|
Bait and Swatch posted:I ask this with all honesty, and I think I know the answer, but is this a serious post? It's MIGF.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
FaustianQ posted:It's MIGF. I can't look at rap sheets on my phone, but I take it he's a troll?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Iran is bad because they execute gay people. Now here are five paragraphs about how we must ally with Sunni tribesmen. Well its a perspective you'll get used to in this thread because he does this a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:Keep banging that war drum, friend. Increasing Iranian ties to the West and the World at large is only going to change things for the better. Yes because the western nations getting in bed with morally questionable regimes and organizations has often produced stellar results. Now I'm not saying things won't work out, maybe they Will maybe they won't. I just find it a bit naive when people act like all we need to do is "hold out the hand of friendship" and all will be well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
How are u posted:Keep banging that war drum, friend. Increasing Iranian ties to the West and the World at large is only going to change things for the better. Yeah because increased Syrian and Iraqi ties with Iran have done wonders. I'm not even banging the war drum. My point is that if you think the Iranian regime is going to liberalize over an opportunistic deal because diplomacy = peace, you're in for a rude awakening. That regime will slaughter a million people before it gives up an ounce of power, and in the meantime, people will continue to flee the country to escape their oppression. When expatriated journalists and advocates for basic human rights start going back without getting arrested at the airport, then we'll talk. Best Friends posted:Iran is bad because they execute gay people. Now here are five paragraphs about how we must ally with Sunni tribesmen. I doubt Iran executing gay people is even in the top 10 reasons they are bad. Near the top, you have the fact that Iranian backed Shia militias are breeding sectarianism, which encourages the growth of groups like ISIS. Working in good faith with opposition forces to provide a legitimate alternative to jihadist militias, and countering Iranian influence when it comes to their power projection in the middle east, are two sides of the same coin if your goal is to crush the influence of jihadists. And I did not advocate Petraeus strategy. I think it's interesting, and it might have worked in 2012, but I'm not sold it would work today, which I made pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Yes because the western nations getting in bed with morally questionable regimes and organizations has often produced stellar results. As if Western nations are not themselves morally questionable, and ain't never done no good to nobody. Remind us again how bombing those countries, overthrowing those regimes, and sometimes occupying them has worked out so far. How are u posted:They'd actually be allies. Racial separatists are very big on the idea of each race having its own states and ne'er the two shall mix. I'd wager that most white supremacists in the US don't want to kill all the Jews / African Americans / Hispanics, they just want them completely removed from the country. There was a point once on Stormfront where there was a real debate over whether or not Japanese Nationalists should be allowed to post there because they're not technically white. Ultimately it was decided that they should have their own forum, but if the RAHOWA ever comes they should keep in touch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Was that Ynet article about a Russian intervention legit? No major news source seems to have picked up the story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Yes because the western nations getting in bed with morally questionable regimes and organizations has often produced stellar results. Exactly which regimes in the Middle East are not morally questionable?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Exactly which regimes in the Middle East are not morally questionable? At this point we might as well just call western nations The Arsenal of Dictatorship. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-arms-exports-libya  Step right up over 'ere, and take a look at this baby! A Grade A repression device. It'll flatten a Shia baby's skull like a melon! Why you'd have to be naive not to buy!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Exactly which regimes in the Middle East are not morally questionable? And which of there nations that we got involved with didn't results in walking through waist high poo poo. America being an rear end does not give Iran or anyone an excuse to be one. The only real course of action should either be work with someone who isn't poo poo (good luck) , work with none of them,(not practical) or be pragmatic with who we work with. And I'm not sold on breaking decades old alliances to work with Iran to be that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with you but, I think you have answered my question by omission. Every last regime in the Middle East is morally questionable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:And which of there nations that we got involved with didn't results in walking through waist high poo poo. Those decades old alliances are with morally questionable regimes who publicly execute gays. In what sense is it naive to work peaceably with Iran considering that context? You're just concern trolling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:Was that Ynet article about a Russian intervention legit? No major news source seems to have picked up the story. I'm not thinking so. My guess is that it was a misunderstanding over the deal to deliver aircraft and train pilots, and ynet jumped the gun in reporting conjecture as fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Exactly which regimes in the Middle East are not morally questionable? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:I can't look at rap sheets on my phone, but I take it he's a troll? An awful gimmick poster who you can never have a reasonable conversation with? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Rojava, maybe. Although they've got PKK ties, and they're not a regime, more of an autonomous region that's doing its own thing, so This raises an interesting point, when would the U.S. be able to fully embrace and support an independent Kurdistan? Iraq and Syria are never going to be the same again. It just needs to be done and accepted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:At this point we might as well just call western nations The Arsenal of Dictatorship. tbh the EU isn't the worst offender here, at least in terms of volume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
