Being a mod is like doing cocaine, just because you're going to regret it at some point doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Rocket Scientist
Member
What is it about? Link? I couldn't find anything with Google.
TheLaughingStock
Member
His line is a fallacy of division/composition. The capabilities and limitations are not the same. As far as the sequester, obviously it is not occurring in isolation. It's in addition to the expiration of the payroll tax cut, the tax increase on the wealthy, and small spending cuts already enacted in the August 2011 budget control act.
Edit: I skimmed through the article and didn't see that line though?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Take a look at this close-up of austerity: http://theamericanscholar.org/madrid-dignity-and-indignation/?utm_source=email#.USz1Uo5FoXc
The author is the little brother of a long-ago ex-girlfriend, which is how I came across it.
The author is the little brother of a long-ago ex-girlfriend, which is how I came across it.
You're not Amir0x.
Clint Eastwood is on board for gay marriage, can't wait to see the tea party deep throating slowly pull him out of their mouths.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...rop-californias-ban-on-same-sex-marriage?lite
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...rop-californias-ban-on-same-sex-marriage?lite
Smart money is on "he intentionally sabotaged Romney".
That would be the greatest troll of all time...
I want to believe.
electricpirate
Member
Wow, Woodward has gone off the deep end.
Rocket Scientist
Member
They're going to bite down hard.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Hasn't he been for a while?
But you're an ex-mod.
The Librarian
Banned
Can't wait to see you on Hannity.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The only "news" part of this is that he signed on to the amicus brief; Clint Eastwood has been a supporter for same-sex marriage for years. His political views aren't really extreme in any way. He's probably what many Democrats wish the modern Republican Party was.
I guess, though, that the Tea Party Patriots are unfamiliar with his positions.
Years of learning shit the hard way.
Black Mamba
Member
A majority of House GOP voted against VAWA.
lol
fucking clowns.
Amazing optics this will be.
lol
fucking clowns.
Amazing optics this will be.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...-marriage-before-supreme-court?lite&type=link
ronpaulitshappening.gif
Black Mamba
Member
I wonder if they will argue on 14th Amendment grounds or just states issue grounds (agreeing with previous court).
Good news, regardless.
Very good news.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The reports keep saying that they're arguing for gay marriage in California so I'd imagine the later. Though I think there are other briefs that are arguing the 14th amendment. Anybody know when these cases (doma and this) have oral arguments?
Also LOL at Krugman's blog post
Black Mamba
Member
I don't know the exact date but it is in late march
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He's been lying for a while. Even during Watergate (flowerpot wasn't true, deepthroat didn't smoke) and more recently. He embellishes and uses quotations and inner monologues for things he couldn't have heard as well. He's a hack resting on the fact his name is known and he can get sources for his books. He's done good work but it all comes back to watergate.
Woodward’s truthiness problem
Woodward is one of the greatest investigative reporters this country has ever produced (and it produced many great ones), but that doesn't make him a good political commentator.
He was always great as a reporter and terrible as a talking head.
Giant Panda
Member
Obama can go fuck himself if he brings us to war against Iran without a good reason. Seriously, I hope he realizes he would lose all his liberal cred.
empty vessel
Member
Holy shit that article is from two weeks in the future.
I'm sure you read the article in that case.
Yea, but like Obama's old stance it was all about "gays are cool but I wont actually do anything".
It's on paper now, no takebacksies
Giant Panda
Member
Are you trying to say I didn't, because I did. Did you? Explicitly says in the article that Obama sided with the "war is a possibility" faction. In no way was I trying to say that it was guaranteed, I'm just saying if he does, your snarkism aside.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sounds like you didn't read the article. EDIT: war was always a possibility, why are you upset with that? Obama has always had that position.
That being said I get the impression won't be able to hold Israel back next year. The administration has done nearly everything to get Iran off the ledge, but I think they'll jump.
