|
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 November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest?
Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away?
Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep.
On November 27 2013 11:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
India and Indonesia come to mind, but that is besides the point. Feel free to explain how we are going to make the terrorists stop. My solution should be pretty obvious.
Your solution has never worked in the entire history of the world. Not a single terrorist or guerilla movement has been stopped by force of arms or threats, in the end the only lasting successes against terrorists have been through diplomacy and reconciliation (see North Ireland if you want a specific example).
|
I'm not sure worrying over likes is any different at all to worrying about whether people would make fun of your bracers, your new shoes or that your mother made you the wrong kind of sandwiches for lunch...
Angsty teenagers will be angsty.
|
On November 27 2013 11:54 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away? Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep.
I can think of a lot of reasons why national self-interest results in the interference of other countries "half the world away." Let's start with the blindingly obvious one that you unsurprisingly missed: oil.
|
United States43281 Posts
On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
In fairness, Danish journalists got threatened/attacked. Denmark isn't especially intrusive. That incident (attacked? I remember quite vivid threats but maybe I've forgotten an actual attack, it was about 2 years ago right?) was provoked by a rather thoughtless comic of mohammed as a pedophile if my memory is still working. While we find that tasteless in our western sensibilities, believers of Islam considered that comic highly offensive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning in any way shape or form the threats or any actual attacks because of a provocation like this, but if we want to get along maybe we shouldn't behave quite so offensively either. Let's not rehash the entire debate about freedom of speech vs. religious rights of others though, it got pretty heated the last time if i remember it right.
A) A journalist writing a comic does not impose upon or involve inside another country.
B) The guy was literally a paedophile, they know this and still venerate him. It's not an insult at that point, it's just a description of the guy, like saying he was 6 ft tall.
Let's not pretend radical Islam is reasonable and requires anything we'd consider provocation or national self defence. Although now we've moved away from the topic of Iran which does pursue self interest.
|
On November 27 2013 11:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:54 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away? Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep. I can think of a lot of reasons why national self-interest results in the interference of other countries "half the world away." Let's start with the blindingly obvious one that you unsurprisingly missed: oil.
Seeing as how Iran is a net producer of oil, and US the largest consumer of oil, I don't see how that makes them an adversary rather than a potential ally.
In fact, the only reason Iran is grouped on the adversary side, rather than the ally side is because of history and ideology. The US propped up a puppet regime which was brutal and incompetent. It got overthrown by a fundamentalist theocracy in a bloody revolution in which Americans were seen as Iran's prime enemy. From there it escalated into the Iraq-Iran war and Iran starting up a nuclear program.
To put it bluntly: the US and Iran have hardly spoken to each other since the end of the 70s, except for a scandalous weapons deal in the 80s... and it has absolutely nothing to do with oil and everything to do with leftovers from the cold war and other geopolitical bullshit.
|
On November 27 2013 11:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:54 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away? Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep. I can think of a lot of reasons why national self-interest results in the interference of other countries "half the world away." Let's start with the blindingly obvious one that you unsurprisingly missed: oil.
....
So let me get this straight. You say that your national self interest in Iran's Oil means you must make an enemy of them.
Does that sound in any way shape or form rational to you? Their self interest implies that they will try to make the best of the resources they do have, meaning either use the oil or sell it to the highest bidder in some form.
You are also missing a key point I've been trying to make, but that doesn't seem very surprising. You might be interested in their oil or in the entire region because of the resources they have there, but why exactly should they care about your interest? Because you are stronger? Maybe but then we are back to square one, where you try to bully the country for another 30 years with probably even worse results because the situation worldwide has changed.
You have avenues to pursue your self interests without pissing off every one else on the planet, those are usually summed up under "diplomacy". Maybe if you used those (or had used those) you wouldn't be quite so hated in that part of the world.
|
Norway28716 Posts
On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest?
realizing that your self-interest isn't different from others. we all want the world to be a better place.
|
On November 27 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
In fairness, Danish journalists got threatened/attacked. Denmark isn't especially intrusive.
