Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzers
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
A The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
[/url]
|
It's kind of a moot point when you consider that the people that do know what their talking about support the deal
http://news.mit.edu/2015/us-iran-nuclear-deal-0724
The news doesn't deal with people that know what their talking about anymore because its better ratings to pit a rightwing idiot against a leftwing idiot and watch people on either side blow up. When there is an expert on, it is often from a think tank with biased mission statement on their site for everyone to see.
I've heard two arguments against the Iran Nuclear Deal and there both bad.
1) "We could have got a better deal." Whatever..
2) "This will give more money to Iran for terrorism." Anything that gives Iran any money you could say that about, because a certain percentage of people in Iran support terrorism. That number goes up when we do things like put sanctions on them however. So while we might succeed in preventing a relatively small amount of terrorism funding, we fan the flames and increase their recruiting by doing so. (Note: sanctions kill people. There's a lot of poor in these countries that were barely making it before the sanctions, and straight up starved to death).
Permanent sanctions are a retarded solution for trying to change a country. We don't want to kill all Iranians -- we would like them to eventually have a revolution and overthrow the current theocratic regime. Sanctions don't help this goal unless we can use them as leverage.
Edit: every American wanting to understand the middle east can start by reading the Persepolis graphic novel. It's important to remember Iran was not always a country of religious fanatics, and there is still a strong secular core there.