Giant Panda
Member
I really wonder if we are reading the same article, as I don't see what I said that makes it sound disconnected from what the article says.
The global framework can't tolerate more nuclear powers. Iran gets a weapon, and everyone in the middle east will start up their own programs. We can't have another nuclear arms race, particularly in an incredibly unstable region.
The fear from proliferation in the post-Cold War era isn't state/state engagement. Nuclear arms have proven to be more a demonstration of deterrence than anything else, and that's why you hear that nuclear weapons are tools of diplomacy not weapons from the IR and ND crowds.
The fear of nuclear weapons is what happens when someone that is not a state gets a hold of a weapon? That is, a NGO or nationalist entity? Political theory can't reason out that situation.
War is shitty, but this isn't an Iraq case where we were flat out wrong about Saddam's nuclear ambitions (and blinded by Wolfowitz's fervor).
The fear from proliferation in the post-Cold War era isn't state/state engagement. Nuclear arms have proven to be more a demonstration of deterrence than anything else, and that's why you hear that nuclear weapons are tools of diplomacy not weapons from the IR and ND crowds.
The fear of nuclear weapons is what happens when someone that is not a state gets a hold of a weapon? That is, a NGO or nationalist entity? Political theory can't reason out that situation.
War is shitty, but this isn't an Iraq case where we were flat out wrong about Saddam's nuclear ambitions (and blinded by Wolfowitz's fervor).
Giant Panda
Member
First, as of the last report I read at least, there is still only marginal evidence that Iran is trying to build a weapon at this point. So already there are some parallels with Iraq.
Second, we have already united the world against Iran with sanctions that have crippled their economy. I think asking for more beyond this is unreasonable. Attacking them will break this coalition, destroy our reputation, reward Israel's warmongering, and unify public opinion for Iran's government. All for what, delaying their nuclear program for a year or two? Do we plan on making this a bi-yearly occurrence? This is not to mention even the soldiers that will be killed on both sides and the enormous cost it will probably take. Iran has their nuclear sites so spread out around the country that this would not be a quick operation to undertake. It would take a pretty large-scale invasion to make a discernible impact. It would cost lot of money and during these times where people have become afraid of the debt I'm afraid this spending would have to crowd out other domestic spending.
Nongovernmental actors getting nuclear bombs is definitely huge problem but attacking Iran is not the way to avoid it. That situation only make things much worse, not better. I very much doubt Iran is like some of these other countries that have been briefly bombed; they will not give up that easily. In my eyes Obama can join the ranks of Bush and Truman if he wants to join Israel in attacking. If Israel wants to attack let them but it should be made clear that the United States does not support Israel's actions if that were to happen.
We have a better understanding of Iran's capabilities than we did with Iraq, if only from the intelligence side.
Obviously the best outcome would be for that much ballyhooed educated middle class of Iran to overthrow the the Ayatollah, but I don't think anyone's holding their breath for that.
Nobody wants to go to war for the sake of a war.
Also, a huge bulk of the mistakes in Iraq came during the occupation, as we all know. Lack of continuity. Lack of front line resources. A complete disregard for language barriers. All these things that Gates and Petraeus spent four years cleaning up. For the first five years of operations, we were convinced that every insurgent was a die hard jihadists. It wasn't until 2009 with the wide prison studies that we came to understand that, well, we fucked up and had killed somebody's uncle or rolled over a peaceful town or had cut off clean water for months on end, and that was the reason more than half the insurgents were fighting.
Anyways, while I have faith in our much better understanding of counter insurgency, that's also counter balanced by the threat of creating another rallying point for insurgents.
If Iran gains a weapon, Saudi Arabia will want one. Even a country as unstable as Egypt will want one as deterrent force. The fear of proliferation is, basically (there's no kind way to say this), we don't want to add more nations to the pool of nuclear powers because (a) that exposes us to more aggregate risk and (b) we don't trust an unstable government to maintain proper chain of custody of nuclear arms.
