Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
All right.
And the best way to destroy the Cuban government and prevent that is to open diplomatic ties with them and let the natural flow of information and cultural exchanges change Cuba for the better.
Same for Iran. Contrary to Republican rhetoric Iran is not dogmatic and unreasonable like North Korea. They know exactly what they're doing. They're pursuing nuclear weaponry because we've backed them in a corner and they have a very legitimate fear of us invading and overthrowing their government for shits and giggles.
Basically by being hostile to Iran we're proving them right and giving them further justification for their nuclear program.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:34:55 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
Well, that is obvious. Cuba, however, aren't a threat to anyone. The only countries it could possibly be a threat to are Mexico (Who are already ****ed beyond belief), and some extremely poor Caribbean countries. As for Iran, they are a threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis have been pretty much intentionally trying to piss them off.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:45:48 AM by Bat178
Fun fact, the first US president to try and reign in a possible Iranian nuclear program was Jimmy Carter, when he figured that maybe the US shouldn't be sharing all his nuclear technology with an authoritarian dictatorship, even if it was a US ally.
Oh and the Iranian nuclear plant that was for years a big thing of worry because the Russians were building it, the Russians were actually finishing a plant that the Germans were originally building for Iran under the old regime.
Yes Iran has many issues, but it doesn't even top the list of terrorist funding, worrying Islamist ideology exporting nations, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have it beet in that department. Iran has to be looked at in the context of its history, because once you understand its history its actions look less like a hostile power out for blood and more like a people terrified that once again any semblance of choice they have will be taken away from them.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:46:09 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAnd it certainly doesn't help that one of America's political parties has seemingly done everything short of explicitly calling for war with Iran. But when they say that economic and diplomatic options are insufficient, isn't the military option the only one left?
edited 11th Feb '16 1:53:44 AM by Eschaton
@Nihlus1, you really need to stop calling politicians "anti free trade" just because they're anti "free trade" agreements.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."According to several things I heard, they weren't even doing that on the nuclear front before agreeing to the nuclear deal. Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003
, and while a few uncoordinated attempts were made to continue building additional centrifuges or to enrich uranium into the range of 20+% mark, that's well short of the 90+% range needed for a bomb
but as of 2009 there wasn't any further pushing of that.
So all the fuss about Iran's WMD turned out to have about as much going for it as Iraq's.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Sorry for the double post, but apparently the Oregon milita is set to surrender today and Cliven Bundy was arrested while heading to the wildlife refuge
.
According to some googling, they've agreed to surrender at 8AM local time, or in about 2 hours.
edited 11th Feb '16 7:22:40 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Well, that's a nice change from all the apocalyptic ranting on You Tube.
Edit: If Cliven Bundy is under arrest, too, that means that his prosecution for illegal grazing can also move forward. It's like the feds rolled Yahtzee!
edited 11th Feb '16 6:34:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Everyone who supports any kind of income redistribution (from rich to poor, not vice versa of course), regulatory control over the private sector, or nationalization of any industry is a socialist, by the purest definition. Communism is an ideology that takes socialism to its logical extreme by dispensing with private industry entirely.
Bernie Sanders unabashedly wears the label "democratic socialist" not because he wants to be seen as the reincarnation of Che Guevara or Marx but because he believes that the United States is, at its heart, a democratic socialism that has been hijacked by the wealthy and exploited for their own selfish interests. Bernie Sanders is not a Communist, but he is explicitly motivated to reclaim the label of "socialism" for our nation.
edited 11th Feb '16 7:00:09 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 11th Feb '16 7:04:33 AM by BlueNinja0
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - SilaswThe best way to deal with North Korea is to let it wither and die on its own while maintaining vigilance so that it doesn't pull off any crazy shenanigans in its death throes. Nothing is gained by deliberately antagonizing it, especially as it feeds into the propaganda that it is in a constant state of war.
Iran does not want a war. Let us be super, super clear about that. Iran knows that it would ultimately lose any military conflict with the United States, and even if it were to achieve some kind of beneficial strategic outcome, the cost to the nation and its people would be incalculable. Rather, Iran has ample, wholly justified reasons to fear that the United States would attack it and is thus dedicated to preparing a deterrent sufficient to make us think twice.
Cuba is an utter nonentity and it's frankly embarrassing that we continue to invest so much effort into worrying about it.
edited 11th Feb '16 7:19:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They finally arrested that loon? Good to hear.
On the subject of foreign policy, I'm with Fighteer. There really isn't an easy solution for N. Korea. Any proposed solution would still yield severe consequences to S. Korea on account of the forer's lack of infrastructure among other things. I also find hostility to a Iran rather hypocritical considering our history with them and the fact that we're allies with Saudi Arabia.
I forgot that worrying about Cuba was still a thing. Why are people still doing that? Hostility won't make people change. It's just going to make them pissed at us.
I hate to break it to you, but the United States is a fundamentally capitalist society. It's imbedded in our institutions and our culture. This may not be a good thing, but advocates of socialism should quite trying to be "patriotic" and come out and acknowledge that they want to destroy the fundamentals of America and remake it as a European nation.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
That is so, fundamentally not true, Jack. I'm really not sure where you get these ideas from. There is an ideal of American society that exists in the minds of many people that has not been reality for close to 100 years. We are not a frontier civilization fightin' Injuns and b'ars and dyin' from dysentery any more. That some folks want to go back there is a sign of deep illness.
edited 11th Feb '16 8:22:06 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
One can argue that the modern concept of capitalism began with The Wealth of Nations
, published in 1776, making it a bit too soon to have directly impacted the founding of the United States. Economies prior to that were mercantilist in principle.
That said, many of the Founders were deeply suspicious of accumulations of mercantile power and wanted a decentralized economy. They hated corporations above all else.
edited 11th Feb '16 8:30:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

What does more pressure on North Korea mean? Threatening war? Cutting of food aid? Because if you put to much pressure on North Korea it's going to explode, and while that would be good in the long term it would be pretty terrible in the short term, what with all the war and death and possibly nuclear fallout on South Korea it would cause.
As for Iran, yeah it's been hostile even since the U.K. and US overthrew the democratic government, the Iranian people then overthrew the dictatorship we installed (which was one of the worst around) and put a theocracy in place, it was never a very nice regime but the US has generally been worse to it, it was trying to overthrow the Iranian regime from day one, including arming Saddam against it, faking evidence of a nuclear weapons program (which is where Iran got the idea of having a nuclear weapons program from) and there's also the time the US murdered over 200 Iranian civilians by shooting down a civilian airliner.
No you shouldn't trust Iran, but standing up to it means what? Challenging it where it opposes the US? Driving it towards nukes out of fear that the US will once again install a puppet dictatorship? Actually installing a puppet dictatorship?
Now Cuba, why end diplomatic relations? The US has diplomatic relations with tons of non-democratic regimes, many that are much worse then Cuba. Is the idea to foster democracy? How is that going to be done then? Putting a country under siege doesn't foster democracy, just look at Russia and hell Cuba's history so far. Why not have faith that if exposed to democracy and democratic ideals the Cuban people will push for reform themselves?
And how do you meet a nation's democracy advocates if you've cut diplomatic relations with the country?
Edit for other posts: North Korea is a threat but you don't want to make it worse, same with Iran, though Iran is only a threat because the US made it one (well US and UK), still we live in the world we have not the one we want. However making Iran a bigger threat by making it think that the US is going to install a pet dictator again isn't going to help anyone.
edited 11th Feb '16 1:36:37 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran