Can you quote the part of the letter that demands that?
Thanks for cutting my sentence in half and showing the three dots so we all know that you did.
But I’d like to know if you agree with my entire statement.
I was responding to Ravenman who had suggested that I having been arguing that the July letter had something to do with an agreement reached a few months later. I have not been arguing anything ridiculous like that.
That’s more of the same strawman arguments some folks here set up and then knock it down. I guess they can’t find a case against the points I’ve made.
Sure. Didn’t you read it?
So what’s your point? Obama has to keep in mind that there are forces within Iran and outside of Iran that are pulling for the deal to fail. I’m confident that Obama certainly would prefer that the deal works and the bombing of Iran by anybody will not be necessary.
Fifty Fifty is pretty good compared to where negotiations have been for decades.
Ah, selective editing. Why am I not surprised. Here’s the full quote:
Emphasis added. I put back in the part you edited out that contradicts your statement. Tougher sanctions are not a reward for Iran showing moderation, but a consequence of not showing any moderation.
nm
And the word “significant” in that phrase “significant slowdown”? What does that mean, precisely? Does it mean the same thing to Joe Biden that it means to Benjamin Netanyahu?
I see plenty of stick, where is the carrot, outside of not getting hit with the stick? A position that is all stick and no carrot, that’s more of an ultimatum than a negotiation. Its peeing in their Cheerios and promising that if they knuckle under, you will pee less. Maybe. Depends. We’ll see.
Tougher sanctions are the basis that there is a difference between the group and the letter versus Obama’s desired policy.
You have not reconciled that issue. Magiver said there is no difference - it is a mirror image of Obama policy. That is FALSE.
I have shown that there is a major difference.
And you are wrong to declare what is quite unreasonable and illogical: “Tougher sanctions are not a reward for Iran showing moderation, but a consequence of not showing any moderation” because they were discussing the recent moves toward moderation by the elected government. The Moderates elected a government that claims to wish to moderate from the extremist ways of the past. Why reward that trend and signal by calling for tougher sanctions?
There would be no cause for a reward if there was no change in the extremism we saw from that Ahmadinanutjob feller.
The signers of this letter I believe are in fear that the world’s public will believe the majority of Iranians have elected a truly more moderate government and dreams of regime change and constant toughness against Iran will no longer make sense.
And you have to keep in mind that the Iranians including the moderates take national pride in the peaceful nuclear program. The signers of the letter say they care about the people… then they should give the Iranian moderates some room to push an agreement to fruition.
I’d say all Iranians don’t want their nuclear facilities bombed or stopped from producing energy for peaceful intent… and they want sanctions lifted.
The signers of the letter are therefore holding the moderates to the same standard as the theocratic regime and it is bad for the cause of seeking a diplomatic solution to this matter.
What does it matter? I’m sure everyone can judge for themselves if any actions taken by Iran were significant. There’s no need for unanimity of opinion on the matter. In my view, Iran has taken a significant step in the interim agreement, and the US is justified to ever so slightly reduce sanctions in order to see if this initiative is going anywhere.
Honestly, it’s too soon to really talk about incentives for Iran. If the interim agreement goes well, and we are headed for a verifiable final agreement, then it’s time to put some carrots on the table. And that is going to be months from now. For the next several months, the most important thing is that Iran hold up its end of the deal, as opposed to the US needing to talk about sweetening the pot.
Kinda depends, doesn’t it, whether one is seeking victory or peace? Your wording is suggestive, about “US needing to talk about sweetening the pot”. Perhaps only off-handed, but still suggestive. Do we need to be conciliatory? No, I suppose not, having them by the balls and all. Nothing really to stop us from spiking the ball and doing an “in your face!” victory boogie in their end zone.
After all, we have the power, does anything else really matter? Might I humbly suggest that the answer to that question is “yes”? Of course, we of the peacenik persuasion have suggested such things before, luckily, hard nosed realists have prevailed, which is why we are so beloved of the nations. Why would we want to change a formula which has worked so well for us in the past?
I’m having trouble discerning your point amid all the vagueness and sarcasm. A translation into straightforward English would be greatly appreciated.
