Will Obama’s nuke deal need a two thirds approval vote by the Senate? Maybe not

[WelfareQueen]

Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. Without sanctions.... nothing. And they have hated us since the 1970's and they're shits. Who cares if they hate us?

Let me get this straight:

You don't want us to negotiate with Iran, yet you use the fact that they are now negotiating as evidence of success for the sanctions?

Doesn't that mean that to you, the sanctions failed?

Who said I didn't want to negotiate? Doc....assuming is never good.

Trust but verify I believe Ronald Reagan once said. I agree.

A nuclear deal should include snap inspections anywhere we want at any time. Period. Iran must halt all uranium enrichment....immediately.

No lifting of any sanctions until Iran has verifiably shown full compliance and good faith for a period of one year. Assuming good behavior, gradually lift sanctions.

Now if that is the deal Obama negotiated, I will fully support it. If not...it is a shit deal imho.

Obama didn't do the negotiating. But we'll see what the deal is.

You're saying that the deal is a "shit deal" unless it follows your arbitrary guidelines?

You're quibbling. Obama approves the deal. He is Commander-in-Chief and he is 100% responsible.

Yep...that's what I saying. Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.

Quite reasonable...I do not think any logical person could argue otherwise. If this is the deal Obama supports I will support him fully and say so on this board. If he gives away the store as I suspect....major problems.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If my example is irrelevant, your entire argument is.

No, this is a tu quoque argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Literally.

I did. And now I'm being told I haven't...

Surely I wasn't being facetious?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more" has the same meaning as "We shouldn't give them any reason to hate us."?

It does. To me you are afraid the sanctions are doing more to hurt than help our reputation, ergo, "The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more." That also further implies to me that we shouldn't sanction them for fear of those sanctions "supporting their anti-American rhetoric."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more" has the same meaning as "We shouldn't give them any reason to hate us."?

It does. To me you are afraid the sanctions are doing more to hurt than help our reputation, ergo, "The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more."

You have to stop assigning meanings and emotions to my posts that don't exist. It's really fucking tiring.

I choose my words very carefully, and mean exactly what I say. Everything more than my exact words is coming from your imagination, not me - and I don't have the energy to argue against your imagination any more.

When I say that sanctions have worked to make them hate us even more, that's exactly what I mean, nothing more.

I'm not making any value judgements, I'm not making any suggestions as to what we should do, I'm not expressing my "fear" of Iran, nor any other emotion. I'm stating a fact, and that's it. Everything else was added by you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If my example is irrelevant, your entire argument is.

No, this is a tu quoque argument.

No, it's not.

Tu quoque is an appeal to hypocrisy.

I haven't attempted to discredit your argument by pointing out that you personally don't live up to the standards that you require of Iran, which would be an example of a tu quoque fallacy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not making any value judgements, I'm not making any suggestions as to what we should do, I'm not expressing my "fear" of Iran, nor any other emotion. I'm stating a fact, and that's it. Everything else was added by you.

There are limits to my perception. I can't read your mind.

So, what did you mean by "The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more?"

I don't have the energy to argue against your imagination any more.

I'm not using my imagination. Why is it when I'm trying to have an honest debate with someone, the accuse me of using my imagination? Surely my reading comprehension isn't that bad, Doc?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Literally.

I did. And now I'm being told I haven't...

Surely I wasn't being facetious?

When I say that you should take what I say literally, I'm referring to the fact that I mean exactly what I say and nothing more.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm not making any value judgements, I'm not making any suggestions as to what we should do, I'm not expressing my "fear" of Iran, nor any other emotion. I'm stating a fact, and that's it. Everything else was added by you.

There are limits to my perception. I can't read your mind.

So, what did you mean by "The sanctions against Iran have worked to make them hate us even more?"

I meant that the sanctions have worked to make them hate us even more, and have not worked to stop their nuclear program - exactly what I said.

I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with this.

I don't have the energy to argue against your imagination any more.

I'm not using my imagination. Why is it when I'm trying to have an honest debate with someone, the accuse me of using my imagination? Surely my reading comprehension isn't that bad, Doc?

It's not your reading comprehension that's the problem.

It's that you start extrapolating from what you read until you find a strawman that's easier to attack that what I actually said.

Above is a perfect example. I posted the undeniable fact that the sanctions have worked to foster anti-American sentiment in Iran - and since that wasn't a position that you could argue against, you shifted it in your head to me being afraid of offending Iran, which is a much easier concept to attack.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I meant that the sanctions have worked to make them hate us even more, and have not worked to stop their nuclear program - exactly what I said.

I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with this.

I don't know either. I was thinking just now when reading this: "is he implying that the sanctions have failed?"

I posted the undeniable fact that the sanctions have worked to foster anti-American sentiment in Iran - and since that wasn't a position that you could argue against

Whoa... hold on. The undeniability of the effects weren't in question. What I interpreted your statement to mean was "according to his argument, the sanctions are a source of hatred, therefore the next logical step in his premise would be abating them in order to effect a cessation of the hatred." Which led to another thought "such move would also serve a deleterious effect. For somehow eliminating the hatred would lead to more malleability on the Iranian side, thus making a deal more likely."

What I also got was, " he is also saying that since these sanctions are causing all of this hatred, they aren't doing anything to stop Iran from getting a bomb." That in turn led me to this "So why is their hatred of America relevant? Why are we linking hatred and emotional feelings toward America via the sanctions when such hatred of America existed long before the sanctions were put in place? Is he saying that we could stem the hatred by loosening the sanctions?"

