|
Iran is presently the US' de facto ally in opposing the spread of the Islamic State to the point where we both have 'advisers' visiting the same shia militias around Baghdad in between their bouts of ethnic cleansing while trying to avoid being in the room at the same time like an international relations sitcom. Thomas Friedman is stupid enough to think we should be arming ISIS instead because they hate Iran like poison, but neither Hillary Clinton nor Jeb Bush do. They both could easily end up starting a ground war in the middle east, but not Iran.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:09 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:38 |
|
DaveWoo posted:For someone who doesn't want to repeat his brother's foreign policy mistakes, he sure is using an awful lot of his brother's foreign policy advisers. That's just who republicans hire for foreign policy. Those were the same geniuses who ran Romney's FP shop.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:09 |
|
Torrannor posted:Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan together had more than 100 million people, while the US had only half it's current population. I'm not seeing a reason why the USA couldn't occupy Iran, at least if it was willing to invest as many resources as it did in WW2. Making IEDs in the 1940's wasn't nearly as easy as it is today.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:10 |
|
MeLKoR posted:Making IEDs in the 1940's wasn't nearly as easy as it is today. Hahaha, yes it was. Various Partisan groups in occupied Europe made use of them.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:15 |
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:But yeah the Iraq War went terrible for George W Bush oh wait no he experienced literally no consequences for war crimes. Just because he should be rotting at the Hague and isn't, doesn't mean that it won't be, the bold lettered headline to his legacy as president. You don't think he knows that?
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:15 |
|
mcmagic posted:Just because he should be rotting at the Hague and isn't, doesn't mean that it won't be, the bold lettered headline to his legacy as president. You don't think he knows that?
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:18 |
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Why do you think he cares? Why do you think his brother is any better? I'm pretty sure all Presidents care about their legacies. And I don't think his brother would be "better" just that he wouldn't invade Iran... mcmagic fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 18, 2015 |
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:20 |
|
mcmagic posted:I'm pretty sure all Presidents care about their legacies. quote:President George W. Bush says that when he heard Kanye West say, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” “it was one of the most disgusting moments in my presidency.”
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:27 |
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:http://z.ynet.co.il/short/content/2015/elections_map2015/ This is incredibly informative and useful. Thanks. Clearly, some Israeli pollsters will have to rework their methodology after this. To wit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/israel-election-pollsters-idUSL6N0WK1MQ20150318 quote:Embarrassed at failing to predict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory, Israeli pollsters said on Wednesday they were blindsided by reticent rightist voters and may have unwittingly prodded waverers to back the incumbent. So the pollsters basically gave Netanyahu a boost by underreporting his support.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:31 |
|
Hello, shy Tory effect.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:41 |
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think it's that simple. Yes, the neo con's surrounding Bush 43 wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning but they were both stupid and evil. As was Cheney. I'm sure he really thought that we would be greeted as liberators and that the war would be over in 2 weeks. And the incompetence they displayed in managing the war once is started was almost beyond belief. They also had 9-11 happen which they were able to use to get the war started. The US public has no appetite for another iraq war and I'm sure Jeb Bush knows that. He really seems more like the typical tool of the rich republican who is pretty much there to help out his rich pals and the corporations they run than a guy who has an ideological mission for middle east regime change.. quote:"Would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran in order to prevent them from producing a nuclear weapon?"
