How can an agreement freely negotiated between two parties be unfair to either? Is Tom suggesting that our elected American government doesn’t represent the American people’s interests? How can an agreement restricting weapon development by Iran put Americans here and around the world in very real danger?
People’s lives are at risk if the United States adopts this proposal.
Yes, and what if we don’t? Tom doesn’t say.
We have no guarantee that the leading state sponsor of terror would not give this technology to terrorists to detonate on American soil.
What guarantee is possible in international relations? What would Tom offer in exchange for a guarantee if that were possible?
He cited a variety of reasons for his opposition to the proposal, including allowing the Iranians to keeping their nuclear centrifuges active, lifting bans on the development of ballistic missile technology and the sale of Iranian oil internationally.
Is Tom suggesting a “receivership” where Iran would turn over it’s military and foreign policy to foreigners? That would be tough to negotiate.
“In exchange for empty promises, this agreement immediately gives the Iranians the means to develop weapons and finances their research,” said Reed. “We are even giving them the means to deploy this technology beyond their borders and it will all be funded with oil sales to American consumers.”
“Empty promises?” How would Tom know that? Oil sales to American consumers? Really, Tom? You have claimed we are on the path to self-sufficiency. Oil sales to China are more likely.
If Tom “ran the zoo,” what would he do? His position on Iran seems to be NO; he offers no reasonable alternative. Does he favor another costly and futile war in the Middle East? Would he war with every foreign nation that he disapproves?
Tom says he wants input from constituents, but why? Hasn’t he already made up his mind?