radical meme posted:This raises an interesting point, when would the U.S. be able to fully embrace and support an independent Kurdistan? Iraq and Syria are never going to be the same again. It just needs to be done and accepted. So, not for a while. Also, Syrian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan are not the same thing, although they could slowly tie together closer given enough time. Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan are the hard parts, because Iran and Turkey would (and in Turkey's case, currently is) start screaming bloody murder at the idea of Kurdish autonomy/independence. fade5 fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
radical meme posted:This raises an interesting point, when would the U.S. be able to fully embrace and support an independent Kurdistan? Iraq and Syria are never going to be the same again. It just needs to be done and accepted. BBC Newshour this morning was nothing but Syria and talking about all the complications regarding Kurds. One problem with an Independent Kurdistan is that it could include Turkish territory. 'Encouraging' separatism within a NATO state? Not happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah because increased Syrian and Iraqi ties with Iran have done wonders. I'm not even banging the war drum. My point is that if you think the Iranian regime is going to liberalize over an opportunistic deal because diplomacy = peace, you're in for a rude awakening. That regime will slaughter a million people before it gives up an ounce of power, and in the meantime, people will continue to flee the country to escape their oppression. When expatriated journalists and advocates for basic human rights start going back without getting arrested at the airport, then we'll talk. The Iranian regime is not going to liberalize because of an opportunistic deal, the Iranian regime is probably not going to liberalize much at all (maybe a little more, as it has in the last 3 years). The Iranian people, on the other hand, will slowly and inevitably liberalize more (and to be fair, to an extent) because they've been clamoring to integrate with the world for easily a decade, if not two, and in another decade the Iranian people are going to be far more interested in governing with the Western world than they are today. You act as though the current Iranian regime has done what they have done over the past couple years out of the goodness of their heart. Obviously they have not. The sanctions put pressure on them, but more importantly what has happened is the demographic bomb that is the Iranian youth grew up in a lovely loving economy with just enough internet access to see what the rest of the world has to offer and then to get pissed that they don't have the opportunity to engage in that world. Obviously the new Iran we will watch evolve over the next couple decades isn't going to be sunshine and roses, neither are we as a nation. But your bigotry has blinded you to demographic reality. In Iran it is not going to be a change of regime, it is going to be a change of the country. That takes time, and takes an understanding of nuance to see. Sorry you're not quite there yet, friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I mean you can dress some wolves up as sheep, but I have a feeling as soon as it's convenient a lot of those sheep are going to turn back into wolves. How did working with the brave mujaheddin of Afghanistan work out for us? He's right. At this point it's impossible for anyone to truly destroy all the Islamist factions in Syria, it's hard enough just tackling ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:tbh the EU isn't the worst offender here, at least in terms of volume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters The United States is still a "Western nation" and beats out Russia & China combined on its lonesome. So the point still stands. Liberal Interventionists only really give a drat about "morally questionable nations" who kill gays in terms of how anti-American/Western they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
How are u posted:The Iranian regime is not going to liberalize because of an opportunistic deal, the Iranian regime is probably not going to liberalize much at all (maybe a little more, as it has in the last 3 years). The Iranian people, on the other hand, will slowly and inevitably liberalize more (and to be fair, to an extent) because they've been clamoring to integrate with the world for easily a decade, if not two, and in another decade the Iranian people are going to be far more interested in governing with the Western world than they are today. It's funny you accuse me of bigotry when my position is widespread among the liberal Iranians you claim to support. Maryam Rajavi, the leader of Iran's opposition in exile, had this to say at the NCRI conference for Iranian regime change in June, where tens of thousands of people showed up, largely defectors. quote:The people of Iran want neither nuclear weapons nor meddling in Iraq, Syria or Yemen, and they do not accept despotism, torture and shackles. quote:Today, policymakers both in the West and in the Arab world stress that ISIS and Bashar Assad are two sides of the same coin. Let me add to that by saying that the caliph in Tehran is the godfather of both of them. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/17/regime-change-in-iran-the-iranian-people-want-regi/?page=all#pagebreak Given that last bolded section, she most be more bigoted towards Persians than I am, given even I wouldn't go that far. You're aware of the demographic reality, but you're not up to date on the political reality. It does not matter what the Iranian people want. The government has the support of the Basij, the IRGC, and likely the support of the vast majority of the military. Those liberals in Tehran are typical college kids who don't know the first thing about war. They are not in a position to demand anything from the regime. They're about as prepared to enact positive reform in Iran as Syrians were in 2011. Everyone who has supported such notions has been thrown in prison, and or humiliated, and or tortured. And that's to say nothing of the Neda's. This regime killed up to 30,000 political prisoners, largely from liberal parties, in 1988, and many of its perpetrators are still involved in the government today. People within government, like Montazeri, who said "Hey, this is wrong," were politically killed and thrown on house arrest where they could be adequately monitored. They have provided more support pound for pound to Assad for him to slaughter liberal political opponents than any other country in the world as well. The most recent attempt, the Green Movement in 2009, resulted in another crackdown on journalists and protesters. So with all this clear evidence that the Iranian regime will not cede an ounce of power without it being taken from them, and they will happily slaughter those who have the audacity to attempt it en masse, I guess my question would be if you're "in the corner" of the up and coming youth movement in Iran, why would you want to empower their largest obstacle by removing sanctions and treating them as friends? Volkerball fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It just seems weird to me. "Jewish state." Why don't we create a "white state" here in America and be best buds? Brothers in supremacy. It speaks of your priviledge to label a historically oppressed minority, ethnically cleansed within living memory, as "white." Is that what motivates your opposition to Israel? Your view of the conflict as a racial struggle? radical meme posted:Exactly which regimes in the Middle East are not morally questionable? While I disagree with the use of the term "regime," I would otherwise answer Israel. Radbot posted:What is the Jewish State? The state entity most in-line with American values outside of the western hemisphere. Bait and Swatch posted:I ask this with all honesty, and I think I know the answer, but is this a serious post? It is the prevailing opinion of Congress; I do not know anything more serious than a perspective that is able to unite Congress. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The most recent attempt, the Green Movement in 2009, resulted in another crackdown on journalists and protesters. So with all this clear evidence that the Iranian regime will not cede an ounce of power without it being taken from them, and they will happily slaughter those who have the audacity to attempt it en masse, I guess my question would be if you're "in the corner" of the up and coming youth movement in Iran, why would you want to empower their largest obstacle by removing sanctions and treating them as friends? 2009 to today is night and day. You've blinded yourself to the change that is actually occurring in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Could we even maintain sanctions if we wanted to? The EU is practically chomping at the bit to get at Iranian markets and I'm amazed that China and Russia backed the sanction regime for as long as they did. And while sanctions have been useful in drawing Iran into negotiations and pressuring them to accept terms they might not otherwise, I don't see economic sanctions being enough to topple a regime as entrenched as the one in Iran. If you believe that, you likely believe the Cuba embargo will unseat the Castros any day now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
How are u posted:2009 to today is night and day. You've blinded yourself to the change that is actually occurring in the world. ok thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Could we even maintain sanctions if we wanted to? The EU is practically chomping at the bit to get at Iranian markets and I'm amazed that China and Russia backed the sanction regime for as long as they did. Obviously sanctions aren't going to topple the regime. Iran has been the strongest, most influential nation in the Middle East in the face of them. But that's divorced from whether or not you think the sanctions should be lifted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Obviously sanctions aren't going to topple the regime. Iran has been the strongest, most influential nation in the Middle East in the face of them. But that's divorced from whether or not you think the sanctions should be lifted. Sanctions, however, were perceived as preventing Iran from pursuing swifter implementation of its more genocidal policy ambitions. Now? Ask the majority of Kurds and Israelis how safe they feel with sanctions lifted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Obviously sanctions aren't going to topple the regime. Iran has been the strongest, most influential nation in the Middle East in the face of them. But that's divorced from whether or not you think the sanctions should be lifted. It just seems that the people most harmed by the sanctions are the people of Iran, who are presumably the people we seek to help. I suppose the sanctions reduce Iranian influence in neighboring states, though frankly they seem to have developed a considerable sphere of influence regardless of any sanctions, which calls their purpose into question. And we'll have to ignore the hypocrisy of sanctioning Iran while we give military aid to Saudi Arabia, a country that executes people for witchcraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:It just seems that the people most harmed by the sanctions are the people of Iran, who are presumably the people we seek to help. That's true, but there's also the aspect that the lifting of sanctions might not benefit the people of Iran. As in the benefits won't trickle down from the regime. It could very well be Assad and Hezbollah who stand to gain the most. Iran is a massive, developed country, so sanctions were never going to shut them down completely. But there's 0 doubt they've had an impact on Iran's ability to project power, however, the extent of that impact is