|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 14 2014 11:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2014 11:09 Nyxisto wrote:On July 14 2014 11:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2014 09:43 Simberto wrote:On July 14 2014 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2014 08:55 Nyxisto wrote:On July 14 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2014 08:49 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2014 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2014 07:16 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Because the last x times 'Merica brought peace to the Middle East were so successful. Help Iran fix the region but hey you spend the last decades alienating them so that's hardly an option either. Compared to what? All the times Europe brought peace to the Middle East? nice attempt at trying to change the subject but do try again. What you think bringing peace to the Middle East is like bringing flowers to a girl? If that's what Europeans think they need to go back to the little kid's table. No what he thinks and he's right is that bringing peace and democracy to the middle-east is not working. What has Europe to do with it in a thread about US politics? If Europeans think bringing peace to the Middle East is ezpz, they're welcome to try. Until then the troll-lol-lol 'Murica criticism can suck it. I don't think you quite understand the point being made. The US has spend a lot of time and effort "bringing peace to the Middle East". The result is a middle east that is less peaceful than ever before. So maybe the solution is less getting involved in other peoples affairs and fucking them up even more. Basically, the problem is the american arrogance that you so wonderfully show. Not everyones problem is yours, and especially in the case of the middle east, you invest a lot of money, effort and lives, and afterwards the result is worse than it was before you started. And your reaction to people pointing this out is "Do it better yourselves". We have been doing that. Doing nothing is exceedingly superior to what you have been doing. Thus, i am quite happy that european nations do not fall into the same trap that you keep constantly walking back in every time you just got out based on that arrogance that tells you that obviously there is nothing that you can not fix because you are american. We've been involved in the middle east well before the second gulf war, sometimes times at the behest of the international community. We can't just yell "smell ya later!" and expect peace. Shit, Syria isn't a peaceful place these days and since we pulled out of Iraq, ISIS moved in. If the Us would have gone in with the best intentions and would have failed people would not be so bitter about it. What makes people angry is the fact that the US has deliberately caused chaos in the middle-east. You went from supporting the Mujahideen (which literally means 'people doing jihah' btw) to supporting Saddam Hussein, to fighting Saddam Hussein,then to fighting islamic terrorists, and now you've gone full circle and have been supporting Islamic rebels again who have now finally created some kind of weird fucked up caliphate that is so extremist that even Al Qaeda doesn't want to have anything to do with them. Yup we did all that just to fuck with people. Zero European involvement in any of that too. And you think we're supporting ISIS?
No, America goes to war to fulfill the wishes of the MIC, AIPAC, and a host of other interests, none of which have anything to do or in common with the average American. Today is no different than the shit we did in South America, or the Pacific via Hawai'i and Philippines. Killing people and brainwashing the masses about 'patriotism' and the boogeyman outside our borders is very lucrative. You'd think the warnings from John Adams and Smedly Butler would be classica Americana political lexicon, but hey, 'Murica fuck yeah. Torn up families, mass murder, legal plunder, atrocious taxation and gutted civil liberties! MIC FUCK YEAH!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 14 2014 12:07 Sermokala wrote: years away yes but thats still entierly likely that its going to be within the next half decade at the most. The koch brothers wouldn't pass up the chance to become the fallback natural gas supplies to the only other fully developed continent in the world.
We more then have the capacity today to deliver the natural gas, the only thing left is the intrastructure. 5 years is an eternity when faced with an aggressive adversary.
|
So, what are US media saying about Israel currently bombing civilians? Any plans of US military/US diplomacy to do anything about it like it does with every other country that does something similar?
|
Last I checked Israel isn't bombing civilians, they're bombing military targets who're hiding in civilian areas and using civilians as shields; which is a much trickier thing to deal with; and makes for a complicated situation. Calling for peace, and trying to arrange cease-fires and negotiations; but there's only so much one can do. Please do not misrepresent the situation.
|
On July 14 2014 20:56 zlefin wrote: Last I checked Israel isn't bombing civilians, they're bombing military targets who're hiding in civilian areas and using civilians as shields; which is a much trickier thing to deal with; and makes for a complicated situation. Calling for peace, and trying to arrange cease-fires and negotiations; but there's only so much one can do. Please do not misrepresent the situation.
