We need to make the choices about Iran clear: the alternative is war.

[Shrike47]

Every Republican who argues against the treaty should be asked if they think we should bomb Iran, knowing that will start a war. The president was clear in his speech, and I think we should push his message : we have three choices: to do nothing and continue as we are; to reach a treaty like the one he describes; or to bomb their nuclear facilities, starting a war.

If politicians oppose the treaty, what do they want to do instead? If the answer is bombing (war), how do they intend to pay for it?

(I can think of many arguments against war, but money seems to be a focus point for them.)

[sabrina 1]

1. Why is Iran singled out in the first place? When have they been a threat to the US?

Why this focus on a nation that has never threatened the US?

And why would this country even THINK of going to war with a country that is no threat to us?

When and who designated Iran as an enemy of the US?

Pakistan and India HAVE nukes. And those two countries have come close to using them against each other several times.

So why the focus on Iran in the first place?

WE toppled THEIR government, destroying their country by putting a dictator in power there.

We should be offering them an apology for the years of brutal oppression they suffered due to our interference with their government.

Saudi Arabia otoh, was closely connected to the attacks on 9/11.

None of this makes any sense.

[guillaumeb]

2. Because Iran, like Haiti, made a very bad choice.

When Haiti dared to rebel against the French colonialists, the reaction was swift and severe. Haiti was stripped of a huge part of its natural resources and forced to pay reparations to France. The reparations were not paid off until 1947. THAT is why Haiti is in such bad shape.

Mohammed Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minister in 1951. He committed the unpardonable sin of calling for the nationalization of the oil industry. He was overthrown by a CIA inspired coup, code named TPAJAX Project, and replaced by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi in 1953. Pahlavi had the advantage of being very amenable to the US and UK oil interests.

And yes, follow the money is always the best policy. But the US cannot frame the argument so truthfully.