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:57 |
|
I wouldn't worry about a war with Iran right now. I don't think Bibi intends to trigger a war there. I'd be much more concerned by the potential collapse of the PA and the West Bank blowing up.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:00 |
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah but Cheney wasn't the president and is also a psychopath who doesn't give a poo poo about his legacy. I don't think Jeb falls into that category. He saw what the Iraq war did to his brother's presidency and I really don't think he would want to repeat that. Unless he's more of a neo con fundy than I think he is... Didn't Cheney make a ton of money off the Iraq War due to all his Halliburton stock? Smart move for him.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:01 |
|
Give it a month of ramp-up to bombing, when Iran renews its nuclear program after it walks away from an acceptable deal, and then we'll see how much of America favors bombing Iran in order to preserve mideast peace and stability.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:10 |
|
If the next president actually is stupid enough to invade Iran then the American people will line up to support it. Maybe the executive just needs to establish the framing of the issue in the media, or maybe they just up and fabricate evidence wholesale like the GWB administration did, but I don't think anybody is arguing the POTUS is incapable of launching such an invasion.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:12 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Give it a month of ramp-up to bombing, when Iran renews its nuclear program after it walks away from an acceptable deal, and then we'll see how much of America favors bombing Iran in order to preserve mideast peace and stability. Recent history has shown that if America wants to preserve mideast peace and stability, then the country they have to bomb is the USA themselves.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:31 |
|
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...-process-394310 The Abbas administration has announced that it doesn't care who the next Israeli Prime Minister will be, and that they will work with any Israeli government that supports the two-state solution. http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Palestinian-court-upholds-decree-stripping-Abbas-rival-of-immunity-394352 The PA courts have upheld, on procedural grounds, Abbas' presidential decree stripping his chief political rival of his parliamentary immunity. This leaves him open to charges of graft from the anti-corruption committee set up by Abbas. How convenient that his main rival and the only person in Fatah capable of challenging him for the presidency is in such trouble!
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:38 |
|
I don't buy that saying you support "military action" is the same thing as saying that you support a full scale Iraq style invasion and occupation...
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:42 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...-process-394310 Abbas really should go ahead and resign. He's a tired old relic and is widely hated by the people he supposedly represents.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:55 |
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:He is working off of outdated info Hahahaha... ha.. gently caress, I could see you guys doing it again for "reasons".
|
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:59 |
|
DaveWoo posted:For someone who doesn't want to repeat his brother's foreign policy mistakes, he sure is using an awful lot of his brother's foreign policy advisers. mcmagic posted:That's just who republicans hire for foreign policy. Those were the same geniuses who ran Romney's FP shop. Again, look at the guy in the middle in dark red You have far, far more faith in Jeb Bush not starting Iraq War 3/Iran War 1 than I do, I'm working under the assumption that that invading Iraq/Syria/Iran is a given with president Jeb Bush. E: Jeb Bush would also mean all the progress with Iran is erased, and all the "progress" with the US/Israeli relationship is reset back to what it was in 2000-2008. fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Mar 19, 2015 |
# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:59 |
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Binational state was more of a pipe dream of people who consider it to be a historical inevitability, it was never 'on the cards' as far as Israel, the US or any western nation was concerned, if anything for those who believe that there's only one way for the cookie to crumble Netanyahu's dismissal of the 'peace process' is considered to be a step in the right direction. These accelerationists are loving morons. Just look at any Peace Now map. The map for any Palestinian state inevitably shrinks over time and that's not going to change. Plus, Abunimah will get another Cast Lead every two years, and it's amazing how he can handwave how Oslo brought legitimate quality of life improvements. Hillary and a GOP Congress will be a rubber stamp for eight years. Oh and Paineframe raises a good point too. Fatah will just follow Arafat's example and rob everyone blind with Israel's tacit support. That's pretty much what Hamas is doing in Gaza too, look at the wealth that Mashaal and Haniyeh have accumulated. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 19, 2015 |
# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:18 |
|
A Cast Lead every two years? I bet they make it yearly from now on. Maybe they can sell advertising like a sports playoffs.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:25 |
|
fade5 posted:... that's not really a refutation of DaveWoo's point, it just means that in the hypothetical bad universe of President Romney the US would be gearing up for an invasion of Iran right about now. Man, you think our timeline has had some bad poo poo, I don't even want to imagine that one. I don't think not believing he'd start world war 3 is a very high bar. Of course he would be a disaster on multiple levels.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:38 |
|
loving jews!
