|
Xandu posted:This looks like a pretty minor incident, but could be the start of a very interesting trend. Oh man you do not organize against GCC police as an expat. They'll put a blanket ban on all Ethiopian Visas for the next 5 years just to spite them.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:I read one report that Fabius came into negotiations late, and tried to impose his will into the deal when it had already been largely finished beyond a couple key sticking points. Think it was al-Ahram. There's another article on the guardian site stating that the Israelis convinced the French to torpedo the deal. Key bit: quote:More immediately, Netanyahu demonstrated over the weekend that he could sway the Geneva talks from the inside through his relationship with Paris. It has emerged that after a call from Barack Obama on Friday evening asking him not to oppose the planned Geneva deal, Netanyahu did the opposite. He called British prime minister, David Cameron, Russian president Vladimir Putin, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande, asking them to block it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Human Rights Watch has a new report about incendiary weapon use in Syria This video is so silly did they make one for the US during every major war its fought? Did they make one for russia, israel, china, iraq, pakistan, india and vietnam? Videos like this go against the entire meaning of having a human rights watch group--why have rules if you plan to selectively enforce them? There should be favoritism, killing someone with a bullet is just as bad as killing them with poison gas. Telling someone that their in trouble for killing someone with an axe when they've been killing people with swords for years reinforces the idea that its ok to kill people with swords. Its good to see a human rights group being used as a tool for war not for peace haha.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
Do you know who HRW is and what they do? Reading your sole post in this thread seems to indicate that no, you do not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:Do you know who HRW is and what they do? Reading your sole post in this thread seems to indicate that no, you do not. If this is Arghy from eve online I assume you will have a nice mostly nonsensical debate about this the coming pages 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Arghy posted:This video is so silly did they make one for the US during every major war its fought? Did they make one for russia, israel, china, iraq, pakistan, india and vietnam? Videos like this go against the entire meaning of having a human rights watch group--why have rules if you plan to selectively enforce them? There should be favoritism, killing someone with a bullet is just as bad as killing them with poison gas. Telling someone that their in trouble for killing someone with an axe when they've been killing people with swords for years reinforces the idea that its ok to kill people with swords. http://www.hrw.org/video/2009/03/25/rain-fire-white-phosphorus-gaza http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/08/afghanistan-nato-should-come-clean-white-phosphorus http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/03/18/cluster-munitions-foreseeable-hazard-iraq http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/12/18/fatally-flawed-0 http://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/04/14/dying-practice-0 http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/22/halt-mine-laying-india-and-pakistan-now Did you even try looking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
But did HRW break into my house and hold those reports up in front of my eyes? Well OK they did, but did they induce my eyeballs to focus on the text?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
HRW gets a lot of flak for supposed selectivity which is drat bizarre. They even released a report on war crimes by rebels inbetween the incendiaries and cluster bomb stuff. Their policy recommendations are generally more like "get the ICC in here" than "invade", too. Syritta fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Kerry is saying it was Iran that backed out, not France. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24895911 quote:Amid reports that France's reservations scuppered an agreement, Mr Kerry told reporters in Abu Dhabi: "The French signed off on it; we signed off on it."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Syritta posted:HRW gets a lot of flak for supposed selectivity which is drat bizarre. They even released a report on war crimes by rebels inbetween the incendiaries and cluster bomb stuff. Yeah, that complaint is honestly the dumbest thing. If a human rights advocacy group is seriously focussing on one country to the exclusion of all others (which isn't a thing that happens), the correct reaction would be to call for more human rights groups. Selectivity doesn't mean you're somehow unfair, it means you concentrate your resources. Why exactly would that be bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
The UN has reached a deal with Iran to expand inspections of their nuclear sites, although there are still some facilities that are not on the list yet. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/iran-nuclear-deal_n_4254116.html (this is unrelated to the other negotiations)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/11/hip-sam-hit-commercial/ Well that's a new one for me. Though I suppose not unprecedented given the former Soviet bloc's nature as the world's #1(ish) supplier of arms and people to use them. Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
