Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The USA surrenders to Iran (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The USA surrenders to Iran
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, come on - I know that somebody was thinking it.

Besides, it's been 5-6-7 hours since the announcement - and not a peep?

The last person out, turn off the lights.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Oh, come on - I know that somebody was thinking it.

Besides, it's been 5-6-7 hours since the announcement - and not a peep?

The last person out, turn off the lights.

Reminds me of good old times with Master of Orion 2. "USA surrenders to Iran and cedes all territory to spite Iran's enemies, and also because it's bed time and USA doesn't want to play any more."
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Ornery broken? Any theories for the drop-off in participation? I noticed it when I finished my assessment of Obamacare predictions - most of those who had participated frequently to make predictions all of a sudden were not around to discuss how things had come out.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Is Ornery broken? Any theories for the drop-off in participation? I noticed it when I finished my assessment of Obamacare predictions - most of those who had participated frequently to make predictions all of a sudden were not around to discuss how things had come out.

Too much of the discussion turned towards semantic games rather than seeking understanding.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The U.S. surrendered? I heard that Iran had surrendered. [Confused]

Of course, I've been listening to Iranian news lately. [Smile]

I fear that we all know what each of us will say about a given issue, and since we're not backing up ours claims with thoughful replies, detailed logic and evidentiary sources of facts like we used to, there is very little reason to post. Tom will say this, Serati will say that, Wayward will make some smart-ass comment; what's the use? We all know each other's opinions. Without new facts or reasoning, there's nothing to learn, and no way to be convinced we are wrong.

Of course, we haven't completely reached that point, but that seems to me to be the trend. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I blame OSC. [Razz]

July 31, 2014
The American Disease

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Is Ornery broken? Any theories for the drop-off in participation? I noticed it when I finished my assessment of Obamacare predictions - most of those who had participated frequently to make predictions all of a sudden were not around to discuss how things had come out.

Maybe it's holiday season?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Netanyahu brought up a point that this treaty is a win-win for Iran. They cheat: get the bomb or they wait: get the bomb. I fully expect out of the two, they can be patient for a freakin decade.

But that brings up an interesting (to me at least) question. If the "good option" is the 10 year stalling tactic, what is the real choice here?

Pro deal: Within that 10 years, we strengthen ties between Iran and the west, and ideally Israel, (quit laughing) so they are not as hostile by the end of that time frame.

Opposed to the deal #1: We are better off starving them with sanctions until such a point that they just fold under internal pressure. (doesn't seem likely so far)

Opposed to the deal #2: We are better off starving them with sanctions until such a point where we feel confident we can sabotage or destroy their nuclear program decisively. (repeat as needed?)

From the U.S. perspective I'm for the deal. We aren't willing to act preemptively through a military attack so this is the best, if not the only, good option.

If I were Israel, I'd be pissed my allies were ****ing up my plan to keep them restrained while I worked to sabotage / strike their nuclear assets. I would also be concerned that nobody would back my play if I made one or would condemn me as the aggressor if I did work to protect myself.

[ July 15, 2015, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The issue I have objection 1 and 2 is that starving them out doesn't appear to be close to working. Critics say Iran can make a bomb within a year but nothing indicates that the sanctions will be effective in that time.

This deal should make it very difficult to cheat. To hide further work on the bomb, they'd have to establish an independent supply chain for nuclear weapons, including personnel. They could still kick out the inspectors but that's basically the same as announcing they're cheating. I fail to see how this is in any way worse than the current situation.

It also gives a better framework for punishing unauthorized activities. Sanctions can be reimposed by bureaucratic action rather than fresh negotiation.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm with ya NH. So the only conclusion is the real reason to oppose the deal, is you expect it will be helpful to Iran within that 1 year time frame you already plan to take action from the outside.

Or have I missed a legitimate reason why walking away is the "better option"?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Or have I missed a legitimate reason why walking away is the "better option"?

It makes Obama look bad.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if Iran was desparate enough to kill the sanctions they might chase after the negotiators offering to give up their nuke plan.

It worked for Germany in the "negotiations" with Greece. But I don't think Iran is as frightened by continued sanctions as Greece was/is by a disorderly exit from the Euro.

Far more likely that Iran would just bear the sanctions until they could set off a test device and then suggest a new round of negotiations.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Or have I missed a legitimate reason why walking away is the "better option"?

It makes Obama look bad.
Is that enough, or do you think that forcing Israel's hand and then being obligated to help with THEIR pre-emptive strike, factors into it?

