I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
You mean Saudi Arabia? You know, the country from where the 9/11 bombers came from?
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.
Assad for example is also sane. That’s why despite all the bloodshed he unleashed in Syria, he hasn’t touched Israel in some sort of Wagnerian “you’re all going down with me” scenario. Because he wants to stay in power, which for him is the only scenario to stay alive.
When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him. You may hate him, but if you find a common interest, or a common enemy, you can close a deal.
With Saudis and Pakistanis you cannot find any common grounds because the Hadith say that you are an infidel and all bets are off. Especially since your erstwhile enemies are your allies, now with the added bonus of a fully fledged NATO member Turkey covertly supporting ISIS.
Anyway, check this out guys, I’m sure it will piss you off immensely:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s the feeling that I have always gotten from them when I see massive crowds marching and hollering “Death To America”.
It sort of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling…Oh wait no it doesn’t either.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude, all you know about international law is what you’ve read in book or been told to believe by some professor.
Maybe get off you high horse and spend some time in the real world. [/quote]
edit - Never mind. But, yes, I agree.[/quote]
Why post on topics without having learned their most rudimentary basics? An interpretation cannot possibly be useful if it doesn’t rest on a foundation of lucid understanding. There isn’t much use - for any of us - in playing tennis if everyone didn’t bring a racket. This thread is rife with this phenomenon, whether it be diplomacy, deterrence theory, international political economy, nuclear strategy, or prolferation dynamics.
For those who criticize my not being a lawyer specializing in international public law (as opposed to actually addressing the substance of my legal arguments), on what planet is knowledge of international law 101 < nescience of the subject?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s the feeling that I have always gotten from them when I see massive crowds marching and hollering “Death To America”.
It sort of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling…Oh wait no it doesn’t either.
[/quote]
If could be bothered to study Iran, you’d understand that there is a disparity between the odious rhetoric of the clerical regime and their staunch pragmatism in practice. And your policy alternative to the JCPOA is what, exactly? For all the prattling, no one in this thread has cogently argued for a viable alternative course.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s the feeling that I have always gotten from them when I see massive crowds marching and hollering “Death To America”.
It sort of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling…Oh wait no it doesn’t either.
[/quote]
If could be bothered to study Iran, you’d understand that there is a disparity between the odious rhetoric of the clerical regime and their staunch pragmatism in practice. And your policy alternative to the JCPOA is what, exactly? For all the prattling, no one in this thread has cogently argued for a viable alternative course.[/quote]
But, I do know what NOT to do. That is negotiate a really bad deal with a terrorist regime.
Obama is either the biggest idiot to ever sit in the Oval Office, totally niave, or a sellout to our enemies.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude, all you know about international law is what you’ve read in book or been told to believe by some professor.
Maybe get off you high horse and spend some time in the real world. [/quote]
edit - Never mind. But, yes, I agree.[/quote]
Why post on topics without having learned their most rudimentary basics? An interpretation cannot possibly be useful if it doesn’t rest on a foundation of lucid understanding. There isn’t much use - for any of us - in playing tennis if everyone didn’t bring a racket. This thread is rife with this phenomenon, whether it be diplomacy, deterrence theory, international political economy, nuclear strategy, or prolferation dynamics.
For those who criticize my not being a lawyer specializing in international public law (as opposed to actually addressing the substance of my legal arguments), on what planet is knowledge of international law 101 < nescience of the subject? [/quote]
The problem you have is, you think you know how to play tennis by simply reading a book about it.
And the moment a ball moving at 90mph hits you in the head, you will still talk about how knowledgeable you are because of how many tennis books you have read.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m about the most intellectually honest member of this board.
[/quote]
I would totally agree with this. If nothing else you are honest as the day is long. I never have to question where I sit with you.
He ain’t got no PhD, he’s just a student.[/quote]
Ignoring a preponderance of evidence contrary to one’s predetermined conclusion Is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Angry truly believes that treaties under Article II of the constitution are the only source of international law, he is either intentionally ignoring the vast and unanimous literature that demonstrates otherwise, or he is a fool. I don’t believe he is a fool, far from it. So I logically have to conclude the former.
