But you’re on record as denying so many things that you did say. No one wants to play the game of you claiming that plain English means something that everyone who speaks the language except you agrees upon.
When we see other posters rushing to your defense, then maybe there’s something to your claims. As it stands… nothing.
Show where Obama took both sides of the same argument. Obama has never called for tougher sanctions after the Iranians made moves to moderating their position. Your statement is in error.
On one hand you claim my English is no good but on the other hand you make claims that I clearly stated something in English.
Then I tell you I never said what you think I said and request that you or anyone provide something that shows I said it.
All I get in response is duhhhhhhh nobody is defending you etc and various other copouts and diversions from the topics.
I don’t need defending when nobody can produce a quote where I argued that point that T&D mentioned.
Why is everyone passing the buck to others?
It is because none of you can produce the cite as requested.
To stay on topic do you support tougher sanctions after the Iranians softened their position?
Obama’s multiple positions have been posted. But like tomndebb I’m not going down anymore of your rabbit holes.
Nope. Never claimed that. What I said is that you’re interpretation of plain English is often at odds with what all other speakers of the language think. You have a “unique” perspective, and most of us are not interested in disabusing you of that perspective.
There’s a difference between having multiple positions on Iranian sanctions as things change versus being on both sides of opposing positions. Being for tough sanction when the regime is belligerent and defiant and violating nuclear proliferation norms is not a fair comparison to being for easing sanctions when the regime is showing signs of moderating and compliance.
You are not dealing with my entire point.
At the top is what you wrote about plain English meaning something different to me than everybody else. And yet you cannot provide a specific case where my interpretation of plain English is different than everybody else.
You made the insult so the onus is on you to back it up with something specific from this thread.
I agree if you mean sanctions as applied can lead to a peaceful outcome. So again, what was your point?
Actually, the only burden other posters have, at this point, is to avoid violating the rules of Great Debates regarding personal insults while making it perfectly clear that your posts are silly.
No one has a need, much less a requirement, to provide you more quotes or links in order to give you the opportunity to use a wall of text to declare what was long ago said more succinctly, “There’s glory for you.”
Originally Posted by tomndebb: “You have spent the last many days attempting to condemn the authors of a letter written in August on the grounds that it would have been counterproductive had it been written next week. This, all the while ignoring the actual content of the letter.”
If that is the basis for determining that my posts are silly then it is not at all based upon anything I have written or argued. So how can my writing and argument be silly?
I am critical of US Senators for publicly calling for tougher sanctions after it was apparent to the entire world that Rouhani was taking Iran to a more moderate and cooperative position on nuclear enrichment. The content of the letter does not negate my criticism of that.
That is just one of many reasons-- not the only reason.
At the risk of distracting attention away from the core purpose of this thread, let me oversimplify my position. A negotiating position that offers no conciliatory gestures or offerings is of little value when trying to form a detente with someone with long standing issues of suspicion and hostility. They don’t like us, they don’t trust us, and they are not entirely wrong to be suspicious.
The enemies of peace in Iran are perfectly happy to exploit our every hostile gesture, even our indifference, to sabotage any peaceful efforts on the part of their sane. We should not offer them aid and comfort in their dastardly enterprise. An approach that is almost all threat is precisely what they hope we will offer, it is manna from Hell.
I can agree with that, except that I think you’re reading too much into that letter. They are not laying out an actual negotiating position, and clearly recognize that the US, along with our partners, will “fully explore a diplomatic solution to our dispute with Iran.” They are, however, expressing a desire that Iran comply with the various UNSC resolutions. These are not new demands, and it is pretty clear to me that Iran has used “negotiations” in the past to simply stall for time.
I totally agree. Unfortunately, there is no way to explain this to the current crop of members of Congress, who believe that a fair negotiation is: “I get 80% of what I want, but you still get 0% of what you want. See, that’s compromise!”
Was it John Foster Dulles, talking about Molotov’s approach to negotiation? “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is up for grabs”?
If that is a reason then it is based upon absolutely nothing to do with what I have put down in writing. There are no facts to back you up.
That’s like Magiver writing that the letter signers’ view on current sanctions mirrors Obana’s. No plain or fancy English can turn that mistake in interpretation into a fact.
When someone carries an argument without recognizing a basic fact such as that Obama opposes what the signers want him to do, then the discussion based upon facts and common sense breaks down.
That seems to be what’s going on here. When facts fall apart declare one’s opponent as having poor - interpretation of English- skills.
So what is wrong with criticizing US Senators for calling for tougher sanctions first after Rouhani came to office with a moderate tone and second after the interim deal was announced?
Can you tell us once and for all if the content of the letter matters or not? You kept telling us that the only thing that mattered was Democrats agreeing with Republicans, not the letter’s content. Now you’re telling us the content of the letter matters. So, which is it?
I agree with your point 100%. Some don’t see the ‘summer letter writers’ as laying out - a negotiating position for tougher sanctions - which is quite a far fetched conclusion to reach since the same group of Senators have threatened until this week to attach tougher sanctions to the Defense Appropriations Bill so Obama could not veto it.
Wanting to make tough sanctions into US law after the interim deal was reached cannot be spun as something far less than a negotiating position for hardliners or as some contribution to the cause of a diplomatic solution that the White House is pursuing,
Here’s a suggestion: if you want to talk about the letter, talk about what was happening in August: there was no visible progress on negotiations then.
If you want to talk about the interim agreement and what senators are saying now, don’t talk about the letter. Because circumstances have dramatically changed between now and August.
What you should not do is complain about those who signed the letter in August, when nothing apparent was happening, and criticize the letter in light of the agreement which was just reached. It’s confusing, counterfactual, and annoying.
band name dibs.