|
gobbagool posted:Plunder? What are you, a 17th century pirate? Are you not familiar with how the modern world works? Hey, your politicians are the ones who started talking about all the "blood and treasure" that was spent on Iraq.  If you can actually pull your head far enough out of your rear end to make a substantive reply then I'll answer you in more detail but yes, "plunder" is a pretty good adjective to describe American foreign policy much of the time. You don't even seem to be disagreeing with what I"m saying you're just angry that somebody would phrase it in plain English instead of talking euphemistically about "American interests" or whatever bullshit PR phrase you'd prefer.
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It did a lot to further American interests, because it prevented Iran from having nukes on hand for the foreseeable future How did it do that? Do you actually believe there is any punishment in their future if they violate the agreement?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:How did it do that? Do you actually believe there is any punishment in their future if they violate the agreement? Is there any punishment when SA drops money on AQAP? What do you think we could actually do if they got nukes?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:How did it do that? Do you actually believe there is any punishment in their future if they violate the agreement? Renewed sanctions plus probable heightened military tensions with the US. Clearly you don't think much of those threats, I guess you're literally more hawkish than the Iranian negotiating delegation was?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:How did it do that? Do you actually believe there is any punishment in their future if they violate the agreement? If Iran starts denying access to inspectors, the sanctions snap back automatically. That is important, it means Russia et al can't prevaricate and veto, like they would under any other situation.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
mediadave posted:If Iran starts denying access to inspectors, the sanctions snap back automatically. That is important, it means Russia et al can't prevaricate and veto, like they would under any other situation. Yeah, the snapback was prolly one of the more important components. Also, that dude ignored me when I pointed out he was being misleading with his choice in CNN article he used earlier. So I'm going to file him under disingenuous. Well that or just too frothing mad to think straight.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Hey, your politicians are the ones who started talking about all the "blood and treasure" that was spent on Iraq. You have an excellent red text description. Typically nation states negotiate for their own interests, sorry if that hurts your feelings
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:You have an excellent red text description. Typically nation states negotiate for their own interests, sorry if that hurts your feelings You seem to confuse US and Saudi interests.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
mediadave posted:If Iran starts denying access to inspectors, the sanctions snap back automatically. That is important, it means Russia et al can't prevaricate and veto, like they would under any other situation. It'll be like when Iraq was playing cat and mouse with the inspectors and nobody would declare them in breach lest some bad thing happen afterwords. I'm sure it'll be an honest exchange between Iran and the UN, arbiters of moral courage and doers of the right thing
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Renewed sanctions plus probable heightened military tensions with the US. Clearly you don't think much of those threats, I guess you're literally more hawkish than the Iranian negotiating delegation was? Yeah, sorry, I don't put much stock in 'renewed sanctions' given that the Germans have zero heart to say or do anything mean to Iran. And heightened military tensions with the US? You think they are worried about Barack Obama? Iran isn't an Afghani hospital, which seems to be the most powerful foe he's willing to take on
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Every nation should have at least 1 megaton warhead to backstop popular sovereignty. An armed society is a polite society.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:You seem to confuse US and Saudi interests. They're very nearly mutually exclusive at this point
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:They're very nearly mutually exclusive at this point This is why its best to not take stances that require their help.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:You have an excellent red text description. Typically nation states negotiate for their own interests, sorry if that hurts your feelings Since you're not disagreeing with the substance of what I said but are still  ing about it I think you're the one with hurt feelings. gobbagool posted:They're very nearly mutually exclusive at this point 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:It'll be like when Iraq was playing cat and mouse with the inspectors and nobody would declare them in breach lest some bad thing happen afterwords. Ah yes, Iraq. Great example. We all remember that huge WMD industry that Iraq was hiding. I mean, seriously. IRAQ!? Jesus. I guess we know where you're coming from now. Not sure if I should bother further, but as you know, the UN inspectors found no evidence of any wrongdoing and said so vocally. They were ordered out of Iraq by Bush II regardless. And the rest is ongoing history.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Ah yes, Iraq. Great example. We all remember that huge WMD industry that Iraq was hiding. So as long as a nation states it doesn't have WMDs, or that it's not working on Nukes, then who cares what the UN decides, we should take those nations at their word, as long as the people I dont like politically are the most upset