No, I don’t have a doctoral degree (yet), but I do have a BA in International Relations and am currently pursuing an MA in Security Studies. It’s curious that you would bring up my credentials (or lack thereof) as if doing so somehow debases my arguments, yet you are unwilling to learn the very basics of the topic at hand. It’s frustrating to put on my pads to play football only to have you sodomize yourself with a cricket bat on the fifty yard line while you declare that you’ve scored a touchdown.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s the feeling that I have always gotten from them when I see massive crowds marching and hollering “Death To America”.
It sort of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling…Oh wait no it doesn’t either.
[/quote]
If could be bothered to study Iran, you’d understand that there is a disparity between the odious rhetoric of the clerical regime and their staunch pragmatism in practice. And your policy alternative to the JCPOA is what, exactly? For all the prattling, no one in this thread has cogently argued for a viable alternative course.[/quote]
But, I do know what NOT to do. That is negotiate a really bad deal with a terrorist regime.
Obama is either the biggest idiot to ever sit in the Oval Office, totally niave, or a sellout to our enemies.
[/quote]
Your posting history and the Iran-Contra affair come to mind. The alternative to diplomacy presents the United States with a daunting dilemma: war or containment. The costs and risks of both exceed those of the nuclear deal, which was informed by realism, not idealism. When it comes to international security, only a fool would allow principles to win over pragmatism.
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
You mean Saudi Arabia? You know, the country from where the 9/11 bombers came from?
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.
Assad for example is also sane. That’s why despite all the bloodshed he unleashed in Syria, he hasn’t touched Israel in some sort of Wagnerian “you’re all going down with me” scenario. Because he wants to stay in power, which for him is the only scenario to stay alive.
When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him. You may hate him, but if you find a common interest, or a common enemy, you can close a deal.
With Saudis and Pakistanis you cannot find any common grounds because the Hadith say that you are an infidel and all bets are off. Especially since your erstwhile enemies are your allies, now with the added bonus of a fully fledged NATO member Turkey covertly supporting ISIS.
Anyway, check this out guys, I’m sure it will piss you off immensely:
[/quote]
I tend to disagree. Iran, under the Shah could be classified as oppressive dictatorship, sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.
I would also lump Libya under Qaddafi, Syria under Assad & Iraq under Saddam into the same group. Eqypt under Nassar would fit into it as well.
But the Iranian theocracy is another story. They started a world wide Jihad movement which very well have prompted the Saudi’s and other Sunni governments to follow suit. The Islamic terrorists predated the Iranian revolution, but the world wide Islamic Revolution started in Iran.
Aren’t the Shia bound by the same basic laws of the Koran about how they deal with infidels? Wouldn’t they view the Israelis and the US the same as the Sunni Jihadists? Stupid question…they do.
You say “When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him” yet what deal have we reached with Iran exactly? Sane or insane, they still have not changed their stance toward us.
Their people with the government’s backing shout “Death to Israel, death to America.” They have also implicated every barbaric method of execution from the middle ages to dispose of their enemies of Islam…You mean to tell me this is how sane people act?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]
You mean Saudi Arabia? You know, the country from where the 9/11 bombers came from?
Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.
Assad for example is also sane. That’s why despite all the bloodshed he unleashed in Syria, he hasn’t touched Israel in some sort of Wagnerian “you’re all going down with me” scenario. Because he wants to stay in power, which for him is the only scenario to stay alive.
When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him. You may hate him, but if you find a common interest, or a common enemy, you can close a deal.
With Saudis and Pakistanis you cannot find any common grounds because the Hadith say that you are an infidel and all bets are off. Especially since your erstwhile enemies are your allies, now with the added bonus of a fully fledged NATO member Turkey covertly supporting ISIS.
Anyway, check this out guys, I’m sure it will piss you off immensely:
[/quote]
I tend to disagree. Iran, under the Shah could be classified as oppressive dictatorship, sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.
I would also lump Libya under Qaddafi, Syria under Assad & Iraq under Saddam into the same group. Eqypt under Nassar would fit into it as well.
But the Iranian theocracy is another story. They started a world wide Jihad movement which very well have prompted the Saudi’s and other Sunni governments to follow suit. The Islamic terrorists predated the Iranian revolution, but the world wide Islamic Revolution started in Iran.
Aren’t the Shia bound by the same basic laws of the Koran about how they deal with infidels? Wouldn’t they view the Israelis and the US the same as the Sunni Jihadists? Stupid question…they do.
You say “When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him” yet what deal have we reached with Iran exactly? Sane or insane, they still have not changed their stance toward us.