Well, perhaps you should not trouble yourself. My username is right up top there, if I do not meet your standards, you can just skip right along, can’t you? I’ll get over it.
So what is in that letter that affects the point I am making.
Probably not. But such is consensus letter writing. Had they picked a number, say a 46.8% reduction, some might think it too much and some too little.
I really think you’re missing the point of the letter. It’s a letter to Obama, not to anyone in Iran. Also, note that there is a UNSC resolution dating back to 2006 in which Iran is told to “suspend” it’s nuclear enrichment. That’s not just the US-- that’s the UNSC. And here we are in 2013, with no such suspension.
Iran has chosen a path that has removed it from good graces of the international community. It’s up to Iran to decide to alter it’s path or not. The reward of being part of the international community is quite significant.
reduction from 20% to 5%. Which is what was asked for by Obama.
The letter addressed a reduction. It didn’t specify anything that would hobble the process of negotiation. The carrot was avoiding war. Obama added frozen Iranian assets to the pot.
So unless you have evidence the letter interfered with this process I’m not what your point is beyond arguing for the sake of it.
What you added does not contradict what I wrote. Why would you make such a claim?
Can you establish that there is no difference in easing sanctions versus toughening sanctions as Magiver wrongly stated.
Does anyone think asking for tougher sanctions after the deal with Iranians was announced is conducive to resolving the issue without bombs? IF the sanctions in place contributed to a movement in the right direction from the Iranians why would we reward that movement by talking about the necessity for tougher sanctions.
Why would you demand evidence that the letter interfered with the process when you have no evidence that the letter benefits the process in anyway?.
The timing of the letter is relevant to the situation. It was made before the agreement.
because we weren’t rewarded with movement in the right direction and additional sanctions are the next step before war.
You’re the one who insisted it interfered with the process.
I don’t get why anyone might think that the letter being addressed to Obama makes any difference. It was a public display of discouragement. Those persons in Iran most disposed to torpedo any such detente fell upon it like dogs on a pork chop, it plays right into their preferred propaganda. It was like manna from Heaven, their favorite song about America’s war against Islam, number one with a bullet.
It was a discouraging and threatening public gesture, the chest-thumping and hooting behavior of monkeys in suits. A chance to play tough guy against a country that has no friends in America. Surprised there wasn’t a stampede to sign the damned thing. Not much our politicians like better than jutting their chins out in courageous defiance of a weak but hostile nation.
And Christ Jesus, when did we regain the stature to lecture others about law and respect for the international community? When did we get our virginity back, after the Seinfeld War, the War About Nothing? Was it after we apologized? Don’t recall that we did, for that matter.
They should trust us? Why? Suppose Europe invaded Canada and laid waste over poutine and lame beer. And then they told us we couldn’t build weapons because we were too warlike and belligerent, can’t be trusted. Standing there with innocent blood up to their elbows lecturing us about morality and international law.
Say what, melonfarmer?
I’m talking about ‘afterward’ when some Dem signers of the letter brought up tougher sanctions around Thanksgiving time. Please read the comment from me that you cited and respond according to what I’ve said. I have bolded the key words to assist you this time.
I said the sanctions in place contributed to a movement in the right direction from the Iranians. Do you deny that the Iranians began some movement in the right direction including up to the President who replaced the nut job who held the office before him. The letter acknowledged that there was movement in the right direction and it appears you are denying that it occurred.
So you have no ‘evidence’ that the letter and subsequent calls for tougher sanctions that was in total opposition to President Obama’s viewpoint on the matter contributed anything positive to the quest for a peaceful solution?
Demanding evidence that letter impedes the path to peaceful resolution is inappropriate when you have no evidence to support that it benefits the process in any way.
And if the consensus then is that there was no effect by the letter and the follow up actions after the deal was announced then it must be appropriate to ask why they did it and why do Dem Senators oppose the President’s objectives in resolving this matter.
There has to be some other benefit that is not tied to national security per se. It is tied to political grandstanding for personal benefit by the Senators that are doing it. That is my point. I believe it is Elucidator’s point also.