up for debate. And while I would point out that Ahmadinejad and his clique were expelled from politics in part due to allegations of sorcery, KSA's execution numbers are dwarfed by Iran's, and that KSA couldn't have the impact Iran has had in the current state of the Middle East in their wildest dreams, the bigger issue is that two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:It just seems that the people most harmed by the sanctions are the people of Iran, who are presumably the people we seek to help. Are you sure Iran doesn't execute individuals for witchcraft? Sanctions provide Iran with a pathway to acceptability. My opposition to the Iran deal isn't with the purpose of the deal, it's with how bad this deal is and how Obama was too focused on winning that he wasn't willing to walk away; by being unable to walk away from the negotiations, Obama squandered his best chance at nudging Iran towards appropriate governance, and has thrown the security of the mideast up in the air. Well, further up than it was before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
I don't actually care about the witchcraft thing. I bring it up because, while there are realpolitik reasons for opposing Iran and supporting the House of Saud, a lot of the discussion around Iran is wrapped up in rhetoric of morality and good versus evil. Both nations are run by repressive regimes whose leaders should be drawn and quartered, but in American political discussion Iran is bad and Saudi Arabia is good. Again, though, I don't think sanctions would have held for much longer anyways. The international community is obviously anxious to see them go, and sanctions without backing from the people who actually do business with Iran don't strike me as being particularly effective. Better to switch to a more engaged policy that lets us continue to pressure Iran through diplomatic venues, since the economic pressures have lost their luster for the world at large.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:I don't actually care about the witchcraft thing. I bring it up because, while there are realpolitik reasons for opposing Iran and supporting the House of Saud, a lot of the discussion around Iran is wrapped up in rhetoric of morality and good versus evil. Both nations are run by repressive regimes whose leaders should be drawn and quartered, but in American political discussion Iran is bad and Saudi Arabia is good. You're mistaking correlation for causation. There appears to be less international will for continued sanctions because Obama stopped with the increasing pressures upon the international community to maintain sanctions all the way back in 2009.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You're mistaking correlation for causation. There appears to be less international will for continued sanctions because Obama stopped with the increasing pressures upon the international community to maintain sanctions all the way back in 2009. lmao the international will for sanctions is the will of the international community and not the will of the american lobby
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:lmao the international will for sanctions is the will of the international community and not the will of the american lobby Obviously Obama is too effete to demand the respect of the international community. We needed a strong, disciplined leader in these dark times. Rahm Emanuel would never have failed to lead the world to glorious victory over the Ayatollahs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Is there a good thread for Iran nuclear deal or does that discussion go here? I follow this thread (though not as closely as I should) and when my friend said the deal was going to make it easier for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon I got confused and realized I couldn't say anything more than 'I don't think so, I thought the idea was to let them have nuclear power without nuclear weapons' but by then I'd pretty much covered literally everything I knew about the deal. Is this a concern people have or is my friend off base? Anyway if anyone could recommend something I could read to learn more I'd appreciate it. Before posting I dug up this npr page with 6 broad points and it matches the very very basic idea I had about the deal but I can't remember reading anything here more detailed about it the way I have with say Isis and the Syrian Civil war. Doesn't mean it wasn't posted in the thread but if it was I skimmed over it and if anyone can recommend any links I'd be grateful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Is there a good thread for Iran nuclear deal or does that discussion go here? I follow this thread (though not as closely as I should) and when my friend said the deal was going to make it easier for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon I got confused and realized I couldn't say anything more than 'I don't think so, I thought the idea was to let them have nuclear power without nuclear weapons' but by then I'd pretty much covered literally everything I knew about the deal. Is this a concern people have or is my friend off base? Anyway if anyone could recommend something I could read to learn more I'd appreciate it. Riddle me this: how much work has Iran done so far on its nuclear program, and will that work be abandoned or merely put on hiatus for a few years?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Riddle me this: how much work has Iran done so far on its nuclear program, and will that work be abandoned or merely put on hiatus for a few years? Hopefully only put on hiatus, as the Iranian nuclear program is a necessary bulwark against Israeli regional nuclear aggression.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Aliquid posted:Hopefully only put on hiatus, as the Iranian nuclear program is a necessary bulwark against Israeli regional nuclear aggression. Yes, this, too, is what I fear the Iranian regime is committed to, and the policy position which the bad deal that Obama negotiated fails to have sufficient safeguards against. If you cannot even get someone to admit what they've done in the past, how can you believe them when they say they will not do it in the future? You cannot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:55
|
|