rickyp wrote:ray, there are lots of reasons why iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. here's ten.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... -bomb-7802

and yet they continue to risk the strangulation of their economy to pursue them ...

ray

P.S. The Iranian regime wants to obtain nuclear weapons so that they can stay in power, and increase their power. Israel is their excuse.

nuclear weapons won't help them against an internal revolution. Which is their biggest threat to the end of the current regime. (Which, by the way, is somewhat democratic.)
But nuclear weapons would defend them from the nuclear threat that is ISrael.
Why is it okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran?

somewhat democratic?

By the way, your cite directly contradicts your point. Do you even read and think about what you write?

Why is it okay for the US to have nuclear weapons, but not North Korea?

Hacker , I am confused as to why you are confused. I stated your position, I stated I totally disagreed with it (I put guess merely to be polite) and then stated (maybe this is unclear) that there would be a problem if our foreign policy reversed course constantly but that is not the case. If you want to prove your thesis then you to provide evidence for it. In other words , you need to show instances on which our foreign policy has changed not due to circumstances but merely due to the change of presidents and that any such change has damaged our relationships with other countries. Also , you would need to show that other democracies have maintained more consistent foreign policies than our own. You have a thesis but I don't think you have proven that it has been a lack of consistency that has has been the major problem in US foreign policy.

Secondly, my central point is that our concern right now should be with reasserting central authority in Libya, Iraq and Syria and not being concerned about democracy; the line about promoting democracy was somewhat of a throw-away line as I am about talking about the future and I modified that by suggesting that it won't happen until the ideology changes in the Middle East changes. When, where and how to support new democracies is necessarily something to be addressed on a case- by-case basis.

Ricky, mainly I am saying that you have to deal with the facts on the ground . Regardless of the past, extremist Islamic groups are thriving on the lack of centralized government in the Middle East and North Africa. One of the issues with dictators is that the personalized nature of their rule tends to not build strong institutions that survive their deposition. So a new centralized authority has to be built from scratch--not a easy thing to do. Egypt did have a strong institution apart from Mubarak-- the military--and that allowed it to avoid a breakdown of authority.

You have an ideological viewpoint that the problems have been caused by the West supporting dictators to maintain access to oil but you are not adapting to the facts at hand. Islamic extremism has gained traction with young people in the area and poses a significant threat. The lack of centralized authority has allowed ISIS to flourish in Iraq and Syria. We should assume that any change in government will lead to control by Islamic extremists, because that is the ideology that has energy and cohesiveness in the region . So forget about talking about the conflict between our desire for stable oil supplies versus our democratic values . There is nothing the West can do to calm the anger against the Western values coming from Islamic extremists. We have to maintain countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt , while trying to reestablish centralized authority in Libya , Iraq and Syria . Goals like democracy have to take a distant backseat to that for the time being.

And whom do you think doesn't like the notion of democracy in dictatorships?

Probably people in countries (let's say Egypt for shits and giggles) where people worry that open elections will lead to a new government that was worse than the old one. You sound a bit like the Bush Administration when you say that.

Oh, i mentioned Egypt. And did I mention that "round two" of the 2012 presidential elections was between Mohammed Morsi (Muslim Brother) and [I forget the @#$!'s name] who was Hosni's last prime minister, being immediately fired from that job once Mubarak resigned and left Field Marshall Tantawi in charge of the government. Kind of like most presidential elections in the United States, when you get right down to it...then, of course, Mohammed Morsi tries some constitutional shenanigans of his own and is overthrown by the chief of the Army, General Sisi. After another year of martial rule, General Sisi wins the presidential election, with a rather suspicious 97% of the popular vote in round two. The government of the country will remain via executive decree until elections for the new House of Representatives is elected. My own personal prediction is that there will be an executive decree "delaying" the elections....perhaps followed by another such decree months later, asking the Egyptian People for yet another "rain check".

One is often reminded of the French expression that translates loosely into English as "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

That's where people tend to be rather ambivalent toward the concept of Democracy, Ricky. Or maybe they do not want it at all. The more liberal women in Egyptian society, following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak, were hoping that martial rule would be extended, at least for a while. (Source was BBC website, but I cannot find the article; you'll have to trust me that I read it.)

