Oregon Progressive Party: Wyden Should Vote Yes on Iran Nuclear Agreement

From David Delk at the Oregon Progressive Party website:

After much deliberation, the Progressive Party has voted to support the Iran Nuclear Agreement (INA) because it lifts sanctions and is the result of international stakeholder diplomacy. This path to peace outweighs our reservation of supporting actions that promote the nuclear power industry.

We support the peaceful diplomatic resolution of international conflict. We are against any future wars and we are against the current sanctions which are punishing the people of Iran.

We urge Senator Wyden to join Senator Merkley and vote in support of the Iranian nuclear agreement.

We condemn the neoconservative movement trying to derail the INA led by AIPAC and its astroturf group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, led by former congressional leaders like Joseph Lieberman.

We condemn the neoconservative American politicians who led us into the Iraq war, including Richard Cheney, Bill Kristol and George W. Bush, who now demand a belligerent foreign policy backed by the threat of war.

We are concerned this agreement leads to increasing Iran’s dependence on nuclear power and is a missed opportunity to transition to the use of renewable energy sources. Nuclear power is a terrible threat to our planet as exemplified by Fukishama, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The Iranian people would be better served moving away from nuclear power entirely and focusing on solar, wind and other alternative forms of power generation.

We are saddened this agreement promotes the development of Iran’s civilian nuclear power industry. The INA allows Iran to build a “civilian” nuclear power industry, of unlimited size, creating a path for Iran to advance toward the production of weapons grade material by means of uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel.

American foreign policy should support agreements that follow the German model of no nuclear power and moving towards 50% energy from renewables.

4 thoughts on “Oregon Progressive Party: Wyden Should Vote Yes on Iran Nuclear Agreement

  1. jim

    I’ve always wondered why anyone should call their political party “progressive”, thus implying their chosen path would lead to “progress”. Is there anyone in the world who thinks his chosen political party would lead to anything OTHER than “progress”?!?

  2. paulie

    Yes. Conservatives want to conserve the traditional order. Progressives want to change it. At least that’s what they imply by using those terms.

  3. Steve Scheetz

    It is funny how it is stated that Progressives want to change the traditional order, when it was one of the “progressive” mentality that destroyed the relationship we had with Iran, Ironically using the same thinking process that is leading us down the path of rekindling the relationship with Iran…

    Progress… Sounds legit in action…. LOL


    Steve Scheetz

  4. jim

    Long ago, I developed what might be called a mental calculus to understand many people who call themselves ‘liberals’. I decided, instead, that many of them actually secretly think and act as if they are “anti-conservative”: To decide where they are on an issue, they first figure out where the conservatives would be, and then they try to be as close to opposite of that as they can. Many times this seems to work, but occasionally this leads to weird results. For example, consider the Ugandan anti-gay laws. At first blush, you’d think liberals would strongly oppose the Ugandan government and establishment. But for many “anti-conservative liberals”, they first conclude that conservatives would oppose Ugandans and their government. (“They’re BLACK, you see!”) So, these “anti-conservatives” find it very difficult to oppose Ugandans. Oh, maybe they don’t actually support them, but they strongly hesitate to oppose them because they think conservatives oppose them.
    Even more strongly, you’d think liberals would oppose nearly all extremist Muslim/Arab governments. But instead, the “anti-conservative liberals” decide that conservatives would oppose Muslims and Arabs, for obvious reasons. (And in this, they are actually right: Let’s agree that today, Conservatives would tend to oppose Muslims and Arabs.) But the “anti-conservative liberals” can’t bear to oppose Muslims and Arabs, despite their barbaric hate and violence against virtually everything modern, Western, and liberal. So you end up with a weird situation where the “anti-conservative liberals” end up supporting, or at least not openly opposing, those extremist Muslims.
    Apply this calculus to this world, and I think it will explain a lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.