How Foolish Is This Administration?

[Reub]

"Kerry: Iran Sanctions Could Be Lifted Within Months"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kerry- ... /id/527977

Peace is at hand, I guess.

[RuralEngineer]

Apparently the new boss is very different from the old boss.  Oh wait, that crazy ass cleric is still running the show and using the various "elected officials" as his hand puppets?  Nevermind.

[Reub]

I saw a picture of Kerry meeting with the Iranians at the UN. It looked like they were planning his demise while they were posing for pictures.

[notsheigetz]

Taking steps to avoid another war with a another middle east country that poses no threat to us is one of the smarter things the Obama administration has done.

I hope they handle it less amateurishly than they've handled the entire Syria thing.

Agreed.

Personally, I don't like the idea of economic embargoes. I guess the idea is to make the people suffer enough that they will overthrow the government but we've had one against Cuba for 54 years now and it hasn't had much effect that I can tell. In Iran people are now suffering from a lack of medicine, especially cancer drugs, so I expect we'll have yet another generations of Iranians shouting "Death to America" in the streets.

I think we should consider ourselves fortunate that we are the big kid on the block because I don't think we'd like it very much if a more powerful nation were to give us a taste of our own medicine.

[Libertarian666]

Taking steps to avoid another war with a another middle east country that poses no threat to us is one of the smarter things the Obama administration has done.

I hope they handle it less amateurishly than they've handled the entire Syria thing.

I didn't stab myself or anyone else today, so do I get applause for that?

[Coffee]

It's always our fault with you guys.  It doesn't matter how heinous their behavior, because they can't be held accountable for their actions, because it's always "our fault."

Meanwhile, there aren't a group of people in the world that these Islamists aren't at war with, but that doesn't seem to matter to you guys.  It's always, "Yeah, but..."

We did this, and we did that.  Some of this stuff was 60 years ago that you're still making excuses to blame America for?

"Okay."

What would it take for you to be proud of your country and all of the GOOD we've done for the world?

[Libertarian666]

It's always our fault with you guys.  It doesn't matter how heinous their behavior, because they can't be held accountable for their actions, because it's always "our fault."

Meanwhile, there aren't a group of people in the world that these Islamists aren't at war with, but that doesn't seem to matter to you guys.  It's always, "Yeah, but..."

We did this, and we did that.  Some of this stuff was 60 years ago that you're still making excuses to blame America for?

"Okay."

What would it take for you to be proud of your country and all of the GOOD we've done for the world?

I can't answer for anyone else, but for me:
1. Stop all attempts to make every financial institution in the world into tax collectors for the US ("FATCA").
2. Close all the foreign military bases and bring everyone home.

That would make a good start.

[MediumTex]

What exactly is our beef with Iran?

Yes, they are sponsors of international terrorism, but has any of it been against the U.S.?

Yes, Iran has probably made life more difficult for U.S. forces in Iraq, but perhaps that is a good argument for simply getting U.S. forces out of Iraq.

Yes, Iran has probably been trying to develop a nuclear weapon.  Is that not their prerogative as a sovereign state?  Have they signed any treaties agreeing not to do that?  (maybe they have, I just don't know).

Sometimes it's useful to take a step back from an enemy and make sure you remember exactly why he is your enemy.  The truth with the U.S. and Iran probably has more to do with other Middle East countries (i.e., Arab countries) wanting the U.S. to act as its bodyguard against Iran (i.e., a Persian country).

The thing that puzzles me about the Persian/Arab tensions, though, is if they are all Muslims, what's the problem?  Surely the will of Allah is that all Muslims should love and respect one another, right?  (I thought it was the infidels who were supposed to get the rough treatment.)

[Coffee]

What exactly is our beef with Iran?

Yes, they are sponsors of international terrorism, but has any of it been against the U.S.?

Yes, Iran has probably made life more difficult for U.S. forces in Iraq, but perhaps that is a good argument for simply getting U.S. forces out of Iraq.

