Still having trouble responding to what I clearly wrote, I see. And I gave you all a clue.
No one has disputed or challenged what I wrote there. The lack of a challenge can mean only one thing. Bolton favoring tough new sanctions despite Iranian moves to moderation absolutely resembles the same call in the August letter that 76 Senators signed.
Does anyone dissagree with me that Bolton and the 76 Senators favor tough new sanctions in response to Iranian moderation?
and you are unable to distinguish between calling for new sanctions and actually delivering new sanctions. So yes, Obama’s been tough on them lately which is one step beyond those who are merely talking about it. But according to you, talking about it is counterproductive.
Would that be the same “others” who’ve been having a problem understanding you so far?
“Neo-cons”, shmee-o-cons, call them daffodils, for all I care. On the one hand you have more or less genuine assholes, with a child-like faith in jutting out your jaw and talking tough, and then you got the guys who know better, but are afraid of running against somebody who will call them a wussy.
Thousands upon thousands of lives are at risk, its no time for chest-thumping and hooting chimpanzees. Or daffodils.
Well, I’d rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son.
Emphasis added. Do you know what the word “only” means?
Iran has said mean and unpleasant things about Israel. I fully support Israel’s right to say mean and unpleasant things in self-defense.
Mr. Bolton is a warmonger. I don’t believe in damnation, but if I did, that would be the one and only.
If that is your answer then tell us if it is John Bolton or the group of Senators who do not favor tough new sanctions in response to Iranian moderation.
The following statement by Bolton that you cited does not alter Bolton’s call for tough new sanctions despite Iran’s moves to moderation. This statement is not in anyway incompatible or contrary to Bolton’s call for tough new sanctions despite Iran’s moves to moderation…
“In truth, an Israeli military strike is the** only** way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons…"
The flaw in your simplistic and quite silly argument (and flinging of the slur by asking if I understand what ‘only’ means) is that the word “ONLY” is applied by Bolton as it is written in your cite, toward the “way to avoid” Tehran’s march to nuclear weapons. So your biggest problem with your “yes” response, is that you have not found a cite by Bolton , notwithstanding his solidly held ridiculous belief that you did cite, where he says that during the run up to the 'inevitable Israeli military strike against Iran that it would NOT be a good political action for neocons and any non-neocon allies they can find in the US Senate to spit in the face of the moderates in the US and Iran by calling for tough new sanctions in response to Iranian moderation. You need to provide it if you think it exists somewhere or you are wrong to answer yes to me question.
That is why Bolton’s" calling for tough new sanctions in response to Iranian moderation" not only resembles the language in the letter by 76 US Senators, it is exactly on the same page and in unity with that move by those Senators.
You have not come close John Mace to demonstrating in writing why you disagree with my argument on a thread that you initiated that Bolton’s call for tough new sanctions in response to Iranian moderation **does not resemble **what the Senators wrote.
I have explained it to you so in a similar grounded with facts and well reasoned response can you refute my explanation or any part of it. Or anyone else. I’d love to see you try. .
Apparently we need more than damnation of Mr Bolton.
We need to educate the public about what is really going on with Iran and what is at stake.
I’m not saying 68% of Americans agree with him but his extremist war mongering views appears to be holding sway as far as the public’s belief that Obama has not been tough enough on Iran.
My view is that the news to the public has been distorted by right wing influence to make it look like Obama has been weak on dealing with Iran. Obama has been involved in the tough sanctions that have brought Iran to the point we are at now.
it is quite difficult what the US public really thinks about US foreign policy in General when the topic gets close to the use of the military and projecting military toughness.
Obama has not delivered new sanctions. There is nothing for me to distinguish. You are compounding the flaws in your argument be reapeating claims that are unfounded.
Obama is enforcing existing sanctions not delivering new sanctions and you have been told that repeatedly.
Obama says he will veto a bill that calls for new sanctions. He cannot be more opposed than that.
Uhm, no. That is not the way it works around here. You have been shown a cite where Bolton says sanctions won’t do any good. You’ve been shown a cite where Bolton says the only way to deal with Iran’s nuclear program is for military action. Do not pretend that we are discussing anything other than stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
If you are going to insist that he, in fact, favors increasing sanctions, you need to cite him saying that. All you have done is say that you think he would. That is not proof in any way shape or form.
You cannot dispute the fact that Bolton wants military action, not more sanctions. If you do, produce a cite, not your own conjecture.
The above Cite is from:
http://www.niacinsight.com/category/sanctions/
The following cite is from Ravenman’s post Yesterday at 10:54 PM that linked to this…
What Bolton says are well intentioned and worth Pursuing was this:
“worth pursuing” means to me that Bolton favors it. in my understanding of English…
Of Course Ravenman’s cite goes back to 2009… You need to read what others post if you are going to rely on them. Here’s the link if you wish to read it now.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204731804574383162213828906
Sanctions Won’t Work Against Iran: The mullahs are addressing their vulnerability to a gasoline shortage. By John Bolton Updated Aug. 31, 2009 10:48 p.m. ET
Bottom Line John Mace and I have made the case… Bolton believes tough sanctions are worth pursuing… and the 75 Senators believe tough sanctions are worth pursuing. That is a a 'RESEMBLENCE" and you are wrong.
None of your cites proves what you claim. Besides, this whole issue about the August letter and whether it corresponds to Bolton’s views is a complete hijack, having nothing to do with this thread, and I am not going to pursue it any longer. You are wrong, and it’s abundantly clear that you will do anything other than admit that fact. Do not expect any further responses from me on this subject. You have been proven wrong. Period. End of hijack.
I will not respond to Hijack’s containing personal attacks against me. Bolton was cited by Ravenman yesterday saying that tough sanctions are worth pursuing. Anyone who says Bolton does not think tough sanctions against Iran are worth pursuing is not accepting the facts put before them.
Does anyone agree with the argument put forth in this thread by one writer that John Bolton does not believe tough sanctions against Iran are worth pursuing or that Bolton does not support a toughening of sanctions despite Iranian moves to moderation?
meh
Sure you will. You have a compulsive need to respond to nearly everything posted that does not bow down and slavishly admit that you are right in every detail. You persistently argue even with posters who agree with you if they do not agree with 101% of what you have posted.
Somewhat confusing. You seem to be insisting that because Bolton favors war, he would disapprove of actions that might well lead to war. Its kinda like saying he wants to knee cap Iran, but would draw the line at bitch-slapping.
Not that I mean to suggest that Mr Bolton operates on a plane of reason and judgement, or anything like that.
The following cite is from Ravenman’s post Yesterday at 10:54 PM that linked to this…
“These ideas are well-intentioned and worth pursuing. If imposed, they will create shortages that will likely increase internal dissatisfaction with Iran’s regime, thereby hopefully contributing to its ultimate demise. But no one should believe that tighter sanctions will, in the foreseeable future, have any impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
That was uttered in 2009 and Iran has not developed a nuclear bomb four years later. So I wonder how much longer Bolton can play the ‘foreseeable future’ bit.
He wants a military strike. He doesn’t want something that “might” lead to military action. What does he want? War! When does he want it? Now! He’s on the record as saying that sanctions won’t work. He’s on the record as saying that the only thing that will work is military action. If you want to call that “approving” sanctions, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
But let’s say he came out tomorrow and said: “I think tighter sanctions are a great idea but only if we also commit to a military strike. If that’s what it takes to get a military strike, then I approve of tighter sanctions.” That still would not make someone who favors increased sanctions, but not a military strike to have a position that “highly resembles” Bolton’s view.
He’s delivering MORE sanctions. This is not in dispute. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to the Iranians if the added sanctions are new or old. I’ve cited their displeasure. Or put another way, I’ve cited what you claim will occur if the neocon clowns in the Senate pass a bill doing the same thing.
I did produce a cite that was provided yesterday by Ravenman fot which I thank him dearly where Bolton flat out stated that tough new sanctions are worth pursuing. Now John Mace is no longer interested in defending his argument.
Lets find out if anyone agrees with Magiver that Obama is delivering more sanctions. Enforcing existing sanctions is what is expected to happen. If Obama wanted to enforce new sanctions then he’d have to get the P5+1 to agree to that. Obama opposes new sanction and that is very clear.