Does that answer your question, ricky?

Freeman:

I am confused as to why you are confused. I stated your position, I stated I totally disagreed with it (I put guess merely to be polite) and then stated (maybe this is unclear) that there would be a problem if our foreign policy reversed course constantly but that is not the case. If you want to prove your thesis then you to provide evidence for it. In other words , you need to show instances on which our foreign policy has changed not due to circumstances but merely due to the change of presidents and that any such change has damaged our relationships with other countries. Also , you would need to show that other democracies have maintained more consistent foreign policies than our own. You have a thesis but I don't think you have proven that it has been a lack of consistency that has has been the major problem in US foreign policy.

Are you speaking to me or Ricky?

Isn't it clear from the context?

Freeman, I don't need the sarcasm. I will gladly answer any question you have, or explain any argument or counterargument I haven't made clear enough, or have not supported well enough. Anytime. But please, it's unnecessary say it like that.

I think the context he's referring to is the fact that he said "Hacker" right at the beginning of the section that you quoted.

Hacker, I don't think I was being sarcastic. Do you really think that paragraph was addressed to Ricky? This is the second time this morning you indicated that my posts are ambiguous when I see little or no ambiguity. I assume you are doing so in good faith, but I think it detracts from the discussion when I have to jump in and clarify my every post. You have strong ideas--I am happy to debate their merits with you, but you are intelligent and I think I can expect that you will respond to the gist of my ideas.

(Actually, Sass I did go back and edit it to put Hacker's name-- it wasn't there prior-- before I saw Hacker 's post because I thought other readers might be confused;I still think given the discussion the person being addressed should have been clear, at least to Hacker )

Freeman:

Now since you seem to need a better explanation---definitely not because of any lack of intelligence on your part, likely due to my lack of clarity, apparently---I will gladly render it.

So I am quite sorry, I didn't see the "hacker' in it, but i did see "ricky" in paragraph...two? three? lemme check...and thought it was for him. But then the subject matter of the last paragraph made me think, wait a tick, Ricky didn't say that, I did. But I wanted to be 110% clear, Freeman, that's all! If I took your next reply as excessive sarcasm at the moment, forgive me. Indeed a bit paranoid of me.

Now: I will gladly dissect my position, one organ at a time, and I will try to be as clear as possible. I am not sure that I have...or maybe I have been and you still disagree (which is just fine, Jefferson said that "where there is politics there will be differences of opinion.")

Your words (Freeman):

I stated your position, I stated I totally disagreed with it (I put guess merely to be polite) and then stated (maybe this is unclear) that there would be a problem if our foreign policy reversed course constantly but that is not the case.

So there seem to be two components to your counterargument, versus my "we look like hypocrites and our foreign policy is in general "broken", because any one president and his administration can simply undo the foreign policies of his predecessor(s) at whim." The first component you would agree with if and only if that were the case. But (the second component), is that that is not the case, we really do have more consistency in our foreign policy than I am alleging we almost totally lack. Therefore, this is why my belief in "inconsistency" leading to a foreign policy not beneficial to the American People, is totally wrong. Do I have that right?

also (Freeman):

If you want to prove your thesis then you to provide evidence for it. In other words , you need to show instances on which our foreign policy has changed not due to circumstances but merely due to the change of presidents

coupled with part 2:

and that any such change has damaged our relationships with other countries.

so I have to prove 1) there are definite instances on which our foreign policy changed due to a new president (or even a sitting president doing a 180). And 2) that these foreign policy inconsistencies have damaged our relationships with other countries.

Do not forget that part of my argument that the "short term thinking" of Americans in general leads to those flip-flip foreign policies and the inconsistencies I see in our society; whereas the Chinese (for example) think in centuries, and their much greater patience to see things through may one day prevail over American thinking because of our sometimes petulant impatience.(i.e., worrying about the next fiscal quarter, the next midterm election, the current administration, last year's budget numbers.....get my drift?)

And I hate to do this, but could you give me a bit? it's well past lunch time for me. Not trying to dodge the question, just give me a little bit of time please. I mean, if you really want me to "prove it". And of course we're talking geopolitics or statecraft, but politics nonetheless. I prefer to think for myself in many cases as I'm sure you've all noticed, but I will back it up as much as possible. If I can't, well, then I'll have no choice but to agree to disagree, and concede the point to somebody who can prove it (or anything related to my position).

Fair enough?

Addendum:

Thank you, I am glad you think I am intelligent. That means a lot to me, really. I have to admit, though, I'm one of those people that's, um, I guess you could say very "literal" (to the point where I talk or act like Congress repealed common sense or realizing the obvious.)

Anywho: lunch time, nap, research foreign polilcy disasters, etc....in that order, I'm afraid.

Fair enough, Jim. And the gist of my argument is (1) that, yes,there is more consistency in our foreign policy than you are apparently crediting, (2) I am not sure a causal link can be shown between the inconsistency of our foreign policy, whatever it is, and major mistakes/problems with our foreign policy, (3) the costs of consistency--a dictatorship or perhaps reduction of executive power--would not be worth any benefits of consistency unless you can show that other democracies have shown more consistency in at least somewhat analogous circumstances.

Have at my argument.

freeman

You have an ideological viewpoint that the problems have been caused by the West supporting dictators to maintain access to oil but you are not adapting to the facts at hand. Islamic extremism has gained traction with young people in the area and poses a significant threat. The lack of centralized authority has allowed ISIS to flourish in Iraq and Syria. We should assume that any change in government will lead to control by Islamic extremists, because that is the ideology that has energy and cohesiveness in the region

First i agree that the West needs to ensure that most of those governments currently opposed to ISIS should be supported while ISIS still represents a threat.But to the least extent possible to require their survival and continued resistance. Occupation or taking on the task of dealing with ISIS as the main fighting force would result in another Viet Nam or Iraq. Even if ISIS is destroyed a vacuum will be left, and the occupiers will need to select the successor government. And it will have as much chance of success as the governments left behind in Iraq and Viet Nam.
So i recognize the "facts on the ground".
However this part I've quoted of yours isn't really isn't true. It isn't just young people from Iraq and Syria making up ISIS recruits. There's lots of Arabs from all over the middle east, regardless of there being a strong central authority where they come from. ISIS is not just an Iraq Syria problem. If they have their way, KSA and Kuwait, and Lebanon and Jordan all become part of the Caliphate.
The disappointment of the recruits, who have been seduced by ISIS is with their own governments, mostly stable dictatorships. ... You wouldn't see significant levels of recruitment in areas where young people felt they has a realistic chance to achieve their aspirations.

Ricky:

There's lots of Arabs from all over the middle east, regardless of there being a strong central authority where they come from. ISIS is not just an Iraq Syria problem. If they have their way, KSA and Kuwait, and Lebanon and Jordan all become part of the Caliphate.
The disappointment of the recruits, who have been seduced by ISIS is with their own governments, mostly stable dictatorships. ... You wouldn't see significant levels of recruitment in areas where young people felt they has a realistic chance to achieve their aspirations.

They are also joining from France

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30119868

and England ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -rich.html

Yes, ISIS is popular all over the Middle East. That is why it needs to be ruthlessly stamped out at this point, to end it's viability and attractiveness to young Arabs. Regardless of blame and causes, it is time for all stick and no carrot. Any talk about underlying causes is a distraction right now. After ISIS is destroyed, we can talk about dealing with underlying causes; right now, with ISIS, a not insignificant part of the Muslim world has gone off of the deep end. There is no reasoning with them.

ray

By the way, your cite directly contradicts your point.

My point was this

There are lots of reasons Iran doesn't want the bomb.

How was it contradicted by an article titled 10 reasons Iran doesn't want the bomb.?


ray

somewhat democratic?

Yes.
compared to the KSA greatly.
Compared to Sweden, not so much.
But not nearly as democratic as it was before the CIA parachuted the Shah in...

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-democracy

Ricky's cite:

A major accusation levied against Iran is that once it acquires nuclear weapons, it will use it against the United States and Israel. This makes no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran’s total annihilation.

Ricky's assertion:

But nuclear weapons would defend them from the nuclear threat that is ISrael.

And it's Israel not ISrael ...