I'm not sure you quite understand the geography of the Palestinian territories...
|
There was a windstorm of hasty excuses in recent weeks after Kansas reported that it took in $338 million less than expected in the 2014 fiscal year and would have to dip heavily into a reserve fund. Spending wasn’t cut enough, said conservatives. Too many rich people sold off stock in the previous year, state officials said. It’s the price of creating jobs, said Gov. Sam Brownback.
None of those reasons were correct. There was only one reason for the state’s plummeting revenues, and that was the spectacularly ill-advised income tax cuts that Mr. Brownback and his fellow Republicans engineered in 2012 and 2013. The cuts, which largely benefited the wealthy, cost the state 8 percent of the revenue it needs for schools and other government services. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted, that’s about the same as the effect of a midsize recession. Moody’s cut the state’s debt rating in April for the first time in at least 13 years, citing the cuts and a lack of confidence in the state’s fiscal management.
The 2012 cuts were among the largest ever enacted by a state, reducing the top tax bracket by 25 percent and eliminating all taxes on business profits that are reported on individual income returns. (No other state has ever eliminated all taxes on these pass-through businesses.) The cuts were arrogantly promoted by Mr. Brownback with the same disproven theory that Republicans have employed for decades: There will be no loss of revenue because of all the economic growth!
“Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” he wrote in 2012. “It will pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business.”
But the growth didn’t show up. Kansas, in fact, was one of only five states to lose employment over the last six months, while the rest of the country was improving. It has been below the national average in job gains for the three and half years Mr. Brownback has been in office. Average earnings in the state are down since 2012, and so is net growth in the number of registered businesses.
Source
|
On July 14 2014 20:56 zlefin wrote: Last I checked Israel isn't bombing civilians, they're bombing military targets who're hiding in civilian areas and using civilians as shields; which is a much trickier thing to deal with; and makes for a complicated situation. Calling for peace, and trying to arrange cease-fires and negotiations; but there's only so much one can do. Please do not misrepresent the situation.
I'm no fan of violent Palestinians, but it seems kind of silly to get all bent about them launching rockets randomly into a city and usually killing little to no one, but fully support when Israel "retaliates" and kills upwards of 5 times more people and many of them are not participants in hostilities.
Then say well Israel has to kill more civilians because of the nature of the enemy. Seems pretty stupid, seeing as how that's pretty much the same reason the Palestinians fight the way they do. I also can't help but remember the Jewish Holy Book mentioning that the Jewish people have already committed genocide once to claim the land God gave them. (Makes one wonder if any of the extremist Israeli's might be reminiscing on such events)
"It shall be that when Hashem, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven. Do not forget it!" (Deuteronomy 25: 19; also see Exodus 17:14 and Numbers 24:20)
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass,"(Samuel I, 15:3)
Surely they don't have religious nuts like America, going to classrooms telling kids the war against Hamas is like the time the Jewish people went genocidal on those one people for violently harassing them, and living on land God gave to the Jewish people (but neglected to tell it's current inhabitants)?
Rabbi Eliyahu told the students at the Bnei Akiva high school that the war against Hamas is "a war of the people of Israel against Amalek, against those wishing to destroy Jews."
Source
Now with potential Republican Nominees shitting on any idea of a two state solution and ISIS looming, it's going to get a lot worse over there before it gets better.
Westerners drawing lines on maps in the Middle East has got to be in the running for one of the most inept things we've ever done in the region.
|
|
|
On July 14 2014 20:56 zlefin wrote: Last I checked Israel isn't bombing civilians, they're bombing military targets who're hiding in civilian areas and using civilians as shields; which is a much trickier thing to deal with; and makes for a complicated situation. Calling for peace, and trying to arrange cease-fires and negotiations; but there's only so much one can do. Please do not misrepresent the situation. So you are saying those civilians are there at their own free will? And Israel military has absolutely no other choice? Because if they are not, Israel is committing war crimes, and no excuse will do.
|
VIENNA (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry will hold in-depth discussions Monday with Iran's top diplomat in a bid to advance faltering nuclear negotiations, with a deadline just days away for a comprehensive agreement.
The scheduled talks come a day after Kerry and the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany failed to reach a breakthrough on uranium enrichment and other issues standing in the way of a deal that would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the end of nuclear-related sanctions on Tehran.
