Doggy Style.. Foregn Policy

So now you're a History teacher trying to teach him History? I thought you were a Computer tech making Mininum wage while working for Computer geek you tool? Make up your mind because right about now you're doing nothing more than looking like you're getting a cock shoved up your anus in every thread. That includes the Sack and all too bro. Yuh dumb shit. ~BH

:lol:. Unfortunately for both him and you, history isn't something thats deniable. Scram punk, let the smart people talk about books and history, you go play outside with the pup.

Then why do you continuously deny history here? Even your two buddies here admited important points against you. "The treaty in itself is not much of a step forwards, says Hugidwyn. Dr Gregg says sanctions don't work when he stated, "NK and Iran became even more belligerent and threatening." A partial reference to the effectiveness of sanctions and diplomacy.

The Russian leadership is very interested in increasing the power it wields on the world stage. In the past (history), that has included nuclear weapons. Since your such a fan of foriegn relations, name me two countries that like the US better today.

See, unlike you, I don't just blindly associate myself with people who share similar views with me. they can disagree with me, that's fine. I personally feel that treaties and sanctions can be efficacious if backed by a legitimate hegemon and his peripheries, as well as if there tempered with "carrots". You can't have all stick or you'll break the people's back, and you can't have all carrots are they'll get lazy and become gluttonous.

I can name many countries in which these "carrot" and "stick" method was efficacious, including in nuclear proliferation talks. The key thing, is that sanctions in their best capacities, can only work if they are tempered, measured, and legitimate. I would be incliend to agree with gregg and hugid that a treaty or sanctions alone are failures, but this is part of an overall overhaul of American FP towards former "rogue" nations that includes enhanced diplomacy, increased cooperation on matters of international security, solidifying consensus against international threats like NK and Iran so that regional hegemonies can take more responsibility for it, and more.

I find it hilarious that you see that people who share similar viewpoints that disagree about specifics must mean that we are all wrong, not that we are all thinking and have our own opinions about the efficacy of sanctions and the use of "sticks" over all.

As for your, likability question. Sorry, I don't believe in things like likeability and friendship on the international stage. Allies are just temporary arrangements of nations that share similar national interest and goals. I don't believe that any two nations are ever "friends", nor should they ever consider themselves so, because when their national interests conflict shit will not be smooth between them. Of course, for someone who's looking to blame the administration for somethin, i'm sure this likability factor matters so much to you.
 
Then why do you continuously deny history here? Even your two buddies here admited important points against you. "The treaty in itself is not much of a step forwards, says Hugidwyn. Dr Gregg says sanctions don't work when he stated, "NK and Iran became even more belligerent and threatening." A partial reference to the effectiveness of sanctions and diplomacy.

The Russian leadership is very interested in increasing the power it wields on the world stage. In the past (history), that has included nuclear weapons. Since your such a fan of foriegn relations, name me two countries that like the US better today.

"like the USA better today?" WTF is that supposed to mean? Do you have a "USA Likability Index" that some Department of State publishes which to you could link us?

Haiti

Mexico

I can name at least two that like us less. Israel and Afghanistan. You apparently have to have someone else tell you?

You asked for two countries that "like the US better today"

I gave two.

Not that it makes any difference one way or the other.

Why should it? Who cares if Haiti, or Mexico, or Israel, or Afganistan "likes the USA" more or less?

Apparently, you're definition of foreign relations isn't much different than the average High School Sophomore Girl's: Maybe we'd be more popular if we'd stuff our bras and wear tighter sweaters?
 
Last edited:
:lol:. Unfortunately for both him and you, history isn't something thats deniable. Scram punk, let the smart people talk about books and history, you go play outside with the pup.

Then why do you continuously deny history here? Even your two buddies here admited important points against you. "The treaty in itself is not much of a step forwards, says Hugidwyn. Dr Gregg says sanctions don't work when he stated, "NK and Iran became even more belligerent and threatening." A partial reference to the effectiveness of sanctions and diplomacy.

The Russian leadership is very interested in increasing the power it wields on the world stage. In the past (history), that has included nuclear weapons. Since your such a fan of foriegn relations, name me two countries that like the US better today.

See, unlike you, I don't just blindly associate myself with people who share similar views with me. they can disagree with me, that's fine. I personally feel that treaties and sanctions can be efficacious if backed by a legitimate hegemon and his peripheries, as well as if there tempered with "carrots". You can't have all stick or you'll break the people's back, and you can't have all carrots are they'll get lazy and become gluttonous.

