Jump to content
Rex Kickass

The Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:13 AM)
So we should just stand by, turn up our noses, and let both happen?

 

Negotiations are not a reward. Negotiations are something 2 countries who have diverging interests undertake to try to find ways to agree to benefit both. We didn't reward the Soviets by negotiating with them. We didn't reward the Libyans by negotiating with them.

 

Actually once we started negotiating we ended up rewarding both of them. You can throw NK into that same pile as well. There is no benefit to empowering people who want to commit genocide. I know you don't believe that, but I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 09:17 AM)
Actually once we started negotiating we ended up rewarding both of them. You can throw NK into that same pile as well. There is no benefit to empowering people who want to commit genocide. I know you don't believe that, but I do.

I note that you suggested zero alternatives other than turning up our noses and letting both happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:19 AM)
I note that you suggested zero alternatives other than turning up our noses and letting both happen.

 

Honestly, if they didn't abandon the nuclear program, I am all for Israel blowing it up, and us making it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:06 PM)
Calling for the extinction of a race of people shouldn't get you an audience with the United States, and neither should a rogue nuclear program. That is the kind of thing that shouldn't be rewarded.

 

Neither should systemic oppression of an ethnic minority or minorities (see China among others) yet we deal with them. Why? Because its in the best interest of the country's foreign policy interests.

 

I'm not opposed to sending a message to a foreign state when they do something patently offensive. But when that state is doing something like playing with a nuke program, we have a fundamental interest to work to contain that threat. Ignoring an issue because you're not satisfied with a country's rhetoric (and that's essentially what we've had a history of doing in both Iran and North Korea) is never a good foreign policy move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And FWIW I never said to ignore the problem. Don't put those words into my mouth. Please don't turn this into if you aren't for one extreme, you are for the other. There are still ways to try to make them stop without sitting down and negotiating our way into giving them something for holding the world hostage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else, negotiations are political cover for when we have to push for sanctions, first off to show that we tried and secondly to show that we aren't the evil caricature of the United States that they portray us as. That's what it looks like is going to happen since Iran is just kind of doing the bare minimum to stall Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:23 PM)
And FWIW I never said to ignore the problem. Don't put those words into my mouth. Please don't turn this into if you aren't for one extreme, you are for the other. There are still ways to try to make them stop without sitting down and negotiating our way into giving them something for holding the world hostage.

 

So short of committing our military to another operation, or committing another nation's military by proxy - and risking destabilization of the region in question, what other options are there besides economic sanctions (already in place, and not having the best effect) if there isn't some form of contact to try and hammer out a resolution?

 

We either disdainfully ignore the problem, or we try to hash it out - in a multiparty system if possible, but face to face if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Wise Master Buehrle @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:26 PM)
Sure you do.

One more of these posts and you can have a 10-day vacation. I told you to read the Filibuster rules thread and this is a pretty direct violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:28 AM)
So short of committing our military to another operation, or committing another nation's military by proxy - and risking destabilization of the region in question, what other options are there besides economic sanctions (already in place, and not having the best effect) if there isn't some form of contact to try and hammer out a resolution?

 

We either disdainfully ignore the problem, or we try to hash it out - in a multiparty system if possible, but face to face if necessary.

 

I am told that is what the UN is supposed to be for. If not, we are pissing a lot of money away on nothing. Besides I feel giving the nuclear ability to a country like Iran is way more destabilizing than any military action could be. It's definitely not worse to Iran turning Israel into a glass parking lot after we negotiate with them, and they keep up their proud history of chasing a nuclear program anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 09:21 AM)
Honestly, if they didn't abandon the nuclear program, I am all for Israel blowing it up, and us making it happen.

This is of course exactly the problem. You see absolutely no negatives associated with military action. Or at least you see the negatives as so limited that it's not worth giving up our "Be a d**che" foreign policy.

 

The negatives of any sort of military action are huge. Our media doesn't show the charred civilian corpses that come out when bombings happen, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see them.

 

Military action should be the very, very, very last resort. It shouldn't be the default we go to every time we find someone doing something we don't like. We ignored the consequences of military action repeatedly over the last few decades, and every time we've assumed that using the military will be clean, easy, and free of consequences, we've been proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:31 PM)
I am told that is what the UN is supposed to be for. If not, we are pissing a lot of money away on nothing. Besides I feel giving the nuclear ability to a country like Iran is way more destabilizing than any military action could be. It's definitely not worse to Iran turning Israel into a glass parking lot after we negotiate with them, and they keep up their proud history of chasing a nuclear program anyway.

If Iran had a nuke they might get them good one time and also kill a bunch of Palestinians and damage a major Islamic holy site in the process so that won't go over to well. Israel still has like 200 nukes and a missile defense system to boot. Iran would be obliterated if they did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:31 PM)
I am told that is what the UN is supposed to be for. If not, we are pissing a lot of money away on nothing. Besides I feel giving the nuclear ability to a country like Iran is way more destabilizing than any military action could be. It's definitely not worse to Iran turning Israel into a glass parking lot after we negotiate with them, and they keep up their proud history of chasing a nuclear program anyway.

 

The UN only works for us if we work within the UN. The UN was basically created as a means to talk away war. Effectively stalling any progress on something until the fuel to fire peters out.

