|
ZobarStyl posted:
Oh please, just look at USPOL on June 12.
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 14:51
|
|
Cat Army 
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:In non-election/non-media news: It looks like we won't be getting a "No First Use" pledge from Obama. Thank Christ. I was sincerely worried about that. As much as I adore Obama, his Presidency has been a disappointment insofar as he has completely ignored the foreign policy establishment and the recommendations of those who have studied international relations. I am pleased that sanity has won out in this case; a no first use policy is a terrible, horrendously dumb policy that would make the world a significantly moredangerous and unstable place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:why do we have nukes if we don't use them Lol if you think that denouncing a no first use policy means I want nukes to ever be used. It's basic IR signalling y'all. Scaling back the nuclear umbrella emboldens foreign threats, limits our credibility, reduces options in terms of crisis management, and signals an American withdrawal. That's actually not a good thing. And when I say it limits options, I'm not talking about using nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are strategic, defensive - not tactical. A no first use policy leads to a failure of diplomacy and weakens our diplomatic arsenal. It increases the likelihood of needing to use conventional arms when the threat of nuclear use is often sufficient. DnD - and most people, to be fair - have an understanding of international relations that is incredibly uninformed and dismissive of expert opinion. In no other field is this the case. In economics or history or chemistry or public policy, the opinions of experts are generally listened to, and while there is space for disagreement, they are at least respected aa experts. Not so when it comes to foreign policy and IR. It's quite tragic, fundamentally ahistorical, and comes out of a deep and profound ignorance of the science of international relations and the ways in which states interact. It's also very dangerous. It's why I encourage people to at least take a class on international law or international relations, or failing that, read a textbook or something. both fields inevitably teach a significantly more nuanced understanding of the ways in which states interact, and having a conversation on that level is essential.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:On the contrary, insisting on our willingness to commit crimes against humanity damages our ability to engage in any politics. After all, why should I give in if I am dealing with someone who boasts of their willingness to match the Nazis or even exceed them? Why should I trust that they will treat me fairly or decently? Even if we can terrorize enough nations into compliance, sooner or later people who would rather die free than live defiled will call our bluff on our monstrosity. First off, the ICJ has actually ruled that there are indeed circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons can be and is legal under international law. I'm phone postingright now so I don't have the case cite, but I'll see if I can't find it. Secondly that's not actually how states interact.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:If you define "expert" as "realist" then sure. But that's like saying that the only real position that ought be considered in Economics is laissez faire capitalism and that the only real position that ought be considered in Islam is ISIS. I'm perfectly willing to accept the expertise of constructivist and neoliberal IR scholars, but most constructivist strains tend to be incredibly fringe, and neoliberals are at least experts with legitimate, well thought out opinions. I'm not one of them, but they're certainly experts. Except neoliberals (and note to all: in this context it doesn't mean what you think it means) aren't likely to agree with you either on this one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it doesn't, anyone who wants to start a conventional war is capable of correctly reasoning that No First Use is the only rational strategy and that any nuclear first strike posture is a bluff. None obviously, but the threat of doing so most certainly is. Which is why it's critical that we maintain American credibility, so foreign Nations understand that the response to wonton aggression will be severe. The actions of states cannot be so easily reduced to game theory and 'bluffing'. The fact that you're thinking in those terms is revealing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Boy howdy is this a dumb post. They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story. So thank you for proving my point. It's pointlessly limiting, and only incentivizes aggression. There is no benefit to a no first use policy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Your realist theory depends on other states assuming we will act massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will for sure you better believe it bub? pretty sure iraq is a fantastic example of us acting massively against our own interests just because we say we totally will. Gyges posted:Nobody believes that the United States is going to First Strike anyone, there is no credibility to be maintained in pretending we will. Especially when conventional unstoppable death from above is both an actual realistic response and something everyone 110% believes we'll do. On the contrary. We must maintain our credibility to the greatest extent possible, because