Reply With Quote
And Jane Fonda? Really? How old are you?
And here I thought WC, WH23, and others were having a decent conversation with me on whether we should allow some countries more privileges when it cames to nukes. Silly me.
And Jane Fonda? Really? How old are you?
silly is a ing an understatement
We haven't even reached the conclusions you say are already settled, micca.
For example. I suspect I may differ with LnGrrR about the significance of the inconsistency of US policy. I think it makes sense not to be rulebound in all cases. For there to be special relationships that except important allies from the sharp edges of US policy. Israel is such a case.
Of course, there's something to the riposte that the inconsistency may lead some to question our reliability and sincerity. That's a real concern, but I don't think it's avoidable. Picking sides opens the door to special -- sometimes after the fact controversial -- deals.
Per contra, precisely this perceived snugness with Israel (e.g., hot-shotting armaments to Israel while it invades Lebanon) has botched our erstwhile cred as an impartial broker -- a role Nixon and Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, 41 and even Clinton worked very hard to maintain.
We broker the deal anyway, apparently. I've not heard much lately on this front.
What's the news on that, micca?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-02-2009 at 12:38 PM.
I MIGHT be onboard with something like this, if there were clearly defined rules for such exemptions. Something other than "Praise America and we'll look the other way." I also don't sit well with the idea that basically says, "Oh hey, we trust Israel unreservedly, so they're allowed nukes." That type of back-scratching is exactly, in my mind, what pisses off so many other countries.
Then again, while it's realpolitik for the US to pretty much be able to tell the world who does and does not get nukes, I see no strong moral/legal justification for it, or how we go about determining who gets entry into the elite club.
It's one of the reasons Washington warned against permanent enemies AND allies.
It does look like that. I'm not sure we're currently doing anything to dispel the impression.
It's unseemly to discuss in public, as if it were a family matter.I also don't sit well with the idea that basically says, "Oh hey, we trust Israel unreservedly, so they're allowed nukes." That type of back-scratching is exactly, in my mind, what pisses off so many other countries.
But I'd suspect the halls of power, like the people, do not actually trust any one country unreservedly apart from their own, even though they may not say so in public. Israel is a special case in the logomachy, as in real life, and commands significant gentile fealty in the USA, apart from the official support. Raw sentiment is an element of politics.
The justification is that's we're better, we deserve to win, and maybe we have the power and influence to make it happen. Besides, even if we lack the power and the influence to get it done decisively, we owe it to ourselves to at least try to manage the problem.Then again, while it's realpolitik for the US to pretty much be able to tell the world who does and does not get nukes, I see no strong moral/legal justification for it, or how we go about determining who gets entry into the elite club.
The justification is essentially managerial/technocratic, not moral.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-02-2009 at 01:30 PM. Reason: blah blah blah
How can we ever untangle it?It's one of the reasons Washington warned against permanent enemies AND allies.
Did the India nuke deal pass Congress?
Fantastic post.
I can only see two options. One, telling the world to piss off when they ask for our help. Two, screwing things up so badly that no one will ask us for help again.
Now, I know what you're going to say. Neither of those are very realistic options. However, I think Iraq and the worldwide economic collapse might give us a break from being the world's babysitter.
are we trying to be fair? should our foreign policy be about what is best for america?
It's my belief that being "fair" is the same as being "just", and that by being just, America will set a better example and be viewed more favorably in the international community. By being impartial, America will show less favoritism, and (theoretically) reduce enmity towards us.
America, like any country, has ONLY (self) interests, not principles or concepts like fair, just, true, morals, good, holy, Christian, unhypocritical.
Applying personal values, morals, principles to countries is ing naive, as is applying personal values and morals to corporations. Neither has any. America's goal is to survive, corps goal is to profit. Nothing else matters.
While the US justifies nuking (non-white, non-Christian) countries, America will deny anybody else that right and ability. If US can't get that, then it tries to deny American's enemies from nuking, while not stopping friends from getting nukes.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-02-2009 at 02:49 PM.
