|
OctaviusBeaver posted:
Democrats being anti-war dates from the end of the Vietnam era, which you'll notice has not had any Democratic presidents start any wars since then.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
I would argue the loss of the rural southern racist voting block also removed lots of the hawkish pressure on the Democrats. I don't think they became that much more peace-oriented since then, though, Clinton was about as far from a dove as it gets
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:He was clearly keying up to go in. He put the red line in the sand and everything. I think he was surprised by the backlash and chickened out. *Libya. The red line comment was made very early when it didn't seem like the war was going to drag on for years on end. If he could've taken it back, I'm sure he would've. What backlash? Polls? There were no major protests. Nothing like that. It didn't have support, but the world wouldn't have ended had we started doing the same strikes we're doing on ISIS now on Assad. And yeah, it's a huge difference. Libya wasn't the worlds stage like Syria is. Everyone is involved there. Besides, he's repeatedly stood against intervening in Syria when everyone else was telling him to go in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:*Libya. The red line comment was made very early when it didn't seem like the war was going to drag on for years on end. If he could've taken it back, I'm sure he would've. What backlash? Polls? There were no major protests. Nothing like that. It didn't have support, but the world wouldn't have ended had we started doing the same strikes we're doing on ISIS now on Assad. And yeah, it's a huge difference. Libya wasn't the worlds stage like Syria is. Everyone is involved there. Besides, he's repeatedly stood against intervening in Syria when everyone else was telling him to go in. There has been major backlash over the 'red-line' issue in foreign policy circles; the question is out there of what red lines will America respect, and which ones can be violated so long as a deal is made. It really complicates policy towards Iran.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
I always saw it as the parties keeping their relationships with *-collar workers while trading the racism. I don't think either party was big on peace with the minor exceptions of the late 60s/early 70s which were limited to primary electoral stuff anyway. Nixon may have been a quaker but Kissinger is something else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:There has been major backlash over the 'red-line' issue in foreign policy circles; the question is out there of what red lines will America respect, and which ones can be violated so long as a deal is made. It really complicates policy towards Iran. It's funny, because Khan al-Assal and some smaller scale chemical weapons attacks had happened before Ghouta, and the US acknowledged them. That was when Obama first said we'd begin arming the rebels because the red line had been crossed. Then Assad called his bluff and blew those earlier attacks out of the water, and everyone was like "what about your red line?" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's funny, because Khan al-Assal and some smaller scale chemical weapons attacks had happened before Ghouta, and the US acknowledged them. That was when Obama first said we'd begin arming the rebels because the red line had been crossed. Then Assad called his bluff and blew those earlier attacks out of the water, and everyone was like "what about your red line?" ...and that's when you saw a complete re-alignment in American foreign policy with the Clinton network on the out. Once that red line was crossed, and we did nothing, everyone saw us as too weak with too much infighting to do anything about power grabs. Its a very dangerous situation we're now in, and once that red line was set, America should have followed through. With Iran, our red line is their intent to acquire nuclear weapons. What happens if they cross that red line? My view is that America must attack, or else all other American red lines have no meaning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I really struggle to see how FDR would look like a modern Republican. Yes the parties did swap places in certain ways, but there is still a clear relationship between the Democrats/Republicans of the 1940s and the parties today. Dude, the Northeast wing of the party was pretty much always closest to the Democrats of today and FDR was straight out of its pinnacle. You're still somehow ignoring that most of the senior Democrats in Congress during his term were pretty hardcore southern racists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Yeah, FDR was of what we'd call the modern Democrat party. What changed is all the bourbon democrats in the South, who were all for big business and not so hot on labor have switched sides once "keeping blacks down" wasn't viable anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:...and that's when you saw a complete re-alignment in American foreign policy with the Clinton network on the out. Once that red line was crossed, and we did nothing, everyone saw us as too weak with too much infighting to do anything about power grabs. Its a very dangerous situation we're now in, and once that red line was set, America should have followed through. I honestly think, in the event of an Iranian nuclear weapon, conflict is going to be inevitable. It's probably not going to be the next world war or anything, but there's definitely going to be conflict over it because honestly, we can't really afford the risk. Which is one of the many reasons why I still believe that Iran isn't going to seriously seek out nuclear weapons as an endgoal. The process of making them is useful in all sorts of ways politically, but there's no way an Iranian nuke ends well for the Islamic Republic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:57
|
|
Cat Army 
|
