|
bpower posted:Nothing like collective punishment to disincentivize terror. You have to think of population management like you would in terms of public health outcome metrics: its not how many incidents of terrorism still occur, its how many the proactive implementation of evidence-based security policies have prevented. How many more bombings would there be without the security perimiter? How many more buses in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv would be blown up without expropriation of property used to facilitate terrorism?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You have to think of population management like you would in terms of public health outcome metrics: its not how many incidents of terrorism still occur, its how many the proactive implementation of evidence-based security policies have prevented.  Well done, no one could read this and fail to think of using IBM punchcards to run extermination camps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
 you wouldnt
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Foreign negotiations are generally something you want to keep confidential for the benefit of both parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You have to think of population management like you would in terms of public health outcome metrics: its not how many incidents of terrorism still occur, its how many the proactive implementation of evidence-based security policies have prevented. If Israel didn't exist there'd be zero terrorist attacks on Israelis ergo checkmate 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:06
|
|
Volkerball posted:
If Netanyahu finds a way to spike an Iranian nuclear deal, I don't even know.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Look it's almost like someone in the US government is colluding with a foreign country against our interests. Who knew this would happen when you let foreign intelligence lobby pretty openly. It's the CIA that's supposed to do this to others not have it done to us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Look it's almost like someone in the US government is colluding with a foreign country against our interests. Free Jonathan Boehner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
I have no idea why Israel wants to sabotage the U.S. efforts to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, because if the deal falls apart then Israel has no way of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and once they do Israel can kiss it's domination of the Middle East goodbye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Israel... domination of the Middle East... ??
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I have no idea why Israel wants to sabotage the U.S. efforts to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, because if the deal falls apart then Israel has no way of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and once they do Israel can kiss it's domination of the Middle East goodbye. Two reasons. First, Netanyahu doesn't want Iran to decisively not have nuclear weapons, because the threat of a nuclear Iran is a useful political tool. He doesn't want them to get nukes, he doesn't want them to give up on nukes, he wants them in a perpetual state of "ANY DAY NOW!" Second, he doesn't want even the slightest hint of reconciliation between the U.S. and Iran.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Anyone happen to have a good general overview of the whole US-Iran nuclear talks scenario. It's hard to find much info online that isn't surrounded by a lot of ANY DAY NOW white noise.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I have no idea why Israel wants to sabotage the U.S. efforts to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, because if the deal falls apart then Israel has no way of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and once they do Israel can kiss it's domination of the Middle East goodbye. It isn't "Israel", it's Netanyahu and his cronies. He's been pushing the line about Iran as his last line of defense against being ousted as PM, and apparently is incapable of adapting to new circumstances. I only wish I could say that the Israeli public is likely to let this show at the polls. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Anyone happen to have a good general overview of the whole US-Iran nuclear talks scenario. It's hard to find much info online that isn't surrounded by a lot of ANY DAY NOW white noise. Obama wants a deal. The deal isn't a good deal to either America or Israel. Congress wants a better deal, since accepting the current one will get them primaried for appeasing Iran and force them to own to their base any retribution Israel faces. Bibi knows the deal Obama is pressing for is poo poo and gives far too much to Iran to be worth anything, and Boehner agrees. Iranian hardliners hate the deal, feel that acquisition of nuclear weapons is Iran's birthright, and are actively attempting to sabotage negotiations by having operational foreign cells to attack Israeli targets, such as embassies in south America and Jews in Europe. How's that for a summary? Its any day now because any day now someone's going to bomb a synagogue and the deal is dead. So, who owns this dead deal and gets painted as wanting to appease an unappeasable Iran?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
