China has hissy fit about US arms sales to Taiwan

[Walsingham]

Boo, I'm not sure what to make of your insistence that the Iranian leaders are sensible just like us. I disagree, and following the internal power struggles from outside the country is like watching three kinds of seabird in a sack. You are aware that history is replete with disasters caused by assuming that the leaders of X are basically sensible? Look at America dealing with Chiang Kai Shek, or for that matter France dealing with Medieaval England. Not everyone is rational, particularly people who have risen to the top of a game based on ruthless mix of revolutionary rhetoric and physical violence. These aren't postal inspectors from Tunbridge Wells. These are men who have often personally murdered and tortured people during the revolution. But if thinking they are sensible fellows makes you feel all warm and cosmopolitan then why not continue. At least you're getting something tangible out of your attitude.

 

cronicler, I have to like you because you like the Guard, but I appreciate you're at least trying to break things to me gently anyway. I actually agree with much of what you say. I think we made a lot of mistakes, and I think we should be very suspicious of corporate corruption of our democracy. But that doesn't make everything we've done wrong, and it doesn't make it impossible for us to do right. I believe strongly that to do nothing is often far worse, because it surrenders the initiative to the constant intrigues of the bastards you recognise as existing.

 

As an aside, if it was all about oil we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. We'd have invaded Nigeria. The stuff is far more concentrated and it's quicker to get to market AND less vulnerable.

[Wrath of Dagon]

As I understand it, the US was and is contemplating air strikes against Iranian nuke facilities, not a full on invasion.

Exactly, and that's only because they're trying to build a nuke. So you're contradicting your own argument that they want nukes to defend against the US, since building nukes is just about the only way they'd get attacked. At the very least they want the nuke to have hegemony in the region, at worst the more fanatical among them would actually use it.

 

Edit: Castro, who is more or less rational I believe, wanted to use the nukes in Cuba against the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was overruled by the slightly more rational Russians. Nevertheless, the whole thing came awfully close to the Big Bang. We were just lucky Kruschev was running the USSR and not Stalin, I don't think Stalin would've backed down.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Wrath of Dagon]

Just came across this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32487.html An interesting inside look at US foreign policy wrt Georgia.

[RPGmasterBoo]

As I understand it, the US was and is contemplating air strikes against Iranian nuke facilities, not a full on invasion.

Exactly, and that's only because they're trying to build a nuke. So you're contradicting your own argument that they want nukes to defend against the US, since building nukes is just about the only way they'd get attacked. At the very least they want the nuke to have hegemony in the region, at worst the more fanatical among them would actually use it.

 

Edit: Castro, who is more or less rational I believe, wanted to use the nukes in Cuba against the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was overruled by the slightly more rational Russians. Nevertheless, the whole thing came awfully close to the Big Bang. We were just lucky Kruschev was running the USSR and not Stalin, I don't think Stalin would've backed down.

 

Its not a contradiction, its a game with high stakes. They get it > they win. They don't get nukes > they remain a lesser power in the region, at the mercy of nuke possesing states. Pakistan has nukes, China has nukes and so do India and Russia. That leaves Iran in a vulnerable position though the most direct threat is from the US, which will try to bring the regime down regardless of what Iran's nuclear aspirations are. Iran cannot have hegemony of any sort because its surrounded by nuke possessing countries.Thus the Iranis believe they can stall the US and EU long enough to get nukes. Its highly probable that they will succeed. Which is why they're trying so hard get them.

 

@Walsingham. Who's to say you're sensible? You dropped an atomic bomb on two Japanese civilian populated cities, just so your soldiers wouldn't have to die fighting a dedicated enemy and so you could do a weapons test. The US is the only country to use its nuclear arsenal against anyone. That would make it the least sensible of all nuke possesing countries.

[Gorgon]

Well that was back in the 40s, since then the US has had plenty of chance to repeat the experience and has chosen not to. The brittish starved millions of Indians as a result of their policies in India in the 19th ct. How relevant is that in today's world.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Well that was back in the 40s, since then the US has had plenty of chance to repeat the experience and has chosen not to. The brittish starved millions of Indians as a result of their policies in India in the 19th ct. How relevant is that in today's world.

 

And everyone else has had the opportunity to indulge but they skipped on it. What does it matter when, if nuclear weapons were used?

 

The two events belong to two different era's of human history. WWII is still relevant as the currently existing order of things is a result of it. 19th century imperialism is not nearly as relevant, it ceased to be so with the fall of the great empires. The perspectives and ideologies of both eras are fundamentaly different.

Edited February 4, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Trenitay]

Walsingham personally dropped the atomic bombs? He's much older and much less british than I had imagined.

[213374U]

Its not a contradiction, its a game with high stakes. They get it > they win.

How do they "win"? Confirmation that Iran has acquired the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons would be the equivalent of a green light to launch airstrikes. You don't assemble a nuclear arsenal overnight, you know. And if you think something like that can be kept secret...

 

 

That leaves Iran in a vulnerable position though the most direct threat is from the US, which will try to bring the regime down regardless of what Iran's nuclear aspirations are.

Again, you know this how? We aren't accepting magic-8 ball consultations into evidence, fyi.

 

 

@Walsingham. Who's to say you're sensible? You dropped an atomic bomb on two Japanese civilian populated cities, just so your soldiers wouldn't have to die fighting a dedicated enemy and so you could do a weapons test.

There's more to it than that, apparently. Sending a message to Uncle Joe for one, so think about that.

 

The alternative to the bombs - a naval siege, or even Soviet landings - would have been worse, btw. The Japanese were already facing severe shortages by the time the nukes were used. There simply was no bloodless way out of it, since unconditional surrender wasn't a possibility the Japanese leadership contemplated.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Walsingham personally dropped the atomic bombs? He's much older and much less british than I had imagined.

 

Obviously I meant you as in the US. Since he's a Brit s' my bad. We kept on talking about US policy so much I ass u med he was a Yank.

[Walsingham]

I merely recognise a good friend when I see one. The US isn't a perfect friend... you might have turned up a good deal sooner in both World Wars, but they do eventually turn up. And they come through in spades.

 

It's as if no-one gives a flying monkey how much sweat and toil - in the form of aid and military materiel- the US has flung around since the second world war. It's not monopoly money. People worked long and hard to make it, then gave it away! Never mind the blood expended.

 

As I say, I'm not saying the US is perfect, but it's disgraceful to accuse them of being the Great Satan, and in the same post to make excuses for people like the ayatollahs.

[cronicler]

Naah, The Great Satan is always your neighbour, preferably the one with old feuds and bullsiht nationalist propaganda to cover your own low hits on them.

 

America is currently the only "superpower" with long reach in the world. And it's help always comes with strings attached. Lots of strings attached. Getting screwed over a deal makes people mad even if it is done fairly, when the other side shows Uncle Sam and IMF and other sticks so openly, it makes the grudge even worse.

 

Then there is the International Face factor. A lot of vocal americans hate Clinton for his internal policies but when looking from outside, the Clinton era was a time where people did trust America to keep its word and refrain from doing much other than steal a kiss or grope a bit. Bush administration really put a very bad face on US and seeing nothing concrete from Obama also didn't help. (I am not saying they did right or wrong. I am talking about the effect their actions had.)

 

In a lot of common people's eyes US has become a very hungry and very selfish giant, Today people expect to see corporate suits to come and do bad things when you say US is coming.

[RPGmasterBoo]

As I say, I'm not saying the US is perfect, but it's disgraceful to accuse them of being the Great Satan, and in the same post to make excuses for people like the ayatollahs.

 

Who's making excuses? They're all the same to me, one one hand is a permanent enemy (Islamic world) on the other an upstart empire.

 

I'm not rallying for anyone's cause, I just despise the high moral opinion the US has of itself. In Iran they want to destroy a rival. Then say so, don't cover it with bullsh!t democratic rethoric.

 

-They're authoritarian so they can't have nukes? Pfft. China is equally authoritarian and I don't see anyone complaining. Same goes for Pakistan and to a certain extent Russia.

-They're religious fanatics and unpredictable? I don't see the US as any more predictable. They bombed my country, and I can tell you no one saw that coming considering the traditional good relations we shared.

 

Iran delenda est. But for the right reasons.

[Oner]

(A mother approaches me, violently dragging her two teenage boys along.)

Mother:

[Walsingham]

As I say, I'm not saying the US is perfect, but it's disgraceful to accuse them of being the Great Satan, and in the same post to make excuses for people like the ayatollahs.

 

Who's making excuses? They're all the same to me, one one hand is a permanent enemy (Islamic world) on the other an upstart empire.

 

I'm not rallying for anyone's cause, I just despise the high moral opinion the US has of itself. In Iran they want to destroy a rival. Then say so, don't cover it with bullsh!t democratic rethoric.

 

-They're authoritarian so they can't have nukes? Pfft. China is equally authoritarian and I don't see anyone complaining. Same goes for Pakistan and to a certain extent Russia.

-They're religious fanatics and unpredictable? I don't see the US as any more predictable. They bombed my country, and I can tell you no one saw that coming considering the traditional good relations we shared.

 

Iran delenda est. But for the right reasons.

 

I know we have covered this before, but you have to accept that the general angle over here was that genocide was happening in your country. That was the version we believed. Bombing was a half-assed way to go about things, but military action made good sense to a lot of people. I mean, just consider it from that perspective. If genocide had been happening I mean.

