|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
From what I've been reading I get the impression that the Iran thing is a matter of loyalty to Israel (Trump's personal reasons are probably more 'Obama did it').
The basic argument being the deal wasn't good enough because it had a sunset . So in Israel's eye's (Netty's neway) it was the pretty much the same as no deal. Especially because they believed Iran was violating it anyway.
So Trump was only left with two choices, pull out of the deal, or lose AIPAC support and be labeled 'anti-Israel'. For some inexplicable reason it's better to be a suspected serial rapist in this country as a politician than to be critical of Israel or entertain the notion of not funding and arming their ethnic cleansing efforts.
I'm not positive Hillary would have stayed in this deal either, her Jewish supporters certainly didn't think she would. Would be interesting to have seen if she stood up to Israel on this. But it's pretty widely known Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, and more pro-Israel plus the critiques she had of the deal were very similar to Republicans, so while her 'public position' sounded supportive of the deal it seems her 'private position' was much less so.
That's all to say that I don't think this is a Trump thing so much as a US loyalty to Israel thing so that any leader that prioritizes support for Israel would likely be doing the same thing. Of course I would expect the Democrat to do a better job of selling it to the left.
|
On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that
I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies.
In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end.
Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project.
|
On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project.
Using the south as an example. We clearly can't tell people to just dump it, some people still call it the war of northern aggression after all.
|
On May 10 2018 07:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project. Using the south as an example. We clearly can't tell people to just dump it, some people still call it the war of northern aggression after all.
Sure, but Cletus hasn't formed a successful multi-national terrorist group that actively kills soldiers. He just puts a bumper sticker on his car that says "the south will rise again". Hezbollah and Hamas are fruitless, but they aren't toothless. It is understandable for the president to not be tolerant of soldiers dying. And they are being killed by someone with a 0% chance of ever actually winning, so the whole thing is pretty fucking stupid.
|
On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project.
This is quite a ringing endorsement of "might makes right" in the 21st century. What by chance do you suggest is done with the 'losers' who refuse to accept the conditions of the 'winners'?
|
Norway28727 Posts
I would also like to see that stated in explicit terms rather than some vague version of 'what happens, happens'.
|
On May 10 2018 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:26 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project. Using the south as an example. We clearly can't tell people to just dump it, some people still call it the war of northern aggression after all. Sure, but Cletus hasn't formed a successful multi-national terrorist group that actively kills soldiers. He just puts a bumper sticker on his car that says "the south will rise again". Hezbollah and Hamas are fruitless, but they aren't toothless. It is understandable for the president to not be tolerant of soldiers dying. And they are being killed by someone with a 0% chance of ever actually winning, so the whole thing is pretty fucking stupid.
That's because the enemy of the South victimized by the war of northern aggression isn't foreign soldiers.
Instead they get together with guns, maybe set up a sniper position, and scare US officials away from actually enforcing laws.
|
United States43350 Posts
On May 10 2018 06:20 Plansix wrote:
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table.
The problem being that the US originally created the sanction coalition to make Iran come to the table. And everyone agreed to sanction Iran and Iran then came to the table and offered nukes for sanctions, which everyone agreed to. Then Trump flipped the table over.
We already did the whole table thing and it didn't work.
|
On May 10 2018 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project. This is quite a ringing endorsement of "might makes right" in the 21st century. What by chance do you suggest is done with the 'losers' who refuse to accept the conditions of the 'winners'?
Might makes right absolutely has its place. It is the entire world we live in. We speak English, not German, because of "might makes right". Your question is already in practice. Iran is whiny about losing, so they do some stupid shit, but not stupid enough to justify tons of people dying. So we do sanctions and this and that as a way of applying this and that pressure. Iran's lack of compliance is emotionally and religiously motivated. If this was a game of BW, we would all be rolling our eyes at the dumbass who won't just gg out. Since these are actual human lives that people value, we don't just send enough troops to where Iran loses and we still technically win. No one is going to support 200,000 American lives being lost just for the sake of Iran bending the knee. It's just not worth it.
To answer your question, just look at the world. That is what happens when the losers don't accept the conditions of the winners.
|
United States43350 Posts
On May 10 2018 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project. This is quite a ringing endorsement of "might makes right" in the 21st century. What by chance do you suggest is done with the 'losers' who refuse to accept the conditions of the 'winners'?
They could go cry about losing on some sort of trail?
|
United States43350 Posts
On May 10 2018 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project. This is quite a ringing endorsement of "might makes right" in the 21st century. What by chance do you suggest is done with the 'losers' who refuse to accept the conditions of the 'winners'? Might makes right absolutely has its place. It is the entire world we live in. We speak English, not German, because of "might makes right". Your question is already in practice. Iran is whiny about losing, so they do some stupid shit, but not stupid enough to justify tons of people dying. So we do sanctions and this and that as a way of applying this and that pressure. Iran's lack of compliance is emotionally and religiously motivated. If this was a game of BW, we would all be rolling our eyes at the dumbass who won't just gg out. Since these are actual human lives that people value, we don't just send enough troops to where Iran loses and we still technically win. No one is going to support 200,000 American lives being lost just for the sake of Iran bending the knee. It's just not worth it. To answer your question, just look at the world. That is what happens when the losers don't accept the conditions of the winners.
We had to do the whole thing with Germany because of the exact philosophy that you are currently espousing. Seriously. There were a few chapters in Mein Kampf about the arbitrary nature of borders, homelands, etc and how the existing situation is simply the cumulative result of past injustices. He argued that logically one could do any amount of injustices today against any number of people and a generation later all sins would be forgiven and the new status quo would be the natural one.
I mention this because you brought up speaking German. Apparently while their language didn't stick their philosophy did.
|
On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project.
I'm getting confused by what your proposal is here; as the points and situation don't seem related to the actual definition of moral relativism; not too clear on the disney-style fantasy point either, as I'm not sure what it has to do with any actionable proposals for stuff the US can do/does.
and the south (I assume you mean american civil war) surrendered because it was completely defeated. that's kinda close to annihilation, certainly as close to annihilation as was ever going to happen since there was no will/interest to kill every last southerner. and as others noted, they didn't fully accept their defeat either, and were able to undo parts of it later.
|
On May 10 2018 07:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 07:02 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it" That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that I think there is a lot of value in saying "fuck moral relativism, we need to actually get somewhere". Which perspective dominates the world? Do we really benefit from indulging bullshit Disney princess fantasies of Palestinians taking back Jerusalem? Or do we just say "ya know, you lost buddy". In the case of Iran's freedom fighters, you could practically chalk the whole thing up to being a sore loser. It's not like there is ever going to be some kinda Muslim retaking of the global economy and military. Hamas and Hezbollah lost. Neither of them will ever accomplish their stated goals. But they fight on because of appeals to emotion and bullshit Disney fantasies. In my eyes, it comes down to something like: Polling major Euro countries, major Asian countries, North America, and maybe Russia: Hezbollah...good or bad? If most people say bad, fuck Hezbollah. At one point you just need to move on. Indulging moral relativism by allowing Iran to keep funding terrorism while also at least not making nukes isn't a very satisfying end. Not all wars are fought until annihilation. The south surrendered because it wasn't going to do any good to keep fighting. Many surrenders occur when it just doesn't make sense anymore. You could easily argue Hezbollah and Hamas are just the result of bitterness. The point of a fight should be to win, not defiance. Hezbollah and Hamas are about as far from victory as it gets. It is reasonable to ask Iran to just dump that whole stupid ass project. This is quite a ringing endorsement of "might makes right" in the 21st century. What by chance do you suggest is done with the 'losers' who refuse to accept the conditions of the 'winners'? Might makes right absolutely has its place. It is the entire world we live in. We speak English, not German, because of "might makes right". Your question is already in practice. Iran is whiny about losing, so they do some stupid shit, but not stupid enough to justify tons of people dying. So we do sanctions and this and that as a way of applying this and that pressure. Iran's lack of compliance is emotionally and religiously motivated. If this was a game of BW, we would all be rolling our eyes at the dumbass who won't just gg out. Since these are actual human lives that people value, we don't just send enough troops to where Iran loses and we still technically win. No one is going to support 200,000 American lives being lost just for the sake of Iran bending the knee. It's just not worth it. To answer your question, just look at the world. That is what happens when the losers don't accept the conditions of the winners. We had to do the whole thing with Germany because of the exact philosophy that you are currently espousing. Seriously. There were a few chapters in Mein Kampf about the arbitrary nature of borders, homelands, etc and how the existing situation is simply the cumulative result of past injustices. He argued that logically one could do any amount of injustices today against any number of people and a generation later all sins would be forgiven and the new status quo would be the natural one. I mention this because you brought up speaking German. Apparently while their language didn't stick their philosophy did.
I think you are making silly comparisons. Germany conquering Europe is very different from our current situation. The war of dominance was won a long time ago. Political and military dynamics are super different now anyway. Major wars don't happen anymore because of mutually assured destruction. None of these comparisons make sense. WW3 will never happen. Influence and military dominance work differently now.
The fact of the matter is: Hamas and Hezbollah have a 0% chance of ever accomplishing their major goals. Iran funds them because of bullshit religious reasons, not because they would gamble their rent money on an eventual victory.
I'll phrase it this way: What long term benefits do you see resulting from Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas?
|
Norway28727 Posts
If you are arguing for 'might makes right', you can't be selective about it. The principle you support dictates that you'd be fine with the alternative reality where Germany wins the nuclear race, nukes london, wins ww2, eliminates the jewish problem and permanently segregates humanity according to racial status.
|
United States43350 Posts
On May 10 2018 08:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you are arguing for 'might makes right', you can't be selective about it. The principle you support dictates that you'd be fine with the alternative reality where Germany wins the nuclear race, nukes london, wins ww2, eliminates the jewish problem and permanently segregates humanity according to racial status.
We probably would be, if we lived in it. In the same way that we're fine with the US being built on a Native American graveyard, Arabs living all over North Africa, Australians living in Australia, and so forth. Hitler was basically right about how arbitrary and flimsy the status quo is and how well we rationalize the sins of our fathers.
