|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 24 2015 09:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 09:14 ragz_gt wrote: Devotion for government oversight should exceed religious, as it's actually a thing that happens That's like asking which do you put more faith in, a beater or Santa's reindeer. While a beater might breakdown at any moment, you ain't going anywhere waiting for the slate. Expecting the invisible hand of the free market to control healthcare costs when the consumer isn't even aware of what is being charged for the services is pure myth. Expecting the consumer to make informed decisions when they have almost zero information is why the free market argument for healthcare is hilarious. Nothing beat the NPR story where they tried to get a quote for the cost of an MRI. Took them over a week to get a single price from one hospital. People in the ER asking "hey, how much do you charge for a blood transfusion here? I might want to be moved to a cheaper ER. Please get me quotes from all the local ERs on all my treatments for the next week. Thanks."
I agree healthcare in US is messed up. Lived in multiple countries, the quality of care US healthcare has is by far the best, but the system is by far the worst. On the other hand I don't really have any idea how to fix it so I stay out of that argument. I was just replying to Danglars who somehow think religion should weigh more than government oversight.
|
Cuba and Iran really aren't analogous. Cuba was merely a pawn for the Soviet Union during the Cold War; unfortunate collateral damage during a conflict in which it personally had very little at stake. It is extremely promising that ties are finally being renewed between Cuba and the West, and the Cuban people may be released from the sins of their fathers.
Iran, on the other hand, is a rising and dominant power in the Middle East. It's America in the Western Hemisphere during the nineteenth century, except it's even more volatile and unpredictable as it's operating without the assurance of regional hegemony. You'd think we would've learned from our own mistakes; to be able to predict Iran's motives and understand it could never accept nuclear impotence.
To answer your question, war is not the answer. Heavy sanctions, like those currently in place and perhaps even greater, are necessary to severely limit Iran until a more progressive regime, more representative of a constituency I fully believe to be rapidly modernizing and aligning with more rational values, takes power and finds common ground with the West. Now is not that time. We cannot force history. We certainly shouldn't willingly repeat it, but such is our fate.
Edit: Ahmadinejad made it his top priority to propel Iran to nuclear power. Iran remains without nuclear weapons. If you think the sanctions don't work, I'd also invite you to study the Iranian economy since their implementation. There's a reason the innocent masses are rejoicing in the streets, and it's not all propaganda. I'd also invite you to study Khomeini, then truly ask yourself if he will be abandoning nuclear development for a decade under the new deal.
Sanctions ARE intervention. Sanctions ARE power. To think we'd somehow have a stranglehold on a nuclear program in a nation as reclusive, large and distant as Iran is truly a dream. We will have no more power than we have now; I'd argue that we'd have significantly less as Iran rapidly expands development and influence in the interim.
|
The thing is.... developing a nuke is dirt cheap compared to stuff Iran actually need to do, such as building infrastructure, education, and improve quality of life. Sanction doesn't stop Iran from developing weapon, as everyone would starve to death before they run out of money to make a nuke, and Iran government doesn't seem all that concern with letting a few million people starve for a bomb.
|
On July 24 2015 09:43 always_winter wrote: Cuba and Iran really aren't analogous. Cuba was merely a pawn for the Soviet Union during the Cold War; unfortunate collateral damage during a conflict in which it personally had very little at stake. It is extremely promising that ties are finally being renewed between Cuba and the West, and the Cuban people may be released from the sins of their fathers.
Iran, on the other hand, is a rising and dominant power in the Middle East. It's America in the Western Hemisphere during the nineteenth century, except it's even more volatile and unpredictable as it's operating without the assurance of regional hegemony. You'd think we would've learned from our own mistakes; to be able to predict Iran's motives and understand it could never accept nuclear impotence.
To answer your question, war is not the answer. Heavy sanctions, like those currently in place and perhaps even greater, are necessary to severely limit Iran until a more progressive regime, more representative of a constituency I fully believe to be rapidly modernizing and aligning with more rational values, takes power and finds common ground with the West. Now is not that time. We cannot force history. We certainly shouldn't willingly repeat it, but such is our fate. "Heavy sanctions" that will somehow make them do what we want? Wait, they already don't do that. I guess we could wait around for a more progressive regime so everything is perfect and exactly what we want.
