FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Undermining the President, the new GOP thing. (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Undermining the President, the new GOP thing.
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
My concern isn't Iran using the nukes, it is the nukes getting "stolen" then ending up used by terrorist groups.

Would anyone disagree that Iran is a state sponsor of terror in the middle east?

The GOP is acting petty, more so than the democrats that boycotted Netanyahu.

I really hate Congress.

Okay what, really, what.

First of all, I'm not actually convinced you think the GOP is 'acting petty' if you feel the need to falsely equivocate the Democrats boycotting Bibi's (not supporting the unconstitutional actions of the House) speech with the GOP literally undermining the President, the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of government, and attempting to derail a treaty to avoid war, almost certainly intending to cause one.

(Yes you technically say the GOP is "acting more petty" but this is still a dubious statement and not very accurate.)

So lets get that out of the way and straight up resolved, it isn't an act of 'spite' or pettiness for the Democrats to not show the House GOP support for their actions whose entire purpose is to show their abhorence to the President and the leader of their party, and to undermine the negotiation of an important treaty.


Additionally there's no reason to suppose the Iranian nukes would get stolen; none. The risk is no greater than the chance of stolen Pakistani, Russian, American or Israeli nuclear weapons. It'd be more consistent, and less red flag raising, to simply, and very consistently hold a general view that nuclear proliferation is bad. Period. And to support the prevention of the spread of nuclear armed states, and to support the rolling back of nuclear stockpiles the world over, including Israeli, American, and Russian nuclear weapon stockpiles.

All of this 100% can be done through honest dealings and negotiations in good faith. Iran wants nuclear power, it wants energy independence and to be able to use their uranium reserves that exist under their soil. These are reasonable goals of any sovereign state; and a treaty that secures their right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear civilian power while securing the gaurantees they won't pursue militerized nuclear arms is certainly possible.


As for Iran being a sponsor of terror, well, so is the United States (Chomsky), but their nukes aren't getting stolen. Nuclear weapons can be easily traced to their origin. If Iran were to pursue such weapons and allow it, then they would likely cease to exist as a nation in short order. So its unlikely they would allow it; nuclear weapons *do* have a fairly good track record in calming down otherwise belligerent nations into realizing the folly of having such weapons. The primary example being Mao's China, whose bellicose desires for a world wide nuclear war became very mute in short order once they got a hold of their own nuclear weapons arsenal.

Blayne, please re-read your post and imagine I wrote it.

1) The House inviting Bibi was unconstitutional? A breach in protocol perhaps. I suppose if a member of the Senate visited Bibi in Israel it wouldn't have been?

2) The senate sending the letter was NOT unconstitutional and violated no part of the Logan Act. Seriously. Go read it. Then come and tell me how a letter violates it, but senators visiting Nicaraguan Presidents in the 80's or the Syrian President less than a decade ago against the president's wishes didn't. (Related to question 1)

Republicans are acting petty. If you disagree with me fine, but don't start throwing "Constitutional this! Unconstitutional that!" at me. Democrats making a big show of not showing up to hear Bibi speak was petty as well, but in my opinion didn't approach the level of the republicans. Kudos to Reid for showing up however, injured as he was.

3) You are likening Iran's support of terrorist organizations to the US? Really? And you want to lecture me on using a false equivalence? Then you want to just throw Chomsky's name out like he is the authority that decides who is and isn't a sponsor of terror?

4) Your argument for Iran getting nukes is because it will "calm them down?" Well damn, I didn't know the answer was that simple. Let's just give nukes to everyone, including Isis. Who knew the answer to world peace hinged on weapons of mass destruction! In all seriousness though, you know what would calm everyone else down? Not letting Iran have nukes. They have said they want the US and Israel wiped off the map.

Iran getting nukes is not a good idea. If you don't think one getting "misplaced" or "stolen" is probable, I'd like to know why other than "they are easily traced."

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as a question of fact, Geraine, the United States has certainly been a sponsor of terror before. In Iran, since you bring it up. It kind of bit us in the ass, long term. Much of Elison's post was over the top, I will agree, but on the question of terror and violence and ethics I'm afraid we don't have a whole lot of room to lecture Iran.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not only a question of who does worse overall, but who has done what to whom. Let's say for the sake of argument it's agreed that Iran has behaved with 50% more awfulness on those fronts than the United States, overall with respect to its own people and towards others.