The top officials took turns meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, and each gave an assessment describing significant gaps between the two sides. Russia and China sent lower-level officials to Austria's capital for this week's gathering.
Six months ago, the six world powers and Tehran gave themselves until July 20 to conclude what is supposed to be a multi-decade agreement that sets clear limits on Iranian activity and locks in place an international monitoring regime designed to ensure that the Islamic republic cannot develop nuclear weapons.
Source
|
Iran's foreign minister Javas Zarif was on Meet the Press on Sunday, talking about the nuclear deal and about the recent air war in Israel/Palestine. I thought he made some interesting points, particularly on the potential for a nuclear deal and the history behind the whole situation.
Video
Transcript: + Show Spoiler +I traveled to Vienna for a wide-ranging interview with Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who has extensive experience on the world stage. And, I started by asking the foreign minister why Iran is determined to keep its extensive nuclear capacity, if it claims indeed it does not want a nuclear bomb?
(BEGIN TAPE)
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
Well, actually, I think what we have said, should give confidence to people that we're not looking for nuclear weapons. We have said that our entire nuclear energy program can fit in a very clear and well defined picture. That is we want to produce fuel for our own nuclear reactor. Nuclear power reactor. And we have a contract that provides us fuel for that reactor. But that contract expires in seven or eight years.
DAVID GREGORY:
Because reupping that is not a problem. As the American have told you--
(OVERTALK)
DAVID GREGORY:
Right?
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
Actually, it's more complicated than you'd think. The United States built the reactor for us in the 1950s. And for the past 20 years we've been searching all over the world for fuel for that reactor. And the United States is not holding up providing the fuel itself, but that’s prevented other from providing fuel to Iran.
To the point that a few years ago, three, four years ago we had to announce that if you're giving us 20% of fuel for the American built reactor in Tehran, we have to produce it ourselves. They thought that we couldn't do it, but we did it. And now that reactor Iraq running on fuel. We want to be able to work with the international community. We want to ensure that nobody is concerned about Tehran's nuclear projects.
DAVID GREGORY:
So to that point, if that's what you want to do, it's important that our audience understands. When we talk about centrifuges and nuclear power, centrifuges are how you enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is the key component, ultimately, of making a nuclear weapon, if it's done at a certain speed. And then it has to be weaponized. If you really want to say to the international community, "We don't want a nuclear weapon," are you prepared to dismantle a good portion of the nuclear capacity, the number of centrifuges you now have?
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
I don't think it would do the job. As somebody who has worked all his life for non-proliferation I can tell you that the best way to ensure that Iran will never break away, will never break out, is to allow an internationally monitored nuclear program.
Because we have the technology. We have the know how. We have the equipment. So the only way, realistically, to deal with this, is to have a genuinely peaceful program that can be worked in a transparent fashion, without the need for the imposing arbitrary restrictions.
DAVID GREGORY:
So with respect, the international community is divided about a lot of things. They're actually not divided about one thing. They think Iran is up to no good and wants to build a nuclear weapon. So why not say definitively that you will eliminate the bulk of your capacity, the bulk of your centrifuges to say to the world, "We really won't fight. We really won't build a weapon."
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
Yeah. First of all, that’s a different international community. They day I went to a meeting of 5 plus 1 or E-3 plus 3 in New York, they said we represent the internationally community, and I told them “I'm just coming to you from chairing a meeting of 120 countries called the Non-Aligned Movement, where Iran has been the chairman and is the chairman. And they support us.” They believe, actually, 180-some members of the NTC believe, and they repeatedly said it in 1990 and in 2010, that countries' choices, of their fuel cycle, should be respected.
So it's not the international community. A few countries who have concerns. And we are talking to them in order to address those concerns. But those concerns, there are international criteria in order to address those concerns. And we have given them opportunities to find resolutions, realistic resolutions, in order to address those concerns.
One of those is to freeze, as the leader pointed out, that you don't need this capacity tomorrow. You can produce this capacity over a length of time. And we are prepared to work with Five Plus One, with members of the Five Plus One, with others in order to make sure that the confidence is created.
DAVID GREGORY:
But you won't commit to a specific number of centrifuges. Another way of saying that is you won't commit to dismantling a bulk of your capacity.