You'd think anyone actually interested in buying some old Russian helos would've already seen the many videos of them free-falling to the ground in a massive ball of fire when so much as shot with an MG, or simply vaporising themselves in mid-air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Kerry is saying it was Iran that backed out, not France. France didn't back out. They forced in concessions that Iran wasn't willing to accept. Kerry is saying they were OK with the French deal, but also are committed to negotiating in good faith, which means taking a week to get France to shut the gently caress up and then resuming talks. It's a weaselly way to not piss anyone off, but gently caress it. A deal needs to get done here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Why exactly can't Iran pursue nuclear tech, again? While Israel has it, it only seems fair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Why exactly can't Iran pursue nuclear tech, again? While Israel has it, it only seems fair. Israel doesn't want to have to take them seriously is part of it, and still views them for the most part as a rogue nation. Its the other half of being a nuclear armed nation: People have to take your diplomacy a little more seriously. Israel right now can basically threaten to do whatever the hell they want to Iran and get away with it. Honestly though, especially if their program is a peaceful one, I'm all for them having nuclear power generation. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Why exactly can't Iran pursue nuclear tech, again? While Israel has it, it only seems fair. Because it would lead to pretty much everyone in the GCC going after nuclear tech and the last thing the world needs is another regional and ethnic conflict with a nuclear element. India/Pakistan is already too much, Iran/Arab States would be nerve-racking in a whole different way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
It wouldn't be good for a nuclear arms race to occur in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Agreed. So full Israeli nuclear disarmament should be a starting condition of any equitable talks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Valhawk posted:Because it would lead to pretty much everyone in the GCC going after nuclear tech and the last thing the world needs is another regional and ethnic conflict with a nuclear element. India/Pakistan is already too much, Iran/Arab States would be nerve-racking in a whole different way. Israel already popped that cherry tho. How long can US money and influence really hold Saudi Arabia & Egypt from getting nukes? Maybe 2-3 more years at best at this rate? As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, the GCC will never stop trying to get the same weapons without serious bribes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Agreed. So full Israeli nuclear disarmament should be a starting condition of any equitable talks. They still won't admit openly that they have them, despite the fact that everyone and Wikipedia knows they do. Edward Teller made them promise never to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Why exactly can't Iran pursue nuclear tech, again? While Israel has it, it only seems fair. The answer to this depends entirely on your point of view and where you're from. Personally I see no reason Iran shouldn't have every right to nuclear weapons, especially considering the position they've been put in as a pariah for the past few decades. If you lived outside the US and every year or so the drums of war started beating and you never knew if those crazies would start bombing you wouldn't you want some nukes as a deterrent? Then on the other hand, as posters above have said, if you're looking at things from an American realist perspective then Iran getting the bomb would be hugely destabilizing for the region as a whole. I happen to think the region could use a bit of a shake-up but that's just one reason that I'm not the one crafting policy...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
How are u posted:The answer to this depends entirely on your point of view and where you're from. Personally I see no reason Iran shouldn't have every right to nuclear weapons, especially considering the position they've been put in as a pariah for the past few decades. If you lived outside the US and every year or so the drums of war started beating and you never knew if those crazies would start bombing you wouldn't you want some nukes as a deterrent? Well honestly, considering Israel has spent the last 40 years shaking up the region, I doubt that Iran having nukes or even just nuclear power generation is going to really destabilize it much more
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
To be fair though, Israel's continued success is like 30% US support, 70% Arab military incompetence. 67 and 73 were just embarrassing as hell, or should have been, for Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and friends. So maybe not being incompetent screwups is why they alone can be relied upon not to nuke everyone?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
How are u posted:Then on the other hand, as posters above have said, if you're looking at things from an American realist perspective then Iran getting the bomb would be hugely destabilizing for the region as a whole. I happen to think the region could use a bit of a shake-up but that's just one reason that I'm not the one crafting policy... Well, you don't have to be an American Realist to not want a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. I mean as much as Israel is a huge bad actor in the region lets not forget that the GCC and the Iranians don't get along, at all. They're fighting a proxy war in Syria after all and when/if that spills over into Iraq, tensions are going to ratchet up pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
