Time to kick Iran

RandFan said:
If I asked you if Italy should act in Italy's best interest or America's best interest what would be your answer?

Should America act in America's best interest or act in a way to make everyone like us?
Click to expand...

I think that, in present times, America` s best interest is try to collaborate with other nations ( mainly, Russia, China, India, Brazil ) trying to reach common goals to solve America ` s and theirs problems together.
Working together can be a better strategy than the current strategy ( " cowboy policy " ) which works in order to look after only America` s interests.
This policy has failed in many ways:
- in Iraq, as all the allies in the Middle East refusing to help the U.S. there
- with Iran, with China, India and Russia defying further sanctions and refusing to isolate Iran
- with the space shield, with Russia warning the US, starting to point back ICBM torward European cities and strenghtening their ties with China
- with the enlargement of the Free Trade for the Americas, which have been proposed by Bush, and refused by Lula and Kirchner
 
Matteo Martini said:
I think that, in present times, America` s best interest is try to collaborate with other nations ( mainly, Russia, China, India, Brazil ) trying to reach common goals to solve America ` s and theirs problems together.
Working together can be a better strategy than the current strategy ( " cowboy policy " ) which works in order to look after only America` s interests.
This policy has failed in many ways:
- in Iraq, as all the allies in the Middle East refusing to help the U.S. there
- with Iran, with China, India and Russia defying further sanctions and refusing to isolate Iran
- with the space shield, with Russia warning the US, starting to point back ICBM torward European cities and strenghtening their ties with China
- with the enlargement of the Free Trade for the Americas, which have been proposed by Bush, and refused by Lula and Kirchner
Click to expand...
Matteo, long story short, I find your post largely naive and presumptive. Boiling down complex relations and making broad accusations are not very compelling.

America has made mistakes, hell, we've made blunders. That doesn't mean that it is all as you claim.

I've been listening to a Rusian expert being interviewed on NPR, this guy is NOT a Bush fan, he DOESN'T see things the way you do. His explanation of our relationship and the causes of what is going on is a LOT more complex.

I'm very skeptical of such simplistic views.
 
Matteo Martini said:
I think that, in present times, America` s best interest is try to collaborate with other nations ( mainly, Russia, China, India, Brazil ) trying to reach common goals to solve America ` s and theirs problems together.
Click to expand...

Why is Japan not on your list? They're one of ourmost important allies, and relations have been excellent with them. Is that why they're not on your list?

Working together can be a better strategy than the current strategy ( " cowboy policy " ) which works in order to look after only America` s interests.
This policy has failed in many ways:
- in Iraq, as all the allies in the Middle East refusing to help the U.S. there
Click to expand...

That's not a bug, that's a feature. It should be obvious why Israel shouldn't get involved, and except for Turkey (which isn't an option because of the Kurdish issue), none of our other allies in the region are democracies, so why would we expect them to be useful in building one? And even if they wanted to help, the only strategy arab nations have ever successfully used against insurgencies is brutal oppression, which is exactly what we need to get away from. The lack of involvement in Iraq from our arab allies is a good thing.

- with Iran, with China, India and Russia defying further sanctions and refusing to isolate Iran
Click to expand...

They do those things because they see benefit from doing them, not because they're trying to spite us. That benefit would be there regardless of what Bush had done with Iraq (which, really, is the main complaint against him), so there's no reason to think that this would be playing any differently. Except, of course, we might know less about Iran's program, because AQ Khan's nuclear black market ring was busted up because of the Iraq invasion.

- with the space shield, with Russia warning the US, starting to point back ICBM torward European cities and strenghtening their ties with China
Click to expand...

Russia strengthens ties with China at their own risk. As for the nuclear warning, it's posturing, meant largely for a domestic audience that wants to see an assertive Russia. It's hardly a reason not to go ahead with the missile defense agreements, and there's also no reason to think it would have been recieved any better had Iraq not happened.

- with the enlargement of the Free Trade for the Americas, which have been proposed by Bush, and refused by Lula and Kirchner
Click to expand...

Again, why do you assume that it would have been any different without Iraq?
 
