• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

Question. Are you saying that the countries should not be left to their own devices?

I am saying that you cannot treat nations like individuals, they are not. Imagine if we identified Americans by G.W. Bush or by American foreign policy! :doh
 
We must keep a strong military presence in the middle east. We must protect our oil.
Self-determination for nations determined to destroy us has been a self-hating idea of a decadent West and should be abandoned. We and other importers should seize OPEC oil and sell it for its natural price, which is less than $5 a barrel. That is what our military is for, to stand up to price-gouging foreigners, who have damaged us more than a military invasion would have. Now our military is used to protect our Saudi enemies from their own enemies. This is treason, motivated by the fact that our oil companies piggyback off OPEC price-gouging.
 
I am saying that you cannot treat nations like individuals, they are not. Imagine if we identified Americans by G.W. Bush or by American foreign policy! :doh

Well, he did win the vote and his foreign policy was supported by a majority of congress. It's not like he was a dictator.
 
We need to stay out of this completely, neither Russia nor China will intervene without US intervention first. I dont think any world power wants to be the people who caused world war 3, which is what would happen if Israel goes to war with Iran with backing from the US military. If Israel and Iran go to war with one another, it would be smart that no major world power involve itself in the conflict. We need a little more isolationism and a lot less foreign intervention, that should have been the foreign policy that began directly after we killed Bin Laden. The war on terror is over, what is the excuse for more conflict? More conflict can and will create a new Bin Laden and cause another 9-11. We cant afford to have America's hand in another conflict, its war mongering and it is shameful.

How! How! How on EARTH will this bring about World War III!
 
Hm, I see a very dangerous trend taking place in this discussion - treating countries like individuals. Iran do this, Israel do this, Syria act like this, Turkey act like that... I feel like I am in the 30's, before WW2... When people involve themselves in such a rhetoric, the chance of getting a new world war increase dramatically.

Remember, countries are no people!
It's wrong to generalise them!

For example, I don't even like my government. Why should I take the responsibility of someone else's decisions and policy?

In IR countries are treated as actors, it's a central tenant of most theories of international relations.
 
In IR countries are treated as actors, it's a central tenant of most theories of international relations.

Yeah, and those IR are written by the same politicians and power junkies that throw the nations in wars. How brilliant!

Yeah, I know, Germans are Nazis, Russians are drunks and commies, and Americans are stupid? What a BS.

P.S. Starting WW3 is a piece of cake.
 
Yeah, and those IR are written by the same politicians and power junkies that throw the nations in wars. How brilliant!

Yeah, I know, Germans are Nazis, Russians are drunks and commies, and Americans are stupid? What a BS.

P.S. Starting WW3 is a piece of cake.

What? That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that from a modular approach to international politics and relations it makes sense to refer to the state as an actor, which is why it is done in almost every brand of IR theory. Varying groups will ascribe valuation to the components that make up the amalgam of the state, but the state itself is the actor as it has interests, power, and objectives with specific individuals and mechanisms that allow those things to occur.
 
OK, so what is the difference between an actor and an individual?
 
OK, so what is the difference between an actor and an individual?

That one is an individual, and one is a state. I know that sounds trite, but it is essentially the point. We distinguish between non-state actors, state actors, and society at an individual level because they are different units of scale and analysis. Realism for example posits that states as 'actors' are interested primarily in the acquisition and retention of power due to the anarchy of human behavior and consequently of the international system (that is a significant simplification, but it illustrates the point). We talk about states as actors because it is the most useful tool in describing them.
 
Well, may be that's why I don't like that rhetoric - it twists reality into ideology. Btw, 'anarchy' does not equal 'chaos', not 'disorder'.
 
Well, may be that's why I don't like that rhetoric - it twists reality into ideology. Btw, 'anarchy' does not equal 'chaos', not 'disorder'.

It isn't rhetoric, its technical terminology in every school of IR from Marxist to Realist to Liberal and onwards. Even constructivism acknowledges that there is a state actor, it is just about where you assign emphasis to. As for anarchy, I never said the words chaos or disorder. Anarchy in the international system is an underlying tenant of all realist and liberal schools of international relations, it refers to the notion that the international system has no inherent leadership and natural moves towards an anarchic system made up of the actors (states) involved in that system. With no hierarchical power capable of arbitrating, it is entirely in flux. Realists claim this leads to perpetual competition for the accumulation of power and self-preservation, Liberals claim that artificial international organizations, alliances, treaties, and norms can provide a restraining structure on this anarchy and lead to a more cooperation and stability, Constructivists acknowledge the anarchy but assert that it is a construct and thus can be willed away by proper governance and better democratic states (well some of them say this, it leads into neoconservatism). The point being this is not rhetoric it is academic.
 
It isn't rhetoric, its technical terminology in every school of IR from Marxist to Realist to Liberal and onwards. Even constructivism acknowledges that there is a state actor, it is just about where you assign emphasis to. As for anarchy, I never said the words chaos or disorder. Anarchy in the international system is an underlying tenant of all realist and liberal schools of international relations, it refers to the notion that the international system has no inherent leadership and natural moves towards an anarchic system made up of the actors (states) involved in that system. With no hierarchical power capable of arbitrating, it is entirely in flux. Realists claim this leads to perpetual competition for the accumulation of power and self-preservation, Liberals claim that artificial international organizations, alliances, treaties, and norms can provide a restraining structure on this anarchy and lead to a more cooperation and stability, Constructivists acknowledge the anarchy but assert that it is a construct and thus can be willed away by proper governance and better democratic states (well some of them say this, it leads into neoconservatism). The point being this is not rhetoric it is academic.
The Best and the Brightest. Halberstam's book showed what that delusion led to. But I think it's more that they achieve their prestige through conformity and ambitious opportunism.
 
How! How! How on EARTH will this bring about World War III!

because if The communist powers went to war with the United States it is inevitable that countries such as Great Britain, France, India, Japan etc. will become involved because of one perceived threat or another. Besides what do you see as advantageous about getting involved in another conflict, do you work for a private munitions firm? Defense contractor maybe? Not to mention, what has Israel or Iran done for us lately?
 
Im pretty sure that when the time comes USA will just leave Israel hangin the same way they did to Germany.
 
because if The communist powers went to war with the United States it is inevitable that countries such as Great Britain, France, India, Japan etc. will become involved because of one perceived threat or another. Besides what do you see as advantageous about getting involved in another conflict, do you work for a private munitions firm? Defense contractor maybe? Not to mention, what has Israel or Iran done for us lately?

Why on EARTH would the 'communist powers' get involved in a war with the US? What are you talking about?
 
They said the war on Iraq would be a cakewalk and we were there almost a decade.

The "war" part WAS a cakewalk. The hanging around trying to bring democracy to people ill-equipped to manage it and not really wanting it anyway part, was what sucked and took ten years and too much money.
 
The "war" part WAS a cakewalk. The hanging around trying to bring democracy to people ill-equipped to manage it and not really wanting it anyway part, was what sucked and took ten years and too much money.

And yet Obama has still not learned this lesson. He still has nearly 100K troops in Afghanistan where it seems more of our troops are killed by government forces than the Taliban.

If this was a Republican administration, the left would be in the street over this.
 
And yet Obama has still not learned this lesson. He still has nearly 100K troops in Afghanistan where it seems more of our troops are killed by government forces than the Taliban.

If this was a Republican administration, the left would be in the street over this.

I think you're right. Still, I think he wants to get us out, but just like in Iraq, we don't have a good exit strategy. The Taliban and other sundry groups are just waiting us out at this point. They know they can't win toe-to-toe with the US. So instead they wait under cover in their rat holes. They'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. When the US leaves, they'll just claim victory. It's hard to have a good exit strategy to defeat that kind of propaganda.
 
I think you're right. Still, I think he wants to get us out, but just like in Iraq, we don't have a good exit strategy. The Taliban and other sundry groups are just waiting us out at this point. They know they can't win toe-to-toe with the US. So instead they wait under cover in their rat holes. They'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. When the US leaves, they'll just claim victory. It's hard to have a good exit strategy to defeat that kind of propaganda.


something similar could have been written 236 years ago:
the colonists know they can't win toe-to-toe with the british. so instead of facing us in formation they wait under cover of the woods. they'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. when the brits leave, they'll just claim victory.

how did that turn out?
[let me know if you need help with an answer]
 
something similar could have been written 236 years ago:
the colonists know they can't win toe-to-toe with the british. so instead of facing us in formation they wait under cover of the woods. they'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. when the brits leave, they'll just claim victory.

how did that turn out?
[let me know if you need help with an answer]

Much is made about American hit and run tactics in the revolutionary war, but that wasn't what won the war for us. Facing them squarely did win it.
The traditional enemy of the colonists was the Indian. The tactics used to fight the Indians were quite different from those of massed European armies. Our use of Indian tactics inflicted numerous casualties upon the British, but if did not win battles.

It wasn't until the Continental Army, and to a lesser degree, the militia, mastered the art of 18th century warfare - - - standing in ranks and trading volleys and finally capturing the battle field at bayonet point, did we start winning battles.

With the loss of one third of their men, the British never forgot the lessons learned at Bunker Hill. They were always cautious about attacking Americans when in fortified positions. But, by the later stages of the war, the lines of the blue clad, battle hardened, American Continentals also struck terror in their hearts.
Revolutionary War - Military Tactics
 
The "war" part WAS a cakewalk. The hanging around trying to bring democracy to people ill-equipped to manage it and not really wanting it anyway part, was what sucked and took ten years and too much money.

Just like with Iran, no one divulged that was the plan before the war.
 
And yet Obama has still not learned this lesson. He still has nearly 100K troops in Afghanistan where it seems more of our troops are killed by government forces than the Taliban.

If this was a Republican administration, the left would be in the street over this.

Yes, I wish we had a liberal in office as well. Who is the viable candidate proposing a quicker withdrawal?
 
Back
Top Bottom