|
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 August 03 2015 22:32 always_winter wrote:Khamenei is the supreme authority in Iran. He has more power and authority relative to his constituency than any elected official on the planet, including the POTUS. His will dictates Iranian policy. It exemplifies the issue of pigeon-holing oneself to a single lens from which to see an entire world order; that every state actor could be viewed with absolute relativity. Iran is not relative. It does not fit into a nice, little peaceful "non-proliferation standpoint." If you seek expertise, seek Middle Eastern experts. Seek people who actually understand the nature of the beast you wish to tame. Here's the link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/irans-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-publishes-book-to-destroy-israel-and-deceive-us/ar-BBlllUDMy link functionality isn't working on this desktop. Google is a pretty good resource.
You're the one doing a poor job of bending over backwards as you attempt to justify your fear of an Iran that is very obviously changing. I mean, come on, your logic isn't even remotely consistent. If Khamanei's will dictated Iranian policy, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because Iran would never have even come to the table. So yeah, go ahead and play the game of the blind hawk. It makes it easier for us peaceniks to shoot you down.
|
We didn't "deal" with Soviet Russia. M.A.D. prevented nuclear fallout, diverting engagement through alternative, more covert avenues resulting in the proxy war catastrophes we know as the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
This is EXACTLY what is happening in the Middle East. Khamenei is fanatical, but as a state sovereign he must act rationally. He won't risk annihilation by engaging in nuclear warfare with Israel and the United States. He has claimed responsibility for both the 2006 Lebanon War and Gaza War. During both engagements his capacity for military support was highly constricted under international sanctions. Imagine what he will do with a $12 billion paycheck.
I agree degenerative ideology is losing traction in Iran, particularly among youth. It doesn't change the fact religious fanatics hold the reigns.
Edit:
While Mr. Khamenei was equivocal about the deal’s ultimate success, he also hailed it as a win for Iran in a decadelong struggle to preserve its nuclear achievements, including thousands of centrifuges that enrich uranium.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-says-nuclear-deal-wont-change-u-s-ties-1437202111
Why would Khamenei be opposed to a deal in his favor? Why would he be opposed to something which advances his agenda, particularly when he views the deal as a victory over the other party, a nation which he regards as the "Great Satan." I'm not sure which logic you're referring to.
|
But that is the point, we dealt with Stalin during WW2 and then pulled back when he made aggressive moves and finally got involved with the Korea war. We can change our minds, it is possible. The delusional idea that we need to just keep the status quo because anything else will lead to disaster is why leads to these political stalemates. People act like it’s all risk to try a new plan, but no risk to keeping the old one. But both have risks And as the hardliners lose their grip on the country, we are well served to have some level of contact with their people who will replace them.
|
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty.
|
On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty.
There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes.
|
|
|
On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes.
It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire.
Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism.
Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up.
|
Ted Cruz continues his blight on American politics. He likes to bring up the founding fathers, but fails to realize that in their era of congress his antics would have ended in a brawl or him being challenged to a duel by John Hancock.
And the Republican obsession with EMP weapons continues.
On August 03 2015 23:32 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes. It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire. Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism. Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up.
Cynicism often dressed like pragmatism. And like Republican Hawks, you haven't provided anything new beyond "It won't work and its bad."
|
On August 03 2015 23:32 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes. It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire. Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism. Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up.
Still waiting for that alternative solution.
|
United States42024 Posts
On August 03 2015 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 22:32 always_winter wrote:Khamenei is the supreme authority in Iran. He has more power and authority relative to his constituency than any elected official on the planet, including the POTUS. His will dictates Iranian policy. It exemplifies the issue of pigeon-holing oneself to a single lens from which to see an entire world order; that every state actor could be viewed with absolute relativity. Iran is not relative. It does not fit into a nice, little peaceful "non-proliferation standpoint." If you seek expertise, seek Middle Eastern experts. Seek people who actually understand the nature of the beast you wish to tame. Here's the link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/irans-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-publishes-book-to-destroy-israel-and-deceive-us/ar-BBlllUDMy link functionality isn't working on this desktop. Google is a pretty good resource. Middle-east experts? You mean Israel's who are in no way unbiased or Saudi-Arabia who are not only as unbiased but are frequently suspected from funding terrorism just like Iran? The reality is that Iran does not like the USA (for good reason since they got in power by overthrowing a US placed dictator. But your going to have to deal with them in some form or other then you suspect them of working on a nuclear bomb. Bomb them isn't definitive and less reliable then the treaty (and you can always bomb them later if they dont follow the treaty). Invading just further destabilizes the nation and provides another hotbed for ISIS. So how would you deal with Iran?
