"look like France?" You mean we'll have single-payer health care, decent vacations, be thin, have a rational-sized but effective military, and decent cheese? Sign me up!
One would think that if people were actually worried about Russia's expanding power in the Middle East, improving relations with Iran would be a top priority. Apparently, the only way to be strong is to be against everyone.
We need a program to keep the players straight. Maybe at some point Prof. Cole or another contributor could give us (or guide us to) a Who's Who in Syria.
Tanks and helicopters are high-maintenance equipment that require spare parts and technical knowledge to keep running. I'm more concerned man-portable weapons like small missiles, mortars, etc.
Once again, the futility of pursuing a purely military option has been laid bare. It was by reaching out to the Egyptians that Israel was able to increase its regional power in the '70s. Since it starting opting for wars with its neighbors and on its Palestinian population, it has gone into decline.
It seems to me Obama has also done a lot of good work to improve relations between the US and India, which is also a pretty good way to balance China's power--and create additional opportunities for US businesses.
Really, if you think about it, Russia and China, both of which have provinces with active Islamic insurgencies and would be in range of a first-generation Iranian nuclear weapon, have much more to fear than the U.S. does if Iran gets the bomb. Yet they seem quite sanguine with the negotiated deal. If somebody as security-conscious as Putin feels good about his southern flank, methinks Republican concerns are based more on Islamaphobia and Adelson's money than any genuine worry about the safety of the US and its citizens.
Chickenhawk-in-Chief John Bolton has already admitted that bombing Iran would only push their nuclear bomb making capabilities back three to five years. This deal pushes it back at least at least 10-15 (and that's assuming the Iranians actually want one. I'm inclined to think they don't).
This is an amazingly ill-conceived position. If the US unilaterally backs out of the P5+1 agreement, then what's to keep another power (read Russia) from doing the same thing? I'm sure Putin would love to have an excuse to end sanctions against Iran and start shipping everything from arms and oil field equipment to more centrifuges and tractors. Not to mention it will make it next to impossible to put together any kind of coalition willing to provide support, bases or money for the war and expensive blockade that would be sure to follow an attack on Iran. (I personally suspect Russia would be the first to break ranks on sanctions if the US starts acting unilaterally, but it could just as easily be China, India or perhaps even one of the Western European powers depending on what's going on in the world).
It seems to me this almost as much a power play against Hamas as it is against Israel. I suspect the PLO would be perfectly happy to see Israel AND Hamas having to deal with the ICC.
Ah, the the neocons favorite whipping boy Paul Kennedy had it all right in his "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" didn't he?
Tom, this covers a lot of what happened in the time since Prof. Kennedy's book was published. What you haven't touched on that he covered in his analysis of previous great powers was the corrosive effect military spending has on economic development. Despite the claims of some, there really is no reason that we should be exporting all our manufacturing jobs, let alone cutting non-defense related research at universities and in the private sector. Defense spending isn't the only culprit (a host of misguided economic policies are also to blame) but it's a major culprit as we continue to invent new enemies.
The only other thing I'd say is that it's not entirely the professional military's fault--the lobbyists and politicians are equally if not more guilty. The generals didn't want to invade Iraq--the chickenhawks did.
Anyway, just my two cents on an excellent article.
"look like France?" You mean we'll have single-payer health care, decent vacations, be thin, have a rational-sized but effective military, and decent cheese? Sign me up!
I'd actually forgotten that Trump is the second stupidest person in America.
Those cat numbers are highly suspect, btw.
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/03/170851048/do-we-really-know-that-cats-kill-by-the-billions-not-so-fast
Well, history does seem to indicated that torture is very effective if your goal is to create more terrorists.
One would think that if people were actually worried about Russia's expanding power in the Middle East, improving relations with Iran would be a top priority. Apparently, the only way to be strong is to be against everyone.
My late father, also a former marine and World War II veteran, would have agreed with everything in this article.
Even my Conservative Canadian relatives were fed up with Harper.
We need a program to keep the players straight. Maybe at some point Prof. Cole or another contributor could give us (or guide us to) a Who's Who in Syria.
Tanks and helicopters are high-maintenance equipment that require spare parts and technical knowledge to keep running. I'm more concerned man-portable weapons like small missiles, mortars, etc.
Once again, the futility of pursuing a purely military option has been laid bare. It was by reaching out to the Egyptians that Israel was able to increase its regional power in the '70s. Since it starting opting for wars with its neighbors and on its Palestinian population, it has gone into decline.
It seems to me Obama has also done a lot of good work to improve relations between the US and India, which is also a pretty good way to balance China's power--and create additional opportunities for US businesses.
Too late. Ted Cruz already got in.
Janes would disagree with Iran's missiles being classified as ICBMs: http://www.janes.com/article/48479/analysis-iranian-icbm-claim-falls-short-of-the-mark
What's a 100 kg payload going to do?
Really, if you think about it, Russia and China, both of which have provinces with active Islamic insurgencies and would be in range of a first-generation Iranian nuclear weapon, have much more to fear than the U.S. does if Iran gets the bomb. Yet they seem quite sanguine with the negotiated deal. If somebody as security-conscious as Putin feels good about his southern flank, methinks Republican concerns are based more on Islamaphobia and Adelson's money than any genuine worry about the safety of the US and its citizens.
Chickenhawk-in-Chief John Bolton has already admitted that bombing Iran would only push their nuclear bomb making capabilities back three to five years. This deal pushes it back at least at least 10-15 (and that's assuming the Iranians actually want one. I'm inclined to think they don't).
But at some point we're still going to be greeted as liberators, right?
Just send this one straight to Key&Peele for one of their Obama translator bits. Hilarious.
This is an amazingly ill-conceived position. If the US unilaterally backs out of the P5+1 agreement, then what's to keep another power (read Russia) from doing the same thing? I'm sure Putin would love to have an excuse to end sanctions against Iran and start shipping everything from arms and oil field equipment to more centrifuges and tractors. Not to mention it will make it next to impossible to put together any kind of coalition willing to provide support, bases or money for the war and expensive blockade that would be sure to follow an attack on Iran. (I personally suspect Russia would be the first to break ranks on sanctions if the US starts acting unilaterally, but it could just as easily be China, India or perhaps even one of the Western European powers depending on what's going on in the world).
Bibi really is the embodiment of the old saying "With friends like these..."
Christians, as Prof. Cole points out, were considered "People of the Book" and not infidels.
So when do we get the big Hollywood treatment for any of these real heroes?
It seems to me this almost as much a power play against Hamas as it is against Israel. I suspect the PLO would be perfectly happy to see Israel AND Hamas having to deal with the ICC.
Ah, the the neocons favorite whipping boy Paul Kennedy had it all right in his "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" didn't he?
Tom, this covers a lot of what happened in the time since Prof. Kennedy's book was published. What you haven't touched on that he covered in his analysis of previous great powers was the corrosive effect military spending has on economic development. Despite the claims of some, there really is no reason that we should be exporting all our manufacturing jobs, let alone cutting non-defense related research at universities and in the private sector. Defense spending isn't the only culprit (a host of misguided economic policies are also to blame) but it's a major culprit as we continue to invent new enemies.
The only other thing I'd say is that it's not entirely the professional military's fault--the lobbyists and politicians are equally if not more guilty. The generals didn't want to invade Iraq--the chickenhawks did.
Anyway, just my two cents on an excellent article.