Well, if that's true I don't recall Iran supporting a brutal and tyrannical regime with blood soaked hands for decades with both money and resources that was only overthrown in living memory. I don't recall Iran financing and supplying Mexico in its incredibly bloody ground war with us, in which it used chemical weapons. How many jetliners did Iranian warships shoot out of the sky, killing all aboard? (It's very possible you, like almost anyone in the US, knows nothing about that last bit at all.)

It's not just about who's worse, it's also about not looking like hypocritical jackasses if you're going to lecture.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bear in mind that it's not very 'historical' at all. Every event I referenced in that post, unless you are very young and your parents were when they had you, they were alive when it happened. And given life expectancy, there's about a 3/7 chance you were as well.

ETA: ahhhh, need to clarify! I meant the U.S. a whole with the last bit of the last post, Gaal, definitely not you personally. Apologies.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had posted this before Rakeesh with an old username, just reposting:

quote:
You think our current government doesn't have room to lecture Iran on terror, violence, and ethics? I understand historically we've our issues, but we're talking modern day countries here.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with what you said and you're correct, I had to do some Googling to find out about Iran Air Flight 655 (that's what you were referring to, right?). But are we not allowed to demand improvement from Iran on any ethical front since we've also sucked in the past?

I remember a part in one of OSC's books, I think it was Speaker, where he retells the story of Jesus stating "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" except after the townspeople drop the stones to the ground, he picks up a stone, kills the sinner, and states "If we only allow perfect people to enforce the law, the law is useless."

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was Speaker, but it wasn't presented as a positive example.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope, it was presented as an extreme, with the other extreme being a negative example of not doing anything at all because of your own sins. To tie that extreme into this example, I disagree with the US not having grounds to lecture Iran on improving its human rights or eliminating its sponsorship of terrorism just because of our own past transgressions.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On what other basis would someone lose their right to lecture, Gaal? I'm not saying we are equally oppressive, but just for the sake of argument imagine your father was tortured to death in prison. Forty years later, the guy who bankrolled the prison and who helped kill a bunch of your dad's friends wants to come along and lecture you about human rights abuses. He never apolofized and barely even acknowledged his hideous past transgression.

It doesn't matter what awful things you've done since (which, it could be argued, were helped along by having to have a government of religiously fanatic anti-modernity fanatics for much of the succeeding years, since they were the ones who finally won the revolution): how are you going to respond to that? Aren't you going to laugh at the bankroller and despise him for a hypocrite?

When we murdered nearly 300 Iranian civilians, do you know what HW Bush, a president himself and father to another said about it? I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something along the lines of not caring what the facts were, he would never, ever apologize for America, to anyone. I believe that passenger jet was destroyed in 1987?

Come on, Gaal. With Iran we have expended our moral authority. We don't earn moral authority back by *their* being awful too.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given our history with Iran, it's hard to quibble over who has dug themselves a bigger hole when you're both already in so deep.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the issue isn't whether we can/should "lecture", but rather, given our history, adjust the manner and context in which we do lecture.
Posts: 6996 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's what I mean. It simply isn't going to work with Iran, and hasn't, obviously. Nor would it work on anyone with whom we had such a history, nor should we expect it to. All of that is entirely aside from the question of whether we are an authority.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I'll echo Rakeesh's point. Just because the treaty wasn't previously violated doesn't mean the treaty itself was why. Russia could barely bake a loaf of bread after the USSR fell apart, invading Ukraine wasn't high on their To Do list, and until recently they had a puppet in charge with a tacit understanding that the US would sort of keep away.

No. This is clearly bullshit.

Lets flip this around, should have Russia, never signed the ABM treaty because the US backed out of their obligations to it?

Israel broke its word to the Palestinian Authority multiple times, should have Yasser Arafat not agreed to the Oslo/Camp David Accords?

Anyways don't wanna distract from Geraine being wrong.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elison, are you really saying the prospect of the Americans complaining to the Security Council is what kept the Russians from invading the Ukraine before now?
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
1) The House inviting Bibi was unconstitutional? A breach in protocol perhaps. I suppose if a member of the Senate visited Bibi in Israel it wouldn't have been?

