|
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. |
inb4 the crusades to "reclaim" Pepe begin
welcome to meme wars 2016
|
On September 28 2016 13:48 CorsairHero wrote:
I was searching around for pepe hate related memes with out typing "pepe hitler" and came across this. I guess trump has to remove his hate speech. The current year really is amazing. Mods I'll remove this if it's against the rules.
Searching "alt right pepe" will give you the requisite quantity of hate speech.
|
Kwark's summary of the timeline is accurate, as well as the state of the Iranian nuclear program. Intelligence pointed/points to Iran currently being capable of producing a nuclear weapon in a few months if they so desired, and the design of a missile delivery system capable hit Israel is also something of a short-term inevitability (which is our primary concern atm, as an Israel existentially threatened will...well, not be good for stability in the region).
Previously, our options were fairly limited. Sanctions were a given, but were the Iranians undeterred and moved forward to create a nuclear weapon, we would have no choice but to use the military option: 1) Strike key nuclear and missile basing facilities and locations to cripple or destroy the Iranian nuclear program (or else Israel would likely do so), most likely starting a war, or 2) start a war with a possible nuclear power. Neither options are at all palatable, as our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, and Iran, in military exercises, proves worse, as they readily have the capability of shutting down traffic in the Strait of Hormuz (and hitting the world oil supply), and naval exercises show a not-inconsiderable naval risk to a US fleet with their current greenwater naval/coastal assets. Not enough to stop one, but any direct military conflict with Iran will certainly hurt far more than either Afghanistan or Iraq, and why, without the current framework, the US would probably have no choice but to allow a sufficiently-determined Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon if a military response was our best option: the costs are too great, in comparison to extending a nuclear umbrella across the Middle East to prevent further proliferation.
For a more specific, if brief analysis of the treaty from a policy perspective:
The terms of the agreement gives us/the world unprecedented access to the Iranian nuclear program, and both restricts it in output, as well as drastically curtails the possibility of the program producing weapons-grade fissile material.
In terms of the most relevant restrictions:
1) Reduction of the number of centrifuges for enrichment down to ~6,000 from 20,000
2) A 98% in reduction in enriched uranium stockpile (down to 300 kg/660 lb from 10,000 kg/22,000 lb), and limits enrichment to 3.67% (enough for nuclear power but not for weapons)
3) Reduces the number of enrichment facilities down to one (Natanz)
4) Iranian agreement to meet IAEA inspections and standards, including providing access for inspectors to all nuclear facilities and sites
5) The international modernization of the Arak Heavy Water plant to eliminate any (weapons-grade) plutonium byproducts.
6) Iranian exportation of any nuclear byproducts, as opposed to reprocessing thereof
In conjunction, all of these terms limits the Iranian nuclear program, opens it up to extensive international monitoring, and utterly curtails the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What does the agreement require from the US/UN/EU?
Simply an end to all nuclear-related sanctions within 4-12 months of the agreement, with a framework for snapping them back and reinstating them should the agreement be breached. Note, any NUCLEAR-related sanctions: all EU/US/UN sanctions on Iran for terrorism or other causes remain in place and are not affected, and again, should the agreement be breached from the Iranian side, the US/UN/EU are able to re-instate the sanctions against Iran, with support from Russia and China (traditional supporters of Iran on the Security Council), without much effort.
So in other words, there are literally no downsides to the agreement. If the agreement is met and upheld, we essentially eliminate the possibility of an Iranian weapons program. Meanwhile, they are able to maintain their stated (if not believed) peaceful nuclear power program.
If they do not honor the agreement? We may simply reinstate sanctions, and do so with support of Russia and China. And even if it is broken midway, the drastic reduction in enrichment capabilities and stockpiles gives a far greater breathing room than the months that worst-case scenario estimates are giving us now.
Moreover, Iran is politically an entirely different beast than North Korea. Iran is not a dictatorship, insomuch as a quasi-Theocratic/Democratic Republic. It's a very, eh, interesting political system, but long-and-short the current state of Iran shows strong favor of "liberal" reformists, and the young of Iran, who did not experience the 1979 Revolution and the tenure of the US-backed Shah, are much more open to the West than their older counterparts. While the mullahs and the Ayatollah are de jure the highest power in the land, and the political system certainly repressive in a number of areas, the recent pro-reform protests have shaken them (and they themselves are well-aware of how they came into power). The pro/anti West political struggle in Iran is going to continue for some time, but in the long-term, you can expect to see a gradual rapproachement between Iran and the West if this treaty is the first step, lending credence to the pro-Western political factions (who are currently in power).
