Here’s some excerpted comments about sanctions. All were talking about ‘added’ ‘extra’ ‘new’ or ‘more’ sanctions. But then Magiver was forced to include toughening of existing sanctions as meaning the same thing as adding new sanctions to continue some kind of spat with Obama.
Funny thing is that John Mace actually called Magiver on it right away. Scroll down to the last two posts and you will see it.
[quote=“John_Mace, post:15, topic:674300”]
As I made clear in the OP, I’m not for imposing more sanctions. QUOTE]
John Mace explained the reality that cracking down on violators of existing sanctions is not tightening of sanctions. That is my point too and the source of a major dispute with Magiver.
So Mace and I agree on that point. Ravenman is not very clear on it at all.
You cannot say I am wrong. That it yet another example of your errors. It is literally impossible to disagree with me, because you have already agreed with me, and I have called no backsies.
It is physically, empirically, metaphysically, and emotionally impossible to dispute this.
Magiver posted this: “Obama decided to crack down on Iran sanctions violators” and I have long agreed on this thread with that and have included it in part of my argument that adding new sanctions despite Iranian moderation is an extremist position. I am not saying no one can disagree with me on that. I am saying the basis for disagreeing must not rely in part on invalid reasoning based upon changing the meaning of words and phrases.
Magiver has continued with an argument that ‘cracking down on existing sanction violators’ is the same thing as ‘delivering new sanctions’.
So if anyone wishes to back Magiver up as Ravenman has in blurred fashion tried to do, then they are taking up the argument with John Mace as well, the text of this thread shows.
John Mace replied to Magiver’s post with these very clear words: “So, just to be clear, this is not a tightening of sanctions but a commitment to crack down on existing sanctions.”
I am reiterating John Mace’s clarification all the way. If anyone can dispute what Mace wrote there, have at it.
I disagree with you that the White House is splitting hairs. The White House has increased cracking down on violators of existing sanctions and opposes new tougher sanctions. That is not splitting hairs. That is enforcing existing sanctions consistent with existing policy and objecting to any new and tougher changes to that existing policy other than what is written into the terms of the six month interim deal.
No one has presented reports about the interim deal showing an agreement by P5+1 that it was agreed to lessen or cease cracking down on violators of existing sanctions. Most here including yourself have acknowledged that the deal contained specific easing of specific sanctions an no reference to ignoring violations of existing sanctions,
Originally Posted by John Mace: “So, just to be clear, this is not a tightening of sanctions but a commitment to crack down on existing sanctions. .”
Hopefully that was not a joke because you are correct. Does anyone disagree with Mace on that. I don’t.
But that is not to say that I don’t think both “highly resemble” each other, to borrow a phrase. What you are doing, OTOH, is force-fitting events into your world-view where Obama can do no wrong and anyone who disagrees with him is a neocon.
It is illogical to disagree with me, because I have shown that I’m correct.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Because if you’re disagreeing, you’re still wrong. You haven’t presented any evidence that you are right. Even when you ask for evidence, I disagree with you.
I take it there is no way support an argument that the White a house is splitting hairs on enforcing existing sanctions. I have supported my argument and there is no meaningful counter argument to it.
I supported my argument with powerful reasoning, indisputable logic, and compelling words. Plus, humor.
All you have are a bunch of quotes from other posters… posters on the Straight Dope Message Board. I have proven what I set out to do, and all you can do is copy and paste the words of people who are arguing with you.
sorry no, I have not continued to argue this. I’ve used the word “more” in place of “new”. He’s added more companies to the list of those sanctioned and I cited this. This is an increase in the financial burden to Iran and they objected to it. I cited this.
Now your position has been the threat of additional sanctions by Senators would harm negotiations. You’ve called them neocons and clowns. You say these things even though Obama actually added companies to the sanctions list after the agreement was made. And you went on to say the Iranians were wrong for objecting to this because the additional sanctions were .
Your position makes no sense at all. The purpose of the agreement was to trade financial relief from sanctions in return for agreements regarding the refinement of nuclear material.
Of course there is. You are just impervious to it because it contradicts your world view. It is well established that when facts confluct with that world view you choose to reject those facts rather than adjust your world view.
So it was joke. On the one hand you first wrote that Obama had NOT directed a tightening of sanctions, he was making a committment to cracking down on existing sanctions. Now you are saying that when something is not something they resemble each other.
Is the latter with the exception of where there is no resemblance.
You are making Humpty Dumpty proud right there.
I have never written that Bolton and the US Senators were not saying roughly the same thing when both were in support of tough new sanctions despite Iran’s open moves toward moderation.
So once again your argument and reasoning is quite flawed.
All the talk about sanctions or attacking Iran are worrying. What EXACTLY is wrong with letting Iran develop its nuclear program unhindered? I don’t see what the problem is.
Can someone please put forward an argument why Iran shouldn’t do as it pleases?
Because: a) it signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty; b) it would encourage other countries in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, to acquire their own nuclear weapon to maintain deterrence; and c) we’re worried that Iran might actually use it.
ETA: you are aware that we’re all talking about concerns about a nuclear weapons program, right? It isn’t like people are trying to stop Iran from building some light water reactors (which cannot be used for nuclear weapons purposes) to keep their lights on at night.
Are you now for or against what you were arguing on the previous page? Because it seems like you had been favoring some actions which you are now against. And don’t try to blame that flip-flop on John Mace!
What is flawed is that John Bolton did not write the letter, and I have factually demonstrated that he could not have signed the letter. You persist in linking John Bolton to the letter even though the facts are that he was not.
You cannot argue things which do not exist in reality. And I have never not argued that you cannot do what has not been done to not disagree with me.
The nation that currently occupies the same geographical location as Iran ratified that treaty. That nation effectively no longer exists, as it was overthrown by revolution. A fair argument can be made that the Iran that signed those treaties was not the legitimate government of Iran, being a tyranny imposed by outside forces upon an unwilling people.
The other two are perfectly sound reasons why we would prefer they did not. Whether or not they are sound reasons why we may forbid them to is another question altogether. There, we must rely upon our unsullied record for peaceful co-existence and respect for sovereign nations. After all, why should anyone worry that we might go off on a military adventure for no good reason?
Lastly, of course, this our planet and they just live here. At our sufferance.
a). I can understand this argument and though I don’t want to deny you this point I wonder why it is that Israel has thumbed its own nose and got off “scot free” - not to mention the U.S. signing the agree of the Geneva Conventions Rules yet … well, torture, war crimes, etc.
b). The key word (your very own) is “deterrence” and that is precisely the justification for Iran carrying out its nuclear program.
c). Having a bomb of their own would give a great measure of assurance that Iran won’t be attacked ONCE AGAIN by hostile forces.
ETA: It is unfortunate that agressive, war-mongering entities do not respect the unarmed innocent. The U.S. is the only country that has nuked populations, and it is their fall-back stance that if X doesn’t do as it is told the U.S. may bomb it to hell and back. Policies of all other nuclear nations, however, is that if they are threatened with nukes they will “call and ante up”. It’s a **VERY BIG **difference.
There’s ample international law on dispositive and non-dispositive international treaties. Iran had ample opportunity to cast off the remnants of the former regime, just as they dispatched many individuals of the former regime. They did not, so the fact that there was a revolution three decades ago is no longer relevant.
Christ, it’s getting the point that one can’t swing cat in Great Debates without hitting a reference to imperialist America. We almost went one whole page in this thread without a reference to an unjustified invasion of Iraq; thanks for not letting the ball drop!