 

It's why very little gets done out of the Security Council. The UN definitely has its uses, it always has - but on the whole the US should not cede its interests to the body.

 

Iran as a state would not attack Israel via nuclear weapons directly. I just don't see that possibility. Because as reckless as Achmawhatever talks, the powers that be in that state always act rationally in respect to foreign policy. People who hold on to power without legitimacy (as the Supreme Council of Iran clearly does) tend to purely act in the interest of preserving that power.

 

North Korean nuclear weapons aren't a huge threat, because nuclear detonation from North Korea signals the end of that ruling apparatus. The same goes for Iran and Israel. Mutually Assured Destruction regimes prevent Iran from being reckless as a state with a nuclear weapon. Given the IROI's history of acting rationally as a state actor, there is no need to be overly worried in that sense.

 

However, what concerns the US and the Western world (and rightfully so) about nuclear proliferation is these states using nuclear programs as a means for financial independence by selling technology and materials to nonstate actors who tend to be traditionally irrational (since there is little power for them to keep grasping on to.) Or by using a nonstate actor with nuclear material to further its ideological goal. Both of these are what's keeping nuclear theorists up at night.

 

So the balancing act is pretty difficult, and makes negotiations unavoidable, in my view. Without military intervention, it'd be virtually impossible to prevent some form of weapons program from happening in these scenarios, no? Tighter sanctions simply provides greater encouragement for these weapons programs as an economic savior. Military intervention runs the risk of destabilizing the entire region, as well as the loss of life of thousands or even millions of people.

 

Establishing a productive relationship with a rogue state has a couple goals that seem to be beneficial to the public interest. First, its a lot harder to develop in secret when you are being actively engaged in that issue. Second, it gives the more powerful state the ability to at least guide intentions for a program that they may or may not be able to halt development of. Lastly, it helps provide the more powerful state with intelligence about what exactly the true intentions of the program are, both on a physical level as well as a political one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:32 AM)
This is of course exactly the problem. You see absolutely no negatives associated with military action. Or at least you see the negatives as so limited that it's not worth giving up our "Be a d**che" foreign policy.

 

The negatives of any sort of military action are huge. Our media doesn't show the charred civilian corpses that come out when bombings happen, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see them.

 

Military action should be the very, very, very last resort. It shouldn't be the default we go to every time we find someone doing something we don't like. We ignored the consequences of military action repeatedly over the last few decades, and every time we've assumed that using the military will be clean, easy, and free of consequences, we've been proven wrong.

And you, of course, think that there should never be that carrot (military) hanging over any decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:32 AM)
This is of course exactly the problem. You see absolutely no negatives associated with military action. Or at least you see the negatives as so limited that it's not worth giving up our "Be a d**che" foreign policy.

 

The negatives of any sort of military action are huge. Our media doesn't show the charred civilian corpses that come out when bombings happen, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see them.

 

Military action should be the very, very, very last resort. It shouldn't be the default we go to every time we find someone doing something we don't like. We ignored the consequences of military action repeatedly over the last few decades, and every time we've assumed that using the military will be clean, easy, and free of consequences, we've been proven wrong.

 

The problems with ignoring potential genocide and madmen with nukes are greater. Besides, I have never said there wouldn't be negatives. You are just making stuff up at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:36 AM)
If Iran had a nuke they might get them good one time and also kill a bunch of Palestinians and damage a major Islamic holy site in the process so that won't go over to well. Israel still has like 200 nukes and a missile defense system to boot. Iran would be obliterated if they did that.

 

Religion is a funny thing. Achy believes that it is Iran's destiny to destroy Israel and bring about the return of the prophet. The rest is secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:18 PM)
Religion is a funny thing. Achy believes that it is Iran's destiny to destroy Israel and bring about the return of the prophet. The rest is secondary.

He still wants Iran to survive though, which is not possible if he attacks Israel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's more of a Sunni thing than a Shia thing. Ahmadinejad (after being forced to answer the question cuz he had to stray from rhetoric to do so) said he would accept whatever resolution the Palestinians accepted.

 

Iran may be many things but one of the things they are not is irrational. They have foreign policy objectives just like any other nation.

Edited by lostfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last one is pretty brutal, but there are some good ones in the bunch.

 

Q: What's the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?

A: His followers don't think they're funny and everyone

Else doesn't think they're jokes.

 

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?

A: It stands between him and the First.

 

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

 

Q: What's the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?

A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

 

Barack Obama: He has what it takes to take what you've got!

 

Q: What's the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama?

A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth.

 

Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama Value Meal? Order anything

You like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.

 

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?

A: A fund raiser.

 

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The

Other is for housing prisoners.

 

Q: What do Vanilla Ice, Eminem and Barack Obama have in common?

A: They all made careers pretending to be black men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:18 PM)
Religion is a funny thing. Achy believes that it is Iran's destiny to destroy Israel and bring about the return of the prophet. The rest is secondary.

 

What Khamenei think isn't secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:29 PM)
What Khamenei think isn't secondary.

And he's not going to let Achey keep spouting that s*** over and over for years if he didn't want it out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 12:26 AM)
And he's not going to let Achey keep spouting that s*** over and over for years if he didn't want it out there.

 

Exactly. He also wouldn't have rigged an election for him if he didn't want it like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×