That’s a pretty unrealistic model of the world. Power flows from political bases always, even if you’re the Kims.
It’s not a model of the world. We’re discussing Iran. Iran doesn’t have a political base. It has a religious ruler.
The notion that I have stated that any poster here is a neocon or is endorsing the neocon ideology is the error and misread of my point.
And you point about Code Pink is a good one.
Accidentally hit post… See next
To Ravenman finishing comment from preceding post.
And your point about Code Pink is a good one. I do not endorse Code Pink as they are way too far anti-war lefty for me. But I too would make identical statements that they would make regarding specific matters of war and peace.
The difference being for me at least is that I would not deny that a Code Pink common comment or position is a Code Pink position.
I believe you would agree with me on that.
I also believe that the point I have made that anti-war activism, with Code Pink being a major player, can contribute to an outcome that is opposite to that groups overall intent, is a valid topic and point for this thread.
It is unsettling that when a point is being made by me such as
above, others make it about personal crap and alleged grudges etc and then where I would like to go , on topic, is dropped.
If you read the exchanges posted here you will see my point is that matching a specific group’s argument when you don’t necessarily agree with the group at all, can be detrimental to one’s wished for outcome as it enables an outcome you do not wish to see.
Do you see that as a possibility with regard to Iran?
I believe you have said we should verify but not trust. Is that correct?
Incidentally: The List: The 76 Senators Who Have Signed AIPAC Letter to Kill Iran Negotiations. It ought to be common knowledge for all voters what strings their representatives are tied by.
NotfooledbyW has been instructed to drop this hijack. Posting in a way that will encourage him to violate that instruction is not appropriate.
Knock it off.
NotfooledbyW, do not pursue this hijack, even as a response to other posters.
(Or both of you may take it to The BBQ Pit–but keep it out of Great Debates.)
[ /Moderating ]
Yes. Trust needs to be earned over time. The new agreement could pave the way for trust in the future, if Iran can be shown to hold up its end of the bargain in a responsible manner. It’s unwise to simply declare a policy that we shall trust so-and-so if there is no historical basis for the trust, as is the case here.
When the deal was announced Americans were two thirds supportive of it. Now Americans are split fifty fifty in a poll I saw. How do we stop Senators from bowing to a will for war when half of Americans are so fickle on matters that can thrive on fearmongering and ridicule of attempts at diplomacy?
That article is misleading. Go to the original WaPo article (linked to from your cite), and you’ll see that the letter in question was written last summer, long before the recent interim deal (we shouldn’t call it a deal, because it’s not) was reached.
The actions the Senators are proposing now is new sanctions that would only go in effect 6 months down the road, if Iran does not fulfill it’s end of the bargain. Sanctions, not bombs. This is not a call for war.
I’m not seeing how a threat of future US sanctions, and this is only the US, is that big a deal. We have a large hurdle to overcome in the next few months since we have to get many countries to agree whether Iran is cooperating or not-- this is not something the US can do unilaterally. All this current deal does is make us ready to act as soon as it has been certified that Iran is negligent.
Nobody has called for war. Sanctions would be the opposite of war. What the Senators have done is que up a bill for the President to sign at his leisure. They’ve already handed him the tools he needs 6 months from now for leverage.
I didnt say they called for war. I said there is a will for war and this move could stir up trouble for moderate Iranians and break the deal as it was written before these Senators decided to present this additional sabre rattling for politics. If the moderates lose influence in Iran than war is more likely in my view.
Why not let the deal be and see if Iran complies.
If you’re not saying they are calling for war you shouldn’t describe their actions as “saber rattling”.
The Constitution does not provide for bills to be signed by the President “at his leisure.”
Why not? I said there is a will for war against Iran by some potentially very influential parties. Sabre rattling is an effective means to turn their will for war into a more populist will for war and then calling for war with popular support gets to become a reality.
The sabre rattling is also directed at the Iranians to blow moderate Iranians out of the peace process limelight which can certainly move the will for war to actual calls for war.
You said it in the quote of you that I used: How do we stop Senators from bowing to a will for war…
You then went to describing it as fear mongering. Are there more than one of you posting?
No, the bill for new and improved sanctions is not specifically “saber rattling”. But then, neither is it a gesture of confidence or a move to underline a commitment to peace.
Diplomacy like this is waltzing with a porcupine in a mine field, every nuance, every gesture is examined, over-examined and expounded upon. In Iran, there are many powerful people who sincerely and literally believe that if there were a war with the USA, Allah would intervene to smite the infidels. This is, of course, nuts. As well, there are many people in the US who believe that any action to hinder Iran will further the security of Israel and therefore find favor with the Lord. This is also nuts.
Reasonable and rational men operate in a cage full of mutually hostile howler monkeys, shrieking slogans and dogma while they gingerly try to find a way forward. This sort of thing does not help, I very much doubt it is intended to help, it is mostly intended as a posturing, letting the other guys know that we are tough. Swell.
who are the influential parties? Where is there a will for war in the use of sanctions?
point out the saber rattling in the use of sanctions?
Well that’s true in the literal sense. If he ignores it then it becomes law after 10 days. He can negotiate a timeline for the bill directly or through his veto power. Of course, if his own party feels he has erred then the bill becomes law.
So, there is “saber rattling” that is directed at stirring up a war, but no actual call for war. Got it. Another distinction without a difference.
I gave you the distinction and the differences. One of which is sabre rattling to get the Iranians to react in a way that makes war much more acceptable and inevitable.
Are you disputing one point in the cited article from the Washington Post? Do you a counterpoint to what I have written.
Calling it a distinction without a difference means little since there is a difference between sabre rattling and calling for war immediately in the here and now.
It like drawing a redline and provoking the opponent to cross it. It’s like taunting. Sabre Rattling is different.
Yeah, whatever. I don’t know what “point” you’re talking about in the WaPo article, but it neither mentions saber rattling nor calls for war. That’s your idea, and not backed up by any evidence presented here, or found in that article.
Magiver asked you earlier who these “potentially very influential” people are that you posted about. Who are they? Are thy “potentially influential” or actually influential?
Fact is, there is no appetite for war in the US, even if there might be some minority with a trigger finger. Perhaps Obama should spend a little time with the members of his own party and make his case. Apparently he hasn’t done that successfully.