Is Russia right to oppose sanctions?
- Thread starter Hanfstaengl
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And that's just the more savoury part of his outputphildwyer said:
Except the stuff about the queen.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:
There's a list of US foreign policy adventures that I was sent some time ago. I must dig it out.
Russia is different these days. If you’re Iran, your look to your left there’s a American occupied nation and to your right is American occupied nation. so what are you going to think when all their media is trying to make you look like another target. Iran with nuclear weapons is bad for the west but a American empire is bad for the world
It seems the germans are rather unhappy about the holocaust denial conference:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1860064,00.html?maca=en-tagesschau_englisch-335-rdf-mp
Iran's government: "The germans never killed 6,000,000 jews!"
The germans: "Erm, yes we did."
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1860064,00.html?maca=en-tagesschau_englisch-335-rdf-mp
Iran's government: "The germans never killed 6,000,000 jews!"
The germans: "Erm, yes we did."
Is Russia right? If this means is Russia likely to behave like a boy scout, then no Russia isn't right. Like the Chinese they'll ruthlessly pursue their national interest. The slippery Brits and the cynical French aren't much different. I think only the yanks suffer from occasional qualms of conscience before vigourously shafting the rest of us as usual.
From a Russian perspective another nuclear power on their border isn't heart warming but Mushies nukes are far more of a risk to them. The Pakistani military are genuinely mad, the Mullahs aren't, they may dream of turning Tel Aviv into a big glass car park but they are rational calculators most interested in their own survival. An Iranian program, especially one that can never deliver a signifigant arsenal within a decade isn't going to worry the Russians much, they won't like any trouble getting in the way of buisness.
You also have to remmber as well Russians aren't a stupidly reckless bunch, a country with a serious Jihadi problem that barely bothers to secure their own rusting nuclear arsenal is going to think the Yanks are old women when they fantisize about Tehran giving a nuke to Jihadis.
The Yanks care about the threat to Israel, they're not much loved elsewhere. A nuclear Iran is a long term threat to the Saudi fields and a US war with Iran is likely to be a global disaster that hurts everyone. Oil Sanctions are not going to be much more popular. The Russians will do what they can to calm the trigger happy Texan but I suspect its simply a stalling campaign.
The Duck considers the Russian and Chinese position:
From a Russian perspective another nuclear power on their border isn't heart warming but Mushies nukes are far more of a risk to them. The Pakistani military are genuinely mad, the Mullahs aren't, they may dream of turning Tel Aviv into a big glass car park but they are rational calculators most interested in their own survival. An Iranian program, especially one that can never deliver a signifigant arsenal within a decade isn't going to worry the Russians much, they won't like any trouble getting in the way of buisness.
You also have to remmber as well Russians aren't a stupidly reckless bunch, a country with a serious Jihadi problem that barely bothers to secure their own rusting nuclear arsenal is going to think the Yanks are old women when they fantisize about Tehran giving a nuke to Jihadis.
The Yanks care about the threat to Israel, they're not much loved elsewhere. A nuclear Iran is a long term threat to the Saudi fields and a US war with Iran is likely to be a global disaster that hurts everyone. Oil Sanctions are not going to be much more popular. The Russians will do what they can to calm the trigger happy Texan but I suspect its simply a stalling campaign.
The Duck considers the Russian and Chinese position:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Excessive reference to yammie's presumed sexual preferences deleted.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Don't be a prick all your life, phil.
TAE said:
In this context I was using the phrase "take them off the table" to refer to the U.S. forswearing not to initiate first-use of nuclear weapons. Nothing in the NPT requires signatories to forswear such use, which was my point. Yes, the NPT also includes some happy talk about all of the nations of the world coming together and effecting a complete, verifiable, world-wide nuclear disarmament. That is an entirely separate matter from what we were discussing, and as a practical matter, it seems so far-fetched to me that I would not want to waste any time even considering it.
TAE said:
I don't think either Russia or China (especially China), or even France, would ever agree to give up their last nukes. For that matter, I'm not sure the U.S. would either, since you could never be 100% sure what others had up their sleeves. And Iran wants nukes quite apart from concerns about America's own nuke capability. Given America's size, wealth, and technical prowess, nukes are seen by smaller, less technically-capable countries (I hope I don't get slammed for that assertion!) such as Iran as an equalizer, a way to fend off America's far-superior conventional (non-nuke) forces. This is a fairly reasonable attitude, of course. But some of the statements by certain Iranian leaders go quite beyond talk of preventing an attack by the U.S., into statements about changing the world by force to one more consonant with their radical ideology.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
rogue yam said:
Glad you're back and starting to get some protection from the flaming.
Your last statement, the one about Iranian leaders making threatening noises, similar claims could be made about the US. Recently, one of your religious leaders called for the assignation of another countries leader. Also, that blonde, Anne Coultier (sp?), has also made some fairly racist remarks.
A quite glance at selective media outlets could lead one to believe that the US is hell bent on converting the world to Christainity.
I'm willing to accept that there are fanatics on both sides. Are you?
TAE said:
True enough. And here is where we enter the ever-treacherous ground of "universalism" (to coin? a term) vs. "multiculturalism". The U.S. position is that democracy, individual rights, the rule of law, and pluralism are universal ideals. All want them (kind of, sort of). Some Islamists say bosh, it's Sharia as we see it for all and anyone who stands in the way is against Allah and thus liable to be put to death. The argument can be made that in both cases an ideology is being imposed. And if one truly believes that there are no moral absolutes, then the argument then goes to who is messing with who more. I say we (the U.S.) still come out on top here, since I see Al Qaeda as the agressor against us, and I see most if not all of their complaints against us as bogus. There is little doubt about where most people of the world would choose to live if the two choices were the U.S. under Pres. Bush, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. But that doesn't really prove anything either, I suppose.
spring-peeper said:
Of course. But let's be clearer on our terms, please. Our "religious leaders". particularly those that might call for assassinations (are we talking Pat Robertson here?) are private individuals who hold no power except that of persuasion. Whatever they call for, our nation acts through its secular institutions according to our Constitution. In certain other cases (Mullah Omar, Ayatollah Kohmeni, etc.) their religious leaders directly command armed forces who carry out their edicts at the point of a gun without regard for any secular authority or popular will. This is quite a different matter.
I am firmly in the "universalism" camp, as are most fundamentalists, and believe that representative democracy is the least-worst option, but being in the right does not mean having the right to impose one's view on others. It also does not render everyone else's view worthless.
gosub
~#
Not sure what it has to do with Russia opposing sanctions but the US isn't the only country leaving the threat of nuking people on the table http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4627862.stm
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
rogue yam said:
"Assignation"? What do you mean "assignation"?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte said:"Assignation"? What do you mean "assignation"?
He means cheating on his wife in order to slip the boney witch a length.
Similar threads