There. That was my entire thought process. Not pretty, I know. All of my thought processes are in the form of questions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not your reading comprehension that's the problem.

Oh.

I was unaware I was doing something wrong. But hey, I will do better by you next time by trying to understand by trying to ascertain the actual meaning... and abandon my extrapolative thought process.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I meant that the sanctions have worked to make them hate us even more, and have not worked to stop their nuclear program - exactly what I said.

I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with this.

I don't know either. I was thinking just now when reading this: "is he implying that the sanctions have failed?"

I posted the undeniable fact that the sanctions have worked to foster anti-American sentiment in Iran - and since that wasn't a position that you could argue against

Whoa... hold on. The undeniability of the effects weren't in question. What I interpreted your statement to mean was "according to his argument, the sanctions are a source of hatred, therefore the next logical step in his premise would be abating them in order to effect a cessation of the hatred." Which led to another thought "such move would also serve a deleterious effect. For somehow eliminating the hatred would lead to more malleability on the Iranian side, thus making a deal more likely."

What I also got was, " he is also saying that since these sanctions are causing all of this hatred, they aren't doing anything to stop Iran from getting a bomb." That in turn led me to this "So why is their hatred of America relevant? Why are we linking hatred and emotional feelings toward America via the sanctions when such hatred of America existed long before the sanctions were put in place? Is he saying that we could stem the hatred by loosening the sanctions?"

There. That was my entire thought process. Not pretty, I know. All of my thought processes are in the form of questions.

No one's thought process is "pretty", you shouldn't worry about that.

But I might suggest that if your thought process consists of questions, then ask those questions - rather than assume what my answer would be.

The sanctions are not a "source of hatred", they're propaganda for the enemy.

Iran is more than just the Supreme Council. It's a culture of almost 80 million people that has lasted for 6,000 years. Iran has internal politics, too. There are hardliners, there are reformers, and each of those groups has a hundred sub-factions and petty arguments.

The people of Iran don't hate us any more than the average German hated the Jews in WWII. They've been told to hate us, because it's in the best interests of the Council to do so - and every day that the average Iranian is hungry due to the sanctions is another day full of suicide bomber recruits, because they've been convinced.

The hatred of America that pervades Iran is due to manipulation of public opinion - just as the hatred for Iran in America is. The mistake is to think that can't be changed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not your reading comprehension that's the problem.

Oh.

I was unaware I was doing something wrong. But hey, I will do better by you next time by trying to understand by trying to ascertain the actual meaning... and abandon my extrapolative thought process.

That is what I'm asking.

It is frustrating to me to be forced to defend opinions that I don't hold.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not your reading comprehension that's the problem.

Oh.

I was unaware I was doing something wrong. But hey, I will do better by you next time by trying to understand by trying to ascertain the actual meaning... and abandon my extrapolative thought process.

That is what I'm asking.

It is frustrating to me to be forced to defend opinions that I don't hold.

I'll work on it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The hatred of America that pervades Iran is due to manipulation of public opinion - just as the hatred for Iran in America is. The mistake is to think that can't be changed.

Conceded. I never thought of it that way. The only difference being is that we as Americans have the freedom to disagree, the Iranian people don't.

 

[johnwk]

It's not your reading comprehension that's the problem.

Oh.

I was unaware I was doing something wrong. But hey, I will do better by you next time by trying to understand by trying to ascertain the actual meaning... and abandon my extrapolative thought process.

That is what I'm asking.

It is frustrating to me to be forced to defend opinions that I don't hold.

Well then, you would agree that Obama's nuke deal will not have the force of law unless it gets a two thirds approval vote by our Senate, just as our Constitution commands.

JWK





When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?

 

[Claudette]

Anyone who thinks Iran will abide by any agreement is a few card short of a full deck.

They will take what we give them and do as they please.

Only a fucking idiot would make any agreement with Iran. An Iran which will abide by none.

Oh wait. I forgot. Obama and his posse are idiots. Never mind.

 

[hortysir]

What does Iran "want" to do, in your opinion?

Acquire a nuclear weapon. Kill Israel. Gain influence in the Middle East.

What makes you think they "want" to do any of those things? Well, the first two. The third one is pretty much a given.

Other than because they said so - you might take fanatical religious dictators at their word, but I need more than that.

Not only have they announced that, they have acted towards that end by sending their proxies to Lebanon and Yemen. And it would be in their interests to do so.
You understand countries have vested interests in things and generally try to attain them, right? Or is that just somethng you need a crystal ball for?

The leaders of Iran have a much more "vested" interest in not being wiped off the face of the earth.

Iran has been more of rational actor than we have over the last 30 years.

Let's compare the number of times our Congress has started singing "Bomb Iran" to how many times Iran's government has chanted "Death to America"

 

[PoliticalChic]

The reasons why other world leaders have relaxed sanctions on Iran is because the sanctions aren't working.

Iran s Deteriorating Economy An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Western Sanctions International Affairs Review

The sanctions against Iran have "worked" to make them hate us even more, destroy Iranian families and cement support for the radical anti-American rhetoric coming from the Supreme Council.

They haven't worked to stop their nuclear program, though.

So......why is it essential to the Iranians and the Obamunists to remove 'em?

 

[konradv]

Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.
Quite reasonable. I do not think any logical person could argue otherwise. If this is the deal Obama supports I will support him fully and say so on this board. If he gives away the store as I suspect....major problems.

Expecting to get everything you want in a negotiation isn't reasonable at all. Conceding on a point or two isn't "giving away the store". You have pre-determined that you will oppose the deal, despite your conciliatory pose.