It's clearly unconstitutional.

quote:

2) The senate sending the letter was NOT unconstitutional and violated no part of the Logan Act. Seriously. Go read it. Then come and tell me how a letter violates it, but senators visiting Nicaraguan Presidents in the 80's or the Syrian President less than a decade ago against the president's wishes didn't. (Related to question 1)

No one mentioned the Logan Act, I certainly didn't, and I certainly didn't mention treason. Are you copying and pasting from Free Republic?


quote:

Republicans are acting petty. If you disagree with me fine, but don't start throwing "Constitutional this! Unconstitutional that!" at me.

It *is* unconstitutional. Not the extent that merits or standing could be proven before a court but it certainly is a violation of separation of powers.

quote:

Democrats making a big show of not showing up to hear Bibi speak was petty as well, but in my opinion didn't approach the level of the republicans. Kudos to Reid for showing up however, injured as he was.

Again, you saying "Democrats making a big show..." clearly has some sort of baggage to it; mainly that you feel they *should* show up; why? To show support for Bibi trying to undermine and dictate the foreign policy of the United States? To show support for derailing the talks? Why should they? He has been going out of his way to antagonist the relationship between the US and Israel and is acting contrary to over 40 years of US foreign policy regarding the Two State solution; he tried to talk back his words about abandoning the two-state solution but he still said that there will not be a two-state solution; without that commitment from Israel the EU and most of the world will be a lot firmer on Israel and the US won't be able to do anything about it; nor will they want to.

quote:

3) You are likening Iran's support of terrorist organizations to the US? Really? And you want to lecture me on using a false equivalence? Then you want to just throw Chomsky's name out like he is the authority that decides who is and isn't a sponsor of terror?

How many democratically elected governments has the United States overthrown in acts of state terror? That was a rhetorical question, At least seven. How many as Iran overthrown? Zero.

quote:

4) Your argument for Iran getting nukes is because it will "calm them down?" Well damn, I didn't know the answer was that simple. Let's just give nukes to everyone, including Isis. Who knew the answer to world peace hinged on weapons of mass destruction! In all seriousness though, you know what would calm everyone else down? Not letting Iran have nukes. They have said they want the US and Israel wiped off the map.

Well excuse me precious but it seems like someone has reading comprehension problems. Because that is certainly not my argument.


quote:

Iran getting nukes is not a good idea. If you don't think one getting "misplaced" or "stolen" is probable, I'd like to know why other than "they are easily traced."

I agree that Iran getting nukes is a bad idea for plenty of reasons that correspond to general principles that apply to virtually any non-UNSC nation. Would you also agree that Israel should also disarm since their weapons are just as dangerous and unaccountable as any hypothetical Iranian weapons would be.

How much do you wanna bet that your answer is not only completely hypocritical but is completely applicable to Iran?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Elison, are you really saying the prospect of the Americans complaining to the Security Council is what kept the Russians from invading the Ukraine before now?

No? I haven't suggested this as a reason in anyway, shape, or form. My position is that its very complex and based from the arguments of more learned people that I that sounds correct to my ears its incredibly oversimplifying it to reduce the reason to just "Because Russia recovered enough since 1991 to redraw the borders by force." Which is false.

Its implying that its either in the Russian national character to be imperialistic and that the Russian statements such as Yeltsin were just greedily rubbing their hands waiting for the right moment to strike; its so incredibly wrong and shallow; and worse, lazy; its crafting an enemy in your mind rather than trying to understand the enemy before you.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You say the treaty worked. The only other way I can think of it "working" is that Russia felt obligated to honour its international agreements on principle alone. If you believe that, I totally own some choice Ukrainian farmland to sell you.

ETA to your ETA: Actually, I'm suggesting nations do things that are in their self-interest. Nations stick to international agreements because the consequences of doing elsewise are worse than the obligation. Given that the agreement was entirely toothless, without imposing any obligation to actually punish a transgression, there is no reason instrinsic to the treaty that it would be kept.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait, are you suggesting that imperialism and expansionism, especially with regards to Ukraine, isn't w recurring theme for Russia, Elison?

Cmon Elison, I know you're more familiar with Russia than that.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Wait, are you suggesting that imperialism and expansionism, especially with regards to Ukraine, isn't w recurring theme for Russia, Elison?

