Parliament chants "Death to America".  Meanwhile, the internet beams in American ideas and culture into the living rooms of the young Iranian's living rooms, and they eat it up like Kardashian Kandy.  I have never been to Iran, but those that have visited do not bring back stories of men keeping harems living in caves and praying for America's death 24/7.  They bring back stories of a country of universities, empowered women, and a huge population under the age of 30 that want more information and experiences beyond just the one book (not a bad idea ANYWHERE, if you ask me).

 

And that 150 billion?  We aren't giving it to them, it was theirs all along.  The hostages?  They're not being held for ransom, they are prisoners.  They have been charged, arrested, being given due process, and are probably getting a fairer, faster trial than they would have in Mexico.

 

I still think Iran sucks, but I think it has potential.  So did Reagan, actually, but that's another story.

---