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:39 |
|
Avshalom posted:loving jews! No one can tell the Israeli people whom to choose as a government. Likud is not a terrorist organization. Regardless of whether I disagree with Likud, the international community cannot mediate neutrally if it starts to label the organizations of the Israelis as illegitimate.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:52 |
|
Kim Jong Il posted:No one can tell the Israeli people whom to choose as a government. Likud is not a terrorist organization. Regardless of whether I disagree with Likud, the international community cannot mediate neutrally if it starts to label the organizations of the Israelis as illegitimate. I mean, ok, but surely you see the double standard here? Israel and the US get to dictate which parties palestinians get to choose as their own representatives. Besides, I haven't seen anyone in the west that actually challenged the legitimacy of the Likud administration as the legal government of Israel, the worst western administrations have done so far is raise their figurative eyebrows at Netanyahu openly opting out of the two state solution understandings, and let's face it, even whilst Israelis may choose their own representatives it is fine for the world to express malcontent and even (hopefully one day) take action based on certain policy decisions Israel chooses to commit to, and why not, the US has thrown itself behind the Oslo agreements and supported Israel based on certain understandings, treaties and commitments made be a series of Israeli administrations, can't just renege on international agreements and go 'internal politics, back the gently caress off'. Although that is definitely what's going to happen right now but still, it's obviously completely hypocritical.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:14 |
|
That sounds like it was originally referencing Hamas.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:18 |
|
Remember another country with an overcrowded parliamentary ticket that was overcome with race-nationalism
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:19 |
|
Yeah I guess my poes law detector is off. It's late.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:19 |
|
Likud is a democratically elected government. There's no particular reason to call it illegitimate. On the other hand, Hamas being a legitimate, democratically-elected government didn't stop the US from demonizing it. Both Israel and Palestine know the US isn't much of an unbiased observer already, though, and no one else's opinion really matters.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:21 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Likud is a democratically elected government. There's no particular reason to call it illegitimate. Democratic election does not, by itself, make a government legitimate. Individuals are free to elect an illegitimate government, if they wish to make such a mistake. Likud is a democratically elected government willing to work within a framework of acceptable state policy. That's what makes them legitimate.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:29 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:within a framework of acceptable state policy. Drawing formal distinctions between people based on their blood is acceptable?
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:33 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Democratic election does not, by itself, make a government legitimate. Individuals are free to elect an illegitimate government, if they wish to make such a mistake. acceptable by whom?
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:33 |
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:acceptable by whom? "Death to Israel" is not an acceptable policy framework from which to pursue an agenda that promotes peace and stability in the mideast.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:48 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"Death to Israel" is not an acceptable policy framework from which to pursue an agenda that promotes peace and stability in the mideast. Hasn't Likud just explicitly ruled out promoting peace and stability in the Middle East?
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:52 |
|
Darth Walrus posted:Hasn't Likud just explicitly ruled out promoting peace and stability in the Middle East? They're working towards the one state solution now.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:55 |
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:They're working towards the one state solution now. Possibly in a very definitive manner.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:57 |
|
Darth Walrus posted:Hasn't Likud just explicitly ruled out promoting peace and stability in the Middle East? Hamas' continued pursuit of unacceptable policy has killed what was left of Oslo, and Israel has elected a government that recognizes this failure while seeking to move forward with future policy. The voters of Israel have spoken, and they have elected a coalition that views a one-state solution as a more tenable policy for implementation towards the goal of peace and stability in the mideast than the continuation of outdated, decades-old, dead accords. The responsible position for elected members in America to take is to accept that the accords have failed and move forward with real-world, workable policies, rather than idealistically looking back on the impossible and hoping that, this time, they'll work.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 02:00 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:38 |
|
I would love to be pleasantly surprised with Bibi offering full citizenship to everyone in the West Bank. Maybe Egypt can do the same for the Gaza Strip. Tear down these walls.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2015 02:01 |