Iran: More sanctions now or wait?

[tomndebb]

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

…

[NotfooledbyW]

I’d be glad as usual to hear your views on the topic, such as what is the significance of the rebuke of Senator Menendez by his fellow Dems that are chair-persons of many other committees? Do you believe the neocon agenda continues to exist and remain relevant to our dealings with Iran? Is responding to moderation by Iran with requests for adding tougher sanctions an extremist position?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

The problem is exactly what I said and that you cited right there above. Your decision to take sides without attempting to confirm with some degree of exactitude that what is being attributed to me is indeed credible confirms to me that the problem here is not mine.

What needed to be confirmed about the exchange I quoted? Nothing. It’s short, self-contained, and the only reasonable interpretation of it is that you were in the wrong, and refuse to admit it, to the point where you had to insert the word “Dems” to give yourself an out.

You repeatedly ask for examples of the behavior you are accused of, and I provided you with one, since no one else in the thread had, at least at any length. Do with it what you will.

@NotfooledbyW

Another problem is that many prefer to take snippets of what I write and turn them into veiled personal attacks and this thread is a perfect example.

It sure is:

@NotfooledbyW

But your argument that Iran is throwing the West a bone has to mean the West is being snookered out of using force or stronger sanctions, and that is a neocon argument that shows where your sympathies lie.

Again, you do stuff like this constantly, and that’s why these threads turn into veiled personal attacks. There’s an old saying which comes to mind, which I’ll clean up a bit:

If you run into a [combative poster] in the morning, then you ran into a [combative poster]. If you run into a [combative poster] every day, then you’re the [combative poster].

@Human Action

The disagreement here largely surrounds my expressed view, that US Senators responding to signals of a new found desire by the Iranians for openness and moderation and in response to the toughest set of sanctions ever internationally applied in a potentially hostile standoff, is an extreme and needlessly hostile view that became newsworthy this past summer. And as this story has been playing out, I believe that my view is daily being vindicated. Do you have a problem with my viewpoint or not?

So there I have once again tried to bring the discussion back on topic, and if further responses are hijacks of the subject matter of this thread I will not respond.

I’d be glad as usual to hear your views on the topic, such as what is the significance of the rebuke of Senator Menendez by his fellow Dems that are chair-persons of many other committees? Do you believe the neocon agenda continues to exist and remain relevant to our dealings with Iran? Is responding to moderation by Iran with requests for adding tougher sanctions an extremist position?

Maybe a little later, I’d rather keep this post focused. You asked for examples, I gave you one, do with it what you will.

[NotfooledbyW]

[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW. “I jumped to no such conclusion that all those Senators were neocons.”[/QUOT

I’d be glad as usual to hear your views on the topic, such as whether you agree with Magiver that the August letter mirrors the views of Obama on adding tougher sanctions. I say no. What say you?

And I’d like to know if the word ‘all’ in my above comment applies in your mind to both Democrat and Republican Senators who signed the letter calling for new sanctions? My point on this thread has never been to label any signers of that letter to be neocons.

Do you agree however with me that the call for new sanctions highly resembles a neocon such as John Bolten’s viewpoint on the issue?

[John_Mace]

You’re not calling anyone a neocon, you’re just saying that they “highly resemble” a neocon. Got it.

[NotfooledbyW]

I have expressed my view as one part of this discussion that calling for new sanctions in response to Iranian signals of a willingness to moderate their position on their nuclear policy resembles the neocon viewpont. Does anyone dispute that?

[Ravenman]

I dispute that. See, for example, the last 250 repetitive responses of this thread.

You don’t need to respond to this post, I know what you’re going to say: I’m wrong on the facts and I cannot deny something something.

[John_Mace]

This is what “neocon” John Bolton thinks:

We have only two very unpleasant choices: either Iran gets nuclear weapons in the very near future, or pre-emptive military force, fully justified by well-established principles of self-defense, must break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle and prevent (or, at least, substantially delay) weaponization.

I dispute that seeking tighter sanctions “highly resembles” a call for war.

Now, will you stop the silly name calling, and stick to an argument about substance?

[elucidator]

Seeking tighter sanctions can hardly be described as a conciliatory gesture, either. Leans more to the hostile. If a hundred thousand innocent lives might be spared by me eating some shit? Here’s my spoon, here’s my grin, bring it.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Seeking tighter sanctions can hardly be described as a conciliatory gesture, either.

Of course it can’t. But it doesn’t “highly resemble” a call for war, which is what the claim was.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

This is what “neocon” John Bolton thinks:

I dispute that seeking tighter sanctions “highly resembles” a call for war.

I’ll repeat my response to my statement until someone finds a way to respond to it:

NotfooledbyW I have expressed my view as one part of this discussion that calling for new sanctions in response to Iranian signals of a willingness to moderate their position on their nuclear policy resembles the neocon viewpont. Does anyone dispute that?

Now would a neocon call for tighter sanctions in response to Iranian actions toward moderation that this past summer became the Iranian response to existing sanctions with the election of Rouhani to the Presidency?

Or do you think the neocons favor loosening of sanctions?

Is it possible that neocons would call for tighter sanctions as well as call for war because neocons may figure that forcing the Senate to pass tighter sanctions now could re-empower the hard liners in Iran in order to foil moderates and for US neocons the need for war or bombing Iran becomes justifiable?

Stopping any form of moderation in Iran and the US is an agenda for US neocons and Iranian zealots alike. Requiring tough new sanctions as a slap in the face to moderates on both sides is a step in a process that more likely could results in John Bolton’s dream come true.

So my point obviously stands. Do you think calling for new sanctions in response to Iranian moves to moderation resembles a neocon view of what should be done.

[John_Mace]

Have you no shame at all? You specifically compared tightened sanctions to:

neocon such as John Bolten’s viewpoint on the issue?

I showed that it’s not like John Bolten’s viewpoint. Will you, for once, admit an error in analysis? Calling for more sanctions is not like Bolton’s view, which is a call for war.

Don’t try and change the subject or shift the goalpost. Do you insist that calling for tighter sanctions “highly resembles” a call for war-- ie, John Bolton’s view? Do you still that is correct?

[Ibn_Warraq]

I think “neocon” has become the right-wing version of “lib” or “liberal”.

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

Stopping any form of moderation in Iran and the US is an agenda for US neocons and Iranian zealots alike. Requiring tough new sanctions as a slap in the face to moderates on both sides is a step in a process that more likely could results in John Bolton’s dream come true.

So my point obviously stands. Do you think calling for new sanctions in response to Iranian moves to moderation resembles a neocon view of what should be done.

By your definition Obama is a neocon. He didn’t suggest adding companies to the sanctions list he flat out did it. And the Iranians were not happy about it.

[NotfooledbyW]

I wonder if John Bolton thinks the best response to Iranian moves to moderation is tighter new sanctions?

And is it possible for a former US ambassador to the UN to hold two or more thoughts in his head at the same time. One being a desire for bombing Iran and the other a desire to screw up Iranian moderates by calling for new tough sanctions despite the rise of proponents of moderation within Iran this past summer.

I say the latter thought floating around inside in John Bolton’s head resembles the call for tough new sanctions that 76 Senators sent to President Obama in August.

No one has disputed the actual ‘resemblance’ that I have actually defined in plain and simple English.

I will post it again in hopes to get a response to what I actually wrote:

" I have expressed my view as one part of this discussion that calling for new sanctions in response to Iranian signals of a willingness to moderate their position on their nuclear policy resembles the neocon viewpont. Does anyone dispute that? -NotfooledbyW

Here’s a clue for those having trouble. I don’t mention a call for war. I mention a call for tough new sanctions. The resemblance I mentioned is there. Think about the fact that Bolton can hold more than one thought and then get back to me.

[John_Mace]

You specifically mentioned John Bolton, who is calling for war. There is no denying that the facts show you to be wrong on this subject. No one can deny it.

[Ravenman]

Dubya: If a neocon says it is light outside, does that mean you assume it is night? In a feverish manner? And force people to deny your version of the facts?

John Bolton: Sanctions Won’t Work Against Iran.

[John_Mace]

Also, the early 2000s called. They want their terminology back.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

By your definition Obama is a neocon. He didn’t suggest adding companies to the sanctions list he flat out did it. And the Iranians were not happy about it.

Obama has been tough on Iran in the past including setting up tough new sanctions in the first place, So Obama has made many an Iranian unhappy too but rightfully so.

You appear to be wholly unable to distinguish the meaningful very clear difference between calling for tough new sanctions at a time when Iran’s rulers were belligerent as it was when Obama did it versus current calls for tough new sanctions despite Iranian signals and moves toward moderation and away from belligerence.

When that reality, that major difference, clicks in for you it may all come together and you will see how right I am. Hopefully others here can bring you along.

[John_Mace]

I hear that neocons sleep at night. Do you sleep at night just like the neocons?