Their people with the government’s backing shout “Death to Israel, death to America.” They have also implicated every barbaric method of execution from the middle ages to dispose of their enemies of Islam…You mean to tell me this is how sane people act?[/quote]
You want to offer a confident assessment of the nature of the clerical regime when you are unable to do so much as identify a major faction (the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) correctly? And no, your “Republcan Guard” comment wasn’t a gaffe. You might as well have referred to the CIA as the KGB. Empirically, the Iranian regime is as pragmatic as the Politiburo (another theocracy) was. Time and time again, material and geopolitical imperatives have been put before ideological professions. Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
And no, your “Republcan Guard” comment wasn’t a gaffe.
[/quote]
And how would you know? Actually it was based upon something you wrote which I misread.
And you know damn well what I meant.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Aren’t the Shia bound by the same basic laws of the Koran about how they deal with infidels? Wouldn’t they view the Israelis and the US the same as the Sunni Jihadists? Stupid question…they do.
You say “When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him” yet what deal have we reached with Iran exactly? Sane or insane, they still have not changed their stance toward us.
Their people with the government’s backing shout “Death to Israel, death to America.” They have also implicated every barbaric method of execution from the middle ages to dispose of their enemies of Islam…You mean to tell me this is how sane people act?[/quote]
Actually, you’re wrong on all accounts. Firstly, as I have demonstrated before, the social, economic and political climate is changing rapidly, despite the best of efforts of the regime.
Broadcasting a live speech from the president of Great Satan on state TV was virtually unthinkable couple of years ago, to illustrate with a trivial example.
Iran, due to the extremely strong influence of surviving Persian culture and doctrinal features of shia islam (unlike sunni islam here the Qur’an can be reinterpreted outside of immediate verbatim saying of Mohammad allegedly noted in Hadiths) this gives theological basis for being pragmatic and cutting deals.
The regime justified the nuclear deal with the elliptic phrase “heroic flexibility”, the rationale being that if Khomeini himself managed to end the Iraq-Iran war, then they can also apply this moral justification to basically give in to the US.
You do not have such doctrinal flexibility in sunni islam. If you’re not part of the Umma, you’re fucked.
Also, one frequently overlooked factor in the West is that Iranians are - to put it mildly - very racist towards Arabs. You’d be surprised how aligned their view towards Arabs is aligned with your proverbial red state voter.
You’ll constantly hear Gulf theocracies complaining that “it’s worse being Arab in Iran than in occupied Palestine”
As far as death to America chants are concerned, these guys on the picture are one of the US most loyal allies according to public statements of several Secretaries of State
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Empirically, the Iranian regime is as pragmatic as the Politiburo (another theocracy) was. Time and time again, material and geopolitical imperatives have been put before ideological professions.
[/quote]
This is an excellent observation, as there are so much similarities between the behaviors of the Politburo and the Iranian religious-security apparatus.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]
The agreement provides the framework for the second most intrusive inspections regime in international history, aimed at preventing Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program. For its nonproliferation goal, diplomacy was the policy option that posed the fewest costs and risks for the United State. Where did I write that there was no reason to be concerned about the prospect of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club? Are you really this dishonest or are you really this daft? The UK and France became nuclear weapons states (NWS) in 1952 and 1960, respectively. They are known as de jure NWS, as they joined the nuclear club prior to the establishment of the nonproliferation regime with the advent of the NPT in 1968. Both were also charter members of NATO, which made them treaty allies since 1949. One must also consider the bipolar nature of the international system during the Cold War and balance of threat theory. British and French nuclear weapons didn’t hold the same meaning for American policymakers as Soviet nuclear weapons. European nuclear arms also added capability, commitment, and credibility to NATO nuclear deterrence, which had previously been based solely on the American nuclear umbrella. You should know all of this as a self-professed student of history and the fact that I’ve had to hold your hand through this very line of reasoning more than once in this forum.
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Empirically, the Iranian regime is as pragmatic as the Politiburo (another theocracy) was. Time and time again, material and geopolitical imperatives have been put before ideological professions.
[/quote]
This is an excellent observation, as there are so much similarities between the behaviors of the Politburo and the Iranian religious-security apparatus.
[/quote]
When studying Soviet state security, I came to the realization that the Cheka and the Iranian state security organs were not dissimilar. They had more in common than not, even. Both served as the ideological vanguard of their respective theocracies. It doesn’t follow, then, that the USSR is rational and can be deterred while Iran is irrational and cannot be detered.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Empirically, the Iranian regime is as pragmatic as the Politiburo (another theocracy) was. Time and time again, material and geopolitical imperatives have been put before ideological professions.