Cmon Elison, I know you're more familiar with Russia than that.

I don't know what to tell you, it just seems so obviously a case of sour grapes and not really an honest argument based on the facts or a thorough analysis of Russian history and geopolitics since 1991. Remember Lyrhawn's claim, that Ukraine, should never have given up nuclear weapons, regardless of the number kept because it means not signing that treaty.

Why? Because of reasons not a single statesmen or specialist could have possible have known. I guarantee that this is 100% the case; the only way it could possibly be a reasonable position is if it was somehow known then that Russia was just bidding its time as a revanchist power until the moment was right.

This is 100% absolutely bullshit without a single ounce of evidence to support it. Show me any shred of evidence from that era that this was a serious positioned argued, or considered, by any senior geopolitical analyst or statesman involved.

The current situation, was 100% impossible to predict given the facts people then knew, absolutely so.

As for nations only holding onto agreements that are in their interests to keep, yeah, I'm aware of this, that's neorealism's hat, and I agree that is honestly a good way to look at things; to bring back to my previous question its like with NAFTA, anyone here recall the softwood lumber dispute? The US didn't honour the treaty and costed Canadian's a hefty amount of money. The United States didn't honour its word, but does that mean there's no benefit in Canadians signing that treaty? That there were no benefits for Ukraine to signed theirs? It comes back to that given the information they had, that we know they had, it was clearly in their interests not to be a nuclear weapons state.

A key thing to remember is that in the 90's, Russia was honest to god interested in integration with the West, in democratization, in open market reforms; there was no cause to believe then that Russia would snatch Crimea, defy international law, or use armed force.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Ukrainians got rid of the nukes, as you pointed out, they couldn't afford. The Russians got their nukes back. The US got a bunch of nukes moved to a more secure location without inconvenient defense obligations.

What the Ukraining didn't get was any meaningful guarantee of their borders.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you mean by "meaningful guarantee"?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A third party willing to act as a deterrent to potential Russian aggression.

America and a couple Europeans were supposed to be backing that part of the agreement up, but it ended up being smoke and mirrors when russian troops rolled into the Crimea.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That the consequence laid out for violating the treaty was sufficient to deter violation. Something with enough teeth to make Russia think twice.

But that part was always smoke and mirrors. It only required that the party not violating Ukrainian territory complain to the Security Council. That was the full extent of the US treaty obligations to Ukraine. Guess how much Russia cared.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The Ukrainians got rid of the nukes, as you pointed out, they couldn't afford. The Russians got their nukes back. The US got a bunch of nukes moved to a more secure location without inconvenient defense obligations.

Russia with American assistance dismantled those weapons actually. I doubt that very many cold war era nuclear warheads still exist due to the shelf life isn't all that long, retired, dismantled and replaced by this point. The nuclear stockpiles of the US and Russia is a small fraction of what they used to be.

quote:

What the Ukraining didn't get was any meaningful guarantee of their borders.

Bullshit. The Great Powers of the world all signed various proclamations, there was no better guarantee that could have been arranged short of treating the Russia that desperately wanted to be friends as a pariah akin to WWI Versailles Germany and we all know how that went am I right?

Blame Germany for having significant investments in Russia, blame the EU for not adopting serious measures to reduce dependence on Russian natural gas and petrol, and blame Bush for the Iraq misadventure that makes the US shy for foreign entanglements, and blame Putin; but not opine a lack of a fantasy of having any chance in hell of ever happening without consequences.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who said anything about treating Russia like a pariah? A simple clause requiring the US to intervene militarily would have been enough teeth to make Russia think twice.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elison,

quote:
Bullshit. The Great Powers of the world all signed various proclamations, there was no better guarantee that could have been arranged short of treating the Russia that desperately wanted to be friends as a pariah akin to WWI Versailles Germany and we all know how that went am I right?
This is the second time I've noticed that you seem to be shifting the goalposts. I don't think it's intentional, though, so please let me elaborate. For the sake of argument, let's say that the guarantees (some of the most important of which we in the United States cheerfully broke, btw) given to protect Ukraine were the best that were available: that still doesn't mean the guarantees were meaningful, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean clearly they weren't: most of the guarantees were backed by threat of US and European disapproval and even intervention.