This doesn't mean everything will be hunky-dory: the Iran-Saudi rivalry and proxy conflicts in the region will remain, but provided this agreement does hold, it will alleviate some of our regional responsibilities and lessen our reliance on the Saudis, while removing a major proliferation concern.
|
Wait so that stupid frog meme is what pepe is? Lol why does this seem like one of those "people making declarations about internet things when they have no clue about the internet".
Most people probably haven't even seen that or the majority of dumb shit that gets meme'd into oblivion on the net.
|
I bet you this declaration is gonna get memed.
|
On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next? Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to. 2003: GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation. 2000s: Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions. 2010s: The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon. At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop. With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Trump, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught. In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community. Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant. Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal. It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong. Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran". TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us. Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before? No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it. Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again. Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule. You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly? There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world.
uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk.
The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with.
The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone.
Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.
|
Dear god, that Pepe story is absolutely ridiculous. What a time to be alive.
|
On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next? Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to. 2003: GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation. 2000s: Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions. 2010s: The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon. At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop. With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Trump, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught. In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community. Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant. Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal. It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong. Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran". TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us. Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before? No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it. Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again. Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule. You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly? There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world. uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk. The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with. The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone. Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent is what led to trading knowledge and technology with North Korea, and together you're the two most likely countries to cause a nuclear war.
On the subject of introspection, ask yourself what role Pakistan had in helping the US hunt down Bin Laden.
|
On September 28 2016 13:43 KwarK wrote:
In fairness it's not the first time this has happened. The Swastika was a great symbol until Nazis ruined it by making it a Nazi icon.
Godwins law counter for this thread would be off the charts.
|
On September 28 2016 13:36 hunts wrote:
Is the daily beast a troll/clickbait site? Or is this actually a thing?
It's scary that we have to ask such a question.
I legit thought it was an Onion type article, seems it's real.
|
On September 28 2016 13:43 KwarK wrote:
In fairness it's not the first time this has happened. The Swastika was a great symbol until Nazis ruined it by making it a Nazi icon.
Imagine in 10 years the alt-right grows as strong as Nazis did and their army flags feature Pepe and they all wear emblems with Pepe etc (like instead of swastikas). How cool would that be.
|
Of all the memes to be ruined i am fine with it being pepe, never really got attached to it. Now if they had chosen hypno toad i would of been all up in arms about that.
|
Wait till they find pedobear...
|
On September 28 2016 14:22 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 10:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 28 2016 10:46 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:33 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 10:30 biology]major wrote:On September 28 2016 10:12 KwarK wrote:On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next? Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to. 2003: GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation. 2000s: Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions. 2010s: The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon. At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop. With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Trump, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught. In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community. Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant. Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal. It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong. Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran". TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us. Thanks for the explanation, you say our sanctions initially didn't do shit because we were alone in applying them, so how did we get a coalition to agree on placing sanctions if Iran continued trying to get a nuke if they didn't care before? No, we applied them with a bunch of other people back when the US had credibility. It lost that credibility and the will to maintain sanctions was breaking down. The sanctions were effective for fucking shit up in Iran but ineffective for stopping a nuke and wouldn't keep working once China and Russia backed out, and they were backing out once it became clear that a) the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran getting a nuke, b) Iran was willing to negotiate to end the nuclear program if the US was willing to talk about it. Iran came to the table and asked for a deal and even though the US didn't want to make a deal if enough people thought that Iran's deal was good the US wouldn't be able to refuse on behalf of everyone, if that makes sense. If Iran offered terms that Russia, China etc thought were totally reasonable and the US refused to negotiate then Russia and China could unilaterally call off their sanctions at which point it wouldn't matter what the US thought. And inversely, if Iran violates it now then it's Russia and China who look retarded for allowing them to resume their nuclear program, hence why their interests are now aligned with the US again. Hypothetically if Iran and North Korea both had fully functional nuclear capability, I don't see their governments really doing anything reckless. They aren't completely insane and would simply use it as a deterrent or probably a bargaining chip. The main worry would be if radical extremist groups get their hands on it some how and then we are completely screwed. It's only a matter of time before N korea gets one, and Iran will also be able to aquire one but probably a decade behind schedule. You don't see a country which has a large population of religious zealots, nor a country with an unstable statist chaotic mess of a government using nukes irresponsibly? There's a reason why Pakistan is considered to be the most dangerous country in the world. uhh sorry.. by who exactly ? Our nukes are quite well protected and the safeguards in place do not involve people sleeping at the door with a system that launches of a floppy disk. The nukes are controlled by the military and for all its faults and the misery and regression it has caused, the military is at the least a stable institution that our neighbor 10 times are size still hesitates to fuck with. The most dangerous country in the world is the one you are living in. Never try to convince yourself otherwise. The world has made peace with that fact but a little introspection never hurt anyone. Oh and number 2 we have Saudi Arabia, if it werent for them you wouldnt have "radical islam" so really it all comes back full circle. I dont like this game but I dont appreciate someone with zero clue pointing fingers either.