[/quote]
This is an excellent observation, as there are so much similarities between the behaviors of the Politburo and the Iranian religious-security apparatus.
[/quote]
When studying Soviet state security, I came to the realization that the Cheka and the Iranian state security organs were not dissimilar. They had more in common than not, even. Both served as the ideological vanguard of their respective theocracies. It doesn’t follow, then, that the USSR is rational and can be deterred while Iran is irrational and cannot be detered.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Actually, this is the reason why Putin’s Russia is in a way more irrational that the USSR - for the post-Khrushchev geriatrics running the USSR there was one prerogative - quelling dissent and the primary concern was internal security which frequently manifested itself as a paranoia on a grand scale.
Putin’s henchmen or siloviki on the other hand believe that they have solved the internal security issue and successfully brainwashed the Russians with their complete dominance of the media, giving them much more freedom of action on the world stage, free from any ideological constrains except “we can do whatever we want” and “let’s spite the Americans and Europeans”.
Their nihilistic worldview and the fact that they all have moved assets and families abroad is a cause for major concern.
When the ruling elite believes it is insulated from the potential adverse effects of their decisions and actions they tend to behave more irrationally and are more prone to risk taking on the world stage.
Or as the old Croatian saying goes - “smacking a thorny bush with someone else’s penis is easy”
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m about the most intellectually honest member of this board.
[/quote]
I would totally agree with this. If nothing else you are honest as the day is long. I never have to question where I sit with you.
He ain’t got no PhD, he’s just a student.[/quote]
Ignoring a preponderance of evidence contrary to one’s predetermined conclusion Is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Angry truly believes that treaties under Article II of the constitution are the only source of international law, he is either intentionally ignoring the vast and unanimous literature that demonstrates otherwise, or he is a fool. I don’t believe he is a fool, far from it. So I logically have to conclude the former.
[/quote]I’d say I’m an idealist. And I don’t give a shit about “international law”. There is no such thing because international law ENFORCEMENT is inconsistent at best - they try one brutal dictator as a war criminal, and they bring the next one to lunch at the White House. History shows us the most likely consequence of “violating” international law is a strongly worded letter from the UN, but I digress. What I care about is the Constitution and how it’s being trampled. The MANNER in which this TREATY has been adopted is a prime example of the erosion of the Constitution. Forget about how shitty the treaty is and how my seven year old could have negotiated a better deal, the PROCESS, IMHO, violated the Constitution by #1 bypassing the Senate and #2 giving aid and comfort TO OUR ENEMY. In my opinion, Obama and Kerry committed treason with this “deal”. Look up the definition for Treaty and look up the definition for Treason. They both fit in this context, but everyone seems to forget the English language and tries to twist things to push some bullshit agenda funded by large corporations who are chomping at the bit to get into that market and sell their shit.[quote]
No, I don’t have a doctoral degree (yet), but I do have a BA in International Relations and am currently pursuing an MA in Security Studies. It’s curious that you would bring up my credentials (or lack thereof) as if doing so somehow debases my arguments, yet you are unwilling to learn the very basics of the topic at hand. It’s frustrating to put on my pads to play football only to have you sodomize yourself with a cricket bat on the fifty yard line while you declare that you’ve scored a touchdown. [/quote]
Perhaps everyone seems to bring up your “credentials” because you have an annoying habit of telling everyone they are “not qualified to have this discussion”. Well it turns out, neither are you! LOL
YOU are the one who brings qualifications and by implication, credentials, into the discussion. Why not try being less of a dick about people’s opinions and chose the arguments you want to address and ignore the one’s you don’t want to address? You don’t HAVE to insult everyone you speak with. But when the very first sentence of EVERY. SINGLE. REPLY. begins with, “you’re not qualified to have this discussion”, it tends to rub people the wrong way.
I’m not graduate student, I’m a commercial electrician with computer access. But guess what? I’m a CITIZEN. I have CHILDREN who are likely to pay the consequences of these foreign policy blunders. THAT MAKES ME QUALIFIED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION!
loppar, so what do you think, we’re on the wrong side in the international terrorism war? I don’t see the Iranians suddenly becoming an ally. You are saying both sides are our enemies as is evident…what should the US do in regards to the spread of international jihad by both sides?