Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)22. There is no way to stop Iran's nuclear program militarily
short of invasion and occupation.
Iran has it's own physicists. They do not need foreign scientists like Syria did.
Iran already has enough raw Uranium and enrichment hardware to make bombs. It does not need to import any more. So blocking trade does nothing.
And Iran built its facilities under a mountain. You can't destroy it with bombs. At least, not with conventional bombs.
There's only three ways to stop Iran's nuclear program:
1) A treaty
2) Invasion and occupation
3) Multiple nuclear strikes.
#3 Is not going to happen. At least, not by the US.
That leaves #1 or #2 to stop Iran's nuclear program. Schumer doesn't want #1. Wonder what he wants....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Schumer swallowed the Republican/Bibi treachery and feces whole and pronounced it delicious! Try some?
Fred Sanders
Aug 2015
#2
Well, there is that little objection by some folks about lying about the agreement and pretending
Fred Sanders
Aug 2015
#6
Only if one assumes that supporting a president of his own party is just as
geek tragedy
Aug 2015
#26
you are confused again. No one here gave those voting against Obama on the TPP
geek tragedy
Aug 2015
#31
Ah, the dishonest rightwing claim that the agreement is bad for Israel's security, and that
geek tragedy
Aug 2015
#38
"maybe it would lead to war and maybe not" What an astute analysis. Not.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Aug 2015
#34
Where that's where you have it terribly wrong. It's a diplomatic matter, silly.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Aug 2015
#41
I did think for myself, extensively. That's why I believe Schumer is DANGEROUSLY wrong
Tom Rinaldo
Aug 2015
#33