the deterrent value is not insignificant. Once again, nuclear weapons are not tactical weapons! They are strategic and defensive, and I strongly urge you to consider reading some actual nuclear weapons theory. There's lots of words written about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Except we've already gone over that the threat of nuclear weapons has already been called historically as a bluff during the Cold War and utterly failed to prevent massive, expensive, and pointless proxy wars from flaring up between the US and the USSR. Threatening to commit murder by car bomb while you're sitting in the car with your intended victim isn't a very compelling threat when your victim knows you want to keep on living. The whole theory is bunk, and it's especially hilarious since the Cold War is over and we don't even have the useful fiction of a massive nuclear exchange between the two major powers anymore. Pray tell, how many people died in the proxy wars between the two great powers of the world when compared to those who died in the two world wars? I am happy you also agree that aircraft carriers and the USN are a fundamental component of our national defence and world peace, and must be supported and strengthened however.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The risk that we will actually destroy ourselves over this or that piddly crisis is exactly equal to the risk that we'll freak out and destroy ourselves anyway despite an official No First Use Policy. You're still missing the point I'm afraid. While it's true that a threat is useful to a large part insofar as it will be followed through, the threat in the first place is still nonetheless an incredibly valuable diplomatic tool. No sense in throwing out part of the toolbox for no gain.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How about Jeb!'s adviser John Noonan's takedown of Trump's "Yes first use" policy? Trump's "first use" nuclear policy is very different from the status quo, nor is Noonan's (excellent) rant on the subject in any way in contradiction with the status quo. Failing to adopt a "no first use" policy does not mean we're going to actually use nuclear weapons y'all. It just means that other states by definition cannot discount that. Actually using nuclear weapons defeats their purpose, but maintaining the nuclear umbrella is an excellent deterrent to not just nuclear war, but conventional war between powers as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:No gain? So a step towards total nuclear disarmament is undesirable to you? Yes! Nuclear disarmament is terrifying to me, as it should be to everyone. Paradoxish posted:You keep saying this, but you haven't established how first use represents a credible deterrent if there's no rational situation where it could be used. If a deterrent relies on an opponent believing that the US government will act irrationally, then how does policy even matter? Why would a government making completely irrational decisions adhere to established policy? Ah, I'm seeing the problem here. You're assuming that the character of a government matters when it comes to IR. A cabinet can certainly shape and direct IR strategy, but they are nonetheless fundamentally constrained by the anarchic nature of international relations. Using nuclear weapons will never be a rational action. Maintaining them for the purpose of threatening their use is a rational action. Lightning Knight posted:
International dick waving is legitimately and unironically the most important part of any military, so yeah, that's actually pretty rad. Shbobdb posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory Hah. Literally IRL one of my most treasured possessions is a portrait of Kissinger.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:If the entire point of nuclear policy is security theater - which is in fact all it is - then why is the moral low-ground of telling the world that we're abject sociopaths willing to threaten to murder everyone if one country steps out of line more worthwhile than the moral high-ground of telling the world that we refuse to be the ones to cause the apocalypse, but that doesn't mean we won't defend them from someone who would? Especially since the former is blatantly false and the latter is more or less true, even if not motivated out of altruism? Because maintaining American hegemony and the American empire does help everyone. And I do mean literally everyone. We live in an age free from great power war, an era rarely seen throughout history! We live in a world where great-great power conflict dyads are a thing of the past. We live in an time of unipolarity, a time of unprecedented peace and stability. That is solely and entirely due to the might of the United States of America. The United States military is the greatest force for peace and stability the world has ever known. We are not the world police, but we are the ones with the power and the responsibility to destroy those who seek to overturn all that we have built, and the peace we have known.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
It was a stupid, shortsighted war that killed hundreds of thousands of people for no reason and very nearly spelled the end of American leadership. Why on earth would I support Iraq? Even Afghanistan, for all that it was more morally justifiable, was a shitshow from start to finish. Shbobdb posted:Pax Americana Yes, precisely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:50
|
|
you're a tool and every single one of your opinions on foreign policy are both stupid and morally bankrupt.
