|
Hey let's talk about actually funny poo poo! http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/coulter-rejected-these-jokes-before-bombing-at-rob-lowe-roast-she-does-not-understand-humor-or-joy/ Ann Coulter came onto a Comedy Central roast to try and promote her lovely book and bombed hard. Noted "She was technically at the age of consent" actor Rob Lowe had to swoop in and save her, despite the roast being about him. The Iron Rose posted:Yes! Nuclear disarmament is terrifying to me, as it should be to everyone. Okay admittedly this is pretty lol too How does it feel to literally be a Metal Gear villain? Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Sep 7, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Hah. Literally IRL one of my most treasured possessions is a portrait of Kissinger. I was being serious. I get you Iron Rose. I disagree with you. I think you are dangerous. But I understand you. I accept you. Welcome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Yes! Nuclear disarmament is terrifying to me, as it should be to everyone.  you're a tool and every single one of your opinions on foreign policy are both stupid and morally bankrupt.Edit: in fact the idea that you don't wholeheartedly approve of Iraq is utterly perplexing to me. I suppose the only thing you don't like about it is that we didn't send enough people into the meat grinder and that we left too early. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I normally I would hesitate to jump into a shitpost storm like this, but honestly, any situation that would be bad enough for the US to use nukes as a first strike would probably be bad enough for us to disregard a signed agreement about No First Use. There is no acceptable use to nuclear weapons ever. It woild literally mean the end of the world. If Russia launched all of their ICBMs right now the only morally acceptable thing the US could do would be to stand down so that only 300 million people would be exterminated rather than 7 billion
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:If the entire point of nuclear policy is security theater - which is in fact all it is - then why is the moral low-ground of telling the world that we're abject sociopaths willing to threaten to murder everyone if one country steps out of line more worthwhile than the moral high-ground of telling the world that we refuse to be the ones to cause the apocalypse, but that doesn't mean we won't defend them from someone who would? Especially since the former is blatantly false and the latter is more or less true, even if not motivated out of altruism? Because maintaining American hegemony and the American empire does help everyone. And I do mean literally everyone. We live in an age free from great power war, an era rarely seen throughout history! We live in a world where great-great power conflict dyads are a thing of the past. We live in an time of unipolarity, a time of unprecedented peace and stability. That is solely and entirely due to the might of the United States of America. The United States military is the greatest force for peace and stability the world has ever known. We are not the world police, but we are the ones with the power and the responsibility to destroy those who seek to overturn all that we have built, and the peace we have known.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:48
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:Failing to adopt a "no first use" policy does not mean we're going to actually use nuclear weapons y'all. It just means that other states by definition cannot discount that. Actually using nuclear weapons defeats their purpose, but maintaining the nuclear umbrella is an excellent deterrent to not just nuclear war, but conventional war between powers as well. If actually using the weapons defeats their purpose, then other states by definition can discount that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Pax Americana
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
It was a stupid, shortsighted war that killed hundreds of thousands of people for no reason and very nearly spelled the end of American leadership. Why on earth would I support Iraq? Even Afghanistan, for all that it was more morally justifiable, was a shitshow from start to finish. Shbobdb posted:Pax Americana Yes, precisely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Just ignore the wars we started. Also the ones we just don't care enough about to get involved in. Or the ones we actively support. The gist is Europeans aren't fighting and that is all that matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If actually using the weapons defeats their purpose, then other states by definition can discount that. Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. BiohazrD posted:There is no acceptable use to nuclear weapons ever. It woild literally mean the end of the world. If Russia launched all of their ICBMs right now the only morally acceptable thing the US could do would be to stand down so that only 300 million people would be exterminated rather than 7 billion on the contrary. Better Russia and the United States be turned to glass in such a scenario, for at least then the states that rise from the ashes might understand that MAD is not an empty theory. Otherwise worldwide destruction has only been postponed. CharlestheHammer posted:Just ignore the wars we started. Nor the Russians or the Chinese. I'll take a few thousand dead from drones than tens of millions dead in another great power war, fought with weapons a fraction as powerful as those we have today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:
PNAC?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Because maintaining American hegemony and the American empire does help everyone. lmao there's nothing loving special about American hegemony that has caused this brief period of unusual peace, that has lasted for less than a century. The existence of and game theory around nuclear weapons is responsible for it, nuclear weapons being an inevitable discovery and invention that would've happened regardless of whether or not the United States or some other power dominated the world. Just because American imperialism is nominally more enlightened than our predecessors is a function of us having the luxury of living with their examples to learn from, and we fail miserably at even that. And American imperialism has only been good in practice for white Americans, you racist, patronizing prick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
