Quote (bogie160 @ 9 Jan 2020 01:11)
Most of Trump's voters aren't non-interventionists, so I doubt they care.
while tend to agree (the only truly principled stance they have is to defend literally everything trump does), they still pretended to be non-interventionists in order to justify his blunder with the kurds - so i think it's just fair to point that out...
Quote (bogie160 @ 9 Jan 2020 01:11)
- Deploying troops carries a cost, yes.
- The deal was not conducive to American interests.
- Shia terrorism is state sponsored, I don't think this will have a significant impact. The root cause of Shia terrorism is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
- What does the United States hope to gain via negotiation?
that's only true if by 'american interests' you mean the interests of neocons. pretty sure most americans would rather see the two countries overcome their differences diplomatically, and don't want iran to have nukes. that said, in this thread you have already comprehensively demonstrated you don't understand, and more importantly, don't WANT to understand anything about the iran nuclear deal, which demonstrably halted their nuclear weapons program (one of the key goals, so much for question 4), so i'm not surprised you're doubling down on your ignorant stance.
as to your comment on 'shia terrorism', that's a bit of a non sequitur. even if i accepted your severly generalised characterisation of its organisation and funding, the recent events still have significant recruitment and legitimisation potential.