Yes, Iran has probably been trying to develop a nuclear weapon.  Is that not their prerogative as a sovereign state?  Have they signed any treaties agreeing not to do that?  (maybe they have, I just don't know).

Sometimes it's useful to take a step back from an enemy and make sure you remember exactly why he is your enemy.  The truth with the U.S. and Iran probably has more to do with other Middle East countries (i.e., Arab countries) wanting the U.S. to act as its bodyguard against Iran (i.e., a Persian country).

The thing that puzzles me about the Persian/Arab tensions, though, is if they are all Muslims, what's the problem?  Surely the will of Allah is that all Muslims should love and respect one another, right?  (I thought it was the infidels who were supposed to get the rough treatment.)

All due respect-- as you know I love ya and think you're by far one of the smartest guys I've known (virtually, at least)-- but your position on this issue is naive, in my opinion.

Sunni and Shia are both Muslims the same way Catholic and Protestants and Mormons are all believers in Christ.  The differences are even more pronounces since most of the Muslims in that part of the world have one foot still stuck in the 6th century.

As to your "Live and Let Live" philosophy: That would work fine if our opponents were the Dutch or the Swedes.  But Islam is expansionist by nature.  Their philosophy is one of subjugation, not freedom.

We also need to recognize that every country acts in it's own best interest, and that includes having spheres of influence so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits of cheap energy and selling our products to an international market. 

[Coffee]

It's always our fault with you guys.  It doesn't matter how heinous their behavior, because they can't be held accountable for their actions, because it's always "our fault."

Meanwhile, there aren't a group of people in the world that these Islamists aren't at war with, but that doesn't seem to matter to you guys.  It's always, "Yeah, but..."

We did this, and we did that.  Some of this stuff was 60 years ago that you're still making excuses to blame America for?

"Okay."

What would it take for you to be proud of your country and all of the GOOD we've done for the world?

I can't answer for anyone else, but for me:
1. Stop all attempts to make every financial institution in the world into tax collectors for the US ("FATCA").
2. Close all the foreign military bases and bring everyone home.

That would make a good start.

I agree with you on #1.  I think it's wrong.
As for #2: No way.  Power abhors a vacuum.  We pull out and the Russians, the Iranians and the Chinese move in.  No thanks.  We may not be perfect, but I'd much prefer our government having influence over those parts of the world than theirs.  Next thing you know, they're gonna close down the Suez Canal and start imposing an Infidel tax.  Or worse: Not letting boats flying non-Islamic flags pass. 

[Pointedstick]

As to your "Live and Let Live" philosophy: That would work fine if our opponents were the Dutch or the Swedes.  But Islam is expansionist by nature.  Their philosophy is one of subjugation, not freedom.

What's wrong with only killing them when they try to subjugate us?

[Coffee]

As to your "Live and Let Live" philosophy: That would work fine if our opponents were the Dutch or the Swedes.  But Islam is expansionist by nature.  Their philosophy is one of subjugation, not freedom.

What's wrong with only killing them when they try to subjugate us?

Because you forfeit all of your tactical advantages.  Not to mention: If they've already stated that they're coming for us: Would you rather fight them in our backyard or theirs?  I'd rather go and blow their shit up, than have them here blowing our shit up.

[MediumTex]

As to your "Live and Let Live" philosophy: That would work fine if our opponents were the Dutch or the Swedes.  But Islam is expansionist by nature.  Their philosophy is one of subjugation, not freedom.

What's wrong with only killing them when they try to subjugate us?

Because you forfeit all of your tactical advantages.  Not to mention: If they've already stated that they're coming for us: Would you rather fight them in our backyard or theirs?  I'd rather go and blow their shit up, than have them here blowing our shit up.

In the 1980s, the U.S. supplied Saddam Hussein with guns and bombs that he used to kill or maim over one million Iranians. 

If you were an Iranian, wouldn't you say that the U.S. has taken the fight to them WAY more than they have ever taken the fight to us?

As far as Iran blowing out shit up, which shit of ours have they blown up?  I remember when the U.S. Navy shot down that Iranian commercial airliner in 1988 (i.e., that's some of their shit that we blew up), but I don't recall them blowing up any of our shit (maybe they have and I don't know about it).

The Iranians have probably blown up some of our shit in Iraq, but if a foreign country that helped to kill or maim over one million Americans was occupying Mexico after invading it under false pretenses and blowing up a lot of its shit and then executing its leader, I would say it might be understandable if the U.S. engaged in a bit of sabotage to encourage that foreign power to withdraw from Mexico and return home.

[Reub]

What exactly is our beef with Iran?

Yes, they are sponsors of international terrorism, but has any of it been against the U.S.?

Yes, Iran has probably made life more difficult for U.S. forces in Iraq, but perhaps that is a good argument for simply getting U.S. forces out of Iraq.

Yes, Iran has probably been trying to develop a nuclear weapon.  Is that not their prerogative as a sovereign state?  Have they signed any treaties agreeing not to do that?  (maybe they have, I just don't know).

Sometimes it's useful to take a step back from an enemy and make sure you remember exactly why he is your enemy.  The truth with the U.S. and Iran probably has more to do with other Middle East countries (i.e., Arab countries) wanting the U.S. to act as its bodyguard against Iran (i.e., a Persian country).

The thing that puzzles me about the Persian/Arab tensions, though, is if they are all Muslims, what's the problem?  Surely the will of Allah is that all Muslims should love and respect one another, right?  (I thought it was the infidels who were supposed to get the rough treatment.)

This is why I could never be a Libertarian. We would be pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler's successors if this line of reasoning won out in the past.

[notsheigetz]

It's always our fault with you guys.  It doesn't matter how heinous their behavior, because they can't be held accountable for their actions, because it's always "our fault."

Somewhere along the line, not sure where, I decided it was best when looking for faults to start by looking in the mirror. So I suppose that makes me one of the "you guys".

And what is the heinous behavior by the Iranians that you are referring to? Making nuclear weapons? Our own intelligence agencies still say there is no proof they are doing that but even if they are, see above. If our neighbors to the north and south, Canada and Mexico, were invaded and occupied by foreigners like Iraq and Afghanistan were, do you think we might be working to increase our nuclear stockpile no matter what the rest of the world thinks?

Meanwhile, there aren't a group of people in the world that these Islamists aren't at war with, but that doesn't seem to matter to you guys.  It's always, "Yeah, but..."

Hmm. I'll bet I can find a lot of people they aren't at war with. Brazil, Canada, Mexico, just for starters.

What would it take for you to be proud of your country and all of the GOOD we've done for the world?

You have to explain exactly what you think I am signing onto if I say I'm "proud of my country". I already said I don't support embargoes.

[notsheigetz]

This is why I could never be a Libertarian. We would be pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler's successors if this line of reasoning won out in the past.

Do you seriously believe that, or is this just Godwin's law having its way with us and you were the chosen mouthpiece this time?

[RuralEngineer]

I'm all for avoiding another war, but I've never seen or heard anyone lay out anything approaching what I'd consider a persuasive argument for why we have a moral obligation to sell bad actors like Iran our stuff.

@$&! that noise. We have an obligation not to attack them in the absence of an attack or threat of an attack. We are well within our rights to deny trade to criminal regimes, particularly if those goods are material to threatening activity. Based on Iranian support of terrorist groups, the fear of an Iranian nuke in terrorist hands is not overly dramatic.

I personally would allow certain items through to alleviate the suffering of the Iranian people, but I'm not in charge. I would not lift the embargo until Iran gave up its bad actor behavior, which is the reason why we care about their nukes and not India's, for example.

[Pointedstick]

This is why I could never be a Libertarian. We would be pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler's successors if this line of reasoning won out in the past.

Didn't we enter WWII because we were attacked? It actually seems like a very good libertarian reason to engage in war.