I can name many countries in which these "carrot" and "stick" method was efficacious, including in nuclear proliferation talks. The key thing, is that sanctions in their best capacities, can only work if they are tempered, measured, and legitimate. I would be incliend to agree with gregg and hugid that a treaty or sanctions alone are failures, but this is part of an overall overhaul of American FP towards former "rogue" nations that includes enhanced diplomacy, increased cooperation on matters of international security, solidifying consensus against international threats like NK and Iran so that regional hegemonies can take more responsibility for it, and more.

I find it hilarious that you see that people who share similar viewpoints that disagree about specifics must mean that we are all wrong, not that we are all thinking and have our own opinions about the efficacy of sanctions and the use of "sticks" over all.

As for your, likability question. Sorry, I don't believe in things like likeability and friendship on the international stage. Allies are just temporary arrangements of nations that share similar national interest and goals. I don't believe that any two nations are ever "friends", nor should they ever consider themselves so, because when their national interests conflict shit will not be smooth between them. Of course, for someone who's looking to blame the administration for somethin, i'm sure this likability factor matters so much to you.

I see you didn't actually list any countries that fit this illusion of your mind. (see bold above)

Your sticks aren't working and the supporting reasons would indicate your carrots are going to look like a Buggys Bunny cartoon. I do agree with many alliances being temporary. That is part of the reason I find the liberal viewpoint of making countries like us stupid. Our long term interests are best pursued for that very reason. Our long term interests seem to be more with Israel, yet the President is bent on creating rifts there.
 
Then why do you continuously deny history here? Even your two buddies here admited important points against you. "The treaty in itself is not much of a step forwards, says Hugidwyn. Dr Gregg says sanctions don't work when he stated, "NK and Iran became even more belligerent and threatening." A partial reference to the effectiveness of sanctions and diplomacy.

The Russian leadership is very interested in increasing the power it wields on the world stage. In the past (history), that has included nuclear weapons. Since your such a fan of foriegn relations, name me two countries that like the US better today.

See, unlike you, I don't just blindly associate myself with people who share similar views with me. they can disagree with me, that's fine. I personally feel that treaties and sanctions can be efficacious if backed by a legitimate hegemon and his peripheries, as well as if there tempered with "carrots". You can't have all stick or you'll break the people's back, and you can't have all carrots are they'll get lazy and become gluttonous.

I can name many countries in which these "carrot" and "stick" method was efficacious, including in nuclear proliferation talks. The key thing, is that sanctions in their best capacities, can only work if they are tempered, measured, and legitimate. I would be incliend to agree with gregg and hugid that a treaty or sanctions alone are failures, but this is part of an overall overhaul of American FP towards former "rogue" nations that includes enhanced diplomacy, increased cooperation on matters of international security, solidifying consensus against international threats like NK and Iran so that regional hegemonies can take more responsibility for it, and more.

I find it hilarious that you see that people who share similar viewpoints that disagree about specifics must mean that we are all wrong, not that we are all thinking and have our own opinions about the efficacy of sanctions and the use of "sticks" over all.

As for your, likability question. Sorry, I don't believe in things like likeability and friendship on the international stage. Allies are just temporary arrangements of nations that share similar national interest and goals. I don't believe that any two nations are ever "friends", nor should they ever consider themselves so, because when their national interests conflict shit will not be smooth between them. Of course, for someone who's looking to blame the administration for somethin, i'm sure this likability factor matters so much to you.

I see you didn't actually list any countries that fit this illusion of your mind. (see bold above)

Your sticks aren't working and the supporting reasons would indicate your carrots are going to look like a Buggys Bunny cartoon. I do agree with many alliances being temporary. That is part of the reason I find the liberal viewpoint of making countries like us stupid. Our long term interests are best pursued for that very reason. Our long term interests seem to be more with Israel, yet the President is bent on creating rifts there.

I don't have time to quote scholarly articles because you wouldn't believe those either, but let's take a look at countries like Libya or South Africa. Libya's behavior was certainly changed by the sanctions Reagan and subsequent administrations imposed.

Similarly, sanctions played a large role in dismantling the apartheid system in south Africa.

These are just two examples, and again, they were tempered with both carrots and sticks. You can't just make decisions based on what "seems" to be, don't let your ideology blind you.

As someone who associates with realism in IR often, it's hard for me to agree that things other than power have been efficacious in changing state's behavior, but I see an emerging paradigm of realism that factors in these things coming soon.
 
See, unlike you, I don't just blindly associate myself with people who share similar views with me. they can disagree with me, that's fine. I personally feel that treaties and sanctions can be efficacious if backed by a legitimate hegemon and his peripheries, as well as if there tempered with "carrots". You can't have all stick or you'll break the people's back, and you can't have all carrots are they'll get lazy and become gluttonous.

