I don’t know why I take the time and effort to write substantive posts if no one bothers to read them. Refer to my post at the top of the page.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s so much that nobody bothers to read them as it is that what you’re saying doesn’t align with the prejudices of the readers, so the arguments you make just kinda roll off their backs like water off a duck’s.
It reminds me of trying, with a well-researched and carefully-articulated argument, to convince Jimbo, Billybob and Cooter, who are already in the Ford pickup truck with their AR-15s and shotguns and a case of Miller Lite, not to go beat up the little faggot who lives across town, who might be thinking about maybe buying a cheap .32 revolver…which they perceive as posing a grave personal threat.[/quote]
I have said it before: PWI is good for politics and great for philosophy and religion. But diplomacy, foreign affairs – if you know anything about these, you’re wasting your time debating them here*. The knowledge-to-vociferous-declamation ratio is quark-small, and knowledge – serious reading about, say, both nuclear diplomacy and internal Iranian politics (how many people are in here telling us all about what the Iranians are and want and fear and aspire to, without ever having read a single word about domestic politics in Iran) – happens to be even more important than usual in a thread like this.
Americans tend to believe that they can understand foreign affairs, diplomacy, world history by way of analogies to summer barbecues, or restaurant etiquette, or mutton busting. They are wrong.
In general. There are exceptions (a while back, Bis and TB had an exchange from which I learned a lot in just a few paragraphs), and I am not trying to insult anybody in particular.
The knowledge-to-vociferous-declamation ratio is quark-small, and knowledge – serious reading about, say, both nuclear diplomacy and internal Iranian politics (how many people are in here telling us all about what the Iranians are and want and fear and aspire to, without ever having read a single word about domestic politics in Iran) – happens to be even more important than usual in a thread like this.[/quote]
Whatchoo talkin’ about?!
Ah saw a pitcher wunst on da innernets of a buncha Eye-ranian hajjis burnin’ the Murican flag an’ hollerin’ “Death to Murica!” That’s all Ah needs ta know 'bout Eye-ranian dumestic pollaticks.
Incidentally, attempting to write dialect using predictive text on an iPad is an exercise in aggravation. Sam Clemens would have flung the damn thing into the Mississippi in disgust before he got through writing three pages of Huckleberry Finn.
The knowledge-to-vociferous-declamation ratio is quark-small, and knowledge – serious reading about, say, both nuclear diplomacy and internal Iranian politics (how many people are in here telling us all about what the Iranians are and want and fear and aspire to, without ever having read a single word about domestic politics in Iran) – happens to be even more important than usual in a thread like this.[/quote]
Whatchoo talkin’ about?!
Ah saw a pitcher wunst on da innernets of a buncha Eye-ranian hajjis burnin’ the Murican flag an’ hollerin’ “Death to Murica!” That’s all Ah needs ta know 'bout Eye-ranian dumestic pollaticks.[/quote]
Amusing but you’re not far off the truth. No one here knows shit about foreign policy because no one here knows shit about waging war. As the uno in a unipolar system US foreign policy should involve scaring the b’jeezus out of every motherfucker on the planet and going Travis Bickle on the likes of Iran. Anyone who says otherwise is a cocksucker who knows nothing about foreign policy. I have no more to say on the matter.
I don’t know why I take the time and effort to write substantive posts if no one bothers to read them. Refer to my post at the top of the page.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s so much that nobody bothers to read them as it is that what you’re saying doesn’t align with the prejudices of the readers, so the arguments you make just kinda roll off their backs like water off a duck’s.
