|
My Imaginary GF posted:Woah now, why stop short of warfare? Shouldn't we include all alternative options before we throw them off the table? Well, only neocon idiots think that another Iraq seems like a good idea, so I'm not surprised that you regard war as a viable option.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Iran has over twice the population of Iraq and their GDP is 360 billion. Pakistan has a GDP of 230 billion. Invading and occupying Iran would go poorly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Iran has over twice the population of Iraq and their GDP is 360 billion. Pakistan has a GDP of 230 billion. On the other hand, it'd be great for the caliphate. MIGF: objectively pro-caliph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
MIGF is, to date the only poster I've bothered to actually block. I just got done reading this entire thread head to heel and it just boggles my mind how many people here decided to engage with this stupid motherfucker. He just makes the thread objectively worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Woah now, why stop short of warfare? Shouldn't we include all alternative options before we throw them off the table? Unfortunately we stabbed our ally and fellow human rights champion Saddam Hussein in the back, so we don't really have the support we need to avoid unacceptable American casualties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Iran has over twice the population of Iraq and their GDP is 360 billion. Pakistan has a GDP of 230 billion. And not just for the Iranians and their attackers. Iran is the second largest economy in MENA (after KSA) and the second most populous (after Egypt). It is closely integrated into the economies of the Middle East and Central Asia and counts some of Eurasia's largest economies (including Germany, Russia, China, India, and Japan) as major trading partners. It is a major oil exporter, and has the world's second largest proven reserves of natural gas. Any serious disruption of the Iranian economy, either by war or particularly harsh sanctions, would have severe repercussions for the region and would cause the same sort of instability in the global energy market that we saw when Libya collapsed, at the very least (Libya's fossil fuel exports have always been tiny compared to Iran's). A devastating war or sort of "destruction" of the Iranian state that MIGF and some Israelis seem to think is a good idea (just how many people is he talking about killing here, anyway?), would mean the collapse of the Iranian economy, the deep depression of the regional economy (even Israel would feel the pain), and a major disruption of the global energy markets that would stand of very good chance of spreading to financial and commodity markets in general and potentially set off a global depression. Such a war would also create a humanitarian crisis dwarfing what we've seen in Syria at exactly the time when neighboring countries would be least prepared to absorb millions of new refugees and then, after the dust settled (which could take years) whoever had the bright idea to destroy the Islamic Republic, assuming they intended to replace it with something better, would face a reconstruction bill that made Iraq seem affordable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
So what's been the Israeli reception of the speech now it's done, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
When even Bibi after all his warmongering could only muster a timid "Deal is bad! need better deal" this should perhaps clue some people to the fact that there is no war with Iran looming over the horizon. Even if Israel does bomb Iran (it won't, despite the noble KSA offering their aid) Iran is more likely to react as it usually does by killing some Jews in Argentina or funding Hezbollah or doing anything other than taking direct action cause they literally never do. People seem to forget that for the Irani and Israeli regimes talking poo poo about each other is always a great way to draw attention away from actual domestic issues, this has been going for a long long while, this is going on now as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Netanyahu: "Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons" In a shocking turn on events, the Prime Minister of Israel has announced that Iran is a rational country that would only use a nuclear arsenal for deterrence purpose, and is therefore a trusted stabilizing presence in the Middle East. To support his argument, Netanyahu reminded that, in 1992, he said that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that therefore Iran has had the atom bomb since 1997 at the latest. Bibi then explained that, since it has been eighteen years and Iran has not used its nukes for any hostile action, the fears that Iran would trigger the apocalypse are grossly exaggerated. “Any claim to the contrary,” he added, “would be calling me a liar”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Netanyahu: "Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons" I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxMvDijH2Ws
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
pro-click
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
having a bit of an identity crisis here now that i've seen arik's bare rear end, what is there left to live for? my life has peaked, where do i go from here??
