[quote]Bismark wrote:
So we should discount the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question?[/quote]
You’re talking about the Berkeley professor who’s been dubbed ‘The Stupidest Strategist?’
As I’ve said before, I always wonder when European nationalists quote hardcore leftists…but not for long.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. Iran is often referred to as the literal heir to Nazi Germany. Arab nationalists employed Nazi war criminals and adopted their ideology. [/quote]
I don’t really have a strong opinion on this, but just want to point out that Iranians aren’t Arab, sooooo…there’s that.[/quote]
I thought someone would come along with that. Yes, I know they’re not Arabs. They are however amongst the leading proponents and supporters of Arab nationalism. When referring to Nazi war criminals I was specifically talking about Nasser’s Egypt where modern Arab nationalism developed from Nazi ideology. The Iranians now fund, train and support numerous Arab natioanlist movements including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Nuclear weapons, ironically enough, have proved to be a stabilizing force in the world. States are much less inclined to go to war with one another if their adversaries possess a nuclear umbrella. Historically, systems with unbalanced multi-polarities are the most likely to result in war, while bi-polar systems are inherently the most stable. Southwest Asia is an unbalanced multi-polarity, because Israel is the only state that possesses nuclear capabilities. If Iran joins the ranks of the nuclear weapons states, nuclear monopoly will no longer tilt the balance of power so overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor. Will it limit the freedom of action of Israel and the U.S. in the region? Undoubtedly. Will it help stabilize a historically volatile region? If history is our guide, that is very likely. [/quote]
Ah…no. That’s the thoroughly discredited opinion of a batshit leftist Berkeley professor. Here’s an historical precedent for you: in the final days of WWII as Soviet armies crushed the Nazis in the East and the Battle of the Bulge was raging in the West the Nazis began to pin their hopes on ‘super weapons’ like the V2 rocket. Fortunately SOE trained saboteurs had destroyed the Nazis nuclear program in Norway in 1943 however undoubtably the Nazis would have used the bomb had they developed it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
in the final days of WWII…the Nazis began to pin their hopes on ‘super weapons’ like the V2 rocket. Fortunately SOE trained saboteurs had destroyed the Nazis nuclear program in Norway in 1943 however undoubtably the Nazis would have used the bomb had they developed it.[/quote]
This sounds more like an argument that a lone nuclear equipped country creates LESS stability in a region without nuclear adversaries than whatever it was you were actually saying.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
in the final days of WWII…the Nazis began to pin their hopes on ‘super weapons’ like the V2 rocket. Fortunately SOE trained saboteurs had destroyed the Nazis nuclear program in Norway in 1943 however undoubtably the Nazis would have used the bomb had they developed it.[/quote]
This sounds more like an argument that a lone nuclear equipped country creates LESS stability in a region without nuclear adversaries than whatever it was you were actually saying.
[/quote]
Which is exactly the argument that Waltz, a defensive realist, is making.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
How so? The statistical methodology I used is by far the most useful when performing a power inventory analysis. Again, Iran spends 2% of what the United States does annually on military expenditures. That relative disparity doesn’t change regardless of GDP, which itself is a poor measure of economic development.
At number 56 Iran spends approximately 2.50% of their GDP on defense. The U.S., approximately 4.60%
At number one, we have the global hegemon, Oman, who spends approximately 11.40% of their GDP.
As you can hopefully see, the relation between defense expenditures as a function of GDP is a poor tool when doing a power analysis. A high percentage budget for military forces can actually be harmful to a state’s long term power, as there are little economic returns for investing in defense. Look at North Korea, for example, who is believed to spend an even greater percentage than Oman.
In international relations, relative power is preeminent. [/quote]
The US is a super power. It is the only super power on earth. It has interests in every corner of the globe. Therefore its defense budget is necessarily the largest in the world as a percentage of GDP. Iran by contrast is a regional power with interests that don’t extend far beyond its own borders. Your analogy is patently absurd.[/quote]
Slow down cowboy. You’re shooting from the hip. I suggest you reread what I posted.
I wrote that “It’s disingenuous to compare a potential hegemon such as Germany in 1939 to Iran in 2013, whose annual defense budget is less than 2% of that of the United States.”
Utahlama wrote "What is their defense budget compared to their GDP?
Using strict percentages in situations like this is silly."
To which I responded with the above.
Also, the American defense budget is not the largest in the world as a function of GDP.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
I fail to see the analogy I made or any criticism I levied on U.S. defense expenditures.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
So we should discount the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question?[/quote]
You’re talking about the Berkeley professor who’s been dubbed ‘The Stupidest Strategist?’
As I’ve said before, I always wonder when European nationalists quote hardcore leftists…but not for long.[/quote]
As I told Push, that comment was clearly in reference to the findings of experts in the field regarding the effects of radioactive material dispersed by a conventional explosive. Who the fuck is Daniel Pipes? He certainly wasn’t one of the most preeminent scholars in international relations. He doesn’t even appear to be a scholar at all. I’m a “European nationalist?” And Kenneth Waltz is a “leftist?”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Nuclear weapons, ironically enough, have proved to be a stabilizing force in the world. States are much less inclined to go to war with one another if their adversaries possess a nuclear umbrella. Historically, systems with unbalanced multi-polarities are the most likely to result in war, while bi-polar systems are inherently the most stable. Southwest Asia is an unbalanced multi-polarity, because Israel is the only state that possesses nuclear capabilities. If Iran joins the ranks of the nuclear weapons states, nuclear monopoly will no longer tilt the balance of power so overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor. Will it limit the freedom of action of Israel and the U.S. in the region? Undoubtedly. Will it help stabilize a historically volatile region? If history is our guide, that is very likely. [/quote]
Ah…no. That’s the thoroughly discredited opinion of a batshit leftist Berkeley professor. Here’s an historical precedent for you: in the final days of WWII as Soviet armies crushed the Nazis in the East and the Battle of the Bulge was raging in the West the Nazis began to pin their hopes on ‘super weapons’ like the V2 rocket. Fortunately SOE trained saboteurs had destroyed the Nazis nuclear program in Norway in 1943 however undoubtably the Nazis would have used the bomb had they developed it.[/quote]
I’d LOVE to see the scholarship that “thoroughly discredits” Nuclear Peace theory.
Ok? Your historical anecdote has zero relevance to the argument I’m making. If Nazi Germany had developed a nuclear weapons capability before the United States had done so, it would have had a nuclear monopoly. It didn’t. Even if it had done so, the theory requires the inclusion of MAD. Regardless, you can’t test the merit of Nuclear Peace theory before there was such a thing as nuclear weapons.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
so add to the discussion.
[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath. You are new to this site, and I admire your eagerness, but you will quickly learn that the majority of the posters in this subforum (look at their join dates and post counts for a guide) are only interested in having like minded individuals stroke their…umm…let’s call it “ego” and act as an echo chamber. Just wait till they start talking about pre-election polling, it’s a riot!!!
[/quote]
Not half as funny as when Herr Bismark’s nationality (at least, what I deduce it probably is) is revealed.
Then we will see the Third Reich comments flying fast and furious. [/quote]
But, Varq, now I am confused: do Gibbering Idiots comprise a nationality?
[/quote]
I think they comprise a species.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would tend to lean toward the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question who tote the Trust But Verify ethos around in their professional briefcases which are chock full of unparalleled knowledge.
By the way, I seem to recall from my studies in history that Herr Chamberlain had unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question at that time. Or he thought he did.[/quote]
As do I.
I was referring to the analysts who produce intelligence products for their clients, exempli gratia, policymakers. If Herr Chamberlain (Sprechen Sie Deutsch?) had studied history more astutely, he would have seen no less than two examples of unbalanced multi-polarity (and consequently, potential hegemons) in the modern era alone. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France (1780-1815), and Wilhelmine Germany. (1890-1914) Regardless, Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement, or one sided concessions to a potential opponent, has little if any relevance to Iran, a present day middle power in south west Asia.[/quote]
A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. Iran is often referred to as the literal heir to Nazi Germany. Arab nationalists employed Nazi war criminals and adopted their ideology. Like the Nazis they are pathologically anti-Semitic and see the annihilation of Jews as their main goal. They are authoritarian, dictatorial and militaristic and their religious ideology shares much in common with Nazi ideology. Furthermore, they use the same propaganda techniques developed by Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg and act with extreme belligerence on the world stage. Confronted with this belligerence the rest of the world engage in the same sort of appeasement that preceded the Munich crisis.[/quote]
I disagree. I am making an argument from the systemic level of analysis. You, on the other hand, fixated on the domestic and individual level, cannot see the forest for the trees. The calculus of power between Nazi Germany in 1939 and Iran in 2013 is night and day. Anyone who attempts to deny that is a fool. Appeasement is formally defined in international relations as one-sided concessions to a potential opponent. There exists no substantial example of the West yielding to Tehran’s ambitions to avoid war at any cost. The comparison to the Muenchner Abkommen is inherently disingenuous.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
so add to the discussion.
[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath. You are new to this site, and I admire your eagerness, but you will quickly learn that the majority of the posters in this subforum (look at their join dates and post counts for a guide) are only interested in having like minded individuals stroke their…umm…let’s call it “ego” and act as an echo chamber. Just wait till they start talking about pre-election polling, it’s a riot!!!
[/quote]
Not half as funny as when Herr Bismark’s nationality (at least, what I deduce it probably is) is revealed.
Then we will see the Third Reich comments flying fast and furious. [/quote]
But, Varq, now I am confused: do Gibbering Idiots comprise a nationality?
[/quote]
I think they comprise a species.
[/quote]
Alas, I am not of their ilk. What about those who are challenged by the concept of polarity Varqanir? If this thread is any indication, they are quite a populous tribe. Good Dr., do you care to enter into discussion with me? Or are you content with throwing ad hominems like feces in the spirit of our less evolved brethren?
My suspicions are confirmed.
Our new friend is definitely German.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Any bets on what’s gonna happen when the Israelis enter Iranian Airspace and attempt to do some damage?..I heard Iran is closer than ever to the bomb
now…some reports I’ve read recently is by this January they’ll have it which means that Israel will attack maybe as soon as December…And they will act very soon, and yes I’ve heard THAT one for a long time too, but like it or not, given their track record, they will not just sit idle and watch a perceived enemy obtain a nuke, so it’s certainly not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’.
May we live in interesting times… I just pray WW3 doesn’t begin and fuck up my Christmas…I want winter, but not a nuclear winter.[/quote]
Why should the Israelis give a shit about fucking up anybody’s Christmas?
They probably have planned the attack with the express purpose of fucking up Christmas.
In fact, the Iranians probably timed the completion of their nuclear program in January just so the Israelis can attack them and fuck up Christmas.
Those Muslims and Jews, man. They will go out of their way to FUCK UP your Christmas. Even if it means attacking each other.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My suspicions are confirmed.
Our new friend is definitely German. [/quote]
Surely not every German is also a Gibbering Idiot.
But if this example proves the rule, who am I to dispute it?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My suspicions are confirmed.
Our new friend is definitely German. [/quote]
Surely not every German is also a Gibbering Idiot.
But if this example proves the rule, who am I to dispute it?[/quote]
Well, my deduction had more to do with his use of syntax and punctuation (not at all characteristic of a North American poster), as well as his referring to the Munich Agreement by its proper name.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My suspicions are confirmed.
Our new friend is definitely German. [/quote]
Surely not every German is also a Gibbering Idiot.
But if this example proves the rule, who am I to dispute it?[/quote]
Well, my deduction had more to do with his use of syntax and punctuation (not at all characteristic of a North American poster), as well as his referring to the Munich Agreement by its proper name. [/quote]
I, too, read these, and the strained use of American idiom. And then there was as well the academic arrogance steeped in ignorance, balanced between the presumptuous and the obsequious. Definitely nord deutsche. Very likely Hamburg. Yes, Hamburgâ?¦the odor of hake and haddock lingerâ?¦
But, principally, a Gibbering Idiot.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My suspicions are confirmed.
Our new friend is definitely German. [/quote]
He’s not new. Just a guy that was around awhile back under a different screen name.
Pomposity leaves a stain that’s difficult to remove. [/quote]
Was wondering that.
.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
My suspicions are confirmed.
Our new friend is definitely German. [/quote]
Surely not every German is also a Gibbering Idiot.
But if this example proves the rule, who am I to dispute it?[/quote]
Well, my deduction had more to do with his use of syntax and punctuation (not at all characteristic of a North American poster), as well as his referring to the Munich Agreement by its proper name. [/quote]
I, too, read these, and the strained use of American idiom. And then there was as well the academic arrogance steeped in ignorance, balanced between the presumptuous and the obsequious. Definitely nord deutsche. Very likely Hamburg. Yes, Hamburg�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦the odor of hake and haddock linger�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦
But, principally, a Gibbering Idiot.[/quote]
I wish I was from Hamburg. I’ve always been partial to beaches. Why resort to name calling? I’ve been nothing but civil to you. Of course, when discussing politics, things tend to get heated. I do realize my writing may come off as condescending and aggressive. I don’t intend for that to be the case, but it’s difficult for me to do otherwise when it concerns a subject that I’m deeply invested in. Perhaps I was overzealous in my attempts to establish a foothold in this thread. Given your screen name, I assume you can relate when it comes to the discussion of say, healthcare reform in America.
Since we are attempting to divine the geographic origins of each other, I’ll say that while you reside in America, you have ties to Israel. Beautiful country. Perhaps you immigrated from there? It’s just a feeling I have.