For those Opposed to the Iran Deal, What have you done for your country lately

I understand that there are some politicians who fee that they must oppose anything that this administration does and even if they feel that advancing the mission is the most critical part of accomplishing it, they cannot show the spine or backbone and support anything this administration supports.  They do not fear the results and the consequences to their very souls but fear more not getting re-elected to office or being seen by other mortals as weak.  These same spineless people are those some of us call leaders but I ask how can one be closely considered a leader when all you do is pick up another’s personal flag and run with the pack?

I asked this question based on a letter I received in my inbox from Congressman Seth Moulton of the U. S. House of Representatives concerning this same subject.  In it he states “I was in the first company of Marines to enter Baghdad in 2003.  As a combat veteran, I know the cost of war. It is something I still carry with me today in the U.S. House of Representatives, where I have the privilege of representing the people of northeast Massachusetts. And I am reminded of it every time the questions of war and peace come before Congress.  In September, we will face that question once more when members of Congress consider whether or not to support the Iran nuclear agreement.  During the Iraq war, I saw the weapons and influence of the Iranian regime, and I deeply understand the threat Iran poses to America and our allies like Israel. That is why it is so crucial that the international community works together to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  After careful deliberation, I believe the Iran nuclear deal does just that. You can investigate the deal yourself here.  Let me be clear: I do not, and we should not, trust Iran to comply with this agreement. But this deal is not based on trust. It's based on enforceable verification measures that are comprehensive enough to be effective. Inspections will also give us greater intelligence on Iran than we have today. I respect that some, including a few veterans, may disagree and feel that there is the possibility of a "better deal" out there. To them I say, what's the alternative?  You may hear of two: increasing our sanctions regime or pursuing a military option. Here's why those are just not acceptable:  Increasing sanctions -- let alone maintaining them -- would only work if the international coalition behind the sanctions holds together. But our allies have been clear: They agreed to sanctions to force Iran to the negotiating table to secure a deal like the one we now have. If we walk away from that deal, we walk away alone.  The other option, taking military action against Iran, would once again imperil the lives of Americans to achieve much less than this deal achieves by diplomatic means. Military action would only set Iran's nuclear program back a few years at most, reaffirm their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and drive the program underground.  Both these options leave us worse off than we are under the terms of the Iran deal. The fact is there is no "better deal" that will prevent Iran from building a bomb.  No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated among adversaries. But, in our ongoing confrontation with a great threat to world peace, we have found the best available option by peaceful means rather than pursuing a worse option through war. It is for these reasons that I support the Iran deal.  And if you read it for yourself, I feel you will too.

Of all those whose word should be given greater weight than the opinion of another are those who fought and those who will be asked to fight if this deal fails, instead of those who know that they will never have to defend or fight anyone other than their neighbors on a real battlefield.