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
i've watched the video six times now i'm the horrified lady in the bikini on the right
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Netanyahu: "Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons" The Manhattan project went from theory to useable device in somewhere between 3 and 5 years (depending on whether you consider it to have started in 1939 -when it was a theory- or 1942 -when it started getting lots of money-), so that being the case, isn't every sufficiently stable, modern country pretty much 3-5 years from having a Nuclear Weapon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:The Manhattan project went from theory to useable device in somewhere between 3 and 5 years (depending on whether you consider it to have started in 1939 -when it was a theory- or 1942 -when it started getting lots of money-), so that being the case, isn't every sufficiently stable, modern country pretty much 3-5 years from having a Nuclear Weapon? Does Iran have Richard Feynman to play bongos for them? No? Probably best to add a decade to that estimate, them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Does Iran have Richard Feynman to play bongos for them? No? Probably best to add a decade to that estimate, them. It's not like the knowledge isn't out there, they don't need him to invent anything. The issue is if Iran is even pursuing nuclear weapons, not that if they could achieve them. And the overwhelming evidence from the passage of time to the treaties they've signed to US and Israeli intelligence seems to point out to them not being particularly interested in suddenly being a nuclear weapons state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Does Iran have Richard Feynman to play bongos for them? No? Probably best to add a decade to that estimate, them. I think they'll manage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RTmBfh6ieE
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Is there a reliable Israeli pollster to be checking out in advance of the election? How did Netanyahu's speech impact his polling numbers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Is there a reliable Israeli pollster to be checking out in advance of the election? How did Netanyahu's speech impact his polling numbers? How comfortable are you with Hebrew? This is an interface for looking at some polls, poll averages, and following individual parties chronologically with polling numbers So far it seems that the polls right after the speech give Netanyahu 2 extra seats. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How comfortable are you with Hebrew? Haha, are Israelis really going to re-elect him? How poor will they have to get before they realize it's not in their best interest? Ah, well, there goes any chance this election had of being interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Haha, are Israelis really going to re-elect him? How poor will they have to get before they realize it's not in their best interest? Ah, well, there goes any chance this election had of being interesting. Israeli elections are not about candidates but about lists. His party still is getting at most on par with Zionist Camp, but that doesn't matter because you get to be Prime Minister not if your party gets the most votes, but if you are able to form a majority in the Knesset. The prospects currently look grim for a coalition not headed by Netanyahu. If we take the average of all polls, which gives: Zionist Camp, 23 Likud, 22 United Arab List, 13 Yesh Atid, 12 Jewish Home, 11 Kulanu, 8 United Torah Judaism, 6 Shas, 6 Meretz, 5 Yisrael Beitenu, 5 Yahad, 4 Netanyahu could build a right-wing coalition with Likud, Jewish Home, United Torah Judaism, Kulanu, Shas, Yisrael Beitenu, and Yahad (total 62), although he won't like it, as that puts him at the left-most edge vis-a-vis I/P, and he would rather be in the center. Another options is a National Unity government with Herzog and Netanyahu rotating leadership, like in the 1980's. (Although considering that Herzog is supposed to rotate with Livni with Zionist Camp, it may mean Netanyahu for 2 years, Herzog 1, and Livni 1 )That gives them 45 seats. The missing 16 for a majority can be taken either from Yesh Atid and Kulanu (the debate between them seemed to indicate that their disagreements are superficial) for a total of 65, or United Torah Judaism, Shas and Meretz somehow agree to join (Meretz would be a tough sell as they ran on not joining a government with Bibi in charge; maybe they'll compromise by only being in coalition when Bibi is not PM) for a total of 62. Another possibility is that Netanyahu lets his ego slide and accepts the Foreign Affairs or Finance portfolio in a coalition government. But I think Likud being in the coalition subservient to Zionist Camp would be anathema to its base with such a close call on seat numbers. For a somewhat center-left coalition you might be able to have Zionist Camp, Yesh Atid, Kulanu, United Torah Judaism, Shas, and Meretz, for a total of exactly 60. Maybe Hadash joins after the post-election breakup of the Arab parties. But it's going to be a really tough sell unless they basically say that the purpose of this coalition is to take the next two years, do absolutely nothing on the economic front (as Yesh Atid would be a spoiler about that incessantly), and focus on ending the Occupation. But if you did that, perhaps it would be possible to have all of the United List on, in which case you would have Zionist Camp, United Arab List, Kulanu, United Torah Judaism, Shas, and Meretz, with a total of 61. That has a lot of religious conservatism, but would be mostly economically liberal and either neutral or in favor of ending the Occupation. Furthermore, Yesh Atid would probably provide outside support for any steps to end the Occupation from the opposition, providing a bit of a margin of legitimacy that just 61 seats would lack. Post-election is going to be a mess, is what I'm saying, unless something really dramatic happens. Which it totally can: polls have alternately put Meretz, Yisrael Beitenu, and Yachad on the margins of the election threshold, meaning they could lose all of their seats and those could be split around. Also, Livni's people could opportunistically jump out of Zionist Camp into a coalition with Netanyahu changing that calculus, and the various Arab parties may do entirely different things after the elections, although none of them have ever served in a coalition and seem opposed to that notion unless there is serious I/P work in the future of that coalition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