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
No, I will commit to everything and anything that would provide credible assurances for the international community that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, because we are not. We don't see any benefit in Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
DAVID GREGORY:
How could you not see a benefit? I mean you're a Shia state surrounded by Sunni states, many of whom are your enemies. You know full well the deterrent factor that a nuclear country like Pakistan can wield in the international community. You can have more of the influence regionally. Cynics would say, "Why wouldn't you want to have a nuclear weapon?"
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
Actually, all these calculations are wrong. In fact we need to go out of or way in order to convince our neighbors that we want to live in peace and tranquility with them, because the politics of geography, the fact that we're bigger, the fact that we're stronger, that we're more populous, the fact that we have a better technology, the fact that our human resources is by far more developed than most of our neighbors. All of these provide us with inherent areas of strength that we don't need to augment with other capabilities.
DAVID GREGORY:
But if that’s the case --
(OVERTALK)
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
That is why nobody considers our neighbors in Pakistan as a stronger force in the region than Iran, simply because they have nuclear weapons. In fact, I believe nuclear weapons reduces countries' influence in our region. It doesn't help anybody.
The fact that everybody in the international community believes that mutual assured destruction that is the way the United States, Russia and others, get seek peace and security through having the possibility of destroying each other 100 times over is simply mad.
And that is why I do not believe that you need to inculcate this mentality that nuclear weapons makes anybody safe. Have they made Pakistan safe? Have they made Israel safe? Have they made the United States safe? Have they made Russia safe? All these countries are susceptible. Now you have proof that nuclear weapons or no amount of military power makes you safe. So we need to live in a different paradigm. And that's what we are calling for.
DAVID GREGORY:
Let me ask you about a couple of other areas and then I'd like to return to this at the end. Let's talk about the war in Gaza. Iran has supported Hamas in the past. Rockets that are being fired into Israel, Israel believes were actually provided by Iran. How do you see this situation playing out?
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
Well it is extremely regrettable that people are being killed, hundreds of innocent men and women and children have been slaughtered, almost 100 people being killed, over 500 have been wounded in Gaza, and the United States is not taking any action. We know that all the weapons that are used by Israel in order to attack civilians in Gaza have been provided by the United States. And we don't see any move by the United States to condemn that.
DAVID GREGORY:
What about Hamas--
(OVERTALK)
DAVID GREGORY:
--firing rockets into the country of Israel.
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
It was the Security Council in order to put an end to this. We call for an immediate end to all of these activities.
DAVID GREGORY:
You condemn Hamas?
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
We do not condemn people who are defending themselves. We believe that actions that are putting civilians in jeopardy in Gaza that have placed restrictions on civilians to get access to medicine. To food. Have tried to starve the civilians in Gaza. They need to be vehemently condemned by the national community. The United States and the rest of the members of the Security Council have a moral and legal responsibility to put an end to this. And address the fact that they haven't taken any action in order to address this.
(END TAPE)
|
Conservatives are stuck in a perpetual outrage loop. The reappearance of Todd Akin, the horror-movie villain immortality of Sarah Palin, the unseemly celebration of the Hobby Lobby decision – these all speak to a chorus of "la-la-la-can't-hear-you" loud enough to drown out the voice of an entire generation. Late last week, the Reason Foundation released the results of a poll about that generation, the millennials; its signature finding was the confirmation of a mass abandonment of social conservatism and the GOP. This comes at a time when the conservative movement is increasingly synonymous with mean-spirited, prank-like and combative activism and self-important grand gestures. The millennial generation has repeatedly defined itself as the most socially tolerant of the modern era, but one thing it really can't stand is drama.
Republicans were already destined for piecemeal decimation due to the declining numbers of their core constituency. But they don't just have a demographic problem anymore; they have stylistic one. The conservative strategy of outrage upon outrage upon outrage bumps up against the policy preferences and the attitudes of millennials in perfect discord.