How are u posted:The answer to this depends entirely on your point of view and where you're from. Personally I see no reason Iran shouldn't have every right to nuclear weapons, especially considering the position they've been put in as a pariah for the past few decades. If you lived outside the US and every year or so the drums of war started beating and you never knew if those crazies would start bombing you wouldn't you want some nukes as a deterrent? Weirdly enough if you take the idealist perspective, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, explicitly forswears any right to pursue nuclear weapons--and the real the problem is that U.S. doesn't want to adhere to the NPT since, even though it's an unequal treaty that gives the U.S. et al the right to have nuclear weapons while others don't. We don't want to let Iran have peaceful nuclear power since it would make it easier for them to develop a weapon in the future. Also anything that's good for Iran even in benign ways is bad and "because we’re allied with Israel [bangs the desk for emphasis], we are their enemy."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Also anything that's good for Iran even in benign ways is bad and "because we’re allied with Israel [bangs the desk for emphasis], we are their enemy." That's a rather simplistic view of it. If for some weird random act of political magic the US and Israel were to cut ties tomorrow, the US and Iranian political establishments would still hate each others guts. We haven't forgotten or forgiven the embassy seizure, they haven't forgotten or forgiven our support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Likewise for Iran Air 655 and Operation Praying Mantis, the Iranian support of various insurgent and terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq (and their own support for Syria), their various threats to try and close the Straits, etc. Furthermore there's the general fact that patching things up with them will royally piss off every other GCC state, and we need those a lot more than we need Iran's good will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
As yes, the noble Sunnis. I guess we had to pick a side, but I'm not convinced we need any of them. Then again, I'm just a poor voting American with no interests in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Sancho posted:As yes, the noble Sunnis. I guess we had to pick a side, but I'm not convinced we need any of them. Then again, I'm just a poor voting American with no interests in the middle east. If you don't understand that you as an American/European/African/Asian/whatever have interests in drat near every part of the globe you really need to pay more attention to the things going on around you. Isolationism is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:To be fair though, Israel's continued success is like 30% US support, 70% Arab military incompetence. 67 You're overestimating Israeli military effectiveness in the Yom Kippur War. While they turned it around, their early losses were devastating psychologically and one of the major reasons they went to Camp David, because they thought they'd likely wouldn't be able to pull it off again. It's widely thought among historians and tacticians that 1973 Arab-Israeli War was proved to the Arab nations that they could possibly win against the Israelis and that '67 was a fluke and the Israelis knew this. Also, in modern times, outside of surprise raids and airstrikes and fighting it out with gimped Hamas, Israel has had horrible track record with major military operations. It's constantly stated that Israel is suited to quick fights, not wars of attrition. In addition, I'd chalk it up to more like 70% US support, since with the exception of Syria and Hezabollah in Lebanon, most of Israel's neighbors have been long standing American allies. The rest is both incompetence, internal factors (both especially evident in Syria), and fear of a long war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:If you don't understand that you as an American/European/African/Asian/whatever have interests in drat near every part of the globe you really need to pay more attention to the things going on around you. Isolationism is pretty dumb. You can still avoid isolationism without kissing up to the Royal Prince of Sunni Shitlords or other such assorted despots around the world. Most of 'our' American interests in the middle east have nothing to do with the average American. Sancho fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Why exactly can't Iran pursue nuclear tech, again? While Israel has it, it only seems fair. Because Iran's dependence on imported refined oil is a useful stick to threaten them with, which is why they're pursuing nuclear power and also why we don't want them to even have nuclear power. Israel in particular loves being able to cut off half Iran's oil consumption by bombing big, exposed, delicate, expensive oil refineries, while at the same time using the US's international influence to impose Western oil export sanctions, essentially cutting Iran's access to usable oil even further. A nuclear power infrastructure would be far less vulnerable to catastrophic loss in the event that Israel decides they want to knock Iran down a few pegs. The nuclear weapons thing is mainly a legitimate-sounding cover, because "global nuclear weaponry non-proliferation" sounds a lot better to voters than "we need to stop them from making their civilian infrastructure more resistant to airstrikes".
