There are no facts in that response that addresses why they had no response face to face.
!!"Four Senate aides said the president warned that new sanctions could derail the fragile nuclear talks. Obama “made a really strong case for his position on Iran” in the hopes of giving “pause to anyone who wanted a vote while negotiations were ongoing,” one of the aides said. After Obama made the case against sanctions, not a single supporter argued the opposite case, sources said.
I understand your point but I prefer a sizzlin, steak to a bowl of mush. But I really want to see the answer to the question I asked you.
!!"Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW: If you think Bolton is being reasonable in his disagreements with Obama over what course to take with Iran’s nuclear program then I guess you’d have an argument. "!! *
PS: I could care less if Bolton believes what he says. He is not reasonable on Iran.
It’s a nonsensical question - as I already said, it’s not your proposed Iran policy I’ve complained about, but rather the way you argue it. So, asking me if I’ll still be doing something I’m not doing now if a hypothetical event occurs makes no sense.
Bolton cannot be reasonably dissagreeing with Obama on Iran policy unless he is being reasonable. Do you think John Bolton is reasonable on the current negotiations with Iran?
All I have done is made a very reasoned choice that Obama is being very
reasonable with proper caution on Iran and Bolton and his ilk could not find a way to be reasonable on Iran of Iran chose Mr Rogers to be their Supreme Ruler.
So I prefer to strongly dissagree with fanatical ideologues like John Bolton and I’m not willing to concede that his disturbed thinking on Iran is reasonable in any way.
I disagree with Bolton’s conclusion that only an Israeli military strike, and not diplomacy, can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons…but I don’t find it to be unreasonable, let alone “disturbed thinking”. Iran has breached its treaty obligations before, after all, the idea that they might not honor a future deal isn’t pulled out of thin air.
Well, Bolton may very well be correct. The only way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons may be a military strike. And if Obama really does have a policy of “no nukes for Iran”, that may be the only way to implement that policy. Bolton’s ideas can’t be considered unreasonable.
I would say that points to a flaw in the policy rather than a flaw in Bolton’s logic. As I look at things, if the only way to prevent a nuclear armed Iran is by military means, that tells me we should be looking at how to live with a nuclear armed Iran. However, it should be noted that the lead actor in the call for sanctions, namely Senator Menendez, does not hold that view, and so putting up Bolton as the poster boy for more sanctions is a dodge. Bolton isn’t in a position to be calling the shots, no pun intended. Menendez is.
As for the Washington Post editorial, it’s very existence is the fact you are ignoring. For you, the editorial does not exist because you disagree with it. There is no use in arguing with a person who thinks like that, I have no intention of doing so any further.
Even if you think Bolton is wrong (and I do) that the only way to prevent Iran from getting nukes is military action, you have to admit that it’s not out of the question. That is, there is some finite (and not tiny) possibility that it will be necessary if, in fact, your policy is that you will not allow a nuclear armed Iran. So, frankly, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Obama’s stated policy and Bolton’s-- it’s a difference in degree, not in kind. Having said that, I much prefer Obama’s position over Bolton’s because I think Obama’s is less likely to lead to pre-emptive military action. And, there is a slim chance that Obama doesn’t really mean what he says-- although I would not bet on that.
Both Obama and Bolton are willing to accept military action to prevent Iran from getting nukes. I’m not. My policy is different in kind, not degree. I will only consider a military strike against Iran if it initiates military action against the US or one of our allies. I do not favor a pre-emptive strike.
well he agrees with Obama on sanctions so this is really a strange question. The President is on recorded supporting and signing sanction legislation into law. At best you’re making a case for President as “keeper of the fork”. According to you the reduction in sanctions is juuuuuust the right amount of sanctions. He stuck a fork in it and declared it done.
So what defines success? Taking away their ability to make weapons. Is Iran even hinting at the removal of centrifuges? No. They’ve been clear on this issue to the point of calling Obama a liar for suggesting they agreed to it.
You can’t be talking about me since I am very certain that the Washington Post editorial exists. So you have made a gross error in trying to figure out how to get out of this discussion. The editorial was printed prior to the face to face meeting with Obama when the Bolton allies had no argument as my report pointed out. The WP editorial must not have been a face to face argument since they didnt use it to respond to Obama after he explained reality to them.