However, I think continuing to screw things up for a very long time as the world's babysitter is a real possibility. I wouldn't rule it out.
"Full spectrum dominance", sang the sirens.
Resultant moral luck. We can't win if we don't play.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralluc/
Which would ultimately accomplish my preferred goal. Not the BEST means of doing so, of course...
“I am not in the slightest bit worried because somebody can say, ‘Well, you said so and so about Greece, why isn’t all this true about China?’ I will be polite. I will be patient, and I will try to explain why Greece is not China. But my heart will not be in the battle.”
Dean Acheson
Thanks. To circle back to the larger discussion in the thread:
I think one critical point that has been underreported thus far is the fact that Iran is teetering on the brink of a new revolution - not based on religious conviction like the one in the 70's or the remarkable opposition protests to the recent rigged election.
The real revolution is going on behind the scenes, where the Revolutionary Guard has aligned itself with hardline clerics in the religious council that selects the Supreme Leader, who is much more powerful than the President.
The RG has become more than anything else a huge economic power in the country with its own interests that extend far beyond military areas - similar to a large diversified corporation like GE. And just like GE or any corporation, the RG is now acting in its own best interests, not as an extention of government power or in the best interests of the country.
Those interests right now mean an alliance with the hardline clerics. Problem is the first real flaw in the clerics rule has been exposed - election fraud is clearly against the Iranian cons ution and (duh) not exactly what a follower of Mohammed, much less a religious leader should do.
Once the hardliners were exposed as hypocrites, they began lose the religious true believers. The intersts aligning against the hardliners in the religious council include both more liberal clerics as well as those close to the first Supreme Leader Khomenei who helped start the revolution in the 70's.
And that brings us to the most remarkable part of the story - the supposed "reform" candidate in the election, Mousavi, was one of Khomenei's closest allies. What's really happening in Iran isn't some liberal backlash against the ideals of the 70's revolution. What's happening now is the realization that the government in power now is not in line with the ideals of that revolution. The demonstrators weren't demanding a new government, they were demanding the rights gauranteed to them in the current cons ution.
The crossroads Iran is currently sitting at is critical - the revolution has been realized. There is a vibrant, young generation that benefitted from an emphasis on eduction; and the time has come to transition from a revolutionary state to a true Islamic Republic. If the alliance of "reform" and liberal clerics manages to overcome the current hardliners and elect a new Supreme Leader that allows for a new Presidential Election in keeping with the cons ion of the Islamic Republic, this will happen. The current existential discussion on any country's right to develop nuclear technology has bearing on this Iranian government.
However, if the hardliners and Revolutionary Guard tighten their grip on the government the Islamic Republic will esentially cease to exist. What will be left is a military dictatorship that wraps itself in enough trappings of Islamic vocabulary and gingoistic sloganeering ("death to Israel!", etc.) to satisfy the vocal minority in the country who can't think for themselves. Government assimilation / suppression of all press will continue. Access to higher education will be restricted. Rights will begin to disappear all in the name of the revolution.
The right of any country to determine its future - including developing nuclear technology - is predicated on its government's legitimacy. The lack of the fundamental right of citizens to choose their government makes a military dictatorship illegitimate. In my opinion, a military dictatorship that suppresses its own people demands the close scruitiny of the world and the application of as much pressure as possible to keep nuclear weapons from it or to force that government to give up nuclear weapons it already has (like N Korea).
Alpha Chimpanzees, when successfully hunting meat, play favorites and give the most meat to the other chimps who support them. Any rebellious chimps, or threats to the alpha male, gets barely/no meat at all.
What's new?
Israel furthers american policies in the region. Here's some nukes.
Iran, ooo no bad. no nukes for you
What's new?
Winehole23,
when I saw your image of that book, I was immediately interested. Never even heard of it before. Quick glance on wikipedia to find out about it...
I just requested it online from my public library.
Thanks, much appreciated. Seems like a fun read
yw, MH. It is a fun read.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
