Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, okay, if the NYT isn't good enough for you, then you can't be reached on any reasonable level. Meanwhile you've been unable to present any source at all. I have the NYT, and it is not a sufficient argument on your part simply to say that the NYT is too high-brow and expensive for you. That has never been a debating tactic that worked. "Uhh. That guy had some fancy sources. His whole argument is now invalid!"

"It has not been openly published, but a version was shown to The New York Times and was verified by four sources close to senior officials, including an editor with a party newspaper."

I'm wasting my time when I point out that NYT is banned in China, but I still access it.

You're a close-minded person, eh? You'd make a good Chinese cadre, given a bit of re-education, because you certainly have the attitude. I've never heard of Infowars, but your attitude toward protecting yourself from alternate points of view says it all. I doubt you'll go to the Sydney Morning Herald either.

You're not really listening, are you? Allow me to reiterate: I can't read NYT articles. I haven't been able to read the NYT for over a year now. I was asking you to provide a different source.

As for Infowars, they're a balls-to-the-wall crazy conspiracy theorist site, probably the largest one on the English-speaking internet.

I could point out that NYT articles tend to get syndicated elsewhere and... oh look...

Sydney Morning Herald

And a dozen other free newspapers simply by searching for the important part of the URL.

It's not my job to find your sources for you.

In any case, this document is firstly primarily about political and social reforms, while up until this point we have been speaking of economic reforms. The only reference to that is the denouncement of neo-liberalism, which is not a signification of the return to Maoism. It is a recognition that the PRC must maintain their control over the SOEs, which neither of us has disputed is the case. As before, the SOEs are an institution of state capitalism, not of Maoism.

Crushing dissidents like they are planning to might have severe consequences for the CCP in the long run. I need not remind you of what happened to the USSR when they abandoned the gradual reformist mindset promoted by Khrushchev. Attempting to return to outdated hardliner politics rarely ends well.

Reform is narrowly understood in this context. You know that it is narrowly understood to mean specific things that aren't actually likely to happen.

Do I?  I don't think I do. I think I was stating the constant of change in society.

[misko27]

Wow. Go be Chinese elsewhere. This discussion was Made in America, Mmm 'kay?

So, in the tradition of American politics, to quote from a Politico article

In the next two months, the most unpopular institution in America will decide the fates of a president’s power, a military strike, defense contracts, the budget, health-care implementation, the Federal Reserve chairmanship, illegal immigrants, and all of us who would be hit by a debt default.

So this will be fun?

[ggamer]

So, in the tradition of American politics, to quote from a Politico article

In the next two months, the most unpopular institution in America will decide the fates of a president’s power, a military strike, defense contracts, the budget, health-care implementation, the Federal Reserve chairmanship, illegal immigrants, and all of us who would be hit by a debt default.

Let me tell you what congress will probably do about these issues

- Debate
- Agree with the president
- Debate
- Pass a resolution extending last year's budget
- Possibly appoint after much deliberation
- Debate
- Pass a resolution
- etc.

[Leafsnail]

What a bunch of clowns.

[Baffler]

A war is definitely going to happen. The extent of that war remains to be seen, but I like to think Obama and Congress are smart enough to know a quagmire when they see one. This talk of limited action with specific objectives is a step in the right direction IMHO, but I would rather we not get involved militarily at all. The real question is whether or not congressmen are willing to take the hit to their reputation (or what's left of it) another war will probably cause. The answer appears to be yes.

[Mephansteras]

It's a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't sort of situation. If they get involved, they'll get blasted for any collateral damage that occurs and even more if US soldiers get killed. If they don't do something they'll be condemned for not intervening against forces using chemical weapons.

So it makes sense that they'd try to go for the least damaging option, limited strikes that don't involve US troops on the ground getting shot at. It keeps the US credibility up by showing that it'll stand by its word to act while ideally not getting so deep in that the politicians have the public turn against them for getting into another Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Chaoswizkid]

If they don't do something they'll be condemned for not intervening against forces using chemical weapons.

