- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,407
- 32,900
- 136
Firstly, we all know Iran is currently enriching uranium.
Secondly, again, we all know this deal hasn't been completed yet. That's why it was not a blanket rejection like your thread title states. It's a rejection of one possible term that could or could not exist in the completed deal.
Just because one country is doing something today, doesn't make it is non-negotiable. That's what negotiating is all about. That's what deal-making is all about. Do something or give up something in order to achieve something else.
Since you seem to have all the answers, please kindly remind us what the purpose/goal of this deal with Iran is. What is Obama trying to achieve for the U.S.? And, of course, the follow-up question is going to be, what do you suspect will be the mechanism that guarantees if the U.S. holds up to our side of the agreement that Iran will hold up to their side and we achieve our goal?
And do take all the time you need to answer these questions. I know you're a bit slow on the learning curve, what with still believing GOP congressmen support Putin over Obama. I understand that you are slow. Take what time you need to work through the questions.
I don't have all the answers. I can give a more educated response one the deal is COMPLETED
Maybe you and Scotty should take the hint.
BTW - There are plenty of GOP politicians that publically supported Putin over Obama. Not my fault if you can't read.