I thought Yesh Atid were the secularists, would they join a coalition with the Haredim parties?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I thought Yesh Atid were the secularists, would they join a coalition with the Haredim parties? ... In actual comparative news - I had, like infinity times more respect for Yossi Sarid than I do for Lapid (is that how it works if you have absolutely zero respect for the later party?) but he agreed to join a coalition with Haredi parties to gain the Ministry of Education portfolio (and did extremely well by it). That's what happens in parliamentary politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I thought Yesh Atid were the secularists, would they join a coalition with the Haredim parties? You'll note that I assumed that that wouldn't happen other than in a coalition specifically formed for the sake of the peace process but without most of the Arab parties. That being said, I wish to clarify that by "economically liberal" I mean it in the US sense. In the Israeli sense it would actually be "economically conservative", as in reverting to the country's more socialist origins. Welfare-state-positive, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Hi, I'm a dumbass who is new to all of this politics stuff. So I've been reading a bit of this thread and it seems apparent that both Iran and Israel are pretty terrible places, but I'm not sure where all of the positive feelings for Iran are coming from, or at least the preference to Israel. Can someone give a quick explanation/point me to some reading material? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
You can hate the Iranian regime but still feel that imperialist meddling in Persia is bad because that is what gave us the current leaders (look up how the CIA took out Mossadegh) and that the only alternative to negotiations is a war that would empower ISIS and make Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam seem pleasant by comparison. Besides, there's no good evidence Iran is after a bomb anyway, even Mossad admits as much. If someone has good feelings toward Iran it may be because the people who live there are pretty young and secular (even if the dictatorship isn't) and because Iran is currently one of the strongest forces in the fight against ISIS. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Iran really couldn't be a worse ally than Israel at this point if they tried. The way Israel treats the only country preventing it from being wiped from the face of the Earth is outright ridiculous. They're not even really wrong in their belief that the US is working for them at this point, they can really do whatever they want and get away with it with no real negative consequences. Sure the Democrats are getting sick of them but if the Republicans get their poo poo together or the democrats really gently caress up they've got at least another 8 years of free ride before having to own up to anybody. Iran's just the coolest muslim nation out of all of them, sure they suck compared to like Canada or something but compared to Saudi Arabia or the hosed-to-death-hole-in-the-ground-formerly-known-as-Syria/Iraq or Egypt, they look pretty great. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Hi, I'm a dumbass who is new to all of this politics stuff. A lot of people have anti-Israel sentiments. Some of them have to do with the disenfranchisement of Palestinians that they practiced before and especially when the State was formed, as well as right after, and also after 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza. In the West Bank it is continuing to this day, while in Gaza the settlements were removed but the whole place is an open-air prison and it's getting quite desperate there, as there are repeated bombing campaigns and ground invasions against terrorists, while supplies of all sorts are restricted. Some of it has to do with this giving people license to express racist sentiments towards Jews with impunity. As for Iran, it's a theocracy, but it became so after decades of oppression under a monarch installed by a Western-backed coup. Ultimately the Iranian people are chill, and their regime has enough democratic apparatus that it can be projected to be a democracy as we know it within a couple of decades, and yet we sanction them/drum up opposition to them while being very friendly with outright monarchic theocracies like Saudi Arabia. They're Muslims so it's much more popular to make light of their crimes and over-sell their advantages, but I think even in cold-hearted realpolitik terms they've proven themselves to be a good stabilizing power in the region, so Israeli opposition to any kind of peaceful negotiations with them is sounding more and more detached from reality. OwlBot 2000 posted:You can hate the Iranian regime but still feel that imperialist meddling in Persia is bad because that is what gave us the current leaders (look up how the CIA took out Mossadegh) and that the only alternative to negotiations is a war that would empower ISIS and make Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam seem pleasant by comparison. Besides, there's no good evidence Iran is after a bomb anyway, even Mossad admits as much. Again, that is not what the memo said. Please read the full text rather than Al Jazeera's/The Guardian's cherry-picking in their articles about it. quote:If someone has good feelings toward Iran it may be because the people who live there are pretty young and secular (even if the dictatorship isn't) and because Iran is currently one of the strongest forces in the fight against ISIS. I've personally never met an Iranian I didn't like and would be extremely happy if relations between them and the US (as well as Israel) were normalized in my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Hi, I'm a dumbass who is new to all of this politics stuff. Mention human rights abuses, sexual discrimination and gays being hanged from industrial cranes in Iran and you'll be accused of derailing. It's like when anti-Israel commenters get all het up about the outrage of Haredim defacing female faces on advertisements and demanding gender-segregated buses and use the behaviour of that tiny population to imply that all practicing Jews are screaming misogynists, while unironically lionising the Muslim Middle East; apparently stoning women to death and melting their faces off with acid for the crime of getting raped isn't nearly as bad as what those foul yids get up to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Israel is a US ally that receives massive amounts of support from western nations while Iran is a pariah that is subject to all kinds of sanctions. I don't think it's unfair to hold the former to higher moral standards when judging how to move forward with policy.
Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:making GBS threads on Israel is for the cool kids, and if you poo poo on Israel then you have to be pro-Iran. That's basically as deep as goons' understanding of politics goes, but they're going to take it and run with it. Don't forget that the fact that men accused of homosexuality are faced with the option of either becoming MTF transsexuals or being executed has been presented as somehow progressive. At least Saudi Arabia doesn't present them with that kind of Sophie's Choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Israel is a US ally that receives massive amounts of support from western nations while Iran is a pariah that is subject to all kinds of sanctions. I don't think it's unfair to hold the former to higher moral standards when judging how to move forward with policy. How many people came to pay their respects to the late King Abdullah al Manslut, again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Israel is a US ally that receives massive amounts of support from western nations while Iran is a pariah that is subject to all kinds of sanctions. I don't think it's unfair to hold the former to higher moral standards when judging how to move forward with policy. Also, it's much easier for Americans to affect what's going on in Israel than what goes on in Iran. Israel oppresses and murders Palestinians using American money, American guns, American bulldozers and American tanks. They get away with it thanks to American votes in the UN. It is therefore a problem Americans can help solve, in contrast to a country like Iran were we have very little control over their policy (because we overthrew their last democratically elected leader and gave Saddam Hussein biological and chemical weapons to kill Iranians with)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How many people came to pay their respects to the late King Abdullah al Manslut, again? Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Yeah that former Saudi Arabian head of state has a lot to do with my post re: Iran and Israel? Nobody holds Saudi Arabia to any kind of moral standards. Difference is that unlike with Israel, the US actually has to send troops out to unfuck what the Saudis done hosed up. Israel does its slaughtering itself, even if it does get a lot of weapons and support from the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Despite the tradition of "speaking no ill of the dead" after Abdullah kicked the bucket, Saudi Arabia doesn't have people defending their backwards and barbaric policies the way people defend Israel's. If you hear people attack Israel more than Saudi Arabia it's because there aren't hundreds of politicians and media personalities talking about how great Saudi Arabia is all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Despite the tradition of "speaking no ill of the dead" after Abdullah kicked the bucket, Saudi Arabia doesn't have people defending their backwards and barbaric policies the way people defend Israel's. If you hear people attack Israel more than Saudi Arabia it's because there aren't hundreds of politicians and media personalities talking about how great Saudi Arabia is all the time. I guess Israel should stop spending so much money on PR then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Despite the tradition of "speaking no ill of the dead" after Abdullah kicked the bucket, Saudi Arabia doesn't have people defending their backwards and barbaric policies the way people defend Israel's. If you hear people attack Israel more than Saudi Arabia it's because there aren't hundreds of politicians and media personalities talking about how great Saudi Arabia is all the time. Yes, that's definitely what matters. Israel, you insist you're a modern nation yet continue to occupy the Palestinian Territories, you monstrous Nazi-esque apartheid regime you. ISIS, you guys don't say you're a liberal democracy, so you're ok by me I guess?  You can saw the heads off of Christians, enslave and rape Yazidis, throw gays off the top of buildings, but as long as you don't do it hypocritically we won't have any trouble apparently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 08:50
|
|