[Ad Orientem]

What exactly is our beef with Iran?

Yes, they are sponsors of international terrorism, but has any of it been against the U.S.?

Yes, Iran has probably made life more difficult for U.S. forces in Iraq, but perhaps that is a good argument for simply getting U.S. forces out of Iraq.

Yes, Iran has probably been trying to develop a nuclear weapon.  Is that not their prerogative as a sovereign state?  Have they signed any treaties agreeing not to do that?  (maybe they have, I just don't know).

Sometimes it's useful to take a step back from an enemy and make sure you remember exactly why he is your enemy.  The truth with the U.S. and Iran probably has more to do with other Middle East countries (i.e., Arab countries) wanting the U.S. to act as its bodyguard against Iran (i.e., a Persian country).

The thing that puzzles me about the Persian/Arab tensions, though, is if they are all Muslims, what's the problem?  Surely the will of Allah is that all Muslims should love and respect one another, right?  (I thought it was the infidels who were supposed to get the rough treatment.)

This is why I could never be a Libertarian. We would be pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler's successors if this line of reasoning won out in the past.

Actually if this line of reasoning had won out in the past, Adolf Hitler would likely have died an unknown 3rd rate artist because we would have stayed out of the First World War. Translation... Germany and Austria Hungry would have won and there would probably never have been a World War II. Certainly not with Hitler in charge.

[notsheigetz]

This is why I could never be a Libertarian. We would be pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler's successors if this line of reasoning won out in the past.

Didn't we enter WWII because we were attacked? It actually seems like a very good libertarian reason to engage in war.

Interesting that you brought that up because an economic embargo against Japan had a lot to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

My own very amateur historian view on WWII is that it was a continuation of WWI played out on the world stage to settle who was going to finally be the big dog on the planet once and for all. Many (most?) Americans preferred to stay out and let the others fight among themselves but others of a certain nature wanted to throw the American hat in the ring. The latter won and now we are the big dog and dealing with the consequences, for good or bad.

[Pointedstick]

There appear to be two camps here, and I think they can actually come to an agreement.

One camp says, "A lot of the attacks against us are blowback for prior aggression against them."

The other camp says, "we have to deal with the world the way it is and not dwell on who did what in the past… TODAY the world is dangerous and needs our strength."

I don't actually think these have to be contradictory. But I think each has its place and needs to stay in that place or else it can cause a big mess.

For example, I agree with Ad Orientem that on a macro, geopolitical level, WWII was a preventable conflict that probably would not have happened had we not intervened in WWI and handed Germany a stunning surprise defeat and then bankrupted and utterly humiliated them in the ensuing armistice. All totally preventable stuff.

However on a micro level, General Patton directing troops during WWII didn't have the luxury of saying, "this is a stupid conflict that could have been prevented if the past were different." He had to fight the war he was given. He couldn't back out, and neither could his troops.

For the people who determine the course of world events, it's important to avoid sowing the seeds of future conflicts by humiliating defeated countries, needlessly intervening in local matters, or pushing people around because we're tougher. World leaders who adopt the "intervention everywhere" approach are just sowing the seeds of endless conflict. The 20th century should be ample evidence for that as the world lurched from one preventable conflict to the next, each precipitated by ill-advised interventions in the past. Or at least that's how I read it.

[Coffee]

This is why I could never be a Libertarian. We would be pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler's successors if this line of reasoning won out in the past.

Didn't we enter WWII because we were attacked? It actually seems like a very good libertarian reason to engage in war.

Interesting that you brought that up because an economic embargo against Japan had a lot to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

My own very amateur historian view on WWII is that it was a continuation of WWI played out on the world stage to settle who was going to finally be the big dog on the planet once and for all. Many (most?) Americans preferred to stay out and let the others fight among themselves but others of a certain nature wanted to throw the American hat in the ring. The latter won and now we are the big dog and dealing with the consequences, for good or bad.