But they might develop a bomb between now and then. Then we will have literally zero power over them.
|
On July 24 2015 09:43 always_winter wrote: Edit: Ahmadinejad made it his top priority to propel Iran to nuclear power. Iran remains without nuclear weapons. If you think the sanctions don't work, I'd also invite you to study the Iranian economy since their implementation. There's a reason the innocent masses are rejoicing in the streets, and it's not all propaganda. I'd also invite you to study Khomeini, then truly ask yourself if he will be abandoning nuclear development for a decade under the new deal.
No one would dispute that sanction ruined Iran economy, on the other hand it did very little stop them from developing nuke, which is why we are here now.
You are confusing Iranian citizen with people who are actually interested in making a bomb. The sactions matters for former, but very little to latter as they can just take food from others. It's like when Chinese made the bomb, the slogan literally was "would rather have bomb than eat", and it sure was not top government officials who were starving.
|
On July 24 2015 09:56 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 09:43 always_winter wrote: Edit: Ahmadinejad made it his top priority to propel Iran to nuclear power. Iran remains without nuclear weapons. If you think the sanctions don't work, I'd also invite you to study the Iranian economy since their implementation. There's a reason the innocent masses are rejoicing in the streets, and it's not all propaganda. I'd also invite you to study Khomeini, then truly ask yourself if he will be abandoning nuclear development for a decade under the new deal. No one would dispute that sanction ruined Iran economy, on the other hand it did very little stop them from developing nuke, which is why we are here now. You are confusing Iranian citizen with people who are actually interested in making a bomb. The sactions matters for former, but very little to latter as they can just take food from others. It's like when Chinese made the bomb, the slogan literally was "would rather have bomb than eat", and it sure was not top government officials who were starving.
I can assure you that I am not confused on the matter.. My entirely impractical degree has all but assured that.
Ahmadinejad took power in 2005. A decade later Iran remains nuke-less. If you believe Iran could be denied nuclear power for a span of ten years, with nuclear technology in the hands of India, Pakistan and North Korea, without the overbearing effect of international sanctions, then I'm afraid we see the world differently.
Edit: Fixed a double-negative leading to awkward wording.
To answer your question below, M.A.D. is the answer. If you think they're already on the brink of a nuclear breakthrough, and I'd tend to agree, then what is a piece of paper going to do to stop religious fanatics from exacting their will? I'd like to think they'd still act rationally as a state actor, particularly when annihilation is at stake. Nothing in this world is perfect. Sanctioning a nuclear program isn't the best option either. I place myself in the camp advocating it's the best alternative. Ultimately what I'm saying is Iran won't abandon nuclear ambition; they'll simply be better at hiding it. In that regard we'd be best suited to limit their capacity, rather than trust their leaders who publicly advocate our demise.
|
For sure it slowed it, but slowed is a totally different concept from stopped. Stopped means if remaining in status quo, they would never get there, slowing on the other, guarantees they would. And now they are nearly done, which is the whole reason the negotiation is happening. It might took them 5 year without sanction, and 10 with, but now we are in year 9. What's your plan?
To answer your question below, M.A.D. is the answer. If you think they're already on the brink of a nuclear breakthrough, and I'd tend to agree, then what is a piece of paper going to do to stop religious fanatics from exacting their will. I'd like to think they'd still act rationally as a state actor, particularly when annihilation is at stake. Nothing in this world is perfect. Sanctioning a nuclear program isn't the best option either. I place myself in the camp advocating it's the best alternative. Ultimately what I'm saying is Iran won't abandon nuclear ambition; they'll simply be better at hiding it. In that regard we'd be best suited to limit their capacity, rather than trust their leaders with whom we have nothing in common
I agree with your point on Iran, except I think that normalize relationship is better than keeping up with the rhetoric. Again look at China, them getting nuke didn't result in end of the world, neither did Pakistan, nor North Korea (and I'd like to think Iran is not AS crazy as NK). I believe nothing would change current Iran regime like you do, but I think without a change in relationship it is a guarantee that the next generation of Iran government would be as hostile since it confirms their belief that the west is dead set on destroying them.