[RPGmasterBoo]

That way it would have made sense, from a humanist point of view. A sort of obligation of the stronger to protect the weak and oppressed.

 

The problem is, it just wasn't happening that way. But that's all water under the bridge now, knowing what actually happened goes out of fashion when it stops filling the headlines. I lament that the west chose that course of action because in us they would have had a steadfast ally against islamic fundamentalism.

 

Instead, today Bosnia and Kosovo are a lair of Islamic terrorists, embedded in Europe. Tomorrow, when bombs are exploding in London, Paris or New York the west is going to regret allowing them to reach independence.

[Walsingham]

That way it would have made sense, from a humanist point of view. A sort of obligation of the stronger to protect the weak and oppressed.

 

The problem is, it just wasn't happening that way. But that's all water under the bridge now, knowing what actually happened goes out of fashion when it stops filling the headlines. I lament that the west chose that course of action because in us they would have had a steadfast ally against islamic fundamentalism.

 

Instead, today Bosnia and Kosovo are a lair of Islamic terrorists, embedded in Europe. Tomorrow, when bombs are exploding in London, Paris or New York the west is going to regret allowing them to reach independence.

 

Well, while we obviously don't agree on the factual circumstances, at least we are agreed on the logical process continuing from them.

 

You make an interesting point about Jifascist extremism. If you read their propaganda you will find that while they claim their actions now are because the West invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, before 9/11 they actually used the lack of action by the West in the Balkans as proof of our evil intentions. They twist and turn and use any possible excuse.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That way it would have made sense, from a humanist point of view. A sort of obligation of the stronger to protect the weak and oppressed.

 

The problem is, it just wasn't happening that way. But that's all water under the bridge now, knowing what actually happened goes out of fashion when it stops filling the headlines. I lament that the west chose that course of action because in us they would have had a steadfast ally against islamic fundamentalism.

 

Instead, today Bosnia and Kosovo are a lair of Islamic terrorists, embedded in Europe. Tomorrow, when bombs are exploding in London, Paris or New York the west is going to regret allowing them to reach independence.

You don't understand the liberal mindset, to the left Christianity is evil and mutliculturalism is good, they see all issues through that lens. As far as genocide in Kosovo, I don't believe there was one, although there were atrocities on both sides. The West really had other options to improve the situation besides going to war, but US basically stumbled into war through the incompetence and arrogance of the Clinton administration, the war never had popular support here, in fact a lot of prominent people were outraged.

[Walsingham]

That way it would have made sense, from a humanist point of view. A sort of obligation of the stronger to protect the weak and oppressed.

 

The problem is, it just wasn't happening that way. But that's all water under the bridge now, knowing what actually happened goes out of fashion when it stops filling the headlines. I lament that the west chose that course of action because in us they would have had a steadfast ally against islamic fundamentalism.

 

Instead, today Bosnia and Kosovo are a lair of Islamic terrorists, embedded in Europe. Tomorrow, when bombs are exploding in London, Paris or New York the west is going to regret allowing them to reach independence.

You don't understand the liberal mindset, to the left Christianity is evil and mutliculturalism is good, they see all issues through that lens. As far as genocide in Kosovo, I don't believe there was one, although there were atrocities on both sides. The West really had other options to improve the situation besides going to war, but US basically stumbled into war through the incompetence and arrogance of the Clinton administration, the war never had popular support here, in fact a lot of prominent people were outraged.

 

Other options? Surely if we've learned anything from the '90s - and let's look at Rwanda since we can't agree on the Balkans - it is that other options are just a euphemism for talking while people die.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That way it would have made sense, from a humanist point of view. A sort of obligation of the stronger to protect the weak and oppressed.

 

The problem is, it just wasn't happening that way. But that's all water under the bridge now, knowing what actually happened goes out of fashion when it stops filling the headlines. I lament that the west chose that course of action because in us they would have had a steadfast ally against islamic fundamentalism.

 

Instead, today Bosnia and Kosovo are a lair of Islamic terrorists, embedded in Europe. Tomorrow, when bombs are exploding in London, Paris or New York the west is going to regret allowing them to reach independence.

You don't understand the liberal mindset, to the left Christianity is evil and mutliculturalism is good, they see all issues through that lens. As far as genocide in Kosovo, I don't believe there was one, although there were atrocities on both sides. The West really had other options to improve the situation besides going to war, but US basically stumbled into war through the incompetence and arrogance of the Clinton administration, the war never had popular support here, in fact a lot of prominent people were outraged.

 

Other options? Surely if we've learned anything from the '90s - and let's look at Rwanda since we can't agree on the Balkans - it is that other options are just a euphemism for talking while people die.

There were European observers in Kosovo, we could've insisted UN or NATO peacekeepers come in to monitor the situation and prevent civilian casualties. Instead Clinton and Albright gave Milosevic an ultimatum they knew he couldn't accept. In fact I've read a couple of reliable sources that they actually insisted NATO troops be allowed anywhere in Serbia, not just Kosovo, but that's so incredible I'm still not sure if I should believe that. And again, Kosovo wasn't Rwanda, there was no genocide, there was a civil war. There was also a civil war in Colombia, with many more thousands of people dying there than in Kosovo, yet we didn't just go and bomb Colombia.

 

Edit: Clinton also militarily intervened to restore an American hating communist in Haiti, with horrible consequences for Haiti. Sometimes our government just acts completely irrationally.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[RPGmasterBoo]

There were European observers in Kosovo, we could've insisted UN or NATO peacekeepers come in to monitor the situation and prevent civilian casualties. Instead Clinton and Albright gave Milosevic an ultimatum they knew he couldn't accept. In fact I've read a couple of reliable sources that they actually insisted NATO troops be allowed anywhere in Serbia, not just Kosovo, but that's so incredible I'm still not sure if I should believe that. And again, Kosovo wasn't Rwanda, there was no genocide, there was a civil war. There was also a civil war in Colombia, with many more thousands of people dying there than in Kosovo, yet we didn't just go and bomb Colombia.

 

Edit: Clinton also militarily intervened to restore an American hating communist in Haiti, with horrible consequences for Haiti. Sometimes our government just acts completely irrationally.

 

You're well informed, yes that was a trick they used in the Rambouillet negotiations. They added an "appendix B" during the negotiations which demanded that NATO troops be allowed anywhere in Serbia. Milosevic couldn't accept and had abandon the negotiations. Its was promptly used to make him appear unwilling to reach a peaceful agreement.

 

English wiki:

Critics of the Kosovo war have claimed that the Serbian refusal was prompted by unacceptably broad terms in the access rights proposed for the NATO peacekeeping force. These would allow (in the words of the agreement's Appendix B) "free and unrestricted access throughout [Yugoslavia] including

[RPGmasterBoo]

You don't understand the liberal mindset, to the left Christianity is evil and mutliculturalism is good, they see all issues through that lens. As far as genocide in Kosovo, I don't believe there was one, although there were atrocities on both sides. The West really had other options to improve the situation besides going to war, but US basically stumbled into war through the incompetence and arrogance of the Clinton administration, the war never had popular support here, in fact a lot of prominent people were outraged.

 

I understand it, I just can't swallow it.

 

I mean, I'm not a crusader for Christianity, I just know the Islamic mindset. Somehow people are convinced there's such a thing as moderate Islam. They can't seem to understand that the divide that the west has between religious views and politics never reached Islam. Islam is equally a religion and a political agenda.

You don't have to be especially educated to see it. I read the Quran, its all there and quite openly put. In short, there is no peace with Islam, its either a cultural war or open war.

[Trenitay]

So, the muslims I know are all plotting to kill me? I don't think so.

[cronicler]

Unfortunately, he is right to some extent. Islam has a very big problem about division of powers. Muhammed was a really good wise-man and statesman (being the de-facto head of a trading family before and so on) but after Islam became tied to royality, the whole wiseman to ask guidance part got perverted to hell. I personally don't believe there is an external force actively trying to turn men to evil but wheter it does or doesn't I'm sure satan is rolling with glee wherever it is.

 

Normal Islamics don't declare war on you or attack you, however being a normal islamic means you don't have much political clout or financial backing by third parties. There may be 9 good imams tending to their own flocks but 1 sellout with enough banknotes and support is enough to get the ball rolling and you know how "stable" and "easy" mob mentality is.

 

Us and them mentality is always there (and lets not forget that Balkans has been the meeting point of everyone, Huns from Steppes to escaped slaves from Africa.) and third party meddling for short term gain (whatever faction) always creates more wounds for the people actually living there.

[213374U]

Other options? Surely if we've learned anything from the '90s - and let's look at Rwanda since we can't agree on the Balkans - it is that other options are just a euphemism for talking while people die.

Apparently that's a lesson many people missed.

 

But what about the lesson that meddling in a civil war and preventing it from running its course is a bad idea in the long run? In fact, it seems to me that the exact opposite is rule #1 in some sort of "realpolitik for dummies" manual or something, since apparently no civil war is left alone. I can understand the Allies getting involved in the Russian Civil War (they DID have a direct interest)... but Yugoslavia?

 

 

So, the muslims I know are all plotting to kill me? I don't think so.

That's not what he said. I don't know about you, but the Muslims I know aren't happy about seeing Israel's actions. Nor were they thrilled to see Saddam go down. They will always side with the islamic fascists, no matter what, if forced to choose. That doesn't mean they're out to kill me.

 

Boo is right on one thing, and it's that there's no visible Muslim equivalent to Locke et al.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Err I'd say thank you, but the universe might implode or something.