[quote="The Iron Rose" post=""463979087"] We live in an time of unipolarity, a time of unprecedented peace and stability. [/quote] 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
USA and Russia in a MAD scenario would end all life on this planet. Or at the very least set it back a few hundred million years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The city of New Reno has a thriving casino market with both normies and ghouls as patrons Trump should probably be a Fallout character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Ah, I'm seeing the problem here. You're assuming that the character of a government matters when it comes to IR. No, I'm not. I'm asking you to explain how a deterrent can be credible if every other state knows that it won't be used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:PNAC? They're the Foreign Policy Initiative now, but yeah they're not half bad. Kagan is brilliant, if nothing else. Lightning Knight posted:lmao there's nothing loving special about American hegemony that has caused this brief period of unusual peace, that has lasted for less than a century. The existence of and game theory around nuclear weapons is responsible for it, nuclear weapons being an inevitable discovery and invention that would've happened regardless of whether or not the United States or some other power dominated the world. Just because American imperialism is nominally more enlightened than our predecessors is a function of us having the luxury of living with their examples to learn from, and we fail miserably at even that. And American imperialism has only been good in practice for white Americans, you racist, patronizing prick. Eh, hegemony has always brought peace, regardless of which state has claimed that particular mantle. The fact that the United States is a liberal democracy leads to the happy state of affairs where hegemony is not only useful, but entirely ethically and morally justifiable as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lmao there's nothing loving special about American hegemony that has caused this brief period of unusual peace, that has lasted for less than a century. The existence of and game theory around nuclear weapons is responsible for it, nuclear weapons being an inevitable discovery and invention that would've happened regardless of whether or not the United States or some other power dominated the world. Just because American imperialism is nominally more enlightened than our predecessors is a function of us having the luxury of living with their examples to learn from, and we fail miserably at even that. And American imperialism has only been good in practice for white Americans, you racist, patronizing prick. Despite previous failures of Imperialism, this time the same thing will work. Let's all give Imperialism a hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. We all appreciate your noble sacrifice of other people's lives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, I'm not. I'm asking you to explain how a deterrent can be credible if every other state knows that it won't be used. Because they can't be sure it won't be used, it's as simple as that. It's unlikely, sure, but it must necessarily factor into our decisionmaking. Think of it like we think of a Trump presidency. Sure, it's not likely to happen. But the fact that it might is so incredibly dangerous that it must be taken seriously and taken into account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
oh wow we've been at peace this whole time, guess we need to inform afghanistan and iraq
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
we were very tranquil when we invaded your country under false pretenses and usurped your government and basically ruined everything for you
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:They're the Foreign Policy Initiative now, but yeah they're not half bad. Kagan is brilliant, if nothing else. I'm sure you would have the same vapid, patronizing, stupid opinions if you were a black Middle Eastern Muslim man as you do as a privileged American who is part of the military. But no really, I can't believe you're an actual functioning human being who walks and talks and can say this: quote:Hah. Literally IRL one of my most treasured possessions is a portrait of Kissinger. And not have God immediately loving smite you with a lightning bolt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Trump should probably be a Fallout character. The Bishop family give me strong Trump vibes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:We all appreciate your noble sacrifice of other people's lives. You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere. It's a viewpoint entirely neutral of national character. I'm a patriot, but that's almost beside the point! It's a numbers game, pure and simple. Fewer people die under American hegemony than would in a more multipolar world. It's as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Pray tell, how many people died in the proxy wars between the two great powers of the world when compared to those who died in the two world wars? The only time first use is a credible threat is if a nuclear power is facing complete destruction in a total war, because you can't discount the possibility the rulers will launch out of spite when they're going to die anyway, and there's no point in starting a total war with another nuclear power when you don't want to risk winning. But No First Use is irrelevant there because you can't discount the risk that when facing defeat the enemy could change their policy and strike or threaten to strike anyway. Even if someone has a No First Use policy, provoking a situation where they might nuke you anyway is just as horrible an idea. But provoking a situation where it would be irrational and insane to nuke you is safe regardless of what the official policy says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:oh wow we've been at peace this whole time, guess we need to inform afghanistan and iraq A Pax doesn't mean no deaths!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:We all appreciate your noble sacrifice of other people's lives. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere. You are assuming a lot based on nothing here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere. Are you a libertarian? Wait no they at least don't go off empiring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. Then the official policy on first use is irrelevant because nuclear weapons can never be discounted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Does Iron Rose think that America has traits like Civ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm sure you would have the same vapid, patronizing, stupid opinions if you were a black Middle Eastern Muslim man as you do as a privileged American who is part of the military. I suppose I can't really blame black Middle Eastern Muslims for rejecting American hegemony. They're dead either way, so what's it to them? mandatory lesbian posted:oh wow we've been at peace this whole time, guess we need to inform afghanistan and iraq mandatory lesbian posted:we were very tranquil when we invaded your country under false pretenses and usurped your government and basically ruined everything for you I was under the impression I was fairly explicit about only discussing great-great power conflict?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Does Iron Rose think that America has traits like Civ? I mean, people stop dying when you win the game and are the last civ standing. Sometimes, you know, you just gotta launch a few nukes, get those cities that your XCOM can't easily reach. What's a few million dead to ensure Pax Americana under the infinite rule of folklore George Washington? quote:I suppose I can't really blame black Middle Eastern Muslims for rejecting American hegemony. They're dead either way, so what's it to them? ho-ly poo poo you're a racist gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then the official policy on first use is irrelevant because nuclear weapons can never be discounted. It's not irrelevant, but it means they're easier to discount. I don't see why that's desirable. Lightning Knight posted:I mean, people stop dying when you win the game and are the last civ standing. Sometimes, you know, you just gotta launch a few nukes, get those cities that your XCOM can't easily reach. What's a few million dead to ensure Pax Americana under the infinite rule of folklore George Washington? Where have I advocated the use of nukes in this conversation 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere. JFC be more transparent. A yellow Amerian with faimly's vote=my vote. Sorry if pop's grave in Viet-loving NAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! makes you feel differently
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lmao there's nothing loving special about American hegemony that has caused this brief period of unusual peace, that has lasted for less than a century. The existence of and game theory around nuclear weapons is responsible for it, nuclear weapons being an inevitable discovery and invention that would've happened regardless of whether or not the United States or some other power dominated the world. Just because American imperialism is nominally more enlightened than our predecessors is a function of us having the luxury of living with their examples to learn from, and we fail miserably at even that. And American imperialism has only been good in practice for white Americans, you racist, patronizing prick. It's also just as likely that intertwined global economies that emerged out of advances in shipping technology and open sea-lanes, kept open by, admittedly, the US Navy and others has contributed to global peace and stability just as much as total fear of US weapons and invasions. In fact probably more. It's also likely no coincidence that the nation-states that have seen limited benefits from the expansion of international trade have tended to be the hot spots of post-World War II conflict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
You know one of my best friends went into the military and has broadly similar opinions, but based out of an earnest optimistic belief in idealized American power and genuine neoconservative beliefs about the power of our military as a force for good. And I respect him, if only because he admits when he's wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence and generally believes that above all we should at least try to make killing people a last resort. And I accept him as being willfully ignorant and dense, but well-meaning. The Iron Rose might be the first neoconservative I've ever had the personal misfortune of interacting with who is actually intentionally and openly malicious, and somehow reconciles that to themselves with the idea that their maliciousness will work out in the grand scheme of moral calculus, in what is perhaps the purest expression of FYGM I've ever loving scene. quote:It's also just as likely that intertwined global economies that emerged out of advances in shipping technology and open sea-lanes, kept open by, admittedly, the US Navy and others has contributed to global peace and stability just as much as total fear of US weapons and invasions. In fact probably more. It's also likely no coincidence that the nation-states that have seen limited benefits from the expansion of international trade have tended to be the hot spots of post-World War II conflict. Yes, globalization has also made us safer. I'm just too tried and angry to be that coherent anymore. But you are right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:It's also just as likely that intertwined global economies that emerged out of advances in shipping technology and open sea-lanes, kept open by, admittedly, the US Navy and others has contributed to global peace and stability just as much as total fear of US weapons and invasions. In fact probably more. It's also likely no coincidence that the nation-states that have seen limited benefits from the expansion of international trade have tended to be the hot spots of post-World War II conflict. This is absolutely the case! It's why free trade is so important, because it establishes mutually beneficial spiral relationships between nations that reduce the incentives for conflict. I don't believe that's sufficient all on its own like neoliberals do, since I think that states will always choose security over prosperity, but anything that makes the world more peaceful is A-OK in my book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I was under the impression I was fairly explicit about only discussing great-great power conflict? okay cool, we're still not at peace so it's ultimately meaningless to try and compartmentalize conflict like that
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:08
|
|