Whether something is “reasonable” or not is an opinion. I have no interest in debating opinions. Find somebody who does.
I am not debating opinions. I am questioning why you are arguing that two diametrically opposed views on averting a war or preemptively striking Iran are both reasonable in your mind. It is not simply my opinion that you are doing that - it is a fact that you are doing that.
The question is why are you doing that? Why are you defending Bolton who hates the idea that the UNSC should back a strike if necessary?
Yes, you are.
Diametrically opposed? To me, they look pretty similar, differing by a few months as to whether or not to use military force.
I’m not defending Bolton. I just disagree with him in a different way than you do. You should be used to that by now-- most of us here, even when the agree with you, do so in different ways.
That is silly. They don’t differ by a few months as to whether to use military force or not. Bolton’s been wanting to use military force for at least a decade. Obama prefers never use military force and now he has gotten the world closer to never having to use it. That is a major difference and only one man is being reasonable. And fortunately the one that is being reasonable is the one that matters most. War has been avoided for five years - because a reasonable policy has been in place by the White House.
Lets keep nut jobs like Bolton out of the White House and rebuked when he tries to influence the public and politicians with his sabre rattling bs.
We don’t need Obama to get us closer to never having to use military force. We just need to decide not to use it.
You try to sound so anti-war dot com but you are certainly contradicting yourself the more you write.
Had Romney won the election then Your reasonable Bolton could be Secretary of State,
Read it all:
We needed Obama to stop that and man from bring Secretary of State. Stop kidding yourself.
“Reasonable” is your word, not mine. You’re the one obsessed with a powerless man like Bolton, not me. I’m more interested in people who can actually make things happen. Obama and Menendez, not Bolton.
Actually I was responding to H.Action’s use of that word and then you chimed in with this; “No, I’m not arrogant enough to think that my position is the only “reasonable” one.” whiich has to mean you think Bolton is reasonable to want and push for war as you are reasonable on the side of ‘no war ever’.
Your position is to let them have nuclear bombs if they want them I believe you have stated as much. If that is correct then your reasonable position is even more diametrically opposed to Bolton’s than just about anyone’s. So when you tell me that Bolton’s views are reasonable, that tells me that you don’t have much conviction that your very own dovish position is all that reasonable either. I just wish you would take a strong position and defend it.
Bolton has some influence being on Fox News all the time. - so the more folks who see him as the unreasonable nutjobs that he is … The more chance is that Obama or the next President won’t have to make a choice that military action would be necessary.
I thought that is what you want too.
What you’re butting your head against here is an entirely different way of looking at the world. One way is to assume, unless there’s evidence to the contrary, that other people have reasons for believing what they believe and acting in the way that they act. This means one can disagree with someone’s opinion or policy stance, while still considering it reasonable and worthy of debate, because it’s the product of a reasoned thought process.
For example, one could conclude that, given the precepts: a) Iran has violated its treaty obligations before, b) a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, to the point where military force is justified in preventing it if that’s what it takes; that further sanctions and treaties cannot be relied upon to prevent Iran from breaking its word and completing a nuclear weapon, and that the risk of this outcome is intolerable, and justifies military action as soon as possible.
I disagree with that stance, but it’s perfectly reasonable. Relying on Iranian compliance with a treaty, instead of physically removing their ability to violate a treaty, does entail taking a risk.
The other way is to assume that people with beliefs that differ from you own are some combination of liar, charlatan, lunatic, and pure evil. You seem to have thrown your hat in this particular ring, which will bring you into conflict with those who haven’t.
newsflash. They’re already at the stage where they’re close to building a bomb. 20% is good but 3.5% is still a substantial level of refinement. The agreement is a reduction to 5%.
That’s not what experts say.
You have derfined a conclusion made by a perfectly obnoxious warmonger. You have in essence sanctioned executing a man or woman before a crime is committed.
You have your dissagreement with Bolton but you express no concern or apprehension about the reality that Bolton is calling for use of deadly force based upon his suspicions not his evidence. Bolton has determined that Iran cannot have peaceful use of nuclear energy and that is where all reason begins to leave his mind.
Peaceful use of nuclear energy is not a crime. So what is a reasonable way to make sure the ‘crime’ of building a bomb is not being pursued? Yes it’s thise pesky
Weapons inspectors popping up again.
I see you only mentioned ‘further sanctions and treaties’ as powerless in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
It is Bolton’s lack of respect for weapons inspectors and the international consortium of nations working together to support them that should rile everyone to oppose that warmongering buffoon and hope he goes away soon.
Obama’s policy also calls for military action before Iran gets nuclear weapons. Bolton assumes, right now, that negotiations won’t work. Obama has said that he thinks negotiations have less than 50% chance of succeeding. If they don’t, it’s bombs away-- before, as you put it, a “crime” is committed.
And, most Americans also think negotiations won’t work, although they are worth trying.
:smack: Except for the part where I said I disagreed with that stance. I reject precept (b), a nuclear Iran isn’t unacceptable to me, and it doesn’t alone justify military force. It does seem unacceptable to you, Obama, and Bolton, you just differ on how to go about preventing it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You have your dissagreement with Bolton but you express no concern or apprehension about the reality that Bolton is calling for use of deadly force based upon his suspicions not his evidence.
[/quote]
Bolton isn’t a Senator, Representative, or the President. Those 76 Senators you were so steamed at were advocating more sanctions, not a military strike. I’m not typically apprehensive about things (in this case, a military strike instead of further diplomacy and/or sanctions) that aren’t going to happen.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Bolton has determined that Iran cannot have peaceful use of nuclear energy and that is where all reason begins to leave his mind.
Peaceful use of nuclear energy is not a crime. So what is a reasonable way to make sure the ‘crime’ of building a bomb is not being pursued? Yes it’s thise pesky
Weapons inspectors popping up again.
[/quote]
Well, for Iran, it sort of is at the moment, but not categorically so.
I believe it’s Iranian compliance he has a problem with, not the inspectors themselves. But, in either case, relying on inspection and diplomacy does entail a risk, which was my point.
I see my broader point about reasonable disagreement was utterly lost on you.
As you must know the IAEA inspectors have made it clear that Iran is complying with the current agreement. So at present and into the months ahead, Bolton cannot reasonably have ‘a problem’ with compliance from Iran unless you mean that Bolton sees Iranian compliance to be the problem. If that is the case then Bolton surely is as unreasonable and crazy as it gets. Perhaps Bolton thinks these inspectors are fools or bribed or something but in that case it means that Bolton has a problem right now with the inspectors - not compliance.
A nuclear Iran is acceptable to Obama and me. It is not acceptable to Bolton. The Iranians can continue their compliance with the IAEA inspectors and they can pursue nuclear power generation the their hearts content.
Define “nuclear Iran”. If your definition includes enrichment, then it’s unclear that Obama agrees with that.
Obama agreed to the current deal. Continued enrichment is in the current deal and Obama is the first US President to open that door:
The thing about compliance is that a) it can stop at any time and b) Iran is a big country to hide things in. Hence, relying on it is a risk.
I actually meant a nuclear-weapon-equipped Iran, but John Mace’s point about enrichment is well-taken.
I hadn’t seen that before. That could be a deal breaker for many Senators, so I’m not sure why Obama would concede that point before negotiations begin in ernest. Seems very unwise to me, but we’ll see…