These two headlines come about and crash with each other head on.
The one above comes from a staunch conservative news organization, and seems to think it's a good treaty, but it does come with some serious reservations.
The one below seems to think it's a bad treaty, and this is the correct point of view in many peoples view.
Which one is right?
It is ironic that it was our foreign policies that put us at odds with Iran, by forcing the Shah of Iran into power we created a lasting hatred of our Country and our political system. We tend to try and force our hand picked tyrants into power in these countries, and when the populace rejects our tyrants there is a lot of blood shed and the resentment builds against us.
The wrong choice carries the balance of world peace on it's shoulders, and we can't afford the wrong choice. Iran, just like North Korea shouldn't have such weapons. When, not if, WW3 breaks out it will be the instability of Countries such as these that will start it up. Do we, can we just sign "treaties" that place us and the world at risk of loosing the precious peace which is so delicately balanced as it is right now?
We do live in some interesting times don't we? In either case above, none our choices assures any one long term peace, so war is inevitable. Your turn.