I can name many countries in which these "carrot" and "stick" method was efficacious, including in nuclear proliferation talks. The key thing, is that sanctions in their best capacities, can only work if they are tempered, measured, and legitimate. I would be incliend to agree with gregg and hugid that a treaty or sanctions alone are failures, but this is part of an overall overhaul of American FP towards former "rogue" nations that includes enhanced diplomacy, increased cooperation on matters of international security, solidifying consensus against international threats like NK and Iran so that regional hegemonies can take more responsibility for it, and more.

I find it hilarious that you see that people who share similar viewpoints that disagree about specifics must mean that we are all wrong, not that we are all thinking and have our own opinions about the efficacy of sanctions and the use of "sticks" over all.

As for your, likability question. Sorry, I don't believe in things like likeability and friendship on the international stage. Allies are just temporary arrangements of nations that share similar national interest and goals. I don't believe that any two nations are ever "friends", nor should they ever consider themselves so, because when their national interests conflict shit will not be smooth between them. Of course, for someone who's looking to blame the administration for somethin, i'm sure this likability factor matters so much to you.

I see you didn't actually list any countries that fit this illusion of your mind. (see bold above)

Your sticks aren't working and the supporting reasons would indicate your carrots are going to look like a Buggys Bunny cartoon. I do agree with many alliances being temporary. That is part of the reason I find the liberal viewpoint of making countries like us stupid. Our long term interests are best pursued for that very reason. Our long term interests seem to be more with Israel, yet the President is bent on creating rifts there.

I don't have time to quote scholarly articles because you wouldn't believe those either, but let's take a look at countries like Libya or South Africa. Libya's behavior was certainly changed by the sanctions Reagan and subsequent administrations imposed.

Similarly, sanctions played a large role in dismantling the apartheid system in south Africa.

These are just two examples, and again, they were tempered with both carrots and sticks. You can't just make decisions based on what "seems" to be, don't let your ideology blind you.

As someone who associates with realism in IR often, it's hard for me to agree that things other than power have been efficacious in changing state's behavior, but I see an emerging paradigm of realism that factors in these things coming soon.

I'm thinking those two countries were not nuclear threats. You specifically said nuclear proliferation related. I held you to that and you are failing.
 
I see you didn't actually list any countries that fit this illusion of your mind. (see bold above)

Your sticks aren't working and the supporting reasons would indicate your carrots are going to look like a Buggys Bunny cartoon. I do agree with many alliances being temporary. That is part of the reason I find the liberal viewpoint of making countries like us stupid. Our long term interests are best pursued for that very reason. Our long term interests seem to be more with Israel, yet the President is bent on creating rifts there.

I don't have time to quote scholarly articles because you wouldn't believe those either, but let's take a look at countries like Libya or South Africa. Libya's behavior was certainly changed by the sanctions Reagan and subsequent administrations imposed.

Similarly, sanctions played a large role in dismantling the apartheid system in south Africa.

These are just two examples, and again, they were tempered with both carrots and sticks. You can't just make decisions based on what "seems" to be, don't let your ideology blind you.

As someone who associates with realism in IR often, it's hard for me to agree that things other than power have been efficacious in changing state's behavior, but I see an emerging paradigm of realism that factors in these things coming soon.

I'm thinking those two countries were not nuclear threats. You specifically said nuclear proliferation related. I held you to that and you are failing.

Actually, next to hyakku, you look like a mental dwarf: she gives you two prefectly good examples of "two countries that like the US better today."

Just give up while you're ahead and find Truthmatters or Curvelight to debate with.....it will improve your image, and allow your ego to heal.
 
I see you didn't actually list any countries that fit this illusion of your mind. (see bold above)

Your sticks aren't working and the supporting reasons would indicate your carrots are going to look like a Buggys Bunny cartoon. I do agree with many alliances being temporary. That is part of the reason I find the liberal viewpoint of making countries like us stupid. Our long term interests are best pursued for that very reason. Our long term interests seem to be more with Israel, yet the President is bent on creating rifts there.

I don't have time to quote scholarly articles because you wouldn't believe those either, but let's take a look at countries like Libya or South Africa. Libya's behavior was certainly changed by the sanctions Reagan and subsequent administrations imposed.

Similarly, sanctions played a large role in dismantling the apartheid system in south Africa.

These are just two examples, and again, they were tempered with both carrots and sticks. You can't just make decisions based on what "seems" to be, don't let your ideology blind you.

As someone who associates with realism in IR often, it's hard for me to agree that things other than power have been efficacious in changing state's behavior, but I see an emerging paradigm of realism that factors in these things coming soon.