As for would Iran try to breakout during the duration of the deal, I donno, it is not an Iran - US deal, and Iran does need some backing from China and Russia. IMO it is possible that they would stay relatively calm during this period for economic development, though it's not a sure thing.
|
To be honest I think the best counter-argument is the effect economic sanctions have on anti-Western ideology; as a vehicle driving opposition to the West which becomes indoctrinated and handed down from generation to generation. In that regard it's hard to find common ground with people who have been taught to hate you, but not impossible.
The internet is a magnificent beast. The unprecedented flow of information is an invaluable source of inter-cultural understanding and genuine human progression. I think a progressive movement is already taking root in Iran, not only in spite of these sanctions but BECAUSE of these sanctions, coupled with the age of information which has allowed them to see this world absent a jaded lens. I believe we're best suited to wait for our contemporaries to take power, rather than force history upon the unwilling and risk the consequences.
Edit: Israel is perhaps the most unwilling of all state actors, an intricate piece of the puzzle which has already choreographed air strikes in the event of American abandonment and Iranian nuclear achievement.
I'd also add to that point, as clarification, that I believe the sanctions, from so many thriving Western nations, are fueling revolutionary thought processes within Iranian youth, in which they understand the extreme limitations of a reclusive state and wish to participate on the world stage. I believe they see a commonality among global youth and a common ground from which to leap forward. In that regard I'm an optimist. In a million others I'm a dedicated pessimist. But yea, you raise a valid point and it's easily the best counter argument, but we live in an age capable of overcoming generational indoctrination.
Below is another valid point, but think anti-establishment Germans during the Nazi regime. I'd be hesitant to draw too many parallels, but it certainly illustrates the point that reason can overcome indoctrination and propaganda, and we have far more tools at our disposal to do so now as opposed to the 1930's.
|
In my opinion vast of majority of people would not entertain the idea of favoring a foreign power over own country. Just look at Russia and China, there are a ton of dissatisfaction and complains within, but when it is time to pick a side between US or their home country, the choice is pretty easy and clear.
|
On July 24 2015 09:39 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 09:36 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2015 09:14 ragz_gt wrote: Devotion for government oversight should exceed religious, as it's actually a thing that happens That's like asking which do you put more faith in, a beater or Santa's reindeer. While a beater might breakdown at any moment, you ain't going anywhere waiting for the slate. Expecting the invisible hand of the free market to control healthcare costs when the consumer isn't even aware of what is being charged for the services is pure myth. Expecting the consumer to make informed decisions when they have almost zero information is why the free market argument for healthcare is hilarious. Nothing beat the NPR story where they tried to get a quote for the cost of an MRI. Took them over a week to get a single price from one hospital. People in the ER asking "hey, how much do you charge for a blood transfusion here? I might want to be moved to a cheaper ER. Please get me quotes from all the local ERs on all my treatments for the next week. Thanks." I agree healthcare in US is messed up. Lived in multiple countries, the quality of care US healthcare has is by far the best, but the system is by far the worst. On the other hand I don't really have any idea how to fix it so I stay out of that argument. I was just replying to Danglars who somehow think religion should weigh more than government oversight. Oh, I don't doubt there's a comparison of religions here. Plansix simply has more faith in one method than another. The only trouble is he thinks free market decisions ... actually choosing from a field ... is the false religion and the better one is Experts (!!!) choosing for you, managing those tricky costs and alternatives. Now, I have very little beef with a fanatic against market choices, provided he acknowledges his blind faith in bureaucratic insight. It seems, so sadly, people in Plansix's sense exalt their chosen faith beyond rational analysis. It cannot be questioned; all other plans may be.