If the devil appeared before Bibi and promised that he would win every election for the next 10 years but at the end of it the world would end in nuclear fire, would he take the deal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If the devil appeared before Bibi and promised that he would win every election for the next 10 years but at the end of it the world would end in nuclear fire, would he take the deal? I think he already made that deal 6 years ago, so... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Obama wants a deal. Bibi even considering trying to influence US policy is in fact a terrible deal for the US. It's about time we laid the smackdown on punks like him. A 2000 pound elbow drop would send the right message. If Bibi feels it is his birthright to be able to go around the legitimate rule of Obama, we need to disabuse him of this notion. A harsh response that involved attacking the property of those who support espionage and treachery is warranted. An evidence-based approach would render him totally dependent on executive and CIA largesse, which would definitely work in US interests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Don't engage MIGF. He just asserted out of hand that shootings in Copenhagen and France are all part of a scheme by a cabal of Iranian hardliners to derail negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Because, you know, the best way to ruin negotiations would be to very secretly arrange random shootings by nutjobs with no actual trail back to Iran.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm aware of the practicalities, but most people who do those things tend to say stuff more like 'we didn't do it but it wouldn't have been bad if we did'. In its practical application the Dahiya Doctrine has always involved a healthy level of official obfuscation and victim-blaming for purposes of deniability and propaganda. And example would be Israel claiming that their attacks on civilians/civilian property/civilian infrastructure were unfortunate but (a) the fault of Hamas for using human shields, (b) unavoidable spillover from attacks on nearby Hamas positions, (c) preceded by advance warning to civilians in the area, or any combination of a b & c. These arguments are deployed not because any intelligent person seriously believes them but as a way of observing formalities. In that light, Eisenkot can always claim that it was mere talk (even though he specifically said it wasn't mere talk), or say that what he really meant was Israel would not be deterred from protecting itself just because human shields blah blah. Nevertheless I would guess that Eisenkot probably hasn't planned any trips to countries at all likely to assert universal jurisdiction over war crimes. As to why he said it, I would guess it had something to do with timing. It was just after the 2006 Lebanon War, and Eisenkot was given the command to restore confidence and wash the bad taste out of the Israelis' mouths. It was probably the right moment, in the sense of domestic politics, to openly threaten to commit war crimes the next time Hezbollah stepped up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:02
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:As to why he said it, I would guess it had something to do with timing. It was just after the 2006 Lebanon War, and Eisenkot was given the command to restore confidence and wash the bad taste out of the Israelis' mouths. It was probably the right moment, in the sense of domestic politics, to openly threaten to commit war crimes the next time Hezbollah stepped up. I guess this is what I was looking for, thanks.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Anyone happen to have a good general overview of the whole US-Iran nuclear talks scenario. It's hard to find much info online that isn't surrounded by a lot of ANY DAY NOW white noise. Over the last year or so, maybe two years, more moderate factions have gained influence in Iran, and the sanctions have been a significant hardship. As a result, Iran's been seeking peace and de-escalation with the US, indicating that they would be happy to comply with inspection demands and making other concessions to assure us that their nuclear program isn't directed toward weapons, in exchange for the loosening of sanctions and some assurances that we won't bomb them. Although the Obama administration and the more secular-ish aspects of Iran's government are generally on board with this whole deal, they're both facing significant domestic opposition, with Iran's Supreme Leader and other conservative/religious elements hesitant to buy in, and the Republican-dominated Congress in the US saying it'd rather tighten the sanctions than loosen them. Right now, Obama's on record saying he'll veto any further sanctions imposed against Iran, and commentators have suggested he's looking closely at the sanctions to see if there's any he can dismantle by executive fiat without Congressional approval; meanwhile, Boehner seems intent on making a political show out of it and displaying Republican political dominance by rallying Congress in favor of the current hardline policy on Iran. Obama's perspective is that cutting a deal with Iran is the only realistic way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons without direct military intervention, since sanctions have not been effective so far. The Republicans' perspective is that it stinks of appeasement and that a hardline approach with increasing brinksmanship and threats of military force is the only way to defeat Iran's