I'm thinking those two countries were not nuclear threats. You specifically said nuclear proliferation related. I held you to that and you are failing.

Libya was a country pursuing nuclear weapons in the mid 80's (or early 80's). Similarly, other nations have pursued nuclear weapons, and we have stymied them with a combination of sanctions and instituting treaties like the Dual Use Technology ban, that makes it extraordinarily difficult for nations, especially "rogue" nations outside of our Western system to acquire materials that can be used in nuclear proliferation as well as science application. An example of this are certain types of centrifuges that can be used for scientific experimentation, or altered to be used in nuclear reactors.

These treaties have prevented many nations from even beginning to pursue a policy of nuclear weapons, and those that have have faced exceedingly strenuous battles, which is quite incredible given the diffusion of information in our century. I think its a testament to the efficacy of sanctions, treaties, and "carrots" that since the nuclear order has emerged, we have prevented all but four (two if you don't include India or Israel who kind of had the west's help/blind eye) countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, and even the rogue nations like Pakistan, who ACTIVELY fund terrorism, no the gravity of their usage.



Edit: Oh, and i'm a dude samson, but thanks for making me feel sexah for a day :lol:
 
I don't have time to quote scholarly articles because you wouldn't believe those either, but let's take a look at countries like Libya or South Africa. Libya's behavior was certainly changed by the sanctions Reagan and subsequent administrations imposed.

Similarly, sanctions played a large role in dismantling the apartheid system in south Africa.

These are just two examples, and again, they were tempered with both carrots and sticks. You can't just make decisions based on what "seems" to be, don't let your ideology blind you.

As someone who associates with realism in IR often, it's hard for me to agree that things other than power have been efficacious in changing state's behavior, but I see an emerging paradigm of realism that factors in these things coming soon.

I'm thinking those two countries were not nuclear threats. You specifically said nuclear proliferation related. I held you to that and you are failing.

Libya was a country pursuing nuclear weapons in the mid 80's (or early 80's). Similarly, other nations have pursued nuclear weapons, and we have stymied them with a combination of sanctions and instituting treaties like the Dual Use Technology ban, that makes it extraordinarily difficult for nations, especially "rogue" nations outside of our Western system to acquire materials that can be used in nuclear proliferation as well as science application. An example of this are certain types of centrifuges that can be used for scientific experimentation, or altered to be used in nuclear reactors.

These treaties have prevented many nations from even beginning to pursue a policy of nuclear weapons, and those that have have faced exceedingly strenuous battles, which is quite incredible given the diffusion of information in our century. I think its a testament to the efficacy of sanctions, treaties, and "carrots" that since the nuclear order has emerged, we have prevented all but four (two if you don't include India or Israel who kind of had the west's help/blind eye) countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, and even the rogue nations like Pakistan, who ACTIVELY fund terrorism, no the gravity of their usage.



Edit: Oh, and i'm a dude samson, but thanks for making me feel sexah for a day :lol:

You are aware that Khadafy's had family members killed in a US bombing mission? That was the last major "diplomacy" aka "stick" we had to use. Overall 0bama is failing massively on his foreign policy.
 
I'm thinking those two countries were not nuclear threats. You specifically said nuclear proliferation related. I held you to that and you are failing.

Libya was a country pursuing nuclear weapons in the mid 80's (or early 80's). Similarly, other nations have pursued nuclear weapons, and we have stymied them with a combination of sanctions and instituting treaties like the Dual Use Technology ban, that makes it extraordinarily difficult for nations, especially "rogue" nations outside of our Western system to acquire materials that can be used in nuclear proliferation as well as science application. An example of this are certain types of centrifuges that can be used for scientific experimentation, or altered to be used in nuclear reactors.

These treaties have prevented many nations from even beginning to pursue a policy of nuclear weapons, and those that have have faced exceedingly strenuous battles, which is quite incredible given the diffusion of information in our century. I think its a testament to the efficacy of sanctions, treaties, and "carrots" that since the nuclear order has emerged, we have prevented all but four (two if you don't include India or Israel who kind of had the west's help/blind eye) countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, and even the rogue nations like Pakistan, who ACTIVELY fund terrorism, no the gravity of their usage.



Edit: Oh, and i'm a dude samson, but thanks for making me feel sexah for a day :lol:

You are aware that Khadafy's had family members killed in a US bombing mission? That was the last major "diplomacy" aka "stick" we had to use. Overall 0bama is failing massively on his foreign policy.

Yes Bombings make for great foreign policy
 
Yes indeed..Puss Politics worked well for Neville Chamberlain and the English citizens.
 
Yes indeed..Puss Politics worked well for Neville Chamberlain and the English citizens.

Sarcasm.gif
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top