[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It doesn’t take an advanced degree to tell when someone is an asshole, asshole
:)[/quote]
Bistro is the kind of feller that if you met him just walking down the street you’d want to punch him in the face just for good measure. He’s one of those guys.
Remember that thread on GAL a few years back?[/quote]
If it’s the one I’m thinking of, I remember getting flamed for writing that, but yeah. LOL
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Iran’s foreign minister demands the West bow to their “inalienable nuclear rights”:
“As the deadline looms, and as Republicans are set to control Congress, I urge my colleagues to not allow President Obama to trade away the only leverage we have over the mullahs in Tehran in exchange for minor and easily reversible modifications by Iran on its nuclear weapons program,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
With less than two weeks before talks are scheduled to end, new evidence indicates that Iran’s nuclear program is more advanced than previously known - and that Tehran is making a concerted effort to keep this fact a secret.
Yup.[/quote]
That rag of the article should have made explicit the following when referring to Iranian nuclear “rights”;
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the INALIENABLE RIGHT of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
This isn’t a defense of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. We agree that Iran shouldn’t become a nuclear weapons states, albeit for different reasons. We also disagree on the means to achieve such an ends. I argue for coercive diplomacy. Offer Iran both carrots and sticks, to put it simply. You and Pat are advocating a preventative air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, which I believe would merely delay Iranian acquisition of the bomb and strengthen the position of hardliners within the Iranian government. It would also make the security incentives of going nuclear that much more pertinent.[/quote]
I am not advocating any such thing. I am advocating a hard line with Iran. I am advocating a position that gives them no power and no perception of power. Negotiations give them some false sense of importance. And whether they are or not important, we don’t want to make them feel as if they count.
Second, the negotiation will not work, they haven’t worked, and they won’t work. We all know its a show, they are buying time and they will continue undaunted towards being a nuclear threat in the middle east.
I do advocate, however, if there shows a credible intelligence that they are moving forward with weapons, we bomb the facilities outright. Us, or Israel, I don’t care.
That sends the message, “You will not have a nuclear weapon, period.” That doesn’t mean I advocate war. Iran has tried this before, Israel took care of the problem and there was no war, so I am confident we can take care of the problem should it arise.
That being said, I agree these negotiations should continue since they are already being done. I know that sounds contradictory, but since it’s happening anyway, they might as well continue. My argument is that it shouldn’t have been engaged without a offering of goodwill on the part of Iran and them asking for it. Since it is happening anyway, it might as well continue not because it will work, but it will also give the west time to maneuver. Obama already undermined any chance of this working with his letter. He clearly shows no confidence since he felt the need to beg. I wonder what made him think he would get anywhere?
Oh, I know. It’s hubris. He thinks he’s Kennedy dealing with Khrushchev, where neither party involved is an intelligent or as level headed as the parties in that negotiation, which was backed up with a heavy show of force.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.[/quote]
BUT HE IS THINK TANK BOUND!!
/the problem with government
The announcement on Executive Action on immigration is said to happen tomorrow night at 8pm EST.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.[/quote]
My diction is hardly inaccessible, and any jargon I use is pertinent to the discussion. Perhaps you should focus less on my writing style and more on your grasp of the subject, Mr. Summit.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.[/quote]
BUT HE IS THINK TANK BOUND!!
/the problem with government [/quote]
Have you contributed anything to this discussion outside of vapid insults?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree that that’s [coercive diplomacy] what you’re advocating. [/quote]
“In contrast to either war or the “quick, decisive military strategy,” which George described as a military strategy that aimed to negate adversary capabilities to contest what is at stake, coercive diplomacy is a political-diplomatic strategy that aims to influence an adversary’s will or incentive structure. It is a strategy that combines threats of force, and, if necessary, the limited and selective use of force in discrete and controlled increments, in a bargaining strategy that includes positive inducements. The aim is to induce an adversary to comply with one’s demands, or to negotiate the most favorable compromise possible, while simultaneously managing the crisis to prevent unwanted military escalation.” (Jack S. Levy. Deterrence and Coercive Diplomacy: The Contributions of Alexander George)
"It might be wise for the United States to resign itself to Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and to focus on deterring the Islamic Republic from ever using them. But U.S. leaders have explicitly rejected that course of action. “Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” U.S. President Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly last September. “And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” U.S. officials have also made it clear that they consider direct military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon an extremely unattractive option, one to be implemented only as a regrettable last resort.
In practice, then, that leaves only two tools for dealing with Iran’s advancing nuclear program: threats and promises, the melding of which the political scientist Alexander George labeled “coercive diplomacy.” To succeed in halting Iran’s progress toward a bomb, the United States will have to combine the two, not simply alternate between them. It must make credible promises and credible threats simultaneously – an exceedingly difficult trick to pull off. And in this particular case, the difficulty is compounded by a number of other factors: the long history of intense mutual mistrust between the two countries; the U.S. alliance with Iran’s archenemy, Israel; and the opacity of Iranian decision-making" (Robert Jervis. Getting to Yes With Iran:
The Challenges of Coercive Diplomacy)
[quote]
In short, sanctions have been ineffective and were systematically bypassed by a spidersweb of front companies [/quote]
Your argument simply does not align with the available econometric data. According to Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs employed by the Congressional Research Service, sanctions against Iran in response to its opaque nuclear program have had a devastating effect on the Iranian economy. He writes that in “2012-2013, the loss of revenues from oil, coupled with the cut-off of Iran from the international banking system, caused a sharp drop in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial; [raising] inflation to over 50%.” (Kenneth Katzman. Iranian Sanctions)
[quote]
diplomatic efforts have been a complete failure; Iran has used them to cynically spin out the time and gain concessions. [/quote]
And from the Obama administration’s perspective the negotiations with Iran are a charade. Obama being, fundamentally hostile to the state of Israel and [/b]determined to avoid aiding or participating in any military action against Iran[/b].
I disagree that diplomacy has been a complete failure. I have a difficult time understanding why you and Pat seem to be inherently hostile to it as a tool of foreign policy in regard to Iran. That Obama is “fundamentally hostile” to Israel is a bold claim that requires bold evidence. Obama has a cooler relationship with Israel than his predecessor, but to equate that to hostility is a stretch. Are you aware that the U.S. replenished Israeli munitions during the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict? That was not a reflexive DOD policy, but one that required executive action. Obama has made it clear on numerous occasions that a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable outcome, and one that the United States is willing to prevent through military action.
Wendy R. Sherman - Under Secretary for Political Affairs. Remarks at a symposium on P5+1 Iran nuclear negotiations
"To begin, I’d like to simply emphasize how important the P5+1 negotiations are. An Iran equipped with nuclear arms would add an unacceptable element of instability and danger to a part of the globe that already has a surplus of both. If Tehran had such a weapon, other countries in the region might well pursue the same goal, generating a potentially catastrophic arms race, intensifying the sectarian divide that is a major source of Middle East tension, and undermining the global nonproliferation regime that President Obama has consistently sought to reinforce.
That is why the President has pledged to ensure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. Our preference is to achieve this goal by diplomatic means. But make no mistake. Our bottom line is unambiguous, crystal clear, and, quite frankly, written in stone: Iran will not, shall not obtain a nuclear weapon.
A major step in the right direction of that pursuit was taken last January when we began implementing a negotiating framework called the Joint Plan of Action. In return for limited sanctions relief, Iran committed while talks are underway to freeze and even roll back key components of its nuclear activities. Specifically, Iran has halted the expansion of its overall enrichment capacity; put a cap on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride; stopped the production of uranium enriched to 20 percent; agreed not to make further advances at the Arak heavy water reactor; and opened the door to unprecedented daily access for international inspectors to the facilities at Natanz and Fordow.
At the time the Joint Plan was announced, many observers expressed profound doubt that Iran would abide by its commitments. But according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has done what it promised to do. The result is a nuclear program that is more constrained and transparent than it has been in many years. In turn, the P5+1 has fulfilled its commitment to provide limited sanctions relief. More extensive relief will come when and only when we are able to arrive at a comprehensive deal that addresses the concerns of the world community. Such a plan, if fully implemented, would give confidence that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and would enable the Iranian people to look forward to a much brighter future."
What reasonable and informed individual could take issue with the above?
Political realism is not a theory of international relations, but a broader philosophical school of thought. Which realist typology am I going against, specifically? One cannot be a realist if they do not support a preventative strike against Iran at the present time? What ideology am I espousing? I have written numerous times that a nuclear Iran is not in the interest of the United States. We disagree what incentives Iran to seek nuclear capability. In addition, we disagree about U.S. policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state; however, we both believe that Iran must not be allowed to become nuclear. If coercive diplomacy fails to dissuade Iran from seeking the bomb, I have no qualms with a prudently planned air campaign against its nuclear facilities and related delivery systems. A ground war is out of the question, however.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“In contrast to either war or the “quick, decisive military strategy,” which George described as a military strategy that aimed to negate adversary capabilities to contest what is at stake, coercive diplomacy is a political-diplomatic strategy that aims to influence an adversary’s will or incentive structure. It is a strategy that combines threats of force, and, if necessary, the limited and selective use of force in discrete and controlled increments, in a bargaining strategy that includes positive inducements. The aim is to induce an adversary to comply with one’s demands, or to negotiate the most favorable compromise possible, while simultaneously managing the crisis to prevent unwanted military escalation.” (Jack S. Levy. Deterrence and Coercive Diplomacy: The Contributions of Alexander George)
[/quote]
I’m not sure why you are quoting an academic exposition of coercive diplomacy. I have articulated specifically why diplomacy has conspicuously, consistently and dramatically failed with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the immeasurable consequences of this failed diplomacy.
Uh huh. And given the failure of coercive diplomacy, many have long argued that the military option is the only resort left, “extremely unattractive” or otherwise.
And coercive diplomacy has failed; both in its praxis and outcomes.
An impossible “trick to pull off” - threats and inducements not being taken seriously by either side.
A fundamental miscalculation. There is not “distrust” from Iran towards the United States; there is enmity. An enmity taken to the level of the existential. Iran does not seek accommodation from the West. It seeks the annihilation of the West. Its objectives are not limited and rational; they are unlimited. You cannot come to terms with a regime that seeks to destroy you.
You are missing the fundamental objective of sanctions. The objective is not to harm the Iranian economy. The objective is to force Iran to end its military nuclear program. This objective has not been achieved; not by any objective standard.
And yet you take Iran’s breakout capacity as a fait accompli; essentially an admission that the fundamental objectives of diplomacy have failed.
Pat can speak for himself. I have articulated clearly why I oppose appeasement dressed up as diplomatic coercion. A decade of sticks and carrots have failed in their principle objective.
Ever since I started posting on PWI I have demonstrated Obama’s fundamental hostility to Israel again and again. The latest example: a number of Israelis, including three US citizens, were just hacked to pieces by axe wielding Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Obama, commenting on the attack, failed to even mention that the victims were Jews(and US citizens) and the perpetrators Palestinians. He then bemoaned “so many Palestinians dying”. Obama does not recognise the sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem. He has taken a radical position completely at odds with previous administrations, calling for an Israeli withdrawal to pre-67 “borders”.
I’m aware that Obama has done everything within his power to obstruct arms sales to Israel.
I have and do and have articulated why. The objective of Iranian nuclear containment or roll back cannot be achieved via diplomacy. The acceptance of breakout as a fait accompli is essentially acceptance of the fact that the principle objective of the last decade of diplomacy has failed. It is an acceptance of failure masked by a de jure rejection of Iranian nuclear rights; a rejection in name only with no basis in reality.
I was referring to realism in International Relations and the fact that a purely self-interested foreign policy would regard detente with Iran madness and regard diplomacy with Iran as a demonstrable failure; a failure entirely predictable given the absolutism and unlimited objectives of Iran and their track record of perfidy and deception.
Specifically, you are abandoning practical and material considerations in favour of ideology.
One cannot be a realist whilst holding a belief grounded in fantasy; a belief that Iran can be forced through sanctions and threats or incentives to abandon their nuclear ambitions. It is idealistic to believe such.
Sentiments of idealism likely masking a calculated decision to abandon Israel in order to seek detente with the Muslim world.
[quote]
I have written numerous times that a nuclear Iran is not in the interest of the United States. We disagree what incentives Iran to seek nuclear capability. In addition, we disagree about U.S. policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state; however, we both believe that Iran must not be allowed to become nuclear. If coercive diplomacy fails to dissuade Iran from seeking the bomb, I have no qualms with a prudently planned air campaign against its nuclear facilities and related delivery systems. A ground war is out of the question, however. [/quote]
It’s a question of recognising that coercive diplomacy has already failed; predictably so. To entertain fantasies of diplomatic curtailment of Iran is either idealism or a calculated realist position(a flawed one) masked as idealism.
Edited
My position is very simple and straight forward:
Recognition of Iranian breakout capacity constitutes de facto recognition that diplomacy has failed.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.[/quote]
My diction is hardly inaccessible, and any jargon I use is pertinent to the discussion. Perhaps you should focus less on my writing style and more on your grasp of the subject, Mr. Summit.
[/quote]
Hey, I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking about you to somebody else. It’s not like I am going behind your back, I am saying it in front of your back. I figured you’d appreciate the honesty. And my opinions supported with links has been made
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Short, concise, accurate.
Barack the First Crowns Himself with Executive Amnesty
[/quote]
Yeah, I am real happy about this. I hope the new congress gives him absolute hell. Hopefully they will defund any measures taken by Executive Order. He is executive branch, not legislative. This is an abuse of power.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
My position is very simple and straight forward:
Recognition of Iranian breakout capacity constitutes de facto recognition that diplomacy has failed.[/quote]
And Obama’s letter is an admission, by the administration, of this fact.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.[/quote]
BUT HE IS THINK TANK BOUND!!
/the problem with government [/quote]
Have you contributed anything to this discussion outside of vapid insults?[/quote]
Oh grow a pair Mary…you’re not going to last too long in Big Gubmint if you cannot do anything but simply quote from your latest textbook.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
[/quote]
Speaking of Obola’s hubris I think this is pungent reminder of young Bistro’s.
I’d have to say in both cases its origins obviously harken back to their days as a youth. For Bistro that was a small number of months ago; for Bam, of course, a few decades.[/quote]
I think it’s more immaturity than hubris. Feeling the need to talk like the reading comprehension portion of the SAT whether your talking about taking a shit, or quantum mechanics is a signal of maturity and an overwhelming need for validation.[/quote]
BUT HE IS THINK TANK BOUND!!
/the problem with government [/quote]
Have you contributed anything to this discussion outside of vapid insults?[/quote]
Oh grow a pair Mary…you’re not going to last too long in Big Gubmint if you cannot do anything but simply quote from your latest textbook.
[/quote]
I have no problem with some ball busting as long as it’s accompanied with an argument. Your posts are nothing more than childish insults regarding my age, occupation, field of study, and incorrectly assumed career goals. You may not know this, but strong arguments are evidenced and cite the work of influential thinkers in the pertinent field. It isn’t enough to argue from intuition, nor is it to simply cite. That is why I interject my own position. Acknowledging the theoretical origins of my arguments is simply giving credit where credit is due, and one can hardly be criticized for envoking the fundamental texts of field relevant to the discussion at hand.