Israel isn't war mongering; it's the one nationally recognized state that fights for its own existence. Iran has explicitly stated that its position is that Israel cannot and should not exist as a state. These two states can't coexist if Iran gets a nuke.
Now, a tactical nuke from Iran or North Korea is, at least in terms of threatening the United States, not a big deal. And, frankly, that's all Iran would be capable of making.
For a country the size of Israel, that's catastrophic.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I agree with your post up until the end. I don't disagree that it would be catastrophic for Israel (especially its ability to project power) but I don't think the statement:
is true. Iran is bluffing when it comes to attacking Israel (I also think the translation was accurate and I don't by into the mistranslation stuff). They won't and have no incentive to. There were a lot of words flying around during the cold war too and people said a capitalist country and socialist country couldn't coexist even though they did for 80 years.
I agree about the arms race and the destabilizing effect (Iran I think would be able if they so choose, which I don't think is a forgone conclusion, to fund terrorists and people who fight against Israel.)
I imagine there are a few people who do. Maybe a couple of politicians, CEOs, businessmen, people who really enjoy shooting foreigners (I grew up in a small town, I know a few of these last group, but they are all talk), etc.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Nobody who holds real power wants to go to war for the sake of war. Many of those people who you are saying do have actual motives (how ever flawed they are IMO) be they religious, power projection, neoconservatism, etc.
So from a political theory perspective, yes I agree that nuclear weapons are only effective as deterrence rather than arms, but I don't really trust an extremist theocracy to operate within that framework.
But even if we accept that assumption, Iran's nuclear armament begins a domino effect in the Middle East. It would start a new era of proliferation right in the Middle East. Pakistan starts flexing its arms again. India starts its program back up in response. How does China respond then? Is Russia still going to stand by its obligations to disarm?
That's the tangible concern from the rest of the global community.
Yeah, I guess one could say that 'Defense' contractors are doing it for the money, but I imagine they would like their product to get used so more would have to be purchased and that's close enough for me to consider it of little distinction.
I mean really Margaret Thatcher's the last real example of using war as theater with the Falklands. That seriously boosted her political ambitions domestically and generally Britain's FP from that point on.
And not to diminish the hundreds that died in that war, but it was a minor offensive with assured British victory.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I believe states are generally rational actors. I haven't seen anything Iran done, besides during the middle of the revolution when there was no functioning state, that is irrational from their perspective. I don't see how them being a theocracy has done anything in the Foreign Affairs that would be different from a secular state besides their words.
The assumption that because they are a theocracy they act differently needs evidence.
I am much more concerned for the second reason. While I believe states are rational actors I think with that many nukes and actors you're going to get miscommunication and bad results. Which is why I think there does need to be a military option and why containment isn't that great of an option.
Which is a reason. She insured the world that Britain can (could?) still project power.
Well it's a bit of a chicken and a egg problem, no?
If Iran is a rational actor, it stands to reason that it would aspire to become a nuclear power to establish its power in the region, especially when its two neighbors have been invaded by a western power that is diametrically opposed to your interests (Grand Ayatollah).
Along with a third neighbor whose borders have effectively been ignored for a decade.
Anyways, regardless we're in agreement about the real reason to fear a nuclear Iran. It's not the bullshit "a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to the United States" that some pundits who assume you know absolutely nothing about nuclear arms like to trot out.
It's the opening of a second era of proliferation that's a true threat.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
First of all I don't think the Grand Ayatollah's interests are the ones that matter its Iran and its sovereignty. When have nukes ever been used to proactively. If they're rational, and I think they are, they'll use them the same as every other nation in history be they christian, atheistic, Hindu, buddhist, or muslim. As deterrence for foreign intervention they deem offensive.
I feel like we're not really arguing at this point.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Are you saying this man isn't threatening? I think you might regret staking out that claim.
Are you saying this man isn't threatening? I think you might regret staking out that claim.
Comments retracted.
- Status