We all can recognize the right's tendency to respond to backlash with more "lash" (Akin didn't disappear, he doubled down on "legitimate rape"), but it seems to have gained speed with the age of social media and candidate tracking. The Tea Party's resistance to the leavening effect of establishment mores and political professionals has been a particularly effective accelerant. Palin's ability to put anything on the internet without any intermediary has rendered her as reckless as any tween with a SnapChat account. Akin's whiny denouncement of Washington insiders is likely to make him more credible with a certain kind of base voter. The midterms are, as we speak, producing another round of Fox News celebrities, whether or not they win their races: the Eric Cantor-vanquishing David Brat, Mississippi's Chris McDaniel and the hog-castrating mini-Palin, Jodi Ernst of Iowa.
The fire-with-fire attitude of hardline conservatives has its roots in the petulant cultural defensiveness adopted by the GOP – especially the Christian right – during the culture wars of the 90s. Their siege mentality bred an attitude toward liberals that saw every instance of social liberalization as proof of their own apocalyptic predictions and conspiracy theories. Gay marriage will lead to acceptance of beastiality and pedophilia. "Socialized medicine" will lead to the euthanizing Grandma. Access to birth control will lead to orgies in the streets.
Then came Obama's election, the Zapruder tape for the right's tin-foil hat haberdashers – a moment in history that both explained and exacerbated America's supposed decline. Dinesh D'Souza, the Oliver Stone of the Tea Party, has now made two movies about the meaning of Obama's presidency. The first, 2016: Obama's America, garnered an astounding $33m at the box office, and his lawyers blamed disappointing returns from this summer's America on a Google conspiracy to confuse moviegoers about its showtimes. (Of course.)
The GOP has long staked a claim on The Disappearing Angry White Man, but they have apparently ever-narrowing odds of getting a bite at millennials, who appear to be more like The Somewhat Concerned Multicultural Moderate. This generation is racially diverse, pro-pot, pro-marriage equality and pro-online gambling. They are troubled by the deficit but believe in the social safety net: 74% of millennials, according to Reason, want the government to guarantee food and housing to all Americans. A Pew survey found that 59% of Americans under 30 say the government should do more to solve problems, while majorities in all other age groups thought it should do less.
The Rupe-Reason poll teases out some of the thinking behind the surge of young people abandoning the GOP, and finds a generation that is less apt to take to the streets, Occupy-style, than to throw a great block party: lots of drugs, poker and gays! Millennials don't want to change things, apparently – they want everyone to get along. The report observes "[m]any specifically identified LGBTQ rights as their primary reason for being liberal"; and "[o]ften, they decided they were liberals because they really didn’t like conservatives."
Source
|
Pretty good to see that young people are finally abandoning social-conservatism. Hopefully this generation will stay that way as they grow up. It's interesting what the GOP will do to not become completely obsolete.
|
Israel and Saudi Arabia are our allies in the middle east. I support Israel and right to defend it's right to exist. I feel it's trying its best to be precise in it's targets.
|
On July 15 2014 02:11 Nyxisto wrote: Pretty good to see that young people are finally abandoning social-conservatism. Hopefully this generation will stay that way as they grow up. It's interesting what the GOP will do to not become completely obsolete.
It's amazing how clueless some of you really are...
User was warned for this post
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
neither side is doing much to end the conflict. there's hardcore groups on both sides that are happy with extermination/will go to hostage taking tactics.
if israel can prevent outside fighters from going into gaza and whatnot relevant areas, then a policy of economic development should eventually stomp out radical faction in there. it's a lot of people to handle though.
|
On July 15 2014 02:14 Wolfstan wrote: Israel and Saudi Arabia are our allies in the middle east. I support Israel and right to defend it's right to exist. I feel it's trying its best to be precise in it's targets.
Supporting Israel's right to exist isn't exclusive to supporting every action they do. They've been pushing Palestinian buttons for awhile now, trying to get a rise out of the extremist groups so they can come in and justify wiping out those groups and all the collateral that comes with an operation of that magnitude.
|
On July 15 2014 02:11 Nyxisto wrote: Pretty good to see that young people are finally abandoning social-conservatism. Hopefully this generation will stay that way as they grow up. It's interesting what the GOP will do to not become completely obsolete.
Wait for the 'old guard' to die so the young folks in the GOP take over positions of power. The young people in the GOP today are very libertarian, so once the old fogies die off you'll see a much different GOP. Much more Ron Paul and Calvin Coolidge, much less Buckley, Robertson, Bushes.
|
Three cheers for a Coolidge GOP! Nothing could better the future of the Left in the US more!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|