There have been extensive polls about this.
Pretty much the entire world sees the USA as the biggest threat to world peace, Pakistan is on second place (because there's a fuckload of Indians), Israel third.
Of course that wasn't reported on in the USA.
|
i remember the 2012 election being much classier and having less memes than this one... from bernie surging ending with a huge whimper at the DNC, to pepe being yelled then institutionalized into a political symbol.. if i read this in a cyberpunk novel i would think it was ridiculously far fetched and stupid
|
Can someone summarize what the “superpredators” stuff is?
|
A top-secret US military project from the cold war and the toxic waste it conceals, thought to have been buried forever beneath the Greenland icecap, are likely to be uncovered by rising temperatures within decades, scientists have said.
The US army engineering corps excavated Camp Century in 1959 around 200km (124 miles) from the coast of Greenland, which was then a county of Denmark.
Powered, remarkably, by the world’s first mobile nuclear generator and known as “the city under the ice”, the camp’s three-kilometre network of tunnels, eight metres beneath the ice, housed laboratories, a shop, a hospital, a cinema, a chapel and accommodation for as many as 200 soldiers.
Its personnel were officially stationed there to test Arctic construction methods and carry out research. Scientists based at the camp did, indeed, drill the first ice core samples ever used to study the earth’s climate, obtaining data still cited today, according to William Colgan, a climate and glacier scientist from the Lassonde school of engineering at Toronto’s York University, and the lead author of the study.
In reality, the camp served as cover for something altogether different - a project so immense and so secret that not even the Danish government was informed of its existence.
“They thought it would never be exposed,” said Colgan. “Back then, in the 60s, the term global warming had not even been coined. But the climate is changing, and the question now is whether what’s down there is going to stay down there.”
The study suggests it is not.
Project Iceworm, presented to the US chiefs of staff in 1960, aimed to use Camp Century’s frozen tunnels to test the feasibility of a huge launch site under the ice, close enough to fire nuclear missiles directly at the Soviet Union.
At the height of the cold war, as the US and the USSR were engaged in a terrifying standoff over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the US army was considering the construction of a vast subterranean extension of Camp Century.
A system of about 4,000 kilometres of icy underground tunnels and chambers extending over an area around three times the size of Denmark were to have housed 600 ballistic missiles in clusters six kilometres apart, trained on Moscow and its satellites.
Eventually the engineers realised Iceworm would not work. The constantly moving ice was too unstable and would have deformed and perhaps even collapsed the tunnels.
Source
|
On September 28 2016 19:54 TheDwf wrote:
Can someone summarize what the “superpredators” stuff is?
During the 90s, there was a push among lead Democrats, including the leadership of the black community, to address gang violence using now discredited terminology such as the term "super predators." The Clintons were at the forefront of this movement.
|
What happened to Pepe is not his fault, but he did get co-opted by some shitty people.
Reply All did an episode on it.
#77 The Grand Tapestry Of Pepe
https://gimletmedia.com/show/reply-all/
It is a fun listen and these guys know their internet. Pepe might have been taken from us, but maybe he can survive Trump and return to the day of "feels good/bad man".
|
Or maybe most of the Internet won't give a shit and just use him as it did before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