Not to forget Theo van Gogh getting stabbed in the middle of Amsterdam for making a film about Islamic brutality against women in the form of femal circumcision, and being an outspoken critic of Islam in general. While I wouldn't say the Dutch have kept out of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, that had nothing to do with the murder.
However, they have been threats/attacks against specific people, just as Salman Rushdie is still in hiding. While despiccable, this cannot be equated with bombing a subway or flying an airplane into a skyscraper.
|
On November 27 2013 12:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? realizing that your self-interest isn't different from others. we all want the world to be a better place.
This isn't always true, which is a critical point to understand. Maybe we'll get there some day when the rest of world adopts liberal, western sensitivities. I doubt that it will be during any of our lifetimes.
|
On November 27 2013 12:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). On November 27 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
In fairness, Danish journalists got threatened/attacked. Denmark isn't especially intrusive. That incident (attacked? I remember quite vivid threats but maybe I've forgotten an actual attack, it was about 2 years ago right?) was provoked by a rather thoughtless comic of mohammed as a pedophile if my memory is still working. While we find that tasteless in our western sensibilities, believers of Islam considered that comic highly offensive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning in any way shape or form the threats or any actual attacks because of a provocation like this, but if we want to get along maybe we shouldn't behave quite so offensively either. Let's not rehash the entire debate about freedom of speech vs. religious rights of others though, it got pretty heated the last time if i remember it right. A) A journalist writing a comic does not impose upon or involve inside another country. B) The guy was literally a paedophile, they know this and still venerate him. It's not an insult at that point, it's just a description of the guy, like saying he was 6 ft tall.
If we apply todays standards to people who lived over a thousand years ago they could be described by quite a few words. If you give me 20 minutes I can compile a list of rulers who were pedophiles according to that definition without any problem.
The mess started if I remember it correctly inside denmark with a Danish group of Muslims protesting. The Newspaper where the comic was printed replied that free speech was a given and therefor the comic would remain and no apology was forthcoming.
Actually after researching this because I honestly can't remember the details (it was in 2006) they literally tried to hit every cliché about Mohamed possible. While I'd still say the reactions from the Arabic/Muslim side were absolutely over the line, I'm not really surprised they were very offended either. anyway, here is the wiki link if someone wants to refresh his memory as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptions_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
It was a bit more widespread than I remember and yes you are correct one idiot did in fact try to kill the cartoonist (though wikipedia makes him sound completely deranged).
|
On November 27 2013 12:04 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:54 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away? Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep. I can think of a lot of reasons why national self-interest results in the interference of other countries "half the world away." Let's start with the blindingly obvious one that you unsurprisingly missed: oil. .... So let me get this straight. You say that your national self interest in Iran's Oil means you must make an enemy of them. Does that sound in any way shape or form rational to you? Their self interest implies that they will try to make the best of the resources they do have, meaning either use the oil or sell it to the highest bidder in some form. You are also missing a key point I've been trying to make, but that doesn't seem very surprising. You might be interested in their oil or in the entire region because of the resources they have there, but why exactly should they care about your interest? Because you are stronger? Maybe but then we are back to square one, where you try to bully the country for another 30 years with probably even worse results because the situation worldwide has changed. You have avenues to pursue your self interests without pissing off every one else on the planet, those are usually summed up under "diplomacy". Maybe if you used those (or had used those) you wouldn't be quite so hated in that part of the world.
I'm just going to ignore you until you demonstrate a basic understanding of why the US became entangled in the Middle East and how relations with Iran deteriorated.
|
Norway28716 Posts
Yea. In Norway we had an assassination attempt towards William Nygaard after he published Rushdie, there's Rushdie himself, and there's Theo van Gogh and danish journalists following the cartoons. I'm by no means apologizing for these fatwas/attacks, they are by no means justified.. But they are on an entirely different level from 9/11, or london/madrid bombings, and they are targeted towards individuals. I guess with denmark it kinda became targeted towards any danish people, but honestly that's an anomaly, and there haven't been any real terrorist attacks against denmark. I'm not too familiar with reasonings behind attacks in india/indonesia, but I'm fairly certain they had little to do with "reduced india(nesian) presence in the middle east", (do correct me if I'm wrong) but that was why I specified western anyway. London, madrid, 9/11 were all direct retaliations towards "neo-imperialist" politics, exactly the type of politics xDaunt advocates.
You could argue that 9/11 every now and then is worth it (to allow yourself to continue being world dictator) and be consistent, but any realist approach to global politics actually needs to take possible retaliations into account, as according to the realist perspective, terrorist attacks aimed to weaken the opposition are not amoral, and terrorists are rationally acting from a struggle to attain relative power.
I'm not saying that you can ignore realism when you're an actor on the global political stage, but to argue that this is an ideal.. Suffice to say I greatly disagree with that.
|
On November 27 2013 11:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:54 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away? Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep. I can think of a lot of reasons why national self-interest results in the interference of other countries "half the world away." Let's start with the blindingly obvious one that you unsurprisingly missed: oil.
Doesn't Iran import gasoline? We could import their oil, export gas back to them and make nice bacon off the crack spread 
|
On November 27 2013 12:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 12:04 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:54 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea). Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest? Hey, idiot. Explain this: why does your self-interest interfere with a country half the world away? Or are we talking about their self-interest here? Frankly if all you can come up with is a one liner that doesn't even address 90% of my post, I'll consider my job done and go to sleep. I can think of a lot of reasons why national self-interest results in the interference of other countries "half the world away." Let's start with the blindingly obvious one that you unsurprisingly missed: oil. .... So let me get this straight. You say that your national self interest in Iran's Oil means you must make an enemy of them. Does that sound in any way shape or form rational to you? Their self interest implies that they will try to make the best of the resources they do have, meaning either use the oil or sell it to the highest bidder in some form. You are also missing a key point I've been trying to make, but that doesn't seem very surprising. You might be interested in their oil or in the entire region because of the resources they have there, but why exactly should they care about your interest? Because you are stronger? Maybe but then we are back to square one, where you try to bully the country for another 30 years with probably even worse results because the situation worldwide has changed. You have avenues to pursue your self interests without pissing off every one else on the planet, those are usually summed up under "diplomacy". Maybe if you used those (or had used those) you wouldn't be quite so hated in that part of the world. I'm just going to ignore you until you demonstrate a basic understanding of why the US became entangled in the Middle East and how relations with Iran deteriorated.
I know exactly why the US became entangled in the Middle East, what boggles my mind is that you seem to insist that the current situation is exactly how it should be (that is an entire region of the world hates you pretty much universally with the exception of Israel). If that doesn't prove perfectly why the approach you are advocating isn't working I'm honestly not sure how to explain it to you.
You also display a staggering ability to ignore entire posts filled with attempts to start a discussion so I'll just be happy that in the future your not going to answer me and restrict myself to talking to people who actually want to use their brain.
|
On November 27 2013 12:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yea. In Norway we had an assassination attempt towards William Nygaard after he published Rushdie, there's Rushdie himself, and there's Theo van Gogh and danish journalists following the cartoons. I'm by no means apologizing for these fatwas/attacks, they are by no means justified.. But they are on an entirely different level from 9/11, or london/madrid bombings, and they are targeted towards individuals. I guess with denmark it kinda became targeted towards any danish people, but honestly that's an anomaly, and there haven't been any real terrorist attacks against denmark. I'm not too familiar with reasonings behind attacks in india/indonesia, but I'm fairly certain they had little to do with "reduced india(nesian) presence in the middle east", (do correct me if I'm wrong) but that was why I specified western anyway. London, madrid, 9/11 were all direct retaliations towards "neo-imperialist" politics, exactly the type of politics xDaunt advocates.
You could argue that 9/11 every now and then is worth it (to allow yourself to continue being world dictator) and be consistent, but any realist approach to global politics actually needs to take possible retaliations into account, as according to the realist perspective, terrorist attacks aimed to weaken the opposition are not amoral, and terrorists are rationally acting from a struggle to attain relative power.
I'm not saying that you can ignore realism when you're an actor on the global political stage, but to argue that this is an ideal.. Suffice to say I greatly disagree with that.
I don't know what you mean by "arguing that this is an ideal," but definitely don't construe my arguments regarding how foreign politics work as an argument that this how it should work ideally. I'm just being a realist.
Again, let me pose this question to you: Even assuming that the US is at fault for its poor relations with the Muslim world and the resulting creation of terrorists, what do we about it now to make the terrorists go away?
EDIT: Just to be clear, my solution is to eliminate and replace regimes (and not necessarily through military action) that harbor terrorists and kill off those terrorists that we can get to. To the extent that we can leave successful democracies in our wake, great, but it should be clear that that won't be universally possible in the Muslim world.
|
On November 27 2013 12:03 Acrofales wrote:
overthrown by a fundamentalist theocracy in a bloody revolution in which Americans were seen as Iran's prime enemy.
a minor quibble: the iranian revolution was an alliance between the islamists and the leftists, the theocracy was what was consolidated AFTER the revolution
|
On November 27 2013 13:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 12:03 Acrofales wrote:
overthrown by a fundamentalist theocracy in a bloody revolution in which Americans were seen as Iran's prime enemy. a minor quibble: the iranian revolution was an alliance between the islamists and the leftists, the theocracy was what was consolidated AFTER the revolution
There you are. You owe us the Marxist interpretation for how Nazi Germany happened. Bonus points if you can fit in a Marxist explanation for the Holocaust.
|
oh do i have to...
a hyperinflationary crisis opens the political terrain for a previously marginal extremist ethno-nationalist party to take power with promises of restoring stability and the organic unity of the social fabric perceived to be dissolving under the pressure of modernity?
the holocaust is not really surprising. ethnic cleansings are just things that people do. the only thing unusual or shocking about the holocaust is that it was carried out with the tools of so-called Progress
The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the “emergency situation” in which we live is the rule. We must arrive at a concept of history which corresponds to this. Then it will become clear that the task before us is the introduction of a real state of emergency; and our position in the struggle against Fascism will thereby improve. Not the least reason that the latter has a chance is that its opponents, in the name of progress, greet it as a historical norm. – The astonishment that the things we are experiencing in the 20th century are “still” possible is by no means philosophical. It is not the beginning of knowledge, unless it would be the knowledge that the conception of history on which it rests is untenable.
|
On November 27 2013 13:51 sam!zdat wrote:oh do i have to... a hyperinflationary crisis opens the political terrain for a previously marginal extremist ethno-nationalist party to take power with promises of restoring stability and the organic unity of the social fabric perceived to be dissolving under the pressure of modernity? the holocaust is not really surprising. ethnic cleansings are just things that people do. the only thing unusual or shocking about the holocaust is that it was carried out with the tools of so-called Progress Show nested quote +The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the “emergency situation” in which we live is the rule. We must arrive at a concept of history which corresponds to this. Then it will become clear that the task before us is the introduction of a real state of emergency; and our position in the struggle against Fascism will thereby improve. Not the least reason that the latter has a chance is that its opponents, in the name of progress, greet it as a historical norm. – The astonishment that the things we are experiencing in the 20th century are “still” possible is by no means philosophical. It is not the beginning of knowledge, unless it would be the knowledge that the conception of history on which it rests is untenable.
Bah, that's not what you were going to say last night, and that's not a Marxist explanation of the rise of the Nazis.
|
it's not? what kind of marxist explanation do you want...
i mean you could read Adorno and Horkheimer "Dialectic of Enlightenment" and a number of pieces from Zizek where he theorizes antisemitism... I would also suggest Arendt on the "origins of totalitarianism" and Polanyi "the great transformation" in which he presents a (dated) analysis of the monetary underpinnings of ww2...
basically i would understand nazism and fascism more generally as an attempt to have modernization without modernity... remember that nazism was always first and foremost an anti-communist politics...
i'm not sure what could be more marxist than saying that the rise of nazism was triggered by a crisis of overproduction...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