RandFan said:
Matteo, long story short, I find your post largely naive and presumptive. Boiling down complex relations and making broad accusations are not very compelling.

America has made mistakes, hell, we've made blunders. That doesn't mean that it is all as you claim.

I've been listening to a Rusian expert being interviewed on NPR, this guy is NOT a Bush fan, he DOESN'T see things the way you do. His explanation of our relationship and the causes of what is going on is a LOT more complex.

I'm very skeptical of such simplistic views.
Click to expand...

I aknowledge that my views can be naive and simplicistic.
And I aknowledge that I do not know enough about politics, to speak with certainty ( by the way, I think very few people, if any, know all you should know about international relations )

Just willing to make few points:

- why Europe and the U.S. are subsidizing their farm industry, making it very hard for poor nations to export their diary products in the US and Europe?
- why the UNSC is restricted mainly to the winners of WWII, a war which ended more than 60 years ago?
- why the large pharma industries are protecting with patents important drugs which could mean life for millions of poor people in the third world?
- why the US and many European countries keep exporting so many arms?
- why the US, France and UK have not called, so far, for a global moratorium of nukes, chemical arms and biological ones?

just to say a few..
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is Japan not on your list? They're one of ourmost important allies, and relations have been excellent with them. Is that why they're not on your list?
Click to expand...

Japan has obviously to be included.
Drat!!
I get bashed for every lapse, in this forum
:)

Ziggurat said:
That's not a bug, that's a feature. It should be obvious why Israel shouldn't get involved, and except for Turkey (which isn't an option because of the Kurdish issue), none of our other allies in the region are democracies, so why would we expect them to be useful in building one? And even if they wanted to help, the only strategy arab nations have ever successfully used against insurgencies is brutal oppression, which is exactly what we need to get away from. The lack of involvement in Iraq from our arab allies is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I do not know so much as you apparently know, but it seems to me that the lack of cooperation with many players in the region ( mainly Iran and Turkey, but not only ) is what is causing the present strategy to fail.

Ziggurat said:
They do those things because they see benefit from doing them, not because they're trying to spite us. That benefit would be there regardless of what Bush had done with Iraq (which, really, is the main complaint against him), so there's no reason to think that this would be playing any differently. Except, of course, we might know less about Iran's program, because AQ Khan's nuclear black market ring was busted up because of the Iraq invasion.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this view.
I do not see why Russia, ( an oil exporter ) would be willing to help Iran ( an oil exporter ), just to say one.
And I would say that the trade figures of China and India with the US are greater than the trade figures between China and India with Iran

Ziggurat said:
Russia strengthens ties with China at their own risk. As for the nuclear warning, it's posturing, meant largely for a domestic audience that wants to see an assertive Russia. It's hardly a reason not to go ahead with the missile defense agreements, and there's also no reason to think it would have been recieved any better had Iraq not happened.
Click to expand...

And, you would like to know why the public wants an " assertive Russia ".
You do not see that this is maybe because we have an assertive America.

Ziggurat said:
Again, why do you assume that it would have been any different without Iraq?
Click to expand...

I did not write about Iraq.
I wrote:
" Working together can be a better strategy than the current strategy ( " cowboy policy " ) which works in order to look after only America` s interests. "

Yes, I think that the FTTA could have been landed, if America did not have his assertive stance on economic and military policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Area_of_the_Americas

On the other hand, the presidents of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Argentina, Néstor Kirchner, have stated that they do not oppose the FTAA but they do demand that the agreement provide for the elimination of US agriculture subsidies, the provision of effective access to foreign markets and further consideration towards the needs and sensibilities of its members
 
Matteo Martini said:
I aknowledge that my views can be naive and simplicistic.
And I aknowledge that I do not know enough about politics, to speak with certainty ( by the way, I think very few people, if any, know all you should know about international relations )

Just willing to make few points:

- why Europe and the U.S. are subsidizing their farm industry, making it very hard for poor nations to export their diary products in the US and Europe?
- why the UNSC is restricted mainly to the winners of WWII, a war which ended more than 60 years ago?
- why the large pharma industries are protecting with patents important drugs which could mean life for millions of poor people in the third world?
- why the US and many European countries keep exporting so many arms?
- why the US, France and UK have not called, so far, for a global moratorium of nukes, chemical arms and biological ones?

just to say a few..
Click to expand...

