Post: #26

(04-05-2015 07:03 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 06:50 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 05:47 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 05:41 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 05:52 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  I don't know what to make of the Iran deal.

On the one hand, the Iranians/Persian are a far more natural ally than the Arabs, who lie, cheat and backstab. Had we any sense, we would've annihilated their bedouin asses long ago.

On the other hand, it is not clear where the sympathies of those who have real power in Iran lie. The Iranians attacked the embassy in 1979 (an act of war), they support Hezbollah (mortal enemy), hate Israel (the Jews are the only really trustworthy allies of the West in the Near East). The Revolutionary Guard supported militias that attacked American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In general, we should've toppled the regime in Tehran long ago.

For the West, it seems, as horrible as it sounds, that it is to all our advantage that the Arabs, Turks and Persians keep each other busy slaughtering each other. Compartmentalizing their conflicts prevents them from directing their aggression towards us.

But can we effectively monitor the Iranians if those calling the shots in Tehran renege on the deal?

If they do renege, what is our insurance policy? Is the missile shield fully operational yet?

Yes, Israel is very valuable American ally, it took part in 0 wars waged by US

Why would Israel participate in any of the US wars?

For the same reason countries like Australia and the UK participate in the US's wars: because the US indirectly subsidises your defence spending by being a major ally with nuclear weapons such that you don't have to develop or stockpile your own.

We didn't give Israel any of our troops in their wars. At least I don't recall. Besides, Israeli troops in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan? That would be a potential diplomatic incident.

"I cannot recall a time during my public life when our two countries have had a closer defense relationship. The U.S. and Israel are cooperating closely in areas such as missile defense technology, the Joint Strike Fighter, and in training exercises such as Juniper Stallion...our bilateral relationship and this dialogue is so critical because Israel lives at the focal point of some of the biggest security challenges facing the free world: violent extremism, the proliferation of nuclear technologies, and the dilemmas posed by adversarial and failed states. And I think it important, especially at a time of such dramatic change in the region, to reaffirm once more America’s unshakable commitment to Israel’s security."
--Robert Gates, Obama's defence secretary.

Notice I said indirect subsidisation. The threat of US entry into a regional war is enough to spook off most regional powers.

Post: #27

(04-05-2015 04:24 PM)scotian Wrote:  Do any of you guys know if this deal will affect the price of oil?

I saw something on TV saying it would. Iran would be able to get out from under sanctions and put its oil back on the market. More supply, more stability - could lower prices.

However, as shale production falls off and if Saudi Arabia dials back production, prices may start to rise again.

Post: #28

The Iran agreement exactly fits into Obama's goals. He and his foreign policy staff have a long term history of standing against the idea of the US as the world policeman. They think everybody hates us because we throw our power around everywhere and try to tell everybody what to do.

So, what he wants is a multi-polar world, in which the US is no longer the sole hegemon, and the various areas of the world are subject to regional powers, and therefore are not our problem. The only real way to have a multi-polar world like this is for these other new powers to be rivals of the US, and to be strong enough to stick their thumbs in our eyes and get away with it.

He has worked consistently to achieve this goal, and has been extremely successful. If you view his actions, and those of Hilary or John Kerry in terms of traditional foreign policy goals, they seem insane. But if you view them in terms of allowing and encouraging rival powers to rise up and push us out of their regions, then the Obama administration's foreign policy appears focused and effective. Note: They are doing what they said they wanted during the years before they assumed power, so their behavior has been completely consistent.

Naturally, they claim to be pursuing traditional foreign policy goals, such as keeping nukes out of Iranian hands, but these are just lies told for consumption by the US electorate and our allies. In reality, Obama has been able to engineer a world in which Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly powerful and independent powers. China is assembling an alternative to the current dollar based global banking system. China is also greatly expanding its influence in Africa. Russia is expanding it's territory. NATO is pathetic in the face of Russia, and is proven to be a paper tiger. Now Iran will get the nuke, by violating its agreements the same way N Korea did. Meanwhile, the US military is bogged down with politically correct nonsense with women and gays, and the US economy is a milestone around its neck due to the federal debt, so the next president will be unable to push back against these new regional powers, even if he wants to.

Everything is going as planned.

Post: #29

People bring up North Korea as the definite reason why Iran should not get the bomb.

How many nuclear weapons has NK launched? How many countries want to bomb NK right now? How many have? Is South Korea a wasteland or one of Asia's power houses? Do you also believe China has no muzzle on such a despot country?

NK's leaders have everything to lose. Look at them, they're well fed and have a sabre to rattle off some steam when nobody pays attention to them and women to fuck whenever they need it. As if they will give up that sort of life for one in a nuclear fallout or sparring with South Korea and NATO.

Post: #30

Obama's played a very Nixon-like game of realpolitik when it comes to foreign policy. Dealing with communists wasn't pleasant, but Nixon often left them in a position of rather working with him than risk him being enough of a zealot to go to war with them. Obama has shown that he's operating from the standpoint of you either work with him or suddenly your country is destabilized, your extremist factions suddenly have weapons, your economy is in ruins, and drones are hunting your ass. Obama made it pretty clear even before he was elected that he was willing to forgo the usual - America is friends with whoever it needs to be friends with in order to achieve its national security. If someone is no longer of immediate importance to us, their needs are put below a partner who can help us in our current situation. Al-qaeda, Al-shabab, ISIS, etc.. are all more concerned with their regional conflicts than on refocusing their attention on a larger scale, e.g., attacking America. Even our so called partners have found themselves shoved to the side if it suits our interests - Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia... It's not as idealistic as the concept of spreading democracy to the Middle East through cowboy diplomacy, but it's worked.

The Saudis made the decision a few months back to maintain their production rates and hopefully ride out the storm longer than their competitors. Iran's reentry into the larger oil market might seriously hamper their economic abilities. Not like we're losing a great friend there...

Post: #31

(04-07-2015 10:38 PM)Osiris Wrote:  Obama's played a very Nixon-like game of realpolitik when it comes to foreign policy. Dealing with communists wasn't pleasant, but Nixon often left them in a position of rather working with him than risk him being enough of a zealot to go to war with them. Obama has shown that he's operating from the standpoint of you either work with him or suddenly your country is destabilized, your extremist factions suddenly have weapons, your economy is in ruins, and drones are hunting your ass. Obama made it pretty clear even before he was elected that he was willing to forgo the usual - America is friends with whoever it needs to be friends with in order to achieve its national security. If someone is no longer of immediate importance to us, their needs are put below a partner who can help us in our current situation. Al-qaeda, Al-shabab, ISIS, etc.. are all more concerned with their regional conflicts than on refocusing their attention on a larger scale, e.g., attacking America. Even our so called partners have found themselves shoved to the side if it suits our interests - Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia... It's not as idealistic as the concept of spreading democracy to the Middle East through cowboy diplomacy, but it's worked.

The Saudis made the decision a few months back to maintain their production rates and hopefully ride out the storm longer than their competitors. Iran's reentry into the larger oil market might seriously hamper their economic abilities. Not like we're losing a great friend there...

I wish I could believe this, but Obama seems so incredibly incompetent in other areas that I have a hard time believing this is the case.

For instance, he consistently chooses the wrong side in major cultural issues (think feminism, the Ferugson-affair, the Arab Spring, Global Warming, etc.), which leads me to believe his sense of realpolitik is just not there. if he's consistently wrong on these other issues. He's not machiavellian. He's hopeless.

There's a great article by Kissinger and Schultz over at WSJ today. I suggest everyone reads it.

Based on that, it seems Obama has about as much international credibility as a high-school prom queen.

Post: #32

Bumping this thread. I'm reading Donald Trump's Crippled America and he really talks about how Iran should not be able to get nukes, and how the US negotiated badly in the Iran deal etc. But the Ron Paul camp etc believes Iran should be able to have nukes. Who's right?

Iran may be terroristy, but it's unknown how much of it is just Israel shilling and how much is legitimate. If they are relatively peaceful it's shameful how they aren't allowed nukes IMO.

Quote:There are many different ways to make sure that Iran is never armed with nuclear weapons. I’d be happy to sit down with the Iranian leaders when they understand that the best course for them, if they want to be a major player in the civilized world, is to close down their entire nuclear program. An Iran with a nuclear weapon would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with potentially devastating consequences. The situation would rapidly escalate to being the most dangerous threat Israel has ever faced. And it would force us to use extreme measures in defense of Israel and other allies in the region.
That’s not going to happen, whatever Iran might think right now.

What are the pros/cons about Iran being allowed nukes? I admit I know close to nothing about the situation.

Post: #33

(03-19-2016 04:10 PM)Centurion Wrote:  Bumping this thread. I'm reading Donald Trump's Crippled America and he really talks about how Iran should not be able to get nukes, and how the US negotiated badly in the Iran deal etc. But the Ron Paul camp etc believes Iran should be able to have nukes. Who's right?

Iran may be terroristy, but it's unknown how much of it is just Israel shilling and how much is legitimate. If they are relatively peaceful it's shameful how they aren't allowed nukes IMO.

Quote:There are many different ways to make sure that Iran is never armed with nuclear weapons. I’d be happy to sit down with the Iranian leaders when they understand that the best course for them, if they want to be a major player in the civilized world, is to close down their entire nuclear program. An Iran with a nuclear weapon would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with potentially devastating consequences. The situation would rapidly escalate to being the most dangerous threat Israel has ever faced. And it would force us to use extreme measures in defense of Israel and other allies in the region.
That’s not going to happen, whatever Iran might think right now.

What are the pros/cons about Iran being allowed nukes? I admit I know close to nothing about the situation.

I was just going to bump up this thread for the same reason.

In Donald Trump's view, how should the US have negotiated with Iran?

Post: #34

The Iran deal seems to be relatively effective at preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons for now, but it:

A) contains plenty of allowance/motivation for Iran to do it anyway later, and
B) was negotiated horribly and basically came off as Obama begging to get fucked in the ass (case in point: American prisoners in Iran, the capture of the Navy boat, etc).

The overall message Iran seems to have gotten from the deal is "no nuclear weapons, but you're welcome to engage in any shit you like". However, it did stop the neocon and Israel warmongering, so I'd say it's not such a bad deal after all, especially when you compare it to the other massive clusterfucks of Obama's foreign policy (Libya, Syria).

5/10, would negotiate again.