I said ‘points’ not ‘views’ on issues not being discussed here.
’luci – I don’t think there’s a single reason to place the demographic changes in Iran as the primary motivator of the willingness to negotiate on the nuclear issue. Without question, it is sanctions and the economy. Of course, unemployment affects the young, making them less happy with the government; but that is not the same as the generational shift that you’re talking about. I doubt you’ll find any commentators or experts (other than maybe a whacko or two) who will disagree that sanctions brought the nuclear issue to the table.
One example of how the generational shift expressed itself recently was the election protests in 2009 after Ahmadinejad rigged the elections. That really was frustration by younger generations against a corrupt government. And the result was that the government cracked down hard. So you’re on the mark that there is a gap between the hard-liners and the next generation, but this issue really isn’t about that.
No. You persistently choose to use words in ways that do not share any common meaning with other speakers of English.
If you want to crow that you have been compared to Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass and revel in the accuracy of that comparison, feel free.
If you can only discern from my stating clearly that…
… there is no constructive reason to respond to Iranian gestures of moderation with calls for tougher sanctions if your true interest is finding a diplomatic solution…
…means that all I’m arguing is that Obama is always right , well then there is no expectation by me that you will ever respond without distraction and diversion from the point I have clearly made.
What was the vote?
Must you speak in generalities in order to cast aspersions toward me? I’ve asked for examples of claims such as this and no one seems to be able to find any.
I made a point to a poster and you got involved but you do not challenge my facts or find an error in what I wrote. I’m not sure why you get involved in my discussions if you have no substantive input to bring.
By the way I was not crowing - I was clarifying a response to another poster and answering quite clear and directly the question he had asked me.
You must be playing Canadian football, because the goalposts just moved another ten yards.
From your link:
If these 26 Senators tell us they want a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear power ambitions it has to be nothing more than lip service to peace. These Senators deserve to be criticized harshly for what potentially may disrupt diplomacy. There is no reasonable reason that I have heard that justifies the moves these 26 are making if they want to give peace a real chance.
A common phrase used in describing what the Iranians sought from the P5+1 in November is the ‘easing of sanction’ … No one but you that I know of is running around claiming that ‘easing of sanctions’ means allowing those who violate existing sanctions whether eased or not eased, should not be stopped.
No matter what sanctions get eased there will remain sanctions in place that should not be violated. Are you in favor of existing sanctions being violated with no enforcement or response by the P5+1?
You said there was a bill. I asked you what the vote was.
There was a bill introduced but saner heads are being seen to prevail;
Menendez is off his rocker on Iran. Thank god there’s push back against him. And why did the 76 turn into 26?
My insights on US Iran relations are much in line with hers:
if my Writing is not understood here for some weird reason, my view on this topic can be summed up by what Ms Bond said.
Who dusts agrees with her on these now 26 Senators?
This is nothing new. Iranians like Americans. Most of them always have. It’s the government that needs to create the “Great Satan” to justify their draconian measures.
Might I humbly suggest that you direct your focus more at Senator Schumer, who actually wields power today, as opposed to Mr. Bolton, who does not. I know, I know, he’s a Democrat, and it’s soooooo much easier to rant against Republicans. But in the interest of actually getting something done, can we make an exception in this case?
As has been explained to you for seven pages and two months, you have an inability to distinguish between a letter four months ago with content that wasn’t all that extreme, versus a bill today that would sink ongoing negotiations. The source of your confusion is that you jumped to a poor conclusion, that everyone who signed the letter was a neocon or a Quisling.
I think everyone else here understood that the 76 senators weren’t extremists on this issue. Seriously, we told you this like weeks ago.
This actually a very fair point and you may need smelling salts after reading this since I get the impression you think I don’t like you, but you’re perfectly right to raise it and you were perfectly right to claim earlier in this thread that Khameinei needed the support of certain factions to operate.
The way the Iranian government works is extremely complex and difficult to understand since it was set up by a man, the Ayatollah Khomeini who modeled his idea of a government on both Islamic history as well as Plato’s The Republic. For those a bit shocked by that statement, yes, Khomeini really believed that and “the Guardians of the Islamic revolution” were inspired by the “Guardians” or “Guardian class” of The Republic and Khomeini saw himself as “the Philosopher King” and set up his own position as vali-e faghih-e iran(loosely translated as “Supreme Leader of Iran”) to be Iran’s “Philosopher King”, to be chosen and, in theory, subjected to regular review by “the Assembly of Experts”.
And yes, I am well aware of how utterly silly and some those titles sound.
I’ll even admit during the Green Revolution when the Assembly of Experts met, I really, desperately hoped, along with many Iranian-Americans that we’d hear and announcement that Khameinei had been removed since literally the only thing they’re supposed to do is to determine who is to the Supreme Leader(or Supreme Guide of Iran or Guardian Jurist of Iran for the translation Nazis) and to review the current actions of the current Supreme Leader and, if they feel it needs to be, rescind an order or remove him from office.
However, in the over 30 years of existence, they’ve never once rebuked either Supreme Leader, reversed an order, or even called him to testify and that didn’t happen during the Green Revolution and theres no reason to think it will happen again
So yes, theoretically, neither of the Ayatollahs were absolute dictators, but for all practical purposes they are. However, like all dictators, whether a Mussolini, Hitler, Henry VIII, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, or even King Joffrey they have factions they need to balance or else they get overthrown. Mad Kings don’t last unless their last name is Kim and even they have to be careful.
Apologies then.
When you asked Mace proved evidence that foreign policy was set by “Khomeini(sic)” not Rouhani, I thought you were demanding he present evidence to prove that foreign policy was set by “Khomeini(sic)” not “Rouhani”.
Incidentally, as has already been noted, Khomeini died over twenty years ago and confusing “Khamenei” and “Khomeini” is a little like confusing “Himmler” and “Hitler”.
I apologies for that… My spell check took over and I didn’t catch it.
“Spell check” isn’t the same as “content check.” Your problem is substance, not syntax.
I jumped to no such conclusion that all those Senators were neocons. That is a conclusion many of you all set up when I stated correctly that the antics in the letter to call for more sanctions after Iran went public with a desire to moderate their position was supportive of the neocon’s pro-war no-negotiating position.
There’s a huge difference between being a neocon and non-neocons doing things that would definitely please the neocons and give them some slim hopes at having credibility. You are hugely wrong in what you just wrote.
I have explained my views on the letter and the relevance of it to what is happening today. My point that you won’t take on the letter is that in the letter the signers acknowledge the moves toward moderation… And that is what makes the letter wrong-headed even as a starting point and is what makes this attempts to pass a bill that demands tougher sanctions right now worse than wrong-headed… as the Huffington Post calls it they are saboteurs peace.
I am glad it looks as though saner heads are stopping them…and some of the original 76 may have become sane on this.
We have a right to be pissed at them for the first letter and appalled at any left who are still pursuing their neocon-like antics… to foil diplomacy.
Straight man had it right. And I believe neocons are supportive of those of any political stripe including Democrats who were calling for new sanctions for agreeing to move toward moderation and negotiation last summer.