By who? The American public is fed up with Obama, they're fed up with the middle east and they're fed up with military action. The public doesn't care if someone uses chemical weapons on their own people right now. Britain, our biggest buddy, doesn't care either. Nor does our most prominent geopolitical 'adversary', Russia. Who's left to condemn the US government? The US government?

[GlyphGryph]

It keeps the US credibility up by showing that it'll stand by its word to act while ideally not getting so deep in that the politicians have the public turn against them for getting into another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Does it? Because I'll be honest, of all the hits to its credibility the US has taken lately in the international community, this seems like the thing that would be least likely to diminish it further.

But it's not as if we have much in the way of credibility left - To who, exactly, are we credible? What does credibility even mean for the US anymore?

And if there's any credibility to lose, it's because Obama shot his mouth off with his posturing. But I really have trouble buying the line that it will make us lose credibility at all.

[misko27]

If they don't do something they'll be condemned for not intervening against forces using chemical weapons.

By who? The American public is fed up with Obama, they're fed up with the middle east and they're fed up with military action. The public doesn't care if someone uses chemical weapons on their own people right now. Britain, our biggest buddy, doesn't care either. Nor does our most prominent geopolitical 'adversary', Russia. Who's left to condemn the US government? The US government?

Iran. The real problem is this is the other red line the US said it will intervene over. Iran was the first. Not following through sets a bad example. And no one wants Iran to have Nuclear weapons. Bottom line, US does not do this, and either Israel or the US will have to attack Iran or they get nukes. A bad situation through and through.


Oh and no one else in particular will see it as bad, but there is a general sense that he'd be breaking his word, and the general sense is in this case more important then reality.

[10ebbor10]

I honestly can't see the problem with Iran having Nuclear weaponry. It's not like there are other equally unstable states with similar, or worse armaments of Mass destruction.

Adding to that, the military threat is not what's stopping Iran from getting nukes. If anything, the real threat to them are the international sanctions, which are completely crashing their economy. They really don't want to worsen those.

[Helgoland]

Well, Iran is unstable and autocratic, and autocracies tend to start wars to keep the focus away from internal problems (like they did in Chile).

Combine that with a burning hate/a rhetoric of burning hate against Israel, and you might kind of see the point of keeping them away from the big A

[10ebbor10]

There are many unstable* and autocratic nations. Nobody bothers with them.

*Iran's fairly stable, actually.

[Helgoland]

Except for Pakistan (and maybe Russia, if you stretch "unstable"), they tend not to have nukes, which makes their cases a bit less worrying.

And didn't Iran have a pretty big revolution attempt back in '09? That's what I meant by unstable - unlike China, it is rather unable to drastically alter its political structure through reforms, and unlike Best Korea, the current leadership is not brutal/powerful/fabulous enough to supress any uprising.

[Reudh]

Whether or not you're in the correct state of mind, you are DEFINITELY in the wrong thread. This is the American Politics thread, not the Asia Thread!

There's no Asia thread, just an Australia thread. Nothing exists in China unless an Australian notices.
[/quote]

Um, if it's my thread you're referring to, it's Australasian politics. Yes, just because half the word is 'Austral' does mean that it involves Australia, but you're forgetting the other half of the word.

[10ebbor10]

And didn't Iran have a pretty big revolution attempt back in '09? That's what I meant by unstable - unlike China, it is rather unable to drastically alter its political structure through reforms, and unlike Best Korea, the current leadership is not brutal/powerful/fabulous enough to supress any uprising.

There were less than 150 casualties. Not what I'd call major revolution.
And the US spending more than 400 million dollars to destabilize Iran might have something to do with it, and of course, the economical penalties crashing their economy.

Adding to that, the government is more capable than Best Korea*, and the structure might be easier to change than China. I mean, unlike China, this country has an actual democracy.

Edit: But we'll see what happens on 27 September, when the talks with IAEA resume.

*Which relies on it's Person cult to keep the system stable-ish.