|
On July 24 2015 10:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 09:39 ragz_gt wrote:On July 24 2015 09:36 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2015 09:14 ragz_gt wrote: Devotion for government oversight should exceed religious, as it's actually a thing that happens That's like asking which do you put more faith in, a beater or Santa's reindeer. While a beater might breakdown at any moment, you ain't going anywhere waiting for the slate. Expecting the invisible hand of the free market to control healthcare costs when the consumer isn't even aware of what is being charged for the services is pure myth. Expecting the consumer to make informed decisions when they have almost zero information is why the free market argument for healthcare is hilarious. Nothing beat the NPR story where they tried to get a quote for the cost of an MRI. Took them over a week to get a single price from one hospital. People in the ER asking "hey, how much do you charge for a blood transfusion here? I might want to be moved to a cheaper ER. Please get me quotes from all the local ERs on all my treatments for the next week. Thanks." I agree healthcare in US is messed up. Lived in multiple countries, the quality of care US healthcare has is by far the best, but the system is by far the worst. On the other hand I don't really have any idea how to fix it so I stay out of that argument. I was just replying to Danglars who somehow think religion should weigh more than government oversight. Oh, I don't doubt there's a comparison of religions here. Plansix simply has more faith in one method than another. The only trouble is he thinks free market decisions ... actually choosing from a field ... is the false religion and the better one is Experts (!!!) choosing for you, managing those tricky costs and alternatives. Now, I have very little beef with a fanatic against market choices, provided he acknowledges his blind faith in bureaucratic insight. It seems, so sadly, people in Plansix's sense exalt their chosen faith beyond rational analysis. It cannot be questioned; all other plans may be. You really took that joke about people not reading the bible, yet saying it tells them to do things to a whole new place. It's like I don't even need to be here.
|
Seems like the biggest lie that Americans are told about the free market is that they actually have options, when you have almost none when it comes to fundamental services.
|
Did anyone have time to read the Kozinski criminal justice article yet?
|
Winter, on what basis do you think that the sanctions are a source of the progressivism element in Iran?
|
On July 24 2015 10:32 always_winter wrote: To be honest I think the best counter-argument is the effect economic sanctions have on anti-Western ideology; as a vehicle driving opposition to the West which becomes indoctrinated and handed down from generation to generation. In that regard it's hard to find common ground with people who have been taught to hate you, but not impossible.
The internet is a magnificent beast. The unprecedented flow of information is an invaluable source of inter-cultural understanding and genuine human progression. I think a progressive movement is already taking root in Iran, not only in spite of these sanctions but BECAUSE of these sanctions, coupled with the age of information which has allowed them to see this world absent a jaded lens. I believe we're best suited to wait for our contemporaries to take power, rather than force history upon the unwilling and risk the consequences.
Edit: Israel is perhaps the most unwilling of all state actors, an intricate piece of the puzzle which has already choreographed air strikes in the event of American abandonment and Iranian nuclear achievement.
I'd also add to that point, as clarification, that I believe the sanctions, from so many thriving Western nations, are fueling revolutionary thought processes within Iranian youth, in which they understand the extreme limitations of a reclusive state and wish to participate on the world stage. I believe they see a commonality among global youth and a common ground from which to leap forward. In that regard I'm an optimist. In a million others I'm a dedicated pessimist. But yea, you raise a valid point and it's easily the best counter argument, but we live in an age capable of overcoming generational indoctrination.
Below is another valid point, but think anti-establishment Germans during the Nazi regime. I'd be hesitant to draw too many parallels, but it certainly illustrates the point that reason can overcome indoctrination and propaganda, and we have far more tools at our disposal to do so now as opposed to the 1930's.
Can you provide a link to a non-proliferation expert who thinks the deal is bad? I haven't been able to find a single one.
The key points to consider when evaluating the deal are: 1. The sanctions slowed down Iran's nuclear program, but could not stop it completely. Without a deal the only way to prevent Iran from getting nukes would have been a war. 2. Keeping the sanctions on depended upon the support of the international community, particularly the UN and the EU. If we had not accepted a deal which the rest of the world views in a very favorable light, we would have lost that support. Most of the sanctions would have been lifted, and Iran would get to have its cake and eat it too (i.e., no sanctions, and an unfettered nuclear program) 3. If it looks like Iran is cheating, we can reimpose the sanctions with a relatively short delay, something like 30 days, with no ability for Russia or China or anyone else to block it.
The only criticism of the deal that I find credible is that it doesn't do anything to prevent Iran from continuing its nonsense in the Mideast, such as funding terrorist groups. However, from a purely non-proliferation perspective, it seems like the best deal we could have hoped for.
Anyway, I wonder if the GOP's blustering actually helped the negotiators?
Kerry: "Iran, I know your position on this point is reasonable, and I'd really just LOVE to give in on it, but you've heard all the screaming from the wingnuts in Congress right? If you don't give in on this, they will kill the deal no matter how stupid it would be to do so."
|
Remember the thing Obama said about how the negotiators didn't bring up the captive Americans in Iran? They didn't want to tie the nuclear deal to anything else and given Iran more bargaining chips. In my view, they applied the same thing to Iran sponsoring all sorts of extremist groups. Focus on the nuclear issue, negotiate from a position of strength. Don't put more stuff on the table and let Iran trade a few pawns for a knight.
|
On July 24 2015 13:06 ticklishmusic wrote: Remember the thing Obama said about how the negotiators didn't bring up the captive Americans in Iran? They didn't want to tie the nuclear deal to anything else and given Iran more bargaining chips. In my view, they applied the same thing to Iran sponsoring all sorts of extremist groups. Focus on the nuclear issue, negotiate from a position of strength. Don't put more stuff on the table and let Iran trade a few pawns for a knight.
The second part, the funding of groups, should actually have been a high priority. Honestly, I don't fear Iran with nukes if they don't have credibility in the Islamist terrorist community.
|
On July 24 2015 12:41 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 10:32 always_winter wrote: To be honest I think the best counter-argument is the effect economic sanctions have on anti-Western ideology; as a vehicle driving opposition to the West which becomes indoctrinated and handed down from generation to generation. In that regard it's hard to find common ground with people who have been taught to hate you, but not impossible.
The internet is a magnificent beast. The unprecedented flow of information is an invaluable source of inter-cultural understanding and genuine human progression. I think a progressive movement is already taking root in Iran, not only in spite of these sanctions but BECAUSE of these sanctions, coupled with the age of information which has allowed them to see this world absent a jaded lens. I believe we're best suited to wait for our contemporaries to take power, rather than force history upon the unwilling and risk the consequences.
Edit: Israel is perhaps the most unwilling of all state actors, an intricate piece of the puzzle which has already choreographed air strikes in the event of American abandonment and Iranian nuclear achievement.
I'd also add to that point, as clarification, that I believe the sanctions, from so many thriving Western nations, are fueling revolutionary thought processes within Iranian youth, in which they understand the extreme limitations of a reclusive state and wish to participate on the world stage. I believe they see a commonality among global youth and a common ground from which to leap forward. In that regard I'm an optimist. In a million others I'm a dedicated pessimist. But yea, you raise a valid point and it's easily the best counter argument, but we live in an age capable of overcoming generational indoctrination.
Below is another valid point, but think anti-establishment Germans during the Nazi regime. I'd be hesitant to draw too many parallels, but it certainly illustrates the point that reason can overcome indoctrination and propaganda, and we have far more tools at our disposal to do so now as opposed to the 1930's. Can you provide a link to a non-proliferation expert who thinks the deal is bad? I haven't been able to find a single one. The key points to consider when evaluating the deal are: 1. The sanctions slowed down Iran's nuclear program, but could not stop it completely. Without a deal the only way to prevent Iran from getting nukes would have been a war. 2. Keeping the sanctions on depended upon the support of the international community, particularly the UN and the EU. If we had not accepted a deal which the rest of the world views in a very favorable light, we would have lost that support. Most of the sanctions would have been lifted, and Iran would get to have its cake and eat it too (i.e., no sanctions, and an unfettered nuclear program) 3. If it looks like Iran is cheating, we can reimpose the sanctions with a relatively short delay, something like 30 days, with no ability for Russia or China or anyone else to block it. The only criticism of the deal that I find credible is that it doesn't do anything to prevent Iran from continuing its nonsense in the Mideast, such as funding terrorist groups. However, from a purely non-proliferation perspective, it seems like the best deal we could have hoped for. Anyway, I wonder if the GOP's blustering actually helped the negotiators? Kerry: "Iran, I know your position on this point is reasonable, and I'd really just LOVE to give in on it, but you've heard all the screaming from the wingnuts in Congress right? If you don't give in on this, they will kill the deal no matter how stupid it would be to do so."
Most of the US allies in the middle east thinks the deal is bad. The Saudi's think it's bad, even the extreme left of Israel thinks the deal is bad. You don't see the left in Israel agreeing with Netanyahu very often.
My opinion; Lifting sanctions on Iran is a huge mistake. Iran getting $150 billion in mostly upfront sanctions relief is a colossal mistake. The short term destabilization that we could be enabling by lifting sanctions is more dangerous than the possibility Iran might or might not be on the way to a nuke. Anyone who thinks this money is going to be used primarily for education and economic purposes ought to study up on the current Iranian regime. I'm not saying all of Iran is corrupt, but some of the guys at the top for the past few decades are corrupt to the core, there is no room for someone who is openly supporting and funding terrorism. You'd have to be incredibly naive to think a guy like Ali Khamenei is going to stop preaching death to America now because of this deal. Why we would want to invite guys like that back into the community of nations makes no sense to me. Obama has been talking about getting a deal like this done before his presidency so clearly it was on his agenda of trademark things to get done. There could very well be alternative motives behind the deal that we'll never know either. But on the surface the deal looks really bad, filled with loopholes, ways for Iran to get out, side deals and a bunch of random convoluted details like having to give 2+ weeks notice before inspecting known enrichment sites. These details are going to cause major issues in congress when they eventually get to voting on it.
I don't know if it was linked previously but I highly recommend anyone who is interested, to read through the actual deal itself. Some of the clauses in it are beyond laughable in my opinion. Paragraph 36 literally gives Iran a way out of the deal at any time, all they have to do is file a complaint to the joint commission, reject any possible resolution, and are free to walk away from the deal IN WHOLE.
The US doesn't even get anything out of this other than hopes and dreams Iran will clean up their act. I honestly hope they do but we haven't seen any change in over 30 years now.
|
Speaking of terrorism (except in this country) there was yet another mass shooting (not to be confused with the one in court).
A man opened fire inside a movie theater in a Lafayette, Louisiana, multiplex, Thursday night, killing two people and wounding seven others -- before taking his own life.
"There's nothing to believe that there was any kind of motive," said Col. Michael Edmonson of the Louisiana State Police.
The shooter was a 58-year-old white man who was a theater patron, police said. Authorities have his name but are withholding it as the investigation continues.
The shooting took place shortly before 8:30 p.m ET at the Grand Theatre 16 in Lafayette, a city of about 120,000 people, 60 miles west of Baton Rouge.
About 100 people were inside the theater for a screening of the comedy, "Trainwreck," when the shooter began firing using a handgun, police said.
Source
|
I personally think there is no difference between Iran and Israel having nukes. It is always fun to watch every country on the table has those warheads except Iran. No man can convince me that any of those countries will never use these "tools" against Iran or any enemy, but even if they use it, we will be inclined to believe it was the inevitable choice.
Using those guns is crime against humanity and they kill life, iranian or israeli, not only soldiers. Netanyahu still wants us to believe Iran will someday bomb Israel if they get those nukes, but i still think the possibility of Israel using those guns against Iran is higher than Iran with/without nukes. Iran is ruled by lunatics however they always knew how to play the right card in their domestic policy "le BARKING DOG", nothing more, and it is Israel's best foreign policy against its enemy to benefit from that. Iran in Syria is much more dangerous issue and nobody gives a single f about that, which is what amazes me most after Iraq War.
|
|
|
|