My cite doesn’t support what you’re saying. Once again, you read things for words that vaguely resemble some point you try to make, but the whole idea of context has just never entered your debating style.
You more or less say that John Bolton would love the August letter, and that any Democrats who signed on are aligning themselves with the letter. It is clear that Bolton has low regard for sanctions as a tool to force Iran to the negotiating table, but he isn’t opposed to sanctions, either. He wants to bomb Iran. That’s his main goal. It’s just that simple.
It should be clear from Bolton’s statements that he regards sanctions as pretty much a half-measure, or a feel-good measure that just won’t be effective in ending the nuclear program.
The inability to read for meaning is a huge impediment in this debate. If Bolton had written a letter in August 2013, it sure as hell wouldn’t be that letter, which also emphasized “fully exploring” diplomatic initiatives.
And yes, I think Magiver is probably right that Obama is increasing sanctions, while technically being able to say that he isn’t creating new sanctions. And there’s no requirement for the United States to get permission from the P5+1 for new sanctions, that’s just more drivel that you invented.
If you have to argue using phrases like ‘more or less’ there is not much value in discussing anything with you. What I wrote is clear. No need for anyone to rephrase it.
Obama apparently also thinks tougher sanctions are worth pursuing. Otherwise he wouldn’t have increased enforcement of the sanctions.
Do you think John Bolton, if he were a senator, would have signed the August letter? There isn’t a doubt in my mind he would find it too conciliatory, because it urged the president to continue diplomatic efforts.
And yes, I think Magiver is probably right that Obama is increasing sanctions, while technically being able to say that he isn’t creating new sanctions.
[/QUOTE]
Ok provide a cite or some translation of normal English that ‘enforcing existing sanctions’ is somehow the same technically as adding or delivering more new sanctions above and beyond the sanctions that already exist and are justifiably enforced.
Plain English tells me that adding new sanctions is quite different than enforcing existing sanctions and you have made no case that they are technically the same. That argument is silly at best. You can’t be serious.
No. No. No. You have to admit that when you said “he isn’t creating new sanctions,” you REALLY meant “he is creating new sanctions.” Otherwise, NotfooledbyW does not get to point to your post as someone who actually agrees with him. Come on. Work with him.
Your cite supports clearly what I am saying. I am saying to John Mace that John Bolton supports increasing tough new sanctions just like the 76 US Senators wrote in the August 2013 letter to Obama. Your cite quotes John Bolton as saying that new tough sanctions are worth pursuing. If you think that Bolton opposes tough new sanctions or or opposed imposing sanctions you are in denial of your very own cite.
This is like debating with Eliza on a Commodore 64. That program would key in on a few words and respond to them, while not having a clue what the meaning of the words are:
“I’m feeling blue today, Eliza.”
“I like the color blue!”
I’m talking about the issue you had with me saying Magiver is more or less right. Obama has made sanctions slightly more painful while not imposing new sanctions. This is the topic we’ve been discussing for the last couple of posts. Now you’re backing up to a topic discussed a dozen posts ago. If you want to respond to my statement that Magiver is pretty much right on that point about sanctions, go ahead. If you want to respond to my claim that Bolton wouldn’t have signed the August letter, that’s fine, too. But try to maintain some coherence in your posts, will you please?
Ravenman was agreeing with Magiver that technically Obama is increasing (delivering) new sanctions. So Ravenman is not arguing that Obama is not creating new sanctions - Ravenman I believe is arguing that Magiver is technically correct to say that Obama is increasing new sanctions. So Tom&Debb you need to follow before commenting on where this thread had gone.
No. I need only see that you have posted to recognize that you have twisted, either deliberately or through complete misunderstanding, what other posters have said. (See Ravenman’s correction to your weird assertions, just above.)
I have not argued that Obama has not made enforcing existing sanctions more painful. He has. So I will not be hijacked into a discussion based on my incoherence with regard to that inaccurate claim.
So, you prove my point once more. You misinterpreted Ravenman’s statement, reversing it, and now want to hare off on a separate tangent, disagreeing with me on a point I have not addressed at any time, claiming that you will not be “hijacked” into a discussion. (Of course, you won’t, only the hijacks you initiate are important to you. )
)