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:So as long as a nation states it doesn't have WMDs, or that it's not working on Nukes, then who cares what the UN decides, we should take those nations at their word, as long as the people I dont like politically are the most upset And when, exactly, did the UN vote for the war in Iraq? Because Resolution 1441 US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte posted:contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:How does the agreement pervent Iran from developing nukes? They're violating it left and right and president dolittle can't be bothered to even speak up about it. Iran pushed our poo poo in, hard, and pukes like Rhodes made it easier It's impossible to prevent Iran from developing nukes. The point of the deal is to make them not feel like they need to. For that reason, the exact conditions of the deal are not really very important at all; what matters is that it's a starting point to build trust and relationships between our countries so they don't feel like they need a nuclear deterrent in their back pocket. And no, that trust isn't there yet. In fact, I consider it extremely unlikely that Iran is going to completely go all-in on the deal this year, because the Republicans have made it absolutely clear that they'll torpedo the deal if they win regardless of compliance, and if President Trump declares six months from now "we're not holding up our end of the bargain anymore, also you're dumb and evil and we hate you forever, and we're reimposing all the sanctions" then Iran ended up making any concessions up to that point for nothing, and it'll be a huge embarrassment for the Iranian leadership too. Until they feel comfortable that we're not going to back out on our side of it as soon as they give us the information we want, they're going to be nervous about it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's impossible to prevent Iran from developing nukes. The point of the deal is to make them not feel like they need to. For that reason, the exact conditions of the deal are not really very important at all; what matters is that it's a starting point to build trust and relationships between our countries so they don't feel like they need a nuclear deterrent in their back pocket. Yeah it's all the US's responsibility to see that Iran's feelings are so delicately addressed. I wonder if maybe they passed a law against trans bathrooms or whatever, maybe then the American left would start to care about their horrible human rights record. Ha who am I kidding as long as Iran promises to wipe Israel from the map they'll find no opposition here.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah it's all the US's responsibility to see that Iran's feelings are so delicately addressed. I wonder if maybe they passed a law against trans bathrooms or whatever, maybe then the American left would start to care about their horrible human rights record. Ha who am I kidding as long as Iran promises to wipe Israel from the map they'll find no opposition here. Meanwhile let's advocate the positions favored by countries with very very similar human rights records because reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah it's all the US's responsibility to see that Iran's feelings are so delicately addressed. I wonder if maybe they passed a law against trans bathrooms or whatever, maybe then the American left would start to care about their horrible human rights record. Ha who am I kidding as long as Iran promises to wipe Israel from the map they'll find no opposition here. If we don't at least pretend to care about Iran's feelings, they're not going to be particularly inclined to care about ours, which is problematic when we want them to not do things and are incapable of forcing them to not do those things.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