Mohdoo's problem is that he reaches the same conclusion as his pencil mustached friend, that we should take the inevitability of history and use that as a frame of reference for our own current choices. If Israel were to wipe out the Palestinians then in a hundred years nobody would mourn them, and the world may even be a better place for it. That doesn't have any impact on the morality of the genocide though.
|
On May 10 2018 08:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you are arguing for 'might makes right', you can't be selective about it. The principle you support dictates that you'd be fine with the alternative reality where Germany wins the nuclear race, nukes london, wins ww2, eliminates the jewish problem and permanently segregates humanity according to racial status.
No, it turns out humans have brains and are capable of adding nuance to ideas. I'm not interesting in arguments that boil down to "either might makes entirely right, or it doesn't". We have brains and we can use them to argue situation specifics. We are not deciding on the 10 commandments of philosophy. We are discussing the Iran and why some of their pet projects make no sense.
On May 10 2018 08:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 08:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you are arguing for 'might makes right', you can't be selective about it. The principle you support dictates that you'd be fine with the alternative reality where Germany wins the nuclear race, nukes london, wins ww2, eliminates the jewish problem and permanently segregates humanity according to racial status. \ Mohdoo's problem is that he reaches the same conclusion as his pencil mustached friend, that we should take the inevitability of history and use that as a frame of reference for our own current choices. If Israel were to wipe out the Palestinians then in a hundred years nobody would mourn them, and the world may even be a better place for it. That doesn't have any impact on the morality of the genocide though.
Yes, I'm sure this kind of thinking makes it easy for you to brush away my ideas and pat yourself on the back, but you aren't adding anything to the discussion. How about answering my question regarding what value Iran gets out of Hezbollah and Hamas long term?
I'm presenting ideas and asking what you think about them. Is it reasonable for people to ask Iran to dump Hezbollah and Hamas?
|
It is about as reasonable as asking the US to dump Israel. Iran is not the only Middle East nation funding proxy wars in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is also jockeying for power in the region and opposing Iran. And even if we could magically remove Israel, the US and all other outside influences from the Middle East, these regional rivalries would persist.
|
Hezbollah just won a lot in the elections in Lebanon just days ago. So Iran's value is influencing people in another country, thus becoming a bigger regional player.
The leader of Shi’ite Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, called the result a “a very big political, parliamentary and moral victory for the choice of resistance”.
The number of Hezbollah MPs was the same or little changed, but candidates supported by the group or allied to it gained in major cities. Hezbollah and its political allies won just over half the seats in parliament, according to final results from all but one of Lebanon’s 15 electoral districts.
|
Norway28727 Posts
Firstly, my apologies if my understanding of the deal and surrounding events is lacking. I haven't really had time to read up on it and mostly joined the argument due to generic opposition towards the might makes right justification for foreign policy. (The way I see it, people's belief in or acceptance of this principle is the chief explanation for most worldly atrocities that happen, not just on a country to country basis but on an individual to individual basis too. I feel it is my moral obligation to inspire people to critically examine the way they relate to this issue.)
It's very questionable whether the US has any moral high ground over Iran when examining their relationship with each other or their general support of terrorist groups in other countries or their tendency to destabilize other countries or their tendency to invade other countries. To me, it would seem Iran requiring the US to halt support of Saudi Arabia (specifically in light of the ongoing conflict in Yemen) before they are willing to denuclearize is a comparable request to the US requiring Iran to stop support of Hamas or Hezbollah before lifting / not implementing sanctions. The chief difference being that the US is more powerful thus more able to dictate the weaker countries -> thus the only reason I see for supporting the US claim without also supporting a similar Iranian claim (which the US would obviously never accept) would have to be the belief that the US is entitled to make claims from others that they would not be willing to agree to themselves because they are mightier. I can't agree with this. Then I would argue that current american actions work to limit future american power because you are in serious danger of extinguishing the remaining good will you have from your most historically important allies. So even from a completely amoral realpolitik-perspective, I don't see how american actions make any sense.
In terms of Iran supporting Hezbollah or Hamas, I don't want to justify that. I also don't know nearly enough about intricacies of the generic middle east conflict to make a coherent and factual post on how Iran benefits. I assume from an Iranian perspective however, there is something to be gained from it - or they would stop. That said, I think hindering nuclear proliferation seems significantly more important than stopping Iranian support of Hezbollah or Hamas. Humanity has survived countless wars - and even genocides. Although nukes so far can certainly be credited with keeping the peace between major powers, they also represent an actual threat to the future of humanity.
|
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran started by in 1979 and was not specifically driven by US involvement. Saudi Arabia ruling parties feared a similar revolution in their country have been fighting proxy conflicts ever since. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia predates the Iranian revolution. If we stopped supporting Saudi Arabia tomorrow, Saudi Arabia would seek out a new ally, rather than forgo their conflict with Iran.
Also the hostage crisis didn't endear the Iran's new government to us. The deal was the first sign of that ice thawing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