ambitions, plus now that they've taken control of Congress they're anxious to show off their political gains and build morale among their supporters by challenging Obama head-on in an area they think they can force an administration defeat in (previous Iran sanctions have been highly bipartisan, so there's a good chance of peeling off some Dem votes). Netanyahu's motives are obvious; like the Republicans, he doesn't want the US becoming friendly with Iran or loosening up the economic pressure, as a right-wing hawk he benefits from the current state of tensions and brinksmanship, and with an election coming up he wants the discourse to be all about how he's protecting Israel from Big Bad Iran and the peacemakers who have let themselves be fooled by it. From the perspective of domestic US politics, the criticism that Netanyahu is trying to overturn US government policy is probably incorrect. Ultimately, Netanyahu's basically just being used as a political tool in Boehner's attempt to convince Congress to block Obama's proposed change of policy. Netanyahu is going along with it, since the Republican position aligns pretty well with his own and playing along with them also gives him an extra free campaign speech, but this is ultimately a clash between Obama and Congress in which Netanyahu is nothing more than a sideshow of little real importance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Bibi even considering trying to influence US policy is in fact a terrible deal for the US. It's about time we laid the smackdown on punks like him. A 2000 pound elbow drop would send the right message. If Bibi feels it is his birthright to be able to go around the legitimate rule of Obama, we need to disabuse him of this notion. A harsh response that involved attacking the property of those who support espionage and treachery is warranted. An evidence-based approach would render him totally dependent on executive and CIA largesse, which would definitely work in US interests. You're doing God's work, keep it up!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Don't engage MIGF. He just asserted out of hand that shootings in Copenhagen and France are all part of a scheme by a cabal of Iranian hardliners to derail negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Because, you know, the best way to ruin negotiations would be to very secretly arrange random shootings by nutjobs with no actual trail back to Iran. Not at all, what I'm saying is that Iran has a history of bombing Israeli, and Jewish, targets on other continents in order to pursue foreign policy objectives. I was more thinking South America, and the mock run of a bombing found recently, and less so Europe. What happens if Iranian hardliners blow up a synagogue or Israeli embassy in South America? Who owns the political fallout? Whoever was in favor of appeasing Iran, that's who.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
You don't attack people with nukes, no one in the Middle East but Pakistan has nukes and they don't give a poo poo about Israel. Alien Arcana posted:Two reasons. Considering the fact that he's done every thing he can to sabotage the "ANY DAY NOW" thing I don't really believe this. All he wants is A. To stay in power and B. A United States willing to invade what ever country Israel wants and to pay for all the costs of said invasion. Sabotaging Obama's negotiations can only end badly for Israel, even by their own logic an Iran with nukes would instantly destroy all of Israel so why keep trying to stop the man trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But I don't believe an Iran with nukes would ever attack Israel, and that a nuclear state to deter Israel from loving with the rest of the Middle East is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:You don't attack people with nukes, no one in the Middle East but Pakistan has nukes and they don't give a poo poo about Israel. The stated issue is that the deal wouldn't prevent them from going after nukes, and would help them in the long run by easing sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:You don't attack people with nukes, no one in the Middle East but Pakistan has nukes and they don't give a poo poo about Israel. Folks with nukes in the mid-east: Israel Pakistan Saudi Arabia Folks who'll get nukes the moment anyone in this group gets nukes: Iran Egypt Turkey Syria
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I doubt they could achieve it anyways, but there's nothing good about Iran having nukes as a "deterrent." They wave their dicks around in the Middle East much more than Israel does as it is, and adding nuclear capability on top of it would be bad news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
I mean why would Iran want "the ultimate deterrent"? They're so irrational!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
bpower posted:I mean why would Iran want "the ultimate deterrent"? They're so irrational!! Because they've been saying for years they want to use it against Israel. I tend to take foreign policy proclamations of ambitions seriously, and have yet to see Iranian action demonstrating that their declared intent is not their actual intent. Its only a deterrent until you use it, then its a holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