 If Israel wants Iran bombed they can do it themselves. Lord knows we give them enough military aid.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's impossible to prevent Iran from developing nukes. The point of the deal is to make them not feel like they need to. For that reason, the exact conditions of the deal are not really very important at all; what matters is that it's a starting point to build trust and relationships between our countries so they don't feel like they need a nuclear deterrent in their back pocket. Maybe that's your reasoning for supporting the deal, but I have never seen this motive suggested by anyone in any official capacity, or by any deal insiders. And it's no wonder because it's a very silly perspective that relies on the belief that Iran has conducted itself in a purely defensive manner, which is completely false. What existential threat forced them to support the Houthi's as a proxy in Yemen? What about western imperialism made Iranian militias overtake large parts of Iraq, and attempt to undermine Iraqi sovereignty by influencing domestic politics? What threat did Netanyahu make that necessitated daily flights of military equipment to Assad to brutally murder his own people? quote:And no, that trust isn't there yet. In fact, I consider it extremely unlikely that Iran is going to completely go all-in on the deal this year, because the Republicans have made it absolutely clear that they'll torpedo the deal if they win regardless of compliance, and if President Trump declares six months from now "we're not holding up our end of the bargain anymore, also you're dumb and evil and we hate you forever, and we're reimposing all the sanctions" then Iran ended up making any concessions up to that point for nothing, and it'll be a huge embarrassment for the Iranian leadership too. Until they feel comfortable that we're not going to back out on our side of it as soon as they give us the information we want, they're going to be nervous about it. What planet the gently caress are you from. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 03:12 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
I for one think American troops should be the ones to do the brutal murder and torturing. No one can air strike hospitals better than the USAF. When US troops are shooting up Iranians in Tehran because the Hill decided that was the most humanitarian way to do things, let me know.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:What about western imperialism made Iranian militias overtake large parts of Iraq, and attempt to undermine Iraqi sovereignty by influencing domestic politics? Volkerball, take a step back and examine what you just said. A rabidly hostile western imperial power proclaimed them and their neighbor "an Axis of Evil", then dedicated themselves to a decade-long program of undermining the sovereignty of their neighbor, including funding and arming militias to overtake large parts of said neighboring state when their efforts to control the puppet government they'd put in place fell apart. In your opinion, would national security concerns justify attempting to interfere in someone doing something like that just across your borders, or would it be the wiser course of action to let the people who have warned the world you are next on the list once they're done with your neighbor just finish their job without interruptions? Because, and call me crazy, if the tables were turned on this one I have this sneaking suspicion your opinion re: what we should do about the Iranian-backed militias in Mexico would be something slightly more aggressive than "let's hold on and see where they're going with this."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Maybe that's your reasoning for supporting the deal, but I have never seen this motive suggested by anyone in any official capacity, or by any deal insiders. And it's no wonder because it's a very silly perspective that relies on the belief that Iran has conducted itself in a purely defensive manner, which is completely false. What existential threat forced them to support the Houthi's as a proxy in Yemen? What about western imperialism made Iranian militias overtake large parts of Iraq, and attempt to undermine Iraqi sovereignty by influencing domestic politics? What threat did Netanyahu make that necessitated daily flights of military equipment to Assad to brutally murder his own people? I'm not going to defend Main Paineframe's interpretation of the treaty or its intentions but I find this question remarkable. Iran's regional enemies, as well as the United States, encouraged and supported Iraq's invasion of Iran and helped to sustain that extremely brutal and taxing conflict for many fruitless years. It's completely understandable and predictable from the perspective of the Iranian government that they would seize a historical opportunity to increase their influence over the country that, within living memory, launched a brutal invasion of their territory. What Iran is doing is obviously immoral and is only going to perpetuate the cycles of violence that haunt the middle east but you write as though Iran is some kind of unique threat regional stability and peace rather than just one more lovely and reprehensible regime in a region that is full of them.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not going to defend Main Paineframe's interpretation of the treaty or its intentions but I find this question remarkable. Iran's regional enemies, as well as the United States, encouraged and supported Iraq's invasion of Iran and helped to sustain that extremely brutal and taxing conflict for many fruitless years. It's completely understandable and predictable from the perspective of the Iranian government that they would seize a historical opportunity to increase their influence over the country that, within living memory, launched a brutal invasion of their territory. I also wonder how US troops arming and funding Sunni militia against the will of the Shia majority is not undermining soverignty while Iranian funding and arming of Shia militia is.