Iran is just too far away to care, I know that's pretty horrible to say but at least it's honest
Iran is just too far away to care, I know that's pretty horrible to say but at least it's honest
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
It was mentioned, it did make headline news but because that's been a war zone since 1979 it can be filed as business as usual. A terrorist attack in the capitol of Iran is uncommon and also ironic due to their being a key exporter of terrorism throughout the middle east. It also has the potential to widen the ongoing sunni-shia conflict. The Afghan attack only shows that instability still reigns there and the inability of the Afghan govt and international community to reign in Pakistan's support/ignoring for terrorists such as the Haqqani network.
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
-Abraham Lincoln
Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
The problem though is that it is by definition not possible for a country to have a foreign policy compatible with Islamic State. It's only a question of what IS has the power or priority to react against at a given time.
So choosing between "values" and "foreign policy" in this case is a false dilemma because these are blended.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well, that's not true at all and completely irrelevant as to why I posted it.
Of course a country can have a foreign poilicy compatible with Islamic State. That country may cease to exist and become part of the Islamic State, but then the policy will still be compatible.
And then again it might just be about the country having the "least incompatible" foreign policy being the one that is a priority target for them. As in if Western or European Countries didn't try to manipulate others into doing their bidding, ISIS might be a local Middle Eastern issue and not bother with bombing Europeans. And if values and foreign policy are blended, what values do arms deals with Saudi Arabia represent?
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
But then it's no longer a country! See what I did?Of course a country can have a foreign poilicy compatible with Islamic State. That country may cease to exist and become part of the Islamic State, but then the policy will still be compatible.
These groups are mostly local issues, but as history shows the East Med is "local" for Europe.As in if Western or European Countries didn't try to manipulate others into doing their bidding, ISIS might be a local Middle Eastern issue and not bother with bombing Europeans. And if values and foreign policy are blended, what values do arms deals with Saudi Arabia represent?
Don't think in terms of "manipulation" and "bidding"; these aren't one-sided relationships.
Saudis get arms so that they can defend themselves against the militants they have bought and paid for, and also equipped with those arms. A complicated relationship for all parties to be sure.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bookmarks