Not true. Bolton does not agree with Obama’s view that sanctions can be effective in stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Bolton is now panicked because sanctions plus the enhanced IAEA inspections may very well put Bolton’s fear mongering out of business. If a permanent deal is reached within a year Obama will be correct about sanctions and Bolton will be wrong. Because Bolton will be wrong it is rediculous to say he and Obama agree on sanctions.
What will Bolton do with his life when Iran is verified by IAEA inspectors to limit enrichment to 5% and all the 20% stocks have been destroyed? Will he call UNSC inspectors incompetant and fooled by Iran.
So is it your policy not to interfere if Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb and perhaps a nuclear arsenal just trusting that none go off and the radio-active fallout remains within Iran’s borders and affects no other living breathing soul outside of Iran. How about underground testing - are you ok with that?
Would a preventative strike be strategically more effective and less hazardous than to wait until a strike on an active nuclear arsenal would be very hazardous to more nations and people and ecology than one could bear to imagine?
First of all, I’m against any unilateral strike by the US, unless we are directly threatened or attacked by them. If there is going to be a strike, it should be a UNSC sanctioned strike and by a multi-national force. That pretty much means it will never happen, unless Iran starts launching nukes willy-nilly around the region.
If Iran wants nukes, they are going to get them. Plain and simple. It’s not worth the US starting a war to prevent that. Our strategy should then be to focus on how to deal with a nuclear Iran. We’ve done it before with Israel, India and Pakistan. We should treat Iran exactly the way we treated Pakistan when they got nukes. Been there, done that.
Bolton is panicked because a doe-eyed politician is busy handing Iran the money they need to advance their weapons program. They don’t need the 20% when they get to keep all their centerfuges.
What’s Obama going to do when they kick the inspectors out?
That’s easy. Resume the sanctions that were lifted. Pass tougher sanctions. And if looks as if they are getting close to building a bomb. Give the wink and nod to Netanyahu to notify the Supreme Leader via bunker busting airmail that he should not have kicked the inspecters out.
The stupid thing to do is try to screw up the negotiations without finding out if Iran is truly moderating their position and will sign onto a long term deal to never kick the IAEA inspectors out.
That is what is unreasonable about Bolton and what is reasonable about Obama.
Obama will not kick inspectors out to start a war. Bolton would I’m sure. So why not let the inspectors verify that Iran is complying with the agreement and worry about it later if Iran is the one that undermines the six month deal?
There is no reasonable argument against that as J.Mace must now realize.
No, I’m not arrogant enough to think that my position is the only “reasonable” one. I’m good with what Obama is doing, but he doesn’t agree with me. He still claims he will not permit Iran to get nukes, and so he’s still willing to use military force to prevent that. Let’s hope he doesn’t find himself in a position where he thinks that is the best option.
There is nothing arrogant about recognizing the utter lack of reasonableness in John Bolton’s argument that the IAEA inspectors will not be able to verify that Iran does not have any intent or capability to build a nuclear bomb.
Bolton can’t be given a pass on reasonableness based upon his position that nothing but a military strike can stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That rules out sanctions. If Bolton were as reasonable as Obama to give sanctions and Iran the benefit of the doubt if Iran’s actions match their words then I would have no issue with Bolton’s absurd position opposing what Obama wants to do. Bolton is being an absurd jerk right now.
Not getting into another semantic debate with you. You think Bolton’s position is not reasonable. Good for you. That’s an opinion, not a fact, and you are welcome to it. Just don’t go around saying everyone has to have the same opinion you do.
I’m good with what Obama is doing, but he doesn’t agree with me. /QUOTE]
Not a semantics problem here. You think Bolton is being reasonable to diametrically oppose Obama, but you think Obama is being reasonable too allow the negotiation process the time needed to avert the need for a preemptive strike. Bolton like Magiver says Obama is a " doe-eyed politician … handing Iran the money they need to advance their weapons program" and you apparently think it is reasonable to diss and subvert the reasinable work that you insist that Obama is doing.
It is not about semantics. Your argument makes no sense when your ultimate argument is to avoid a preemptive strike.
It is Bolton’s unreasonable fierce opposition to Obama’s pursuit of peaceful resolution that is reasonable to you. That makes no sense at all.