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Volkerball, take a step back and examine what you just said. Reminder that President Obama has been in office for over 7 years now. Over that period of 7 years, the US strategy in the Middle East has been to disengage wherever possible. Relations with Iran have been no exception to that. During that time period, Iran reduced the Iraqi government to an Iranian proxy, introduced foreign militias and uniformed Iranian soldiers to occupy areas of the country, and installed politicians who sit with them rather than with the Iraqi government when diplomatic meetings take place, contributing to the corruption in Iraq that is by far the most pressing problem in the country right now. Things have degraded to the point now that even Shia Iraqi nationalists are out in the hundreds of thousands at times protesting against the government over corruption and Iran's influence. That is completely indefensible. You'll have to elaborate on which militias you are referring to here. The Sahwat, or the KRG? In either case, they are not equivalent to groups like the Hash'd and Asa'ib ahl Haq, who are committing sectarian massacres and other human rights violations in the Sunni areas they administrate so regularly that human rights monitors have to have full time staff monitoring them. Working with the Sahwat and with the KRG provided tangible results when it came to the fight against AQI/ISIS in both cases. Iran's support for the Shia militias committing atrocities, and their support for a sectarian government that disbanded the Sahwat, provided tangible results in renewing growth for AQI/ISIS. And that's just in Iraq. Iran also has forces in Syria and Lebanon undermining the sovereignty of those nations, and they will certainly be playing a large role in the future of Yemen. Where do you draw the line? How imperialist are you allowed to be in the name of anti-imperialism before the excuses wear thin? Helsing posted:What Iran is doing is obviously immoral and is only going to perpetuate the cycles of violence that haunt the middle east but you write as though Iran is some kind of unique threat regional stability and peace rather than just one more lovely and reprehensible regime in a region that is full of them. I wouldn't argue you with you in that when it comes to intent, governments that act like Iran's are fairly common in the Middle East. The difference is in scale and competence. Iran dwarfs its neighbors in every metric. As a result, it's a lot more capable of projecting force than any of them. It's also capable of acting much more pragmatically, and less influenced by the prospect of domestic uprising than its neighbors, due to the way its government is structured. In nations like KSA, you have a transparent monarchy with the ruling family clinging desperately to power. The government is run very poorly, as tends so happen in monarchies, so they have to provide massive, expensive subsidies to their citizens to try and maintain domestic approval for the government. Iran on the other hand, is uniquely designed to be able to change the leadership of the country from family to family while maintaining the principles of the revolution. Because of that, they're able to provide a veneer of representation for the everyman on the street, without being such a transparent dictatorship. All power structures in the country eventually loop back to the Supreme Leader, but there's still elections and things like that to encourage participation among citizens. They have no real domestic threats. It's not like the Baha'i or the Kurds can mount any sort of opposition against the government. So between all of those things, when it comes to hegemonic ambitions, Iran is far better suited to achieve them than anyone else in the region, and that's not something to shrug off. The best evidence of this is that fact that even under the sanctions regime, Iran ran circles around KSA. Without the sanctions, the disparity between them and anyone who stands in their way grows even larger. There's a lot of nasty poo poo that could've happened in the Middle East that hasn't because the nations who would be responsible for it simply weren't capable of it. Iran has far less restrictions. Panzeh posted:I also wonder how US troops arming and funding Sunni militia against the will of the Shia majority is not undermining soverignty while Iranian funding and arming of Shia militia is. Wow, the guy who thinks Rwanda worked itself out isn't capable of making the distinction between a sectarian militia committing mass atrocities against innocent people, and a militia that did none of those things. How shocking.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
This is called : --> AD HOMINEM and is not a valid arguing move, in fact its illegal to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:This is called : --> AD HOMINEM and is not a valid arguing move, in fact its illegal to do it. Panzeh is a BAD POSTER and I'm not going to :--> SERIOUSLY ENGAGE HIM (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Panzeh is a BAD POSTER and I'm not going to :--> SERIOUSLY ENGAGE HIM you have to obey the law of the forums, even if u dnt like it. imagen if we all were to be stressed out all the time anxious at our desks, thrift store shirts buttoned up to the top etc. we'd have a pretty messed up forum. look it happens. just dont do the ad hominem again.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