|
VitalSigns posted:If actually using the weapons defeats their purpose, then other states by definition can discount that. Not so! By definition they cannot discount the use of nuclear weapons, for their sheer destructive power makes them a threat that cannot ever be discounted. BiohazrD posted:There is no acceptable use to nuclear weapons ever. It woild literally mean the end of the world. If Russia launched all of their ICBMs right now the only morally acceptable thing the US could do would be to stand down so that only 300 million people would be exterminated rather than 7 billion on the contrary. Better Russia and the United States be turned to glass in such a scenario, for at least then the states that rise from the ashes might understand that MAD is not an empty theory. Otherwise worldwide destruction has only been postponed. CharlestheHammer posted:Just ignore the wars we started. Nor the Russians or the Chinese. I'll take a few thousand dead from drones than tens of millions dead in another great power war, fought with weapons a fraction as powerful as those we have today.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:PNAC? They're the Foreign Policy Initiative now, but yeah they're not half bad. Kagan is brilliant, if nothing else. Lightning Knight posted:lmao there's nothing loving special about American hegemony that has caused this brief period of unusual peace, that has lasted for less than a century. The existence of and game theory around nuclear weapons is responsible for it, nuclear weapons being an inevitable discovery and invention that would've happened regardless of whether or not the United States or some other power dominated the world. Just because American imperialism is nominally more enlightened than our predecessors is a function of us having the luxury of living with their examples to learn from, and we fail miserably at even that. And American imperialism has only been good in practice for white Americans, you racist, patronizing prick. Eh, hegemony has always brought peace, regardless of which state has claimed that particular mantle. The fact that the United States is a liberal democracy leads to the happy state of affairs where hegemony is not only useful, but entirely ethically and morally justifiable as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, I'm not. I'm asking you to explain how a deterrent can be credible if every other state knows that it won't be used. Because they can't be sure it won't be used, it's as simple as that. It's unlikely, sure, but it must necessarily factor into our decisionmaking. Think of it like we think of a Trump presidency. Sure, it's not likely to happen. But the fact that it might is so incredibly dangerous that it must be taken seriously and taken into account.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:We all appreciate your noble sacrifice of other people's lives. You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere. It's a viewpoint entirely neutral of national character. I'm a patriot, but that's almost beside the point! It's a numbers game, pure and simple. Fewer people die under American hegemony than would in a more multipolar world. It's as simple as that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm sure you would have the same vapid, patronizing, stupid opinions if you were a black Middle Eastern Muslim man as you do as a privileged American who is part of the military. I suppose I can't really blame black Middle Eastern Muslims for rejecting American hegemony. They're dead either way, so what's it to them? mandatory lesbian posted:oh wow we've been at peace this whole time, guess we need to inform afghanistan and iraq mandatory lesbian posted:we were very tranquil when we invaded your country under false pretenses and usurped your government and basically ruined everything for you I was under the impression I was fairly explicit about only discussing great-great power conflict?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then the official policy on first use is irrelevant because nuclear weapons can never be discounted. It's not irrelevant, but it means they're easier to discount. I don't see why that's desirable. Lightning Knight posted:I mean, people stop dying when you win the game and are the last civ standing. Sometimes, you know, you just gotta launch a few nukes, get those cities that your XCOM can't easily reach. What's a few million dead to ensure Pax Americana under the infinite rule of folklore George Washington? Where have I advocated the use of nukes in this conversation 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:It's also just as likely that intertwined global economies that emerged out of advances in shipping technology and open sea-lanes, kept open by, admittedly, the US Navy and others has contributed to global peace and stability just as much as total fear of US weapons and invasions. In fact probably more. It's also likely no coincidence that the nation-states that have seen limited benefits from the expansion of international trade have tended to be the hot spots of post-World War II conflict. This is absolutely the case! It's why free trade is so important, because it establishes mutually beneficial spiral relationships between nations that reduce the incentives for conflict. I don't believe that's sufficient all on its own like neoliberals do, since I think that states will always choose security over prosperity, but anything that makes the world more peaceful is A-OK in my book.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You know one of my best friends went into the military and has broadly similar opinions, but based out of an earnest optimistic belief in idealized American power and genuine neoconservative beliefs about the power of our military as a force for good. And I respect him, if only because he admits when he's wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence and generally believes that above all we should at least try to make killing people a last resort. And I accept him as being willfully ignorant and dense, but well-meaning. I mean, I'm not even advocating for the use of nuclear weapons, or even the use of our military in the first place. I'm saying that having them is important because it means other nations are less likely to go to war as a result, meaning less people are going to die. Which means it's very important to ensure we don't elect bloodthirsty madmen like Trump who are going to use our military to kill lots of people for no good reason! The entire foundation of hegemonic stability theory is the preservation of all human life. If advocating for the maintenance of American full spectrum dominance is malevolence, so be it, but yeah, we should absolutely make killing people a last resort! And it's easier to make killing people unnecessary when we have a military that's very very good at killing people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
dogs named Charlie posted:Weren't you a log cabin republican? I don't know why you think that'd be the case! What I think you guys seem to be missing is that I don't want to have to use our military. I don't want to kill anyone. But ultimately the best way to stop warfare between great powers is by having a really big stick. That's why maintaining credibility is so important, and why Obama's biggest failure was making a Syrian red line and then refusing to act on it. mandatory lesbian posted:okay cool, we're still not at peace so it's ultimately meaningless to try and compartmentalize conflict like that It's not meaningless, when the difference is 174,000 dead Iraqis compared to millions and millions of dead in every single incidence of great power war.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You are arguing that nukes can both be discounted and cannot ever be discounted. I'm arguing that there are degrees to which nuclear weapons act as deterrents. Even with a no first use policy, they still act as a deterrent to conventional war. However, they are a weaker deterrent as a result of a no first use policy than they would be otherwise. Nuclear weapons can never be fully discounted. However, there are degrees to which they can be discounted, which is influenced by IR signalling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
dogs named Charlie posted:There would have been 0 dead Iraqis if our leadership didn't think they needed to prove their manhood to the region Which is why we shouldn't elect Republicans, I agree.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You only are not advocating for the use of nuclear weapons because they would cause severe blowback on the United States. If we lived in a hypothetical world where the US was the only ones with nuclear weapons I bet you'd advocate for their use in a loving heartbeat. I'm not advocating for the use of nuclear weapons because it defeats the whole point of nuclear weapons for them to be used. I'm not advocating for their use not because of blowback, I'm not sure how you got that impression, but because I cannot conceive of a situation using nuclear weapons would ever be a good idea. To the rest of your post, all I can say is that you should study your history better. Three thousand dead on 9/11 were tragic, and showcased that our national defense was weaker than it should have been. But uh, three thousand dead is way different from millions in a war with another great power, and between the two I'll take the three thousand.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And so the real long con emerges: The Iron Rose wants to be to foreign policy what MIGF is to domestic policy for the Democrats. Bring home all the Blue Dogs and neoconservatives to roost and stick the party firmly in the regressive, centrist position of being milquetoast, permanently neoliberal and aggressively hawkish in foreign policy, but juuuuust responsible enough to not enter into Iraq level shenanigans. Yeah that'd be pretty rad tbh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Well let's do a comparison, do you believe that when the British Empire as the paramount power and there were no "large scale" wars in Europe that was a "good time" for everyone? Oh god no, but that's the beauty of liberal democracy. You can enjoy the benefits of comparative global peace and stability without having to deal with the whole colonialism and slavery thing. I also think it's questionable whether or not the British empire actually saved lives through deterring large scale wars between great powers when compared to the millions and millions it enslaved, starved, and genocided. Lightning Knight posted:9/11 wasn't a failure of national security, it was a failure of national intelligence, because our intelligence apparatus is designed to interfere in the affairs of Third World nations and play Tom Clancy bullshit roleplay games with the Russians and Chinese, not actually do anything meaningful to protect us. Further still it was a failure of our foreign policy, in pushing and prodding a people and a region until they couldn't take it anymore and lashed out and back at us for being so goddamn stupid in not leaving them alone. Mhm, have you read the 9/11 commission report? It was a failure of our intelligence agencies, sure, but it was first and foremost a failure of our political leadership. They decided to stovepipe intelligence, and we all paid the price for it. Rather similar to when the Johnson administration discounted the warnings of the CIA in Vietnam, preferring the much neater enemy count analyses of MACV. also I'm under no illusions that American hegemony will last forever. That's too arrogant, even for me. But the fact that American hegemony is inherently impermanent is no reason not to try and make it last as long as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Was Britain not a liberal democracy during most of the Empire? Certainly not everyone was allowed a vote, but that doesn't take place until the 1900's anywhere. Uh, no? No it wasn't a liberal democracy? It might well have had democratic elements, but it sure as gently caress wasn't liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Let me clarify. That's the beauty of a liberal democracy that doesn't go around enslaving people or colonizing as a matter of state policy. Lightning Knight posted:Of course it was, but the political leadership you're happily criticizing are the same people who think your philosophy is correct and who you want to infest the Democratic Party, so your contradictory bullshit just confuses me at this point. I'm not an imperialist. I've no taste for colonialism or imposing our will when doing so is unnecessary and unwanted. I just want American full spectrum dominance to be maintained, so that the United States remains the unquestioned sole hyperpower and hegemon. The result is global peace and stability, and that's a result I'm happy with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You haven't proven this and it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The only situation so dire that there's risk we'd actually follow through on such a policy are also so dire that we're just as likely to do it regardless of policy. That's really only going to be imminent defeat in a total war: MAD, and in no other situation. Well, total war isn't really the only thing I'm interested in deterring? I don't really want China loving around in the South China Sea or the Taiwanese Strait either. I'm not really sure how to phrase it other than I have. States can never entirely discount tools in another states' toolbox. However, through the use of IR signalling, they can assess, to greater or lesser degrees of accuracy, the likelihood that those tools will be used. A no first use policy signals to the world that we, obviously, won't use nuclear weapons first in a given conflict. That's all well and good, but for the fact that it means that conventional war suddenly became a hell of a lot safer to engage in, since the threat of nuclear destruction as a result just became a whole lot less. quote:I have another question about your position Well, yes, but uh. There hasn't actually been any event that would trigger a first strike doctrine, seeing as there hasn't actually been a large scale war that would trigger said first strike doctrine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Classical liberlism had ones of it's chief founders as part of Great Britain. Adam Smith for one, and the later trade liberalisations under various governments. Fair point, I was being sloppy with my words and my definitions. When I talk of liberalism I'm talking about a universal franchise. Let me put it another way. Whether or not it's turtles all the way down, it's better that everyone, from every background, can participate in that conversation about those turtles. This is a feature that wasn't present when the british were hegemon, when the dutch were, when the mongols were, or when the romans were. It is, for the most part, present now. quote:Also, the empire had stopped slavery far earlier than many colonial powers. Colonization was usually only done by private companies, so why was the Empire "bad"? The deaths of Thousands in famines situations and the eventual collapse and anarchy that it lead to? The support of regimes that we find abhorent and which hurt millions even today? The constant high handed arrogance of "Whatever happens we have got, the maxim gun and they have not?" Because I'd agree with you there, the problem is that some of those have current paralels. I'm not really sure I'd make such a distinction between the actions of private british companies and the british government, but I'm not a SME in that particular time period and can't really comment beyond the basics. You may well be right, I couldn't possibly comment. Nonetheless, I would absolutely say that American hegemony results in global peace and stability, when compared to the alternative. I think that's the missing component here. In the absence of alternatives, I can easily see how American hegemony is seen as an evil, horrendous thing! But when the alternative is war between great powers, any great powers, it's on the balance not just the lesser evil, but the greater good. VitalSigns posted:True, and therefore first strike doctrine doesn't deter They would be if China and Japan fought one another in the Pacific Rim! The historical means by which these sort of territorial problems were solved was through warfare - that's not nearly as safe an option anymore thanks to the USN and the nuclear umbrella. I'm personally of the belief that the seventh fleet has more to do with that than our nuclear umbrella, but I've still yet to hear any reason why a No First Use policy would be useful. The deterrence value generated by a no first use policy, however great or meager it is in the estimation of China and Russia, is essentially free. There is nothing, to my knowledge, to be gained from a No First Use Policy whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Correct, it is the USN that deters Chinese aggression in the Pacific. I suppose this is where you and I disagree then. I don't believe that maintaining a first use policy damages our credibility when we have yet to be put in a situation where that credibility would be damaged by our failure to use nuclear weapons in accordance with that policy. In other words, even if it deters wars only to a minor degree, well, that's worth it in my book. The moral hazard I'm less worried about because I can't picture a situation in which we'd actually do that, and the result of a first use policy is a deterrent effect, once again, however minor or great that turns out to be. However, matching policy to practical reality is dangerous, because PLA planners in the Central Military Commission (or Russian generals in the Kremlin) can put that possibility out of their minds easier with a no first use policy than without.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The PLA attacked the US military in a conventional war already, our nuclear umbrella did nothing to deter them. Alright, that's an excellent counterpoint that, in all honesty, I had forgotten about. I had gotten it into my head that Chinese interference in the Korean War had been significantly less direct. I'll concede my point. You were right and I was wrong. I will still maintain that there's no benefit from a no first use policy now, and any deterrent effect, while clearly more minor than I initially thought, is still worth keeping. But that's more because I can't see an upside to a no first use policy rather than anything else. Josef bugman posted:Disagree entirely. Its definetly "lesser evil", because you can't do bad guy poo poo and then say you are the good guy. You can't set up torture camps in foreign nations and then go "well we're doing this because we're good guys!" moreso because multipolarity has never been anything other than chaotic and filled with death, but that's definitely true as well. Shbobdb posted:Do you remember the Bush years? A head of state openly and publicly threatening the use of nuclear weapons is a very, very dangerous line and escalates conflict to a degree that's rarely acceptable. The point of nukes is that they're defensive and strategic, not tactical. While no US president should ever categorically rule out the use of nuclear weapons due to the damage caused from that signalling, I was never a great admirer of madman theory either. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I could see an argument that it would make non nuclear but mega-damaging shenanigans seem more attractive. That was the argument I was making, though I'm pretty sure I lost that one 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:She is severely mentally ill, which is not a slight against those suffering from severe mental illnesses, but it is apparent from her posts that she has a very hard time seeing the world in a healthy way. wait what. well that's just rude. I guess "our political opponents are mentally ill!" thing belongs on both sides of the aisle. I guess if you can't call me a racist (my family's from the middle east yo) that's about the only thing that's left, but like, have some pride man. but i like how your only resort to ~~a minority~~ disagreeing with you is to call them mentally ill 
The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:TIR is mostly right about all this, and I really only disagree with her about the Syria stuff. I think people that are mad about the red line thing overvalue projecting manliness than smart policy. A no fly zone after the Ghouta attack would have been my preferred policy. Whether it hcould ave been maintained till now is another story, but it would have saved a good hundred thousand innocent Syrian lives in the meantime. I believer Volkerball has the exact stats on that. Still, it would have been a limited engagement that would have dramatically improved our favourability in region, and uh, saved a hundred thousand people from being slaughtered, to say nothing of significantly limiting the systematic destruction of civil society in rebel held areas of Syria.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I'm less well read here than I should be, admittedly, but I was under the impression the Syrian air force and their Russian and Iranian backers weren't likely to take that lying down either diplomatically or militarily. They wouldn't have, but in 2012 and 2013 there would have been sweet gently caress all they could do about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Save the money or spend it on getting food to poor people? that's literally what they were spending money on
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
there's a lot of countries in the world with lovely governments and shittier leaders. Are we supposed to just ignore them and sing "la la la"? There's a reason why international law recognizes the validity of international agreements (treaties, etc) entered into by illegitimate governments as binding upon the state, regardless of who is in power. It is essential that states not fall into a legal or diplomatic black hole, and cutting diplomatic, aid, and/or economic ties is a very risky step in that direction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:No, but backing them seems like a bad policy. C.f. Saudi Arabia and the amount of arms deals they get. Spoken like a man who has never studied international law, and entirely fails to realize the principles that underlie it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 23:56
|
|