My Imaginary GF posted:With Iran, our red line is their intent to acquire nuclear weapons. Have we ever actually clearly stated that, or just danced around "if you actively attempt to acquire nuclear weapons we will be gravely disappointed"? Admittedly, we also have plenty of reasons to want to inconvenience Iran by keeping them from attaining nuclear power generation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Have we ever actually clearly stated that, or just danced around "if you actively attempt to acquire nuclear weapons we will be gravely disappointed"? They've never described consequences that I know of, but there's definitely been a lot of "We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." Enough so that there would be a lot of questioning eyes on the President were Iran to possess a nuke, and a lot of criticism about being all talk if there was a limited response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Also wasn't Obama not too keen on intervening in Libya and had to be persuaded by Samantha Power? That's what I remember reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Have we ever actually clearly stated that, or just danced around "if you actively attempt to acquire nuclear weapons we will be gravely disappointed"? How clear of a statement do you want? You have the individuals with the authority to launch the strikes making public statements that, were US Intelligence to assess that Iran was committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon, America would have no option but to go all-in on strikes to permanently eliminate Iranian capability to develop nuclear arms, and that in 2008 there was a period where Israel intelligence assessed that Iran was committed to acquiring the bomb while American intelligence assessed that the Iranians were uncommitted and could still go either way on the issue, and that the belief in America's willingness to strike once Iran crossed that red line was the only thing holding back an Israeli-led coalition from striking against Iran. Hardliners in Iran either welcome American strikes as strengthening their power base, or assess America as too rational to go all-in on strikes once Iran became committed to acquiring the bomb. They don't quite understand that if America fails in this red line, all other red lines are dead and NATO is worthless for European security. SoggyBobcat posted:Also wasn't Obama not too keen on intervening in Libya and had to be persuaded by Samantha Power? That's what I remember reading. Obama is extremely isolationist, and until the fallout of the failure of the Syrian red line, was willing to give more credence to policies that minimized American action and risk than he was to committing the necessary long-term forces for regional stability. He hosed up setting a timeline for Iraqi withdrawal, and he knows it, even if he won't admit it because of its basis in electoral considerations. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Well we aren't actually treaty bound to go to war with Iran if it gets too uppity with us, as opposed to NATO where we are
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well we aren't actually treaty bound to go to war with Iran if it gets too uppity with us, as opposed to NATO where we are I'm sure we can trust the Russians to respect that distinction  Let alone the risk of the military engaging in strikes without Presidential authorization, or Congress impeaching him for inaction. If American intelligence assesses Iran as committed to acquisition of a nuclear weapon, there's going to be one hell of a regional war. E: And poo poo, its not like America has a history of holding others to treaties while disregarding them when its most convenient for us. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Obama is extremely isolationist, and until the fallout of the failure of the Syrian red line, was willing to give more credence to policies that minimized American action and risk than he was to committing the necessary long-term forces for regional stability. He hosed up setting a timeline for Iraqi withdrawal, and he knows it, even if he won't admit it because of its basis in electoral considerations. I agree—Obama's commitment that the Stewards should abandon Osigiliath and the whole of Arnor to dark forces bodes ill for Gondor. But in real life, as opposed to fantasy, saying "Obama is extremely isolationist" is pretty dum don't u thnk
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Israeli-led coalition What countries would be part of this Israeli-led coalition? Remember when Saddam Hussein was launching Scuds at Israel and the USA were all "please don't retaliate, please don't retaliate, let us handle that alone" because Israel entering the fray would have destroyed the US-led coalition? The only country in the world where it wouldn't be a huge political problem to join Israel on an aggressive military campaign is the USA, and yeah I don't see the USA joining any sort of coalition that isn't a US-led coalition, let's be serious one moment here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Israel can not lead any coalitions, they are too politcally toxic. They can still contribute however by fabriacting evidence that they have supplied Daesh with arms and training and "leaking" it, perhaps mr Hersh would be interested in another big scoop?. Everyone who looks at it critically will understand that this is bullshit, but it will appear to confirm all the conspiracy theories. It does not have to be true, just convincing to those who see Zionist-Jewish plots around every corner ( this happens to encompass a lot of people worldwide) This migth at least deter some potential recuits. Why would any pious but angry muslim man want to join a zionist puppet? It also gets pakistan and other very pious sunni muslim countries "off the hook" and gives them an excuse to openly stand against Daesh since they could claim that they are in fact only opposing Zionist imperalism. In return the US could promise to fabricate evidence that points to ties between Daesh and Hamas, one good turn deserves another after all. If you want to defeat Daesh killing them is not enough, you have to deprive them of political legitimacy as well. This is one way to acheive that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:Israel can not lead any coalitions, they are too politcally toxic. They can still contribute however by fabriacting evidence that they have supplied Daesh with arms and training and "leaking" it, perhaps mr Hersh would be interested in another big scoop?. I don't know why I'm replying this, but name any group in the Middle East and I'll tell you about a conspiracy theory that says they're Zionist backed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Let alone the risk of the military engaging in strikes without Presidential authorization, or Congress impeaching him for inaction. If American intelligence assesses Iran as committed to acquisition of a nuclear weapon, there's going to be one hell of a regional war. No, its not. Stop bringing up your fantasies. What would Iran do with one should get they get one? I'll give you a hint: It won't be use it, despite what Tom Clancy says. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Hagel got the boot, looks like it's time for another round of furniture rearrangement on the US's foreign policy Titanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Jonad posted:Hagel got the boot, looks like it's time for another round of furniture rearrangement on the US's foreign policy Titanic. We'll see how quickly we can actually get a new SecDef, while the GOP has said they will only obstruct Obama appointees that are not necessary for defense, I can't see the recent executive order making them any easier to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