bpower posted:I mean why would Iran want "the ultimate deterrent"? They're so irrational!! After what happened with Ukraine, I would honestly have a hard time arguing to any country that it is against its interests to acquire/maintain nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The stated issue is that the deal wouldn't prevent them from going after nukes, and would help them in the long run by easing sanctions. Well considering that's the opposite of reality I'm not going to give that stated issue much credibility. My Imaginary GF posted:Folks with nukes in the mid-east: The same way every country in the USSR or sympathetic to the Soviet Union automatically got nukes, oh wait that never happened. And I fail to see how Turkey having nukes is a bad thing. Volkerball posted:I doubt they could achieve it anyways, but there's nothing good about Iran having nukes as a "deterrent." They wave their dicks around in the Middle East much more than Israel does as it is, and adding nuclear capability on top of it would be bad news. You know what Nuclear armed country waves their dick around more than any of those countries in the middle east? I'll give you one guess. How dare we let people develop weapons to defend themselves, obviously the cold war has taught us the minute you get nukes you immediately nuke all of your enemies. Posting this from my scavenged parts computer in a fallout bunker in the radioactive ruins of D.C.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:After what happened with Ukraine, I would honestly have a hard time arguing to any country that it is against its interests to acquire/maintain nuclear weapons. The simple fact that the nations with them will not stop trying to gently caress you if you do. Which is just an incentive to have a secret program, but that's hard. Also, the Saudis do not have nukes, they just have a likely avenue of acquisition.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Folks with nukes in the mid-east: [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:26
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:[citation needed] Either he's trolling or he's alluding to the reported pact the Saudis have with Pakistan which basically is if the Saudis want them the Pakistanis will send them immediately.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:You know what Nuclear armed country waves their dick around more than any of those countries in the middle east? I'll give you one guess. Since the end of the Iraq War, no one. The failure of the Arab Spring and the collapse of Syria and Iraq are almost entirely on the hands of Iran, with a helping of the gulf states and Russia. I don't like the idea of a country who murdered thousands of political prisoners, executes the most prisoners in the Middle East by far (excluding failed states like Syria), and supports any Shia force anywhere in the region without question of the horrendous massacres they commit, feeling even more brazen. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Since the end of the Iraq War, no one. The failure of the Arab Spring and the collapse of Syria and Iraq are almost entirely on the hands of Iran, with a helping of the gulf states and Russia. I don't like the idea of a country who murdered thousands of political prisoners, executes the most prisoners in the Middle East by far, and supports any Shia force anywhere in the region without question of the horrendous massacres they commit, feeling even more brazen. I don't know what kind of opposite land you live in were the Arab Spring failed but it must be the same place were the Iranian army or a militia of Shia militants invaded several Iraqi cities and collapsed the country instead of a Sunni extremist group called ISIS. But if we are basing who gets nukes off of how good they are as people on your personal accepto meter we should be invading Israel and nuking Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I don't know what kind of opposite land you live in were the Arab Spring failed but it must be the same place were the Iranian army or a militia of Shia militants invaded several Iraqi cities and collapsed the country instead of a Sunni extremist group called ISIS. what a world that might look like
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:what a world that might look like Well, here in reality ISIS has provided an excellent target for people to unite against and I'm glad this might end in us finally starting to support a secular middle eastern nation other than turkey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I don't know what kind of opposite land you live in were the Arab Spring failed but it must be the same place were the Iranian army or a militia of Shia militants invaded several Iraqi cities and collapsed the country instead of a Sunni extremist group called ISIS. But if we are basing who gets nukes off of how good they are as people on your personal accepto meter we should be invading Israel and nuking Pakistan. Ever heard of a little group called Hezbollah?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Well, here in reality ISIS has provided an excellent target for people to unite against and I'm glad this might end in us finally starting to support a secular middle eastern nation other than turkey. Interesting, because Shia militias crushing dissent and murdering Sunni's while Maliki pushed Sunni's out of the government and degraded them provided an excellent target for people to unite against, and the result was ISIS. I imagine the increase in sectarianism will only have positive results for the region.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:54
|
|