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.
I've played more than enough ck2 and eu and other strategy games to know how to think like that. It's very clear that the US is strong; and that while it may be disinterested in getting in a fight at the moment, if it did so it has plenty of strength.
There's also alot more nations opinions to look at then just the ones you are; the effect of the choices on international support and alliances is relevant.
While this Iran negotiation may not work; I don't see you presenting an alternative that has better odds of success, unless you're advocating military invasion?
On November 28 2013 15:57 zlefin wrote: I've played more than enough ck2 and eu and other strategy games to know how to think like that. It's very clear that the US is strong; and that while it may be disinterested in getting in a fight at the moment, if it did so it has plenty of strength.
There's also alot more nations opinions to look at then just the ones you are; the effect of the choices on international support and alliances is relevant.
While this Iran negotiation may not work; I don't see you presenting an alternative that has better odds of success, unless you're advocating military invasion?
And please don't use nazi based arguments.
I'm very glad you set our minds straight on the strength of the US. Everybody around here was under the impression that it was a weak player and vulnerable to invasion threats. Would you mind offering something coherent about the opinions of other nations that xDaunt did not talk about less than a day ago? I mean there is the idea that choosing to give Iran everything it wants might piss off our friends in Saudi Arabia and Israel. There's that. Got others?
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?
Yes who gives a flying fuck if something belongs to someone else or not. Morality has no place in inter person dealings and whoever is stronger, smarter or has the bigger gun should by force, theft, swindle, or coercion take what he wants from everyone else. And people ask me why I question the morality of right wingers sometimes.
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?
Yes who gives a flying fuck if something belongs to someone else or not. Morality has no place in inter person dealings and whoever is stronger, smarter or has the bigger gun should by force, theft, swindle, or coercion take what he wants from everyone else. And people ask me why I question the morality of right wingers sometimes.
Its called a show of good faith from both sides. Iran suspending enriching uranium at high levels during the negotiation is a show of good faith from them and the rest of the world releasing a bit of there assets and temporarily easing sanctions is a show of good faith from the world. You assume as the end of 6 months that the old sanctions go back into effect and new ones would of course hit which would doubly hurt Iran which gives them incentive to make a deal and of course the world doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon so it has incentive to have a deal.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
Which is cliche and has been since Bush used the term "Axis of Evil".
On November 27 2013 10:16 Introvert wrote: I was unaware that Vatican City was such a dangerous place! I wonder who thought up and proposed this maneuver?
The Obama administration, in what’s been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See — a free-standing facility — and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy.
Before I reply to you in the context of our previous exchange, I quickly wanted to address this - why not take a closer look at the facts before going into hyperbole/sarcastically deriding the move?
[Y]ou might be surprised to learn that, in fact, Obama is not closing the embassy — or diminishing U.S. diplomatic relations with the Holy See in any way.
There are no embassies for any country in Vatican City itself — there is simply no room. All countries locate their embassies in the city of Rome. The United States has decided to move its embassy from its current location — an unremarkable converted residence — to the same compound as the U.S. Embassy to Italy. It will have it’s own separate building and a separate entrance on a different street. The new building is actually a tenth of a mile closer to the Vatican than the old one. There will be no reduction in staff or activities. [...]
The plans for the move actually started under President Bush, whose administration purchased the buildings adjacent to the U.S. Embassy to Italy.
The State Department says the move, which will actually occur in 2015, will save $1.4 million per year and allow for greater security.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
I guess I should clarify: I don't mean to make fun of the US, but rather this is a facetious reply to the post I quoted. Americans are OBVIOUSLY going to identify themselves as the good guys, and Iranians are going to identify themselves as the good guys. And thus xDaunt is speaking from the American point of view that they are a force of good in the world... and well, they have to break some eggs to make an omelette (bring freedom and democracy).
Overall, I don't really disagree. The world would be a lot worse off without America policing it. Europe isn't up to the job, China isn't interested and nobody else has anywhere near the economic or military clout to even think of taking the job. However, that doesn't mean you have to agree with EVERYTHING hawkish Americans dream up. And in this case, the hardline attitude towards Iran seems like an exceptionally bad approach. I'm glad that Obama is taking the diplomatic route.
Might it weaken the US' longterm position if the diplomatic route fails? Yes. However, taking the hardline route and being unable to back it up (mainly because Russia and China will oppose it), will weaken the US' longterm position as well. And if the diplomatic route succeeds, the US' position gets a LOT stronger than if the hardline route succeeds: they gain a lot of goodwill from countries that now see the US as an arrogant oppressor. If the hardline route succeeds then "yay, regime change in Iran", but the US just reinforces their image as that arrogant oppressor, which is an untenable position in the long run.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
You did not directly, buy using Nazi analogy strongly implies it.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
You did not directly, buy using Nazi analogy strongly implies it.
Nevermind, I don't even know what you're referring to.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
why not? Acting morally is a strategic option. Hell it just might accomplish something
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
why not? Acting morally is a strategic option. Hell it just might accomplish something
Morality in foreign policy is and should be an incidental concern. Doing something that is "good" in foreign policy shouldn't be done just because it is "good." It should be done because it will reap a benefit to the actor. Obviously, this matters less when the cost of the act is inconsequential.
On November 29 2013 04:38 sam!zdat wrote: shallow, reductive, and self-fulfilling dogma
So what? Simplicity has its merits.
If you want to make it more interesting, then you can dive head first into whether a given action really will reap a comparative net benefit in the short and long term.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
why not? Acting morally is a strategic option. Hell it just might accomplish something
Morality in foreign policy is and should be an incidental concern. Doing something that is "good" in foreign policy shouldn't be done just because it is "good." It should be done because it will reap a benefit to the actor. Obviously, this matters less when the cost of the act is inconsequential.
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.
It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany.
The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense.
Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?
Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
why not? Acting morally is a strategic option. Hell it just might accomplish something
Morality in foreign policy is and should be an incidental concern. Doing something that is "good" in foreign policy shouldn't be done just because it is "good." It should be done because it will reap a benefit to the actor. Obviously, this matters less when the cost of the act is inconsequential.
Because you say so ?
xDaunt seems to be taking Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the telegraph at his word. From the article quoted earlier:
"It is political infantilism to see and judge such disputes through a moral prism, as if our Hobbesian world conforms to codes of right and wrong. What we are dealing with is a great power collision of epochal proportions."
Personally this Hobbesian would like to see the British military turn up at the island of Brecqhou where the Barclay Brothers -owners of the Telegraph- reside and point guns at them until they pay some fucking tax because morality is political infantilism and, politically, we need the cash.
EPT