I guess what I'm asking is if it's possible to be both against the deal and against pre-emptive action?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the problem is that Iran potentially has hostile intentions, and that it is hard to coerce them to stop a nuclear program (assuming one exists), we may suggest that this problem arises due to the fact that there is obvious incentive for Iran to have nukes, and disincentive to a) trust the USA, and b) give away power while gaining little or nothing. A military strike against them may or may not achieve a tactical victory, but it will definitely cost lives and money and further destabilize the region (and make a theoretical enemy an entrenched enemy unless regime change comes along with it).

It seems to me that the solution is simple: Turn Iran into an ally, and give them the incentive that if they stop the alleged nuclear program their country will be supported and developed. That is such a good deal, and they would become so reliant on the monies, that there would be a legitimate incentive not to cheat and lose the funding and support. I know Iran and Saudi Arabia are at odds with each other and having both as allies at the same time would be contentious between them, but this isn't actually the reason this won't happen. The reason it won't happen is because the region would become too stable for the taste of certain parties.

I'm fairly sure that whatever methods are actually pursued, they will do little to diminish animosity in the region.

[ July 15, 2015, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, my eyes were bugging out until I realized you were channelling the Wizard of Oz. The "solution" is to turn Iran into an "ally" like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. ****ing brilliant. You dont need a brain, just a diploma. You donnt need courage, just a medal of valor. Hey, it worked for same sex marriage. Just change the definition of peace. And if millions of people get killed we can just boaden the definition of "alive."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Fenring, my eyes were bugging out until I realized you were channelling the Wizard of Oz. The "solution" is to turn Iran into an "ally" like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. ****ing brilliant. You dont need a brain, just a diploma. You donnt need courage, just a medal of valor. Hey, it worked for same sex marriage. Just change the definition of peace. And if millions of people get killed we can just boaden the definition of "alive."

Well it's like the Wizard of Oz insofar as it's cynical as heck. That movie is not nearly as sugar-sweet as it first seems. Of course making an "ally" isn't about peace in the sense of holding hands and smiling knowingly at each other. It's about creating dependence and then control through interconnectedness. It's the new version of peace. The old version sucked, since it was just ink on a page. In the new version the desire for peace is irrelevant; no side can afford to lose what they have. That's real peace.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ally isn't the right word, I think. I think the intent of the deal is to help draw Iran back into the international order. This exposes them to pressures and influences more subtle than gross diplomatic or military action. It'd also lead to greater exposure to the effect of instability, which tends to reduce the frequency of inappropriate meddling by increasing it's cost.

Another benefit would be to alleviate economic pressure on Iran's bourgeoisie and middle classes. I'm not an expert on revolutions, but I have the impression that once people start feeling prosperous, political and social oppression starts to be more aggravating. Especially if the lack of prosperity can be blamed on external enemies.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The new version of peace evidently includes mishaps such as 9/11, which was the direct CAUSE of our treating Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as "allies." cause as in provocation cited by Bin Laden for the attack, AND actual mechanism without which the /11 attaacks could not have been executed as a practical matter.

Now there are those like TomD and Michael Moore who paint 9/11 as an acceptable loss for our broader definition of "peace." but i dont think that's where you are coming from. Please clarify.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The new version of peace evidently includes mishaps such as 9/11, which was the direct CAUSE of our treating Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as "allies." cause as in provocation cited by Bin Laden for the attack, AND actual mechanism without which the /11 attaacks could not have been executed as a practical matter.

Now there are those like TomD and Michael Moore who paint 9/11 as an acceptable loss for our broader definition of "peace." but i dont think that's where you are coming from. Please clarify.

I'm not sure in your response whether you classify 9-11 as being caused by the Saudis, caused by a renegade faction from the Saudi family, or predominantly caused by some other faction in the area with Bin Laden at the helm. For your analogy to work you'd have to assert that the U.S. had close and intertwined economic ties with whomever conducted 9-11, thereby negating my suggestion that this kind of relationship would make mutual aggression unworkable.

Also the close relationship with the Saudis began long ago, as it did in other 'nation-building' experiments during the cold war, except that in the case of the Saudis we might even suggest that the Western relationship with the rulers of that general area began in WWI. The West even had a working relationship with Iran until their man was ousted, but the economic ties were never really there as they are with the Saudis.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really? My understanding is that we helped put the Shah in power because Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister (we have generally been more concerned with exporting capitalism than democracy) planned to nationalize the oil industry. We assisted in a coup in order to maintain our economic ties.

[ July 16, 2015, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Really? My understanding is that we helped put the Shah in power because Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister (we have generally been more concerned with exporting capitalism than democracy) planned to nationalize the oil industry. We assisted in a coup in order to maintain our economic ties.

The Shah was the "their man" I was referring to, so yeah. After he was gone things went south as I understand it, although I've never heard anything to suggest the economic ties with Iran were anywhere near as beneficial to Iran itself (or at least to its leadership) as what the U.S. has going on with the Saudis. I see it less as exporting capitalism in a broad sense, and more as ensuring specific arrangements are in place, which can include military bases/agreements, special military and industrial contracts, and perhaps also open trade. But I get the feeling that the 'special arrangements' are the major priority in these dealings compared with opening up trade relations for normal import/export business.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I'm not sure in your response whether you classify 9-11 as being caused by the Saudis, caused by a renegade faction from the Saudi family, or predominantly caused by some other faction in the area with Bin Laden at the helm "

I refer to 9/11's Saudi FUNDING. To appease radical groups, the Sauds directly and indirectly fund overseas radicalism and terror. 9/11 could not have occurred without Saudi funding. And the funding would not have been there if Bush 41 and Clinton hadnt pretended the Sauds were allies.

9/11 also could not have occurred without the USA's turning a blind eye to our enemies in the Pakistani ISI who created the Taliban, destabilized Afghanistan and established it as a safe harbor for AL Qaeda.

I dont deny there is some value and upside to the Ozian redefined Ally scheme. But 9/11 incidents are a downside that one should take into account.

[ July 16, 2015, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"r (we have generally been more concerned with exporting capitalism than democracy"

You give us way too much credit here, Kate. What America has supported since a decade after the civil war is not "capitalism" generally but hegemonic Kleptocracy. Starting in Hawaii where we suppressed a perfectly free market democratic movement and annexed a sovereign country at the request of the Dole pineapple corporation.

few have died for capitalism in abstract. more have died to line the pockets of the corporation that pulled the strings.

Likewise, few have died for marxism in abstract. more have died to protect the person or the ego of their tin god demagogue.

"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
-Homer simpson.

"It amazes me how far the human being can contort itself to kiss the boot lodged in its ass."
-Pete

[ July 16, 2015, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, yes. I was being circumspect.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" I'm not sure in your response whether you classify 9-11 as being caused by the Saudis, caused by a renegade faction from the Saudi family, or predominantly caused by some other faction in the area with Bin Laden at the helm "

I refer to 9/11's Saudi FUNDING. To appease radical groups, the Sauds directly and indirectly fund overseas radicalism and terror. 9/11 could not have occurred without Saudi funding. And the funding would not have been there if Bush 41 and Clinton hadnt pretended the Sauds were allies.

9/11 also could not have occurred without the USA's turning a blind eye to our enemies in the Pakistani ISI who created the Taliban, destabilized Afghanistan and established it as a safe harbor for AL Qaeda.

I dont deny there is some value and upside to the Ozian redefined Ally scheme. But 9/11 incidents are a downside that one should take into account.

Do recall also that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were CIA assets in Afghanistan to oppose the Russians, and so America's 'so-called allies' cannot solely be blamed for the fomenting of extremist groups. When one uses zealots and extremists to fight by proxy for one's interests (again, going back to WWI) they will continue to exist once their immediate purpose comes to an end.

I don't see the alliances as I call them as being responsible for events like 9-11; it's the nurturing of faction warfare amongst each other that creates chaos. Take the Iran-Iraq war, where the U.S. armed both sides and made sure neither side won. This kind of thing is good for U.S. business, maybe, but it creates enemies for America abroad.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Pete for reinforcing that Treehouse of Horror VII was probably the best Simpson's episode of all time. [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama's Iran nuke deal is basically "We'll let you make nuclear weapons if you give us a deal."


Some of my thoughts on a couple of the headlines:

"Obama warns Congress not to stand in way of Iran deal"

And Congress warns Obama not to stand in the way of the Constitution.

In my dreams at least...

"Formal nuclear deal has been reached with Iran"

Reagan said to trust but verify while Obama's position is more along the lines of "just trust me".

Israel especially but the entire world for that matter had better NOT count on the U.S. for their security particularly under this administration.

Look at how well that is working out for Ukraine not to mention Iraq.

And it's not just Israel but also Saudi Arabia that may strike Iran and start a war to counter Obama's folly here.

One almost has to wonder if Obama is trying to start a war on purpose or is he just going to bumble into one accidentally.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to go cynical mode. My theories would be they are trying to set up a situation where we could go to war, after trying our best to be the diplomats.

Or, they decided that war is inevitable, and we didn't want to be leveraged into bearing the brunt of the cost in dollars and lives. Let someone else take on the responsibility and we'll back them to a level we are comfortable with and so we can walk away when we feel we're done rather than staying out of a sense of obligation or foreign pressure.

I think setting this up so we don't get the (full) blame for the aftermath is an important part of our diplomatic efforts here.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Look at how well that is working out for Ukraine not to mention Iraq.

Ukraine made their choice after the break of the soviet union to be friendly with Russia. We had no defense treaty with them and no obligation to defend them. Bush signed a deal saying the US would be gone by the end of 2010. I'm not sure what you expect Obama to do about decisions Ukraine made during the Bush/Clinton era or Iraq made during the W. Bush era.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, since this deal subjects Iran to a greater level of scrutiny than the treaty with the Soviets, why do you believe that Obama has less verification than Reagan did?

PS: welcome back. You can check out the accuracy of all our Obamacare predictions in a thread a few lines down.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On Ukraine, Obama projected weakness. Russia saw that, interpreted it correctly that Obama would not stop them, and acted. What to do now? What can you do? It's done.

My understanding of this treaty with Iran is that the UN can press for inspections but Iran can refuse and tell them to go pack desert sand. If this treaty is so great at preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons then why are Israel and Saudi Arabia threatening to attack Iran because of it?

I don't know all the details of the Russian agreement but this one is certainly in adequate in the eyes of the people Iran threatens the most, the Israelis. If it's so great then why aren't they happy about it?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the welcome back. I never really left and check in from time to time hoping to see a new essay by OSC. I read the comments and have kept up on the predictions. I remember mine was wrong so was trying to avoid the subject as most people do in those circumstance. [Smile]
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
On Ukraine, Obama projected weakness. Russia saw that, interpreted it correctly that Obama would not stop them, and acted. What to do now? What can you do? It's done.

Was that the same weakness W. Bush projected before Russia did something very similar to Georgia?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Thanks Pete for reinforcing that Treehouse of Horror VII was probably the best Simpson's episode of all time. [Smile]

Glad to hear, because I stopped watching it shortly after, and if it had remmained that good i would have a lot of catching up to do. That truly was spectacular.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, is it possible that there are political advantages for Saudi Arabia and Israel if Iran is politically isolated?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And thanks for that answer on predictions.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Cherry, is it possible that there are political advantages for Saudi Arabia and Israel if Iran is politically isolated?

For Saudi Aeabia, yes. For Netabyahu and Likud, politically, sure. Not sure how *Israel* benefits from wrongfully isolating Iran. Please expound, Greg.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
On Ukraine, Obama projected weakness. Russia saw that, interpreted it correctly that Obama would not stop them, and acted. What to do now? What can you do? It's done.

Was that the same weakness W. Bush projected before Russia did something very similar to Georgia?
Yes. No question there, and the lik to presidential perceived weakness to the Russian action was stronger. But . ... An i underinformed on Georgia, or isn't what Putin is doing in the Eukraine more egregious than what happened in Georgia? Setting aside question od US presidential fault.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, for domestic politics the right-wing party often benefits significantly from emphasizing the threat from foreign nations and therefore establishing that only the "strong" right-wing coalition can protect the people. Avoids the need to talk about occasionally messy topics like the economy etc. and once that fear gets to a fever pitch, the opposition parties can be cowed into supporting the same general approach.

Pretty standard political positioning around the world, and Netanyahu has used Iran in this capacity his entire political career.

[ July 19, 2015, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Was that the same weakness W. Bush projected before Russia did something very similar to Georgia?
Yes. No question there, and the lik to presidential perceived weakness to the Russian action was stronger. But . ... An i underinformed on Georgia, or isn't what Putin is doing in the Eukraine more egregious than what happened in Georgia? Setting aside question od US presidential fault.
I don't blame either of these on the President at the time. Countries in the former soviet block can join NATO if they want us to defend them. Once the tanks start crossing the borders it is too late for us to take action.

Ukraine is more egregious than Georgia b/c Russia has actually annexed the regions instead of setting up puppets, but other than that it seems like they are two actions out of the same playbook.

[ July 19, 2015, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1