Reader comments: Broader Iran sanctions needed
3 comments | Read story
Hmmm | 7:14 a.m. July 17, 2008
The sad thing is sanctions don't harm the people we are trying to punish. They mostly harm the common people of Iran who don't want war, who just want to mind their own business and have us mind ours. This bi-partisan bill is an initial act of war. I'll be shocked if we don't go to war in Iran. I hope I am wrong though. The last thing we need is more war.
Was a Democrat | 2:30 p.m. July 17, 2008
Because this measure is bipartisan it's good, right? Well actually, no; this is bipartisan B S. Do we really want toe entire Islamic word to hate our guts? There is no legitimate reason for the United States to remain in the middle east other than the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden. We have made a string of mistakes in the middle east starting with the Shah, and it continues on a bipartisan basis. Much of the reason we remain is religious, i.e. Christian Zionism to which most Utahns subscribe, though we can't be candid about it.
We are doing to ourselves what the erstwhile Soviet Union did to itself in the same part of the world, i.e. destroying ourselves. Also, it's time to start looking at so-called third party candidates, because the two-party system has authored this catastrophe.
We are doing to ourselves what the erstwhile Soviet Union did to itself in the same part of the world, i.e. destroying ourselves. Also, it's time to start looking at so-called third party candidates, because the two-party system has authored this catastrophe.
BUCK WILD | 3:10 p.m. July 17, 2008
How about some tactical nuclear sanctions? I think that would work really well.
Comments continue below
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining


