|
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 28 2013 05:24 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. No, you're challenging people to present alternatives to US foreign policy that protect current US interests around the world, even though there's no rational working policy that could possibly accomplish that (including your current, hardball one).
Call it whatever you want. I am still asking for an alternative. Get off your imaginary moral high horse and suggest something useful for a change. This is getting tiresome.
|
On November 28 2013 05:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:24 Talin wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. No, you're challenging people to present alternatives to US foreign policy that protect current US interests around the world, even though there's no rational working policy that could possibly accomplish that (including your current, hardball one). Call it whatever you want.
It's only getting tiresome because you're dodging the point.
The specific problem you demand a solution to has no functional solution. There is no solution that doesn't involve giving up on some of your interests abroad. Figure out which ones yield the least benefits at the greatest risk and cost, and stop paying for them, thus reducing both the risks and costs.
Most of your Middle East involvements would easily qualify (to start with).
|
On November 28 2013 05:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:24 Talin wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. No, you're challenging people to present alternatives to US foreign policy that protect current US interests around the world, even though there's no rational working policy that could possibly accomplish that (including your current, hardball one). Call it whatever you want. I am still asking for an alternative. Get off your imaginary moral high horse and suggest something useful for a change. This is getting tiresome.
There is no alternative. Any empire in history, territorial, or hegemonic (like USA), needs a hardball policy where they push their political, economic, and military muscle to do whatever it takes to establish at least some implicit dominance or influence over other nations. The US can in no way maintain its interests and domination without muscling around, and the same goes for any empire in the past and for those in the future.
|
On November 28 2013 06:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:24 Talin wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. No, you're challenging people to present alternatives to US foreign policy that protect current US interests around the world, even though there's no rational working policy that could possibly accomplish that (including your current, hardball one). Call it whatever you want. I am still asking for an alternative. Get off your imaginary moral high horse and suggest something useful for a change. This is getting tiresome. There is no alternative. Any empire in history, territorial, or hegemonic (like USA), needs a hardball policy where they push their political, economic, and military muscle to do whatever it takes to establish at least some implicit dominance or influence over other nations. The US can in no way maintain its interests and domination without muscling around, and the same goes for any empire in the past and for those in the future.
Actually, the US can't maintain its domination, period. It's really all about how painful the transition out of the imperial "status" is.
The same was the case for any empire in the past, and will probably be the case for those in the future.
|
On November 28 2013 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 23:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me." Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't Trickle down is a criticism of supply side policies. No one should be advocating trickle down directly 
advocating 'supply side' = advocating 'trickle down'
|
On November 28 2013 07:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 27 2013 23:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me." Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't Trickle down is a criticism of supply side policies. No one should be advocating trickle down directly advocating 'supply side' = advocating 'trickle down'
Yeah, in the same sense that helping the poor is propping up welfare queens.
|
On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that.
Some people have mentioned soft power methods like trade. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer 
|
On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that.
This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran.
|
On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran.
Yes, doctrinal thinking is a problem in itself, and captured the official mind of the America in the early-Cold War: "Rollback" vs "Containment" at first, but also such obscenities as MAD, Dominoes and Thaws. These things are but abstractions which, if given absolute reign over a deductive foreign policy, have the potential to create multitudinous blind-spots as to a nation's real options in specific scenarios.
More information, less justification and pontification.
One thing I would like to say in relation to the psychology of the American Empire though:
During my studies, I had a seminar in American National Security Policy with an openly Republican instructor. I asked him his opinion as to whether the American response to Suez was a mistake, and he adamantly responded no; America had done more good than any other nation for the world, and they alone were able to assume responsibility over it. American displacement of British influence was not only predicated by the necessities of power shifts, it was predicated by the necessities of world progress.
This teleological belief in a special American destiny is strange, because it is the true motivation behind a class of opinion which still calls itself "realism." An undesirable subsidiary effect of this belief has been the distortion of the fight against illiterate tribesmen in Afghanistan into an apocalyptic morality play in our public consciousness. Can anyone imagine a modern Kipling writing a poem like "Fuzzy Wuzzy" in the 21st century, about the Taliban? I cannot.
|
On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran.
Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months.
|
On November 28 2013 08:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran. Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months.
Yes they got a decent amount of money released to them but I would assume if they fail to reach a deal you now have leverage with the rest of the security council to go even further then before which could in the end cost Iran far more then the money they got released to them.
|
On November 28 2013 08:04 MoltkeWarding wrote:
This teleological belief in a special American destiny is strange, because it is the true motivation behind a class of opinion which still calls itself "realism."
Sounds like a misnomer if there ever was one.
I agree that a large segment of Americans still believe in "a special American destiny," but I fail to see the link to whatever you're calling "a class opinion which still calls itself 'realism.'"
An undesirable subsidiary effect of this belief has been the distortion of the fight against illiterate tribesmen in Afghanistan into an apocalyptic morality play in our public consciousness. Can anyone imagine a modern Kipling writing a poem like "Fuzzy Wuzzy" in the 21st century, about the Taliban? I cannot.
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
|
Canada11587 Posts
On November 28 2013 06:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:24 Talin wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. No, you're challenging people to present alternatives to US foreign policy that protect current US interests around the world, even though there's no rational working policy that could possibly accomplish that (including your current, hardball one). Call it whatever you want. I am still asking for an alternative. Get off your imaginary moral high horse and suggest something useful for a change. This is getting tiresome. There is no alternative. Any empire in history, territorial, or hegemonic (like USA), needs a hardball policy where they push their political, economic, and military muscle to do whatever it takes to establish at least some implicit dominance or influence over other nations. The US can in no way maintain its interests and domination without muscling around, and the same goes for any empire in the past and for those in the future.
Dunno. Niall Ferguson argues that imperial rule involves not only coercion, but also cooperation. If you coerce everyone, the empire does last because you need local elites that are willing to cooperate and help administer the empire. Particularly because America's empire doesn't seem to attract near as many elites that want to help administer overseas compared to the British empire.
|
Sounds like a misnomer if there ever was one.
I agree that a large segment of Americans still believe in "a special American destiny," but I fail to see the link to whatever you're calling "a class opinion which still calls itself 'realism.'"
The point is how people justify a thing to others is not necessarily how they justify it to themselves. This fellow just happened to have been unusually eccentric and outspoken, but his Janus-faced beliefs are symptomatic of many other people I have come across. Justification by "Realism" is fashionable because it confers its master with the appearance of detachment, but in almost all cases, it is merely a rationalisation of something that a person would believe anyway. Why do you think when horns are locked, the "realist" usually tends to be the American, and the "idealist" tends to be the European?
When people do not understand that their rationalisations are merely that, they miss the visceral sources of their feelings, and fail to reflect on their true purposes.
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
The morality play is a form of medieval drama which usually features an Everyman protagonist, who is the personification for the human race. With the help of the virtues, he must overcome the sins, all of whom are personified by stage characters.
The morality play traditionally reflected every individual's ambivalent nature, his soul vacillating between good and evil. The fight between good and evil on stage was a metaphor for the common man's internal moral struggle. The puritanical rhetoric trumpeting the "War on Terror" and the struggle against the "Axis of Evil" has played out the play without the metaphor.
|
![[image loading]](http://retired.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/11-26-2013-map-senate2014.png)
Though much has been made about Democrats' positioning on Obamacare as 2014 approaches, it may be Republicans that face more hurdles in the early parts of the campaign.
In seven of eight Senate races the incumbent senator facing a serious or semi-serious primary challenger is a Republican. That's in contrast to incumbent Democrats. In the eight races just one includes an incumbent Democrat with a primary challenger.
Democrats are eager to portray these challenges as an indication that Republicans are spending more time fending off an insurgency from the tea party wing than preparing for the general election.
That Republican-on-Republican tension is evident with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (KY) campaign. McConnell faces a primary challenge from Kentucky businessman Matt Bevin and has also taken criticism from the Senate Conservatives Fund. In response McConnell has called a recent Senate Conservatives Fund attack "profoundly stupid" and he also reportedly "lit into" a conservative challenger in Nebraska for his ties to the group.
A big exception to the safe Democratic nominations is the Hawaii Senate race. Sen. Brian Schatz (D) faces Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D) in the primary, mainly due to the fact that Schatz was appointed by Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) despite deceased Sen. Daniel Inouye's (D) dying wish that Hanabusa should succeed him.
Source
|
On November 28 2013 08:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran. Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months.
How is it a sign of weakness to negotiate with an enemy that can do almost-literally nothing to us? If anything, that's a sign that the U.S. is willing to work with adversaries across the entire spectrum.
We released frozen assets back to them, its quite different from giving them our money. The US was already on pretty shaky ground legally for freezing their assets, though most of the world turned a blind eye.
|
On November 28 2013 09:54 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran. Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months. How is it a sign of weakness to negotiate with an enemy that can do almost-literally nothing to us? If anything, that's a sign that the U.S. is willing to work with adversaries across the entire spectrum. We released frozen assets back to them, its quite different from giving them our money. The US was already on pretty shaky ground legally for freezing their assets, though most of the world turned a blind eye.
Negotiating isn't a sign of weakness. Giving someone something for nothing is.
|
On November 28 2013 10:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 09:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 28 2013 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran. Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months. How is it a sign of weakness to negotiate with an enemy that can do almost-literally nothing to us? If anything, that's a sign that the U.S. is willing to work with adversaries across the entire spectrum. We released frozen assets back to them, its quite different from giving them our money. The US was already on pretty shaky ground legally for freezing their assets, though most of the world turned a blind eye. Negotiating isn't a sign of weakness. Giving someone something for nothing is.
Did you know cats aren't dogs?
|
On November 28 2013 10:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 09:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 28 2013 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran. Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months. How is it a sign of weakness to negotiate with an enemy that can do almost-literally nothing to us? If anything, that's a sign that the U.S. is willing to work with adversaries across the entire spectrum. We released frozen assets back to them, its quite different from giving them our money. The US was already on pretty shaky ground legally for freezing their assets, though most of the world turned a blind eye. Negotiating isn't a sign of weakness. Giving someone something for nothing is.
The US gave Iran back their own assets and eased the trade sanctions in exchange for stopping uranium enrichment and allowing international inspectors in.
Can you give me a definition of weakness as you are using it here? Because whatever you're using seems to b different from what I am.
|
On November 28 2013 12:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 10:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 09:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 28 2013 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 07:39 HunterX11 wrote:On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that. This whole tangent started discussing an actual, concrete, real life, IRL in reality alternative that's happening for real and is not a hypothetical, the nuclear deal with Iran. Sure, and my comment on that deal is this: if it works and we get what we want (a non-nuclear Iran), great. I don't see it ending well, though. Thus, the net effect of what we will have accomplished with sanctions could be 1) paying billions of dollars to Iran, thereby undermining our sanctions, 2) pissing off the rest of our regional allies, and 3) sending all sorts of unintended messages of weakness to other countries (re: China, see my earlier post on this point) that could bite us in the ass in the future. Of course, these harms are premature. We have to sit tight and see what happens over the next 6 months. How is it a sign of weakness to negotiate with an enemy that can do almost-literally nothing to us? If anything, that's a sign that the U.S. is willing to work with adversaries across the entire spectrum. We released frozen assets back to them, its quite different from giving them our money. The US was already on pretty shaky ground legally for freezing their assets, though most of the world turned a blind eye. Negotiating isn't a sign of weakness. Giving someone something for nothing is. The US gave Iran back their own assets and eased the trade sanctions in exchange for stopping uranium enrichment and allowing international inspectors in. Can you give me a definition of weakness as you are using it here? Because whatever you're using seems to b different from what I am.
Who gives a flying fuck whether the assets belonged to Iran or not? That's not the point. What exactly is so hard to understand about the fact that the US gave Iran something that it didn't have to give them?
EDIT: Again, take morality out of the equation and look at it from a pure strategic view point. The US gave Iran something that Iran didn't have. Like I explained previously, there are also very other costs to the US beyond the money that was paid to Iran (see more of those below). It remains to be seen what exactly the US purchased from Iran. If this deal ultimately results in Iran permanently suspending its nuclear weapons activities, then it will be worth it. If not, then history is going to look very, very poorly upon this deal.
And as for explaining the weakness, you guys can be intolerably dense at times. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Asia is on the cusp of a full-blown arms race. The escalating clash between China and almost all its neighbours in the Pacific has reached a threshold. All other economic issues at this point are becoming secondary.
Beijing's implicit threat to shoot down any aircraft that fails to adhere to its new air control zone in the East China Sea is a watershed moment for the world. The issue cannot easily be finessed. Other countries either comply, or they don't comply. Somebody has to back down.
The gravity of the latest dispute should by now be obvious even to those who don't pay attention the Pacific Rim, the most dangerous geostrategic fault line in the world.
....
Mr Hagel asserted categorically that Washington will stand behind its alliance with Japan, the anchor of American security in Asia. “The United States reaffirms its long-standing policy that Article V of the US Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands,” he said.
Whether China fully believes this another matter, of course. The Senkaku islands offer a perfect opportunity for Beijing to test the resolve of the Obama Administration since it is far from clear to the war-weary American people why they should risk conflict in Asia over these uninhabited rocks near Taiwan, and since it also far from clear whether President Obama's Asian Pivot is much more than a rhetorical flourish.
Besides, Beijing has just watched the US throw its long-time ally Saudi Arabia under a bus over Iran. It has watched Moscow score an alleged victory over Washington in Syria. You and I may think it is an error to infer too much US weakness from these incidents, but that is irrelevant. Beijing seems to be drawing its own conclusions.
....
Source.
Pay special attention to that last line. That applies to every single one of you who are arguing with me about this. Don't mistake your inability to perceive the weakness for the inability of others to do so.
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