There you go again, with the "blame America first" argument.  As if Japan was a peaceful country, minding it's own business and for no reason whatsoever and we just decided to slap an economic embargo on them? Yeah, right.

No, that's not what happened.

Japan is wholly responsible for our economic embargo.  We were selling Japan 90% of their oil imports before the Manchurian Incident and the Rape of Nanking.  They decided to RAPE China and pursue an expansionist policy all over the Pacific.  Wholesale rape of our allies, the Chinese.  We had every right to stop selling them oil and to do everything we could to prevent them from bullying our allies.

And herein lies the problem with your "Fortress America" foreign policy approach: It naively assumes that if we mind our own business, everybody will leave us alone. 

Just like the Japanese left China alone, right?  And then the Filipines.  And then Hawaii.  And then California. 

It also suggests that we should leave our friends to drift in the wind the minute they are in trouble.  Could you imagine the Chinese invading the Western Coast of Canada and raping and killing 300,000 Canadian citizens... and we not doing anything???  Huh???

No, in the game of chess-- you don't wait until your opponent has her Queen and her Rook and her Knight all gathered around your King.  You engage and put your opponent on the defense by setting things up so that their Queen, etc.. can't corner your King.  You adopt a pre-emptive strategy because it meets your needs.  If you don't, you opponent surely will-- because that's the way you win the game.

We don't need to be the policemen of the world.  But we need to stand up for our national interests, and that includes having the back of our allies when they're attacked.  Sometimes it also means "My enemy's enemy is my friend," if it helps us reach our own national interests.  Unfortunate, but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles in the real world. 

If we can keep both Iran and Iraq fighting each other rather than invading Saudi Arabia and cutting off our oil supply, then so be it.  Better they fight each other than our boys have to do it.  And if that doesn't work, better to fight them in Iraq and put a stop to it, before they roll into Saudi Arabia and cut off our supply lines.  (Or those of our allies.)

[Coffee]

It's always our fault with you guys.  It doesn't matter how heinous their behavior, because they can't be held accountable for their actions, because it's always "our fault."

Somewhere along the line, not sure where, I decided it was best when looking for faults to start by looking in the mirror. So I suppose that makes me one of the "you guys".

No, I think that makes you an insecure person with identity issues.  And I'm not saying that as a personal attack, but you've brought up personal behavior into the conversation and I'm commenting on it.

I think a more balanced approach-- instead of saying, "Everything is my fault" is instead to look at the entirety of a situation and ONLY THEN draw conclusions as to who may be at fault. 

Unless you're a "moral equivovator" and you believe everybody is always at fault and there is no absolute right and wrong.  In which case... I would still question why your knee jerk reaction is to blame the US, first?  I think there is a component of self-hate at work.  But that's just my arm chair analysis based on a couple of your posts, so ... take it for what it's worth. 

[Coffee]

For the people who determine the course of world events, it's important to avoid sowing the seeds of future conflicts by humiliating defeated countries, needlessly intervening in local matters, or pushing people around because we're tougher. World leaders who adopt the "intervention everywhere" approach are just sowing the seeds of endless conflict. The 20th century should be ample evidence for that as the world lurched from one preventable conflict to the next, each precipitated by ill-advised interventions in the past. Or at least that's how I read it.

You're being hyper-selective.  It's like backtesting an investment strategy and choosing your start dates.  I can list all kind of interventions that turned out favorably. 

[Ad Orientem]

I am a non-interventionist but I am not an isolationist. Nor do I believe in a completely amoral approach to foreign affairs. Japan was a highly militaristic country that was waging aggressive war against its neighbors. And as noted above, it was relying on the US for its oil and essential war material. Non-interventionism in no way means we have an obligation to become moral accomplices to wars of aggression. FDR (by no means my fav president) was absolutely correct to cut Japan off. And while I would never have endorsed military intervention in a Sino-Japanese war, once Japan bombed us and Hitler declared war on us then it was absolutely time to ring their bell.