In the actual event, however, even the disapproval was muted and the intervention was economic and political at best.

quote:
As for nations only holding onto agreements that are in their interests to keep, yeah, I'm aware of this, that's neorealism's hat, and I agree that is honestly a good way to look at things; to bring back to my previous question its like with NAFTA, anyone here recall the softwood lumber dispute? The US didn't honour the treaty and costed Canadian's a hefty amount of money. The United States didn't honour its word, but does that mean there's no benefit in Canadians signing that treaty? That there were no benefits for Ukraine to signed theirs? It comes back to that given the information they had, that we know they had, it was clearly in their interests not to be a nuclear weapons state.
This as well. I don't think anyone is suggesting the agreements were valueless for Ukraine since the 90s to the present, but we're not quite talking about their value as a whole unless I'm mistaken.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

This is the second time I've noticed that you seem to be shifting the goalposts. I don't think it's intentional, though, so please let me elaborate. For the sake of argument, let's say that the guarantees (some of the most important of which we in the United States cheerfully broke, btw) given to protect Ukraine were the best that were available: that still doesn't mean the guarantees were meaningful, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean clearly they weren't: most of the guarantees were backed by threat of US and European disapproval and even intervention.

In the actual event, however, even the disapproval was muted and the intervention was economic and political at best.

The problem here then is I have no idea in good faith what "meaningful" would mean in any context you'd accept.

Lets look at another example of arms, control, suppose the nations of Chernorus and the Federation of United Nations enter into a treaty to reduce their stockpile of catapults by 80% over 15 years.

Now let us suppose that after 14 years Chernorus and the FUN enter into a dispute about water rights, FUN refuses to stop building dams upriver from Chernorus, so Chernorus rescinds the arms control treaty.

Was this treaty lacking in meaning even those Chernorus eventually breaks it? Supposing we don't exactly know how many catapults were eventually dismantled, only that we know none were used in that timeframe?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Israel spied on Iran talks.

Turns out the spying isn't what was what irked the WH, but the whole "stealing those secrets and feeding it to the GOP to undermine the talks."

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and WH calls for the occupation of the West Bank to end.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:

This is the second time I've noticed that you seem to be shifting the goalposts. I don't think it's intentional, though, so please let me elaborate. For the sake of argument, let's say that the guarantees (some of the most important of which we in the United States cheerfully broke, btw) given to protect Ukraine were the best that were available: that still doesn't mean the guarantees were meaningful, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean clearly they weren't: most of the guarantees were backed by threat of US and European disapproval and even intervention.

In the actual event, however, even the disapproval was muted and the intervention was economic and political at best.

The problem here then is I have no idea in good faith what "meaningful" would mean in any context you'd accept.

Lets look at another example of arms, control, suppose the nations of Chernorus and the Federation of United Nations enter into a treaty to reduce their stockpile of catapults by 80% over 15 years.

Now let us suppose that after 14 years Chernorus and the FUN enter into a dispute about water rights, FUN refuses to stop building dams upriver from Chernorus, so Chernorus rescinds the arms control treaty.

Was this treaty lacking in meaning even those Chernorus eventually breaks it? Supposing we don't exactly know how many catapults were eventually dismantled, only that we know none were used in that timeframe?

Incomplete hypothetical.

The agreement wasnt a bilateral one between Ukraine and Russia. Also, you're losing something in the details

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You said that the treaty wasn't meaningful; I an constructing an analogy, an analogy doesn't need to be exact in order to illustrate the absurdity of your statement; in fact 'losing something in the details' is the point because the goal is to stretch your statement to its logical conclusion.

That no treaty should ever be signed if there's any possibility it will not be adhered to in the future when circumstances completely change; because otherwise it is "meaningless".

You frankly have not presented any substance as to what a meaningful treaty would be that doesn't immediately fall apart in practical circumstance.

There have been numerous treaties where the parties have at one time or another not abiding by them, but real good has likely occurred from them; often this good is difficult to define; but to suppose that all such treaties are automatically meaningless is plainly untrue.

You're upset that Ukraine's territorial sovereignty is being violated and almost next to nothing is being done about it, I get that; but your just metaphorically lashing out and searching for causes to assign blame; you're not being critical or objective.