i'm part of the dadchat cabal. i don't have to obey poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:This is called : --> AD HOMINEM and is not a valid arguing move, in fact its illegal to do it. Illegal? Oh yeah, SSJ2 Goku Wilders, right, sorry
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Illegal? Oh yeah, SSJ2 Goku Wilders, right, sorry i wont have any of it. take it up with the moderating team buddy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Reminder that President Obama has been in office for over 7 years now. Over that period of 7 years, the US strategy in the Middle East has been to disengage wherever possible. Relations with Iran have been no exception to that. During that time period, Iran reduced the Iraqi government to an Iranian proxy, introduced foreign militias and uniformed Iranian soldiers to occupy areas of the country, and installed politicians who sit with them rather than with the Iraqi government when diplomatic meetings take place, contributing to the corruption in Iraq that is by far the most pressing problem in the country right now. Yeah, how dare a country occupy Iraqi territory and force the Iraqi government to be subordinate to their interests, sowing corruption and ethnic conflict in the process! What kind of evil monsters would undermine the sovereignty of Syria, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern countries for the sake of their own interests? Clearly this unprecedented evil must not be allowed to stand. I for one am glad that America is taking the lead in preventing powerful countries from interfering in the affairs of the Middle East. You asked what universe I live in? I live in the universe where countries serve their own interests first and foremost, and have no particular reason to respect or defend US interests unless they can get something for their own interests out of it. That plays out constantly all over the globe, even among our allies, so the popular expectation that our enemies should do whatever we want is naive at best. Making temporary guarantees that can be retracted at any time in return for permanent concessions strictly applied (as demanded by political hardliners who oppose negotiations in principle) is largely ineffective, because for some reason our enemies trust us even less than we trust them, and we're particularly untrustworthy in the Middle East in general, in Iran in particular, and particularly when throwing around WMD accusations. Fancy that, eh?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Wow, the guy who thinks Rwanda worked itself out isn't capable of making the distinction between a sectarian militia committing mass atrocities against innocent people, and a militia that did none of those things. How shocking. So you'd say Sunni militias never committed atrocities against Shias or other minorities in their territory, then, hmm? How are Sunni militias not sectarian? It seems liike, if a Sunni Arab doesn't like something, you're right there to tell the Shias or other minorities to get hosed. Sorry I guess you want to discount the efforts of the RPF. That's fine. Volkerball posted:i'm part of the dadchat cabal. i don't have to obey poo poo. same.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, how dare a country occupy Iraqi territory and force the Iraqi government to be subordinate to their interests, sowing corruption and ethnic conflict in the process! What kind of evil monsters would undermine the sovereignty of Syria, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern countries for the sake of their own interests? Clearly this unprecedented evil must not be allowed to stand. I for one am glad that America is taking the lead in preventing powerful countries from interfering in the affairs of the Middle East. So wait, what are you arguing? That it's ok for Iran to fight for their interests, but not ok for the US to do so?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:So wait, what are you arguing? That it's ok for Iran to fight for their interests, but not ok for the US to do so? Im ok with the US fighting for US interest. Not OK with the US fighting for SA/Turkish/Gulf/Israeli interest.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:So wait, what are you arguing? That it's ok for Iran to fight for their interests, but not ok for the US to do so? We should fight for our interests, but we also need to recognize where our interests may conflict with others, and then move to resolve those conflicts in a way that is, ideally, amenable and beneficial to both parties. Which the Iran deal is. But somehow I'm guessing that realpolitik isn't your thing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Every nation should have at least 1 megaton warhead to backstop popular sovereignty. An armed society is a polite society. Who gets to decide which organizations are nations entitled to nuclear weapons? Does Kurdistan get a nuke? What about Ngorno-Karabakh? Or, for that matter, ISIS?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 05:10
|
|