It reminds me of trying, with a well-researched and carefully-articulated argument, to convince Jimbo, Billybob and Cooter, who are already in the Ford pickup truck with their AR-15s and shotguns and a case of Miller Lite, not to go beat up the little faggot who lives across town, who might be thinking about maybe buying a cheap .32 revolver…which they perceive as posing a grave personal threat.[/quote]
For the record, Miller Lite is what Jimbo, Billybob and Cooter order at the bar to impress the ladies. Natural Light is what you will find in the cooler on the bed of that F-250 diesel. 13 bucks for a 30 pack. Just sayin’…
And they wouldn’t be trying to beat up that little faggot across town if he hadn’t paid a bunch of other little faggots to come on to their property and kill their dog. You don’t kill a man’s dog and not get the ass kickin’ that’s coming… And we ain’t scared of no .32, it’s PRINCIPLE. He might be able to kill our dog WITHOUT coming on our property next time. After all, that’s all he’s talked about doing publicly for years. If the little faggot want’s to play pussy, he’s gonna get fucked like a pussy.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I have said it before: PWI is good for politics and great for philosophy and religion. But diplomacy, foreign affairs – if you know anything about these, you’re wasting your time debating them here*. The knowledge-to-vociferous-declamation ratio is quark-small, and knowledge – serious reading about, say, both nuclear diplomacy and internal Iranian politics (how many people are in here telling us all about what the Iranians are and want and fear and aspire to, without ever having read a single word about domestic politics in Iran) – happens to be even more important than usual in a thread like this.[/quote]
I tend to agree, but low hanging fruit has its own kind of sweetness. This forum is a good proving ground for arguments and is a form a catharsis for me.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Americans tend to believe that they can understand foreign affairs, diplomacy, world history by way of analogies to summer barbecues, or restaurant etiquette, or mutton busting. They are wrong.[/quote]
This. Foreign affairs threads tend to be dominated by argument by intuition. Many in this thread haven’t even bothered to read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, yet I’m naive and talking out of my ass. It’s akin to someone participating in a discussion of Christian theology having not read the Bible.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In general. There are exceptions (a while back, Bis and TB had an exchange from which I learned a lot in just a few paragraphs), and I am not trying to insult anybody in particular.[/quote]
Did the exchange you’re referring to concern international law?
However, Bis’ opinions do not necessarily hold sway just because he’s engaged in procuring an education in foreign affairs. [/quote]
Naturally. The cogency of my arguments should be assessed by their merits, not any qualifications I may or may not have.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For instance, I cited a link to remarks by none other than Henry Kissinger and asked Bis for his comments.
crickets [/quote]
My apologies. I didn’t see that link. There seems to be a delay from when you post and message actually appears. I’ll address it after reading the original WSJ article.
The knowledge-to-vociferous-declamation ratio is quark-small, and knowledge – serious reading about, say, both nuclear diplomacy and internal Iranian politics (how many people are in here telling us all about what the Iranians are and want and fear and aspire to, without ever having read a single word about domestic politics in Iran) – happens to be even more important than usual in a thread like this.[/quote]
Whatchoo talkin’ about?!
Ah saw a pitcher wunst on da innernets of a buncha Eye-ranian hajjis burnin’ the Murican flag an’ hollerin’ “Death to Murica!” That’s all Ah needs ta know 'bout Eye-ranian dumestic pollaticks.[/quote]
Amusing but you’re not far off the truth. No one here knows shit about foreign policy because no one here knows shit about waging war. As the uno in a unipolar system US foreign policy should involve scaring the b’jeezus out of every motherfucker on the planet and going Travis Bickle on the likes of Iran. Anyone who says otherwise is a cocksucker who knows nothing about foreign policy. I have no more to say on the matter.[/quote]
Are you familiar with the concept of the conservation of enemies? Napoleon Bonaparte hadn’t, or at least wasn’t concerned with it. His hyper-aggressive foreign policy led to the formation of the balancing coalition that ultimately defeated him. Perhaps the US shouldn’t base its statecraft on the behavior of a paranoid schizophrenic.
“The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis for US policy, and it should not be for Israel’s, either.”
He wrote that in 2008. Not much has changed since then, it appears.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
There are more sides to every debate – religion, philosophy, politics, and yes, even foreign affairs.
[/quote]
Very true. I didn’t mean to say that if you disagree with, say, Bis (who represents well my feelings on the deal), then you’re automatically wrong and unworthy of engaging. And I haven’t been following the thread as closely as I would have if I’d been participating. But so many of the posts that I have seen have been so laughably stupid that I have refrained from jumping in myself.
Ok you guys, here’s a few points: as far as ISIS in Mexico goes, anyone recall people saying Al-Qaeda was setting up in Mexico, or even before them, Hezbollah?
Next what about this monkey wrench thrown in the mix: http://news.yahoo.com/even-us-drops-iran-sanctions-dont-count-25-120004822.html
If the US drops sanctions would other nations follow suit, or would Iran be satisfied in only the US dropped sanctions, since you’re got countries like Russia and China planning on weapons sales already?
and this:
got 80% but I should have got 100%, I second guessed 2 of my answers instead of going for the obvious.
“The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis for US policy, and it should not be for Israel’s, either.”
He wrote that in 2008. Not much has changed since then, it appears.[/quote]