Under any reasonable standard the treaty was worth signing which automatically by definition presents it meaning. Which is why the current situation is a tragedy; to say the treaty was meaningless is to actually reduce the full impact of current events, and make it less of a tragedy.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The biggest problem with your analogy is that both sides are left with recourse when division erupts. It's more representative of bilateral nuclear reduction talks between Russia and the U.S.

But Ukraine was left with no recourse. None at all. The agreement ended up being Russia saying they'd play hands off just so long as they felt like it. And that theory was never tested because Ukraine almost always was a puppet state with a Russian friendly government, but the moment they lean towards Europe the treaty is broken with no way for Ukraine to enforce. So yeah, I think it was meaningless, because it was only ever in force so long as Ukraine danced to Russia's tune.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The agreement ended up being Russia saying they'd play hands off just so long as they felt like it...

...So yeah, I think it was meaningless, because it was only ever in force so long as Ukraine danced to Russia's tune.

This can apply to all treaties between states that are unequal to each other; should these treaties never be signed in the first place?

Some states just simply need to play the game; for example South Korea can play both the US and China; its a small country but one with an infinitely better geopolitical hand in which to bluff with. If Japan gets too uppity it can turn to China; if China presses too hard over the Norks or trade deals then they can turn to the US/Japan.

quote:

But Ukraine was left with no recourse.

What was Nicaragua's? Should Nicaragua never engage with the United States? Never enter into any discussion on any matter?

quote:

but the moment they lean towards Europe

This isn't true. Ukraine has been decently Europe leaning for over a decade; Russia only took action because of the incoming gov't looked like it might break the leasing of Sevastopol and because Kiev was too weak to stop it; Motive+Opportunity. I note that Cuba would probably have had the same fate befall it if they attempted to equally cancel its lease of its sovereign territory to the United States; doesn't make it right, but the idea that this was "as soon as" sort of situation instead of one that had years of events that lead up to the trigger is like saying that WWI happened "as soon as the Serbs gave the Austrians cause" instead of decades of prior history to contribute to it.

Its a very simplistic view of history and you're discrediting your position by holding such a view.

Ultimately you have a very spurious definition for "meaning" that is plainly unworkable in any context except the most rose tinted glasses wearing idealism.

In an ideal world all nations abide by their treaties even when it doesn't favour them or when circumstances change, or better, circumstances don't change and all treaties are mutually beneficial.

However in the real world they don't abide by their treaties; nations rarely keep their word either in spirit, in writing, or both; and circumstances are constantly changing.

Skilled statesmen can draft treaties and steer their nation in such a way to minimize these effects; and unfortunately Ukraine did not have such clever statesmen; but for 25 years the status quo was preserved and benefitted both parties.

If I pay rent for a year and then suddenly the landlord steals my playstation; that's criminal but I wouldn't dare claim I didn't get a service during that time. Ukraine got what it paid for.

To further elaborate on your mistaken notions about meaning, what does it mean to have meaning? On Reddit the common answer I got searching is whether something had an intrinsic value; there is no doubt that the treaty had value, so it had meaning.

You can not like it, but don't pretend to me that you can say that it objectively didn't have meaning; because its transparent that your trying to fabricate a fantasy where Ukraine kept its nukes.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ultimately you have a very spurious definition for "meaning" that is plainly unworkable in any context except the most rose tinted glasses wearing idealism.
quote:
If I pay rent for a year and then suddenly the landlord steals my playstation; that's criminal but I wouldn't dare claim I didn't get a service during that time. Ukraine got what it paid for.
quote:
To further elaborate on your mistaken notions about meaning, what does it mean to have meaning? On Reddit the common answer I got searching is whether something had an intrinsic value; there is no doubt that the treaty had value, so it had meaning.
Ok everybody, that's a wrap, we hit peak blayne
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne

If Ukraine had kept say, 100 nukes, how much of Ukraine do you think Russia would have annexed before 2014?

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ukraine has been decently Europe leaning for over a decade; Russia only took action because of the incoming gov't looked like it might break the leasing of Sevastopol and because Kiev was too weak to stop it;
Nonsense. It was the European Association Agreement with Ukraine that Russia was rabidly against -- which Yanukovich had been forced to promise in order to get elected, that Yanukovich went back on his word in the last minute before the signing (probably because of the threats from Russia that I link to below), and the abandonment of which agreement (for no good explained reasons) triggered the 'Euromaidan' protests.

Since the previous year, September 2013, the threat had been made by Russia and it was again about the European Association Agreement, not about the bases in Crimea: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia
"The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void."

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Blayne

If Ukraine had kept say, 100 nukes, how much of Ukraine do you think Russia would have annexed before 2014?

I did some research and I really do not believe you even remotely researched this yourself.

http://www.thelugarcenter.org/newsroom-tlcexperts-8.html

I glanced through parts of this and it both shoots down the notion that Ukraine didn't benefit (Ukraine in fact received financial assistance), but START I wouldn't have been signed without Ukraine abandoning those weapons, and thirdly even 100 weapons Ukraine couldn't have maintained. The costs so outweigh whatever potential gains that there is just simply no way.

And in general since Moscow is protected by an ABM shield and the S-300 system can be used to in theory shoot down ICBM's (The Russians don't object as much to nuclear tipped ABM missiles), Ukraine wouldn't have been able to hit relevant or valuable strategy counterforce targets to maintain a credible deterrent.

That and the fewer weapons Ukraine has the less capable they are in fielding a second strike capability and open themselves to it being taken out immediately.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And in general since Moscow is protected by an ABM shield and the S-300 system can be used to in theory shoot down ICBM's (The Russians don't object as much to nuclear tipped ABM missiles), Ukraine wouldn't have been able to hit relevant or valuable strategy counterforce targets to maintain a credible deterrent.
what is your definition of "valuable strategy counterforce targets"

even assuming that moscow's system would defend against even modestly capable icbm's (it wouldn't) you seem to be trying to advance the case that if ukraine couldn't hit moscow specifically with missiles, nuclear capacity would not be an effective deterrent

if that is what you are actually arguing then ok wow


quote:
That and the fewer weapons Ukraine has the less capable they are in fielding a second strike capability and open themselves to it being taken out immediately.
and this sort of reads like "ukraine was more safe from russia the more disarmed they were!" which is also wow.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
moving back away from endless talk on russia again

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/31/us-climatechange-usa-opposition-idUSKBN0MR2TC20150331?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you going to act like one of those people who says Chinese ICBM's "Likely wouldn't even work" and the US can just safely ignore the Chinese nuclear deterrent? Because that's not how policy planning works.

Here: Moscow ABM; Britain, France, and the US all allocated hundreds of missiles for the expressed purposes of defeating the Moscow ABM system.

To Ukrainian planners by 2015 would also have no idea as to how capable the system is, and to even have a chance at bypassing it, would need to allocate all 100 warheads to Moscow alone. The result being Ukrainians becoming protected by the endangered species act so they absolutely would not use nuclear weapons in response to either Crimea or Donetsk.

As for "wow" well, blame actual US Nuclear analysts who think in purely game theory terms, I believe I linked Stuart Slade's essay earlier where at one point he embarks on a tangent of furiously masturbating to slide rules and circle plots of the extent of nuclear devastation he could inflict on another country; I consider this not specific to him but to think tanks suits about nuclear strategy in general.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To Ukrainian planners by 2015 would also have no idea as to how capable the system is, and to even have a chance at bypassing it, would need to allocate all 100 warheads to Moscow alone.
So I want you to be absolutely clear, before I accuse you of sort of really not knowing what you're talking about: you are saying that unless the ukranians launched literally 100 missiles at moscow, the russian missile defenses would prevent any missile from hitting moscow?

Do you think that the united states possesses any sort of missile shield that would stop 100 nuclear missiles from hitting a city if someone launched them all at that city? 50? 25?

quote:
As for "wow" well, blame actual US Nuclear analysts who think in purely game theory terms, I believe I linked Stuart Slade's essay earlier where at one point he embarks on a tangent of furiously masturbating to slide rules and circle plots of the extent of nuclear devastation he could inflict on another country; I consider this not specific to him but to think tanks suits about nuclear strategy in general.
I have no idea what point you intend to have contained here in a roundabout way so I'll just ask more directly: Is it your opinion that the ukranians were safer from russia the more disarmed they were?
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think his point was that he is smarter than "think tank suits."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2