Iran not liking the US is a bit of an understatement. The US sponsored a repressive autocratic regime that pushed the Iranian population into a revolution and then sheltered the guilty parties afterwards. A few years later the US military shot down an Iranian civilian airliner for literally no reason and then were complete cunts about it afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
This was an event that was comparable to 9/11 in many ways for Iran, only rather than it being a few stateless terrorists these were US sailors in uniform. And not only could Iran not respond to the US militarily, despite being completely justified if they did so, the US refused to admit it had done anything wrong. You have fantastic facts like Bush senior saying "I refuse to apologize for the United States, I don't care what the facts are" and the captain of the ship which murdered 290 civilians getting a medal.
After 9/11 Iran reached out to the US and was actually a US ally in the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan with Iranian soldiers on the ground alongside Americans.
Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran assisted the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and participated in international efforts to establish a new Afghan government. A senior Iranian diplomat describes the decision making in Iran immediately after the 9/11 attacks: “[W]e consciously decided not to qualify our cooperation on Afghanistan or make it contingent upon a change in U.S. policy, believing, erroneously, that the impact would be of such magnitude that it would automatically have altered the nature of Iran-U.S. relations.”9
http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/us-iran-engagement-through-afghanistan?print
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat
Shortly afterwards Bush declared Iran part of his axis of evil and they stopped trying.
So, this is like the 18th Century English, only bigger dicks to founding fathers, committed 9/11 in uniform and then hi5ed each other about it while laughing because 18th Century America couldn't invade England. Then, when the Americans reached out to try and help the English their help was accepted until they were no longer useful and then they were branded an enemy.
Now I'd rather Iran didn't have a nuclear weapon and I don't support their state sponsorship of terrorism (any more than I support America's state policy of terrorism) but there is pretty much no reading of the history of the US and Iran that makes it look like the US is anything but the bad guy.
|
Thing is...
You either take that deal or just watch how Russia/China/Others "benefit" from Iran. Or you pay Russia/China/Others so they keep the sanctions going.
Everyone* seems to like this deal, the US going solo against it would just be ridiculous.
*Except Israel and Saudi Arabia for obvious reasons (and SA is just as bad if not worse than Iran when it comes to just about everything?)
|
On August 03 2015 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:32 always_winter wrote:On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes. It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire. Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism. Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up. Still waiting for that alternative solution.
Check my recent posts on the subject; it's all been articulated.
I'll admit the one logical inconsistency I've adhered to is not always articulating myself in the same fashion, often times giving one-liners like my boy Bernie, Jr. I think the difference is it's always in jest and rarely am I actually committing to the argument or projecting real conviction.
I'm going to pull the big dick card for just a second and ask, how many of you have even studied Iran? How many of you have spent thousands of dollars pursuing a highly impractical degree in International Relations, learning from men far more intelligent than yourself and far more well-versed in world affairs? I studied Middle Eastern policy from a man recalled to Egypt to draft its new constitution. That's how big his dick is. Mine's much smaller.
I guess I just find it funny people are so willing to blindly regurgitate the things the hear in the media, often from positions of authority from people they respect or admire. I mean for Christ's sake one of these dudes didn't even know Khomeini was the supreme leader of Iran.
It's with this I once again respectfully bow out. One love, y'all. Bernie '16.
|
No, you haven't articulated an alternative solution, at least not one remotely viable, or we'd have remembered it.
also, the people who drafted Egypt's constitution sucked, considering how fast their government failed, and how horrible their constitutional committee fell to corruption and pettiness. So such qualification doesn't count for much in my book. I could do a better job.
|
I mean, I studied Iran in most of my history courses while getting a degrees in US history and international policy in the 20th century. That was like 10 years ago, but I think it all still applies. And non-engagement is not really a tactic that is super effective and history proves that out time and time again.
Also, I like the bow out after calling everyone uninformed on the subject. That some solid internet "I got the last word, so HA I win" tactics right there.
|
On August 03 2015 23:57 Plansix wrote:
I mean, I studied Iran in most of my history courses while getting a degrees in US history and international policy in the 20th century. That was like 10 years ago, but I think it all still applies. And non-engagement is not really a tactic that is super effective and history proves that out time and time again.
Also, I like the bow out after calling everyone uninformed on the subject. That some solid internet "I got the last word, so HA I win" tactics right there.
ratatatatataat, swag, bitch.
Nah but that's a hilariously valid point and daddy loves ya. Sorry to call you out.
I'm just as liberal as all of you tree-hugging hippies, I just think the Iran Deal is bad. I really didn't even want to type that last post, it came to me in a moment of weakness. I still feel dirty. Sorry for pulling the big dick card. My dick's only average at best. No complaints so far though, so I've got that going for me.
One love.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
United States19573 Posts
On August 03 2015 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:32 always_winter wrote:On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes. It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire. Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism. Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up. Still waiting for that alternative solution.
The superior solution is allowing them to develop nukes in exchange for them helping in dismantling ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Its only a smart deal if you have a narrow view (aka "nonproliferation expert") of the world.
How do we ensure they do that? Well, the enforcement options in the nuke deal are no better: War, or sanctions.
|
Hundreds of businesses including eBay, Nestle and General Mills have issued their support for Barack Obama’s clean power plan, billed as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president.
The rules, being announced on Monday, are designed to cut emissions from power plants and have been strengthened in terms of the long-term ambition as originally proposed by the president last year, but slightly weakened in the short-term in a concession to states reliant on highly-polluting coal.
White House adviser Brian Deese said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules represented the “biggest step that any single president has made to curb the carbon pollution that is fuelling climate change”. The US is the world’s second biggest carbon emitter after China.
The rules are expected to trigger a “tsunami” of legal opposition from states and utilities who oppose the plans, which will significantly boost wind and solar power generation and force a switch away from coal power. Republican presidential hopefuls moved quickly to voice their opposition, saying they would be economically damaging.
But 365 businesses and investors wrote to 29 state governors to strongly support the rules, which they said would benefit the economy and create jobs.
Source
|
On August 04 2015 00:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 03 2015 23:32 always_winter wrote:On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes. It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire. Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism. Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up. Still waiting for that alternative solution. The superior solution is allowing them to develop nukes in exchange for them helping in dismantling ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Its only a smart deal if you have a narrow view (aka "nonproliferation expert") of the world. How do we ensure they do that? Well, the enforcement options in the nuke deal are no better: War, or sanctions.
Its a lot easier to hide financing terrorism then a nuke.
Plus how do you enforce it after they have the nuke when war becomes much less of an option.
For the record tho I am not necessarily against Iran having a nuke. Despite all the fanatical rambling I don't think they are stupid enough to use it if they had it and I think their main reason for wanting one is to be safe from Israel (and by proxy US) aggression. Nor are they dumb enough to 'lose' one to a terrorist.
|
On August 04 2015 00:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2015 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 03 2015 23:32 always_winter wrote:On August 03 2015 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2015 23:06 Gorsameth wrote:
Still have not seen any viable alternative solution from anyone that disagrees with the treaty. There isn't one, just empty rhetoric, chest beating, and shitty Beach Boys remixes. It's actually responses like this which make intellectual discussion on a gaming forum a fool's errand. Khomeini has distributed a 416-page manifesto outlining his political ideology; the Iranian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary. There's nothing empty about that rhetoric. Read the damn thing instead of regurgitating idealism from an administration you admire. Guess what? I admire it, too. I think Obama is one of the most intelligent presidents in recent memory. The Iran Deal is a gross intellectual misstep riddled with misplaced idealism. Oh, and I want Bernie to win, too. He won't. Such blind idealism has no place in this world, my friend. Time to wake up. Still waiting for that alternative solution. The superior solution is allowing them to develop nukes in exchange for them helping in dismantling ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Its only a smart deal if you have a narrow view (aka "nonproliferation expert") of the world. How do we ensure they do that? Well, the enforcement options in the nuke deal are no better: War, or sanctions.
It's a very pretty "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" scenario, but what on earth is going to make Iran do x in exchange for y? Like, do we straight up say "hey, if we knock out this laundry list of organizations destabilizing the mideast, we'll give you a usb with plans for a nuclear bomb?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