So according to goon oracle Joementum, Michèle Flournoy is set to be the replacement. Currently she's serving as CEO of
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Some good discussion on these last few pages, a nice change. Iranian nuclear talks have been extended into next year. Not surprising that no deal was reached, and good that talks didn't simply collapse. But a deal needs to be actually struck and relatively soon, thees negotiations can't just go on forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Iranian nuclear talks have been extended into next year. Not surprising that no deal was reached, and good that talks didn't simply collapse. But a deal needs to be actually struck and relatively soon, thees negotiations can't just go on forever. We're going to see serious issues with the talks past the first of the year with the new incoming Senate and Congress, they will be less apt to sign off on a deal with Iran than previous incumbents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Erdogan has said some more fun stuff, this time about women.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:Erdogan has said some more fun stuff, this time about women. I fully expect his next announcement to be "Moon made of cheese, and we landed there before the US"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So according to goon oracle Joementum, Michèle Flournoy is set to be the replacement. Currently she's serving as CEO of If republicans are going to deny all his nominees, Obama should nominate only women so we can keep talking about the republican senate's war on women going into 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I fully expect his next announcement to be "Moon made of cheese, and we landed there before the US" It's almost as if he's intentionally trying to be cartoonishly evil. Probably will demand to be known as Fearless Leader in his next announcement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Yeah. There are hardliners in Iran that also don't want the deal to go through. Despite all insistence to the contrary, I've got to think the battle against ISIS is helping to move negotiations forward. Obama can say the nuclear talks take place in a vacuum and has nothing to do with the rest of the world, but in real life the US and Iran find themselves with oddly aligning interests. Detente would be a big benefit, while a return to more open hostility could create bad problems for both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:Erdogan has said some more fun stuff, this time about women. quote:Mr Erdogan has previously urged women to have three children, and has lashed out against abortion and birth by Caesarean section. I get the rest, but what is this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I get the rest, but what is this? Its not natural, is what that is 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So according to goon oracle Joementum, Michèle Flournoy is set to be the replacement. Currently she's serving as CEO of Not Ashton Carter? He's what I've been hearing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not natural, is what that is It could lead to an increasing dependency on C-sections in the far future. I mean, being able to give vaginal birth and live has been a pretty strong filter for ages. I'd guess that Erdogan shuns it because his holy book says that women should suffer in labor or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Re: Iranian Nuclear program So did I miss a news article or do we still not have any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program? Because so far the only reason I've seen is some self-fulfilling prophecy where Iran is going to build nuclear weapons to defend themselves from the US because the US keeps threatening to bomb them because the it thinks they're building nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Re: Iranian Nuclear program Meh, nothing more than the Israeli's claim is going on *Insert BiBi Bomb Chart Photo Here* Russia has announced the construction of a new plant in Iran, but that's about it. At the end of the day, however, even if they came right out and said 'We're making a nuke', it would result in nothing more than sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Re: Iranian Nuclear program The legitimate fear is that they already completed the groundwork for a weapons program years ago and so their nuclear power industry will put them in a position that a commitment to build nuclear weapons would only take around six months. Of course if the US and or Israel were really willing and able to stop an a weapons program by force, you'd think a half-year telegraph would be plenty of opportunity, but they'd rather not deal with such a possibility. Even Kim Jong Il gave three months notice prior to his withdrawal from the NPT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:The legitimate fear is that they already completed the groundwork for a weapons program years ago and so their nuclear power industry will put them in a position that a commitment to build nuclear weapons would only take around six months. Of course if the US and or Israel were really willing and able to stop an a weapons program by force, you'd think a half-year telegraph would be plenty of opportunity, but they'd rather not deal with such a possibility. Well, its not like Iran is exactly hiding the fact that they are no longer NPT compliant. But considering the state they really worry about denies even having nuclear weapons and are also not signatories to the NPT, I'm not too worried. Its also why I'm not convinced anyone would take action were they to acquire a nuclear device.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Well, considering that the state you allude to is itself unreliable and ultra violent, it may the one to take action. Not saying Israel will actually launch bombing raids without US support, but I bet they wish they could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:51
|
|