It takes massive amounts of money to develop new drugs. America is a democracy with capitalism. Why don't socialist countries develop wonder drugs. How can anyone who is above the poverty line not give disposable cash to feed the poor? Why do people spend time on an Internet forum when their are people dying? Would calling for a moratorium stop all nations from developing nukes, chemical and biological arms?

These seem like complex problems and are worthy of discussion.

Do you think that there is only malevolence behind the answers?

I grew up conservative. I've moved quite a bit toward the left in recent years. I think liberals have some great ideas and I'm not immune to liberal ideas. However, I think this is the one area where socialists, leftists and liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

They think that answers are simply just following a series of steps and doing certain prescribed things. That negative consequences are somehow proof that the west and America in particular have failed.

Confirmation bias to the extreme.

It's very disappointing.

It's not.
 
RandFan said:
It takes massive amounts of money to develop new drugs. America is a democracy with capitalism. Why don't socialist countries develop wonder drugs. How can anyone who is above the poverty line not give disposable cash to feed the poor? Why do people spend time on an Internet forum when their are people dying?
Click to expand...

Wait a second.
It takes billions to develop new drugs, not so much to produce them.
You can easily sell drugs for AIDS without large profits to the Third World countries that would not buy them ( in huge quantities ) anyway..

RandFan said:
Would calling for a moratorium stop all nations from developing nukes, chemical and biological arms?
Click to expand...

Just show good intentions.
The big two of nukes ( Russia and the US ) are both democracies.
Why the Russia would be willing to keep spending billions on developing nukes, if the US are willing to work for a global reduction?

RandFan said:
These seem like complex problems and are worthy of discussion.

Do you think that there is only malevolence behind the answers?

I grew up conservative. I've moved quite a bit toward the left in recent years. I think liberals have some great ideas and I'm not immune to liberal ideas. However, I think this is the one area where socialists, leftists and liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

They think that answers are simply just following a series of steps and doing certain prescribed things. That negative consequences are somehow proof that the west and America in particular have failed.

Confirmation bias to the extreme.

It's very disappointing.

It's not.
Click to expand...

I do not understand this very well.
However, I notice you did not address some other points, like the farm subsides..
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not sure exactly where Gerald Goertzel was born, but he was educated in the US, which is what I said.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E4DF1E39F93AA25754C0A9649C8B63
"Developer of the Goertzel Algorithm and holder of numerous patents, he received his B.S. and M.S. from the Stevens Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from New York University."
And I noticed you didn't answer my question either: are we supposed to be impressed that you implemented an algorithm invented by an American-educated engineer?

Oh, and while we're at it: "Le Galois" is Evariste Galois.
Click to expand...
In Digital Signal Processing by Oppenheimer, Goertzel's algorithm is listed as being done by Goertzel from Germany, not U.S..

I have the book at home.
I can quote it.

Also, note that the names of mathematicians I produce are from memory of education (and I add Legendre (France) here), and the names that you and brown noser of U.S. -Matteo- produce are from Google.
Profound values -like respecting life, science, Olympic swimming training and racing, not brown nosing anybody- they come from a profound education.
Not from patch education like Google.
So, get a real education.
 
Last edited:
This:
Matteo Martini said:
I think that, in present times, America` s best interest is try to collaborate with other nations ( mainly, Russia, China, India, Brazil ) trying to reach common goals to solve America ` s and theirs problems together.
Working together can be a better strategy than the current strategy ( " cowboy policy " ) which works in order to look after only America` s interests.
...
Click to expand...
was good rhetoric in 2003.

Instead of supporting the war in 2003, voting for Bush's Presidency in 2004, or brown nosing U.S.'s world disasters in 2007.

It's still good rhetoric now, after Bush and fans are jailed like Milosevic (Yougoslavia) was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom