It is apparent that those who believe that Obama is splitting hairs on enforcing or relieving Iranian sanctions have absolutely no argument to back up that belief with facts or reason.
It is apparent that you have flip flopped on this issue yet again. Nobody can dispute that you said you supported my position, and everyone agrees that you are now disagreeing with me.
The obvious answer is that you cannot deny not knowing if you are not in agreement with me, or if you are not not disagreeing with me. You cannot not NOT dispute this.
If it is apparent - cite it. I have never agreed that Obama is splitting hairs on his policy toward Iranian sanctions.
You cannot deny that you agreed with me earlier. Why don’t you cite the post where you didn’t agree with me, but you were able to deny it?
Its good to know that those who believe Obama is splitting hairs on Iranian sanctions don’t have a case or argument or point or anything to back up their belief. Obama is not splitting hairs.
No one can deny that Obama is splitting hairs. This is a fact, and it can’t be denied. There is absolutely no argument that can be made against this fact.
Its an opinion that is apparently not based on any facts, reading of plain English, or reason. It is a flawed and unsupported opinion and no one here has bothered to write anything to support it other that it is what they believe.
I have shown that enforcing existing sanctions is not the same thing as implementing new sanctions and then enforcing them. Are you saying there is no difference? Why not say something that has some substance on the issue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf3fcoXx0pI
That the validation of the former government is debatable for that very reason.
Any road up, having your hands tied FOREVER simply because the document said “this” rather than “it” is not my idea of a fair deal. Nor is intimidating, badgering, and threatening someone whose hands you know to be legally tied. The military capabilities of vanquished Japan and Germany were designed by the victors, though those capabilities have since been tweeked. But I recon that’s alright, eh?
Employing superlative logic and absurd conclusions isn’t really getting you very far and falsely claiming that I posted some link isn’t putting you closer to me pressing the friend button either.
And … ?
Really. If you drop the string of absurd statements we might have a better chance of carrying this subject forward. Or do you want me to respond to the part that ought already be obvious - that of America’s direct responsibility for Iran’s diplomat and nuclear situation.
No. Not happy at all. I will be happy when ALL nuclear weapons of the world are utterly destroyed.
I don’t care how many times your pit bull snarls at me. I’m going to start packing a can of mace.
The Geneva Convention Rules were ratified by 195 states of their own free will. I wonder why the U.S. signed it?
What is wrong with calling them what they are. They are extremists on Iran. I am talking about any US Senator from any Party who has dug in with an extreme position in opposition to the interim agreement with Iran that could very well lead to the achievement of the neocon goal of military force being the only option left if those negotiations fail.
How would anyone refer to these Senators as moderates on Iran?
They could be playing either side for the fence.
-
They own lots of stock in the arms industry and lucrative, affiliate business possibilities … OIL! … or …
-
They’re playing good guy bad guy together with the government.
My bet’s on number 1.
Meh, let 'em have it. The day after they use it, Iran as we know it will cease to exist.
So … given the opportunity to make amends to a country (one that has a legitimate gripe against you) … you’d rather not make friends with them but wait till they lose patience, fire off a barrage of nukes, and take your chances that you will survive and have the honour of retaliating?
What-sa matta’? Ain’t ya’ got no loved ones? :dubious:
Well, define “amends” and “friends”. Don’t the internal politics of Iran make mandatory a state of distrust of the West? Let’s see signs of rule of law, and not Shari’a law, either. I’d frankly love to see the day when we can trust Iran, because Iran trusts its own population.
Forever, eh?
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
A national revolution surely qualifies as an extraordinary event.
And to hell with all the other signatories to an anti-mace treaty?
ETA: I find this aspect fairly amusing…you and elucidator complain about the U.S. imposing its will, and how the U.S. acts like other countries only exist by its benefice. Meanwhile, you advocate a policy by which only the U.S. matters. Iran signed a treaty? Doesn’t count, the U.S. did them wrong once, and arguably broke a different treaty. Other nations want sanctions, through the UN? Doesn’t matter, the U.S. is mean. If you want the U.S. to be less of a bully, shouldn’t you act like you care what China, Russia, Germany, the UK, France, et al think?
So you have no answer, then?
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
Ravenman said he agreed with Magiver in order to try to refute me. Then Ravenman came back with the excuse that he thinks Magiver meant something else when he used the clear phrase that Obama is currently ‘actually delivering **new sanctions’ ** in an earlier reply to me.
Why these points matter? First of all it is my view that the position of some US Senators, up to and including the present moment, are hell bent on disrupting the negotiations by calling for new tough sanctions that may excite and promote the hardliners in Iran to cast aside the moderates in Iran and get the negotiation path to a settlement derailed. These Senators are extremists on this issue and should not be given their way.
Secondly these extremist Senators are unintentionally assisting the most extremist neocon movement in the US to weaken Obama as he tries to keep the interim deal moving forward to a place where military involvement can be taken off the table. They weaken him by helping to convince the public that Obama has not been ‘tough enough’ on Iran. The extremists have thus far according to the Fox News poll I cited been successful in that regard. 68 percent think Obama has not been tough enough on Iran. They have not convinced Americans however that a military strike is needed right now. But they are moving in a direction that could scuttle this deal and the potential for military action increases if the deal does fall apart.
So bottom line is that Magiver’s belief that Obama is delivering ***new sanctions *** by enforcing existing sanctions is part of the attempt by extremists on Iran to dismiss Obama’s opposition to the actual **‘new sanctions’ ** that the extremists want Obama to enforce. You see Magiver’s choice of phrasing makes Obama look hypocritical to oppose those extremist Senators on Iran, with many of them being Democrats.
And then Ravenman’s murky endorsement of Magivers changes to the meanings of words here, puts some additional seasoning on the extremist recipe for military action prevailing on Iran. Ravenman’s ingredient has escalated to say that Obama is **splitting hairs **on **enforcing old sanctions **versus **delivering new sanctions **altogether.
I think Ravenman is wrong to jump into bed with Magiver on this, because Magiver has written in support of regime change on Iran. Going to that extreme is a recipe for war not a recipe for a diplomatic resolution to this standoff.
So why do we even care about Iran getting nukes? Does anyone think they will use them?
If the nutjobs over in North Korea don’t use their nukes (not even to threaten people with), then what makes us think that the significantly more sane regime in Iran will start blowing shit up?
Would we even care if it wasn’t for Israel and oil?
Well, the fewer nukes, the better. Hence the NNPT. And if Iran gets them, there is an expectation that Saudi Arabia will, too. Then, maybe Egypt. Sort of like the Domino Theory (don’t laugh).
NK has nothing to do with Israel or oil, and few countries wanted to see them get nukes.
Youve already said you agree with me, so I don’t know why you keep flip flopping. If you agree with me, which you do, you’re now making an argument that you agree with Magiver. Now you’re constructing an argument that we all agree with neocons. Then you deny that you agree with John Bolton. It just doesn’t make sense!
But here’s something you cannot deny: you supported a war authorization in Iraq to bring Iraq’s WMD to an end. Now you’re saying that anyone who supports sanctions is an extremist. You can’t even be consistent with your policies toward countries whose names start with I in the Mideast! You were happy to threaten Iraq with an unjustified war, but lose your cool over a letter that isn’t very controversial at all.
You cannot explain this. You can’t describe it. There is no reason here, only flailing, failing, fanning and fluxing.
It’s Christmas, and the Baby Jesus is going to weep if we get back into that subject. Please, let’s not send this thread down that path!!!