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well honestly, considering Israel has spent the last 40 years shaking up the region, I doubt that Iran having nukes or even just nuclear power generation is going to really destabilize it much more Iran and Saudi Arabia are right now fighting it out via dueling terror groups in Syria, and Saudi Arabia's response to Iran getting closer to Nuclear generation was to start buying their own nukes from Pakistan. If honestly think that Israel is more of a destabilizing influence then two nuclear powers fighting it out via Jihadists then you are real drat stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
Sancho posted:You can still avoid isolationism without kissing up to the Royal Prince of Sunni Shitlords or other such assorted despots around the world. Most of 'our' American interests in the middle east have nothing to do with the average American. Saudi's #1 Export partner and #2 Import partner is the US, Kuwait actually imports more from the US than they export to it, 10% of UAE imports are from the US while they export virtually nothing to the US, Qatar's #1 import partner is the US while again they export virtually nothing there. The gulf as a whole buys more American goods than they export in the form of oil, it is NOT a relationship where they are holding the US by the balls at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because Iran's dependence on imported refined oil is a useful stick to threaten them with, which is why they're pursuing nuclear power and also why we don't want them to even have nuclear power. Israel in particular loves being able to cut off half Iran's oil consumption by bombing big, exposed, delicate, expensive oil refineries, while at the same time using the US's international influence to impose Western oil export sanctions, essentially cutting Iran's access to usable oil even further. A nuclear power infrastructure would be far less vulnerable to catastrophic loss in the event that Israel decides they want to knock Iran down a few pegs. The nuclear weapons thing is mainly a legitimate-sounding cover, because "global nuclear weaponry non-proliferation" sounds a lot better to voters than "we need to stop them from making their civilian infrastructure more resistant to airstrikes". Nuclear power isn't going to solve their oil dependency unless someone suddenly developed practical electric cars, trucks, and airplanes. Additionally, they already have 75% of their electricity production coming from natural gas that they have ample resources of, as compared to 18% from oil-fired plants, and the natural gas share is growing all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:Saudi's #1 Export partner and #2 Import partner is the US, Kuwait actually imports more from the US than they export to it, 10% of UAE imports are from the US while they export virtually nothing to the US, Qatar's #1 import partner is the US while again they export virtually nothing there. Who cares what # we are for the Saudis. Here's how they rank in our terms. http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia How many American citizens are being enriched by these exports? Trade.gov states 5080 jobs are created for every billion in exports. That's 70100 or so American jobs, or .00022% of the population of America. We don't need them like they need us. Kuwait trade brings in another 50k jobs. gently caress the GCC. We literally have laws on the books preventing us from doing business with Iran but doing business with the Saudis is ok because...reasons? Our economy is massive and we can afford to pick and choose who we trade with. If we're going to make laws against terrible countries, lets add GCC to the list or at least try to get a little consistency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
How are u posted:The answer to this depends entirely on your point of view and where you're from. Personally I see no reason Iran shouldn't have every right to nuclear weapons, especially considering the position they've been put in as a pariah for the past few decades. If you lived outside the US and every year or so the drums of war started beating and you never knew if those crazies would start bombing you wouldn't you want some nukes as a deterrent? While aggressive American foreign policy in the country, especially during the Iran/Iraq War, were completely unjustified, and it would have been a good thing in a vacuum for Iran to have been able to prevent it, let's not go forgetting about Neda just yet. Iran's government has a pretty atrocious track record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Iran and Saudi Arabia are right now fighting it out via dueling terror groups in Syria, and Saudi Arabia's response to Iran getting closer to Nuclear generation was to start buying their own nukes from Pakistan. If honestly think that Israel is more of a destabilizing influence then two nuclear powers fighting it out via Jihadists then you are real drat stupid. I really wonder how the idea of Pakistan as a nuclear weapons proliferator (again, and more blatantly) is sitting at the Pentagon. I can't imagine they're too thrilled about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Vernii posted:That's a rather simplistic view of it. If for some weird random act of political magic the US and Israel were to cut ties tomorrow, the US and Iranian political establishments would still hate each others guts. Yeah I simplified it because I liked the Nixon quote. But it's also worth pointing out there are plenty of strategic reasons to have better relations with Iran, too, like Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Sancho posted:Who cares what # we are for the Saudis. Here's how they rank in our terms. I'm from the GCC so I look at it the other way around I think if you asked the average American "Would you think it's a good thing if ~150k jobs were created" at the end of the day they wouldn't care that it came from exporting to the GCC but maybe I'm wrong. That said job creation is just the one thing I could think of that benefits the average american off the top of my head, but having a Shake Shack, McDonalds and Pinkberry in every large GCC mall does a lot more to endear the general population to America than any foreign policy ever would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 07:58
|
|