General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo Schumer and the other Iran Hawks really want another war?
I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I want those who are students of the Iran situation to educate me.
If they want a war, do they really think they can sell that after Iraq?
If they don't want a war, what do they really want, and what do they hope to get out of it?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)President Obama has stood up to them, increasingly alone.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)OldHippieChick
(2,434 posts)but it seems as though he's been a pretty good leader on many issues. It seems as though he is making this decision based on a Jewish constituency that apparently does not attack his fellow NY Senator as much. I don't know if he's in Nettie's pocket or just trying to play a tough hand. I don't believe he's happy about this, but felt squeezed. Please enlighten me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)justify war with Iran.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)They don't really say anything other than the deal is bad and that it (somehow) makes it more likely for Iran to get a nuclear weapon, nor are they really prodded much by MSM to say what they woud do instead . Tom Cotton naively says that we can "reset" Iran's nuclear program back to "Day Zero" through some bombing. I would suspect that most Republicans are simply opposing the deal out of being their usual reflexively anti-Obama selves and/or because of their adoration of their Israeli right-wing counterpart, Bibi. I don't know what Schumer and some of the other Dems have against the deal or what they think is the answer is other than simply continuing the sanctions until..........????? I'm not hearing a lot of explicit calls for war with Iran, probably because most Republicans know that another war would be massively unpopular with the public and, right now, they aren't in the WH to actually pull the trigger for it. The Republicans seem to mistakenly believe that President Obama has taken military force off the table with the deal (though military force if warranted is NEVER taken off the table). President Obama clearly doesn't want war with Iran and the only way he- or a Democratic predecessor- would do it would be because he/she gets dragged into something or Iran does something clearly provocative.
In short,
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Because their masters and owners want one and will reap enormous profits from it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)He has always done whatever AIPAC wanted him to do.
I think it took him so long to come to his "decision" because they were counting the votes. I think he can vote no and it will still pass.