Really, he just wants you to introduce a little more variety into your diet.
Of course, you know what peas go really well with?
Dropping bombs on other people.
__________________
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
The premise is that empires grow until they are halted.
Why do you think a nuclear-armed Germany or Poland wouldn't halt Russia?
J sub D wrote:
And a nuclear war in Europe would likely (invariably?) result in ICBMs detonating at 5 to 10 thousand feet over US cities.
Remaining a part of NATO and committing to retaliation upon attack of European countries would clearly result in that, yes - but you'll need to explain how exactly that would happen if neither point were true.
J sub D wrote:
Once continental conflicts get started, they have a life of their own. Plans, mice, men etc. Maybe it's all tiger by the tail, but I don't see letting go just yet prudent.
And in WW1, our entry could have been avoided, with an entirely different settlement by the belligerents that wouldn't have lead to the same circumstances. I know people like to look to WW2 for general lessons, but it was a peculiar moment in history, rather significantly set up by an unnecessary US foreign adventure years prior.
J sub D wrote:
Since the U.S. has been fully engaged in world affairs there has not been a major* conflict on the planet. We voluntarily withdrew from them following WWI, didn't we?
Define "major". If you mean "total war between the great powers", that's rather patently because the potential belligerents all had nuclear weapons, making things like invasions of each other unfeasible. Nukes are the qualitative difference, not US interventionism.
Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August is considered by many to be the definitive history of the lead up to WW1.
In it, she shows quite clearly how 1) Allowing smaller powers to drag larger powers into their wars; 2) Having no clear line of what would and would not be tolerated; and 3) Not being willing to negotiate led to the stupidity of that war.
The further inability on both sides to see that the continuing the war was costing them more than they could possibly hope to gain from it - indeed, it was costing them more than they would lose by making even the most drastic concessions to the enemy - contributed to the slaughter dragging on for four years. It was the "sunk cost" fallacy written in the blood of 10 million people.
One of the few bright stars in the whole mess was General Pershing who, for whatever reason, refused to let American soldiers be used to maintain the same battle plans that the French and British had been following for the previous 3 years.
The point of all this is that, in any alliance, no nation should commit itself to costs that are greater than the benefits of the alliance, nor should any nation allow its allies to treat the alliance as a blank cheque.
Yes, but the European powers who continued the war despite its futility demonstrated that they are crazy and unpredictable and not to be messed with.
And hence Europe was peaceful and secure from 1919 onward.
"Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
and they've hardly bothered us since then."
Actually a factor behind the "Having no clear line of what would and would not be tolerated" was the easy offering of alliances to desperate smaller powers by countries that had no intention of backing them up (e.g. the "Little Entente"). One of the key things in being a good cooperator, business partner, or ally is being reliable. France and Britain were completely unreliable and crazy and unpredictable, and that led to war--despite large trade flows and economic cooperation among the large combatants.
Similarly, IIRC, Hitler admitted that had France made a military move when he remilitarized the Rhineland, he would have had no choice but to back off. But France was just running its mouth and opted against confrontation.
Believe it or not you can believe alliances are necessary without sanctioning the invasion of Iraq. Even if you (pacefuck Ted Rall) approve of Afghanistan.
__________________
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Believe it or not you can believe alliances are necessary without sanctioning the invasion of Iraq. Even if you (pacefuck Ted Rall) approve of Afghanistan.
There are indeed perfectly good reasons why one might believe in the need for alliances while opposing the invasion of Iraq. I realize that. I'm not even sure that I oppose all alliances for the US. However, even before the Iraq War I saw no reason why we must take sides in so many conflicts around the globe. I've also thought for a while that wealthy countries really ought to pay for their own defense rather than rely on us.
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
Neelix was the straw that broke the camel's back. Nerds chained in the football locker rooms of hell don't suffer the way I'd have made Neelix suffer if I'd been on board that fucking ship. No wonder someone tried to wipe out the Talaxians! I'm not sure I blame them. If someone had just shoved that little bastard out an airlock, I might have been a fan. Janeway's Hepburn impression even might have been tolerable if she'd shoved him out herself.
How they derived that show from the sexual adventures of Captain Kirk and his merry band of ass-kickers, I'll never understand. Wussies in space?! How do you get from the original Star Trek to wussies in space?
Yes, but the European powers who continued the war despite its futility demonstrated that they are crazy and unpredictable and not to be messed with.
And hence Europe was peaceful and secure from 1919 onward.
Crazy isn't the goal. Rational analyzers of costs and benefits who are at some point of aggression willing to respond with force is the goal. The bridge you can't seem to cross is that the use of force is not always crazy.
As a starting point, that old libertarian saw about "initiation of force or fraud" seems appropriate for nations as well as individuals. I don't think we'd be weakened by a public foreign policy along the lines of "The United States will not initiate force or fraud. We expect all other nations to do the same." Sign treaties to that effect.
Then when we go to war under false pretenses, it's clearly impeachment time.
(I realize this doesn't really address intervention in Darfur or Georgia, because there's already obviously force being used there.)
__________________
A parasite feeding on bacteria growing on fungus growing on cow excrement? The only way the parasitic chain could get any longer would be if the cow excrement worked for the government. - Smacky
1) Nation-states are inevitable
2) Nation-states, like all human organizations, tend to expand their sphere of power over time.
I conclude that side-taking in any conflict is an unavoidable consequence.
Once you've concluded that, you get into the argument over how best to take sides, and that might be all we've really got in this imperfect world. In an ideal world people would ignore conflicts that didn't concern them, but I think best case people take sides in a way that doesn't hurt anything or make anyone else dead.
Now, the problem with that is pretty straight-forward game theory. You have a country, let's call it PLACE. Well, you also have a set of actors who define the use of PLACE's military resources. Those actors are assumed here to want to maximize two things: PLACE's influence and their own influence within the heirarchy of PLACE's government. Depending on the situation, those two constraints might both be well served by the use of force, which makes it a coldly rational decision. Even the Brinksmanship strategy can be perfectly rational if you do it right - look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for a classic example of this. The goal isn't to demonstrate that "PLACE be crazy" it's to demonstrate that there are certain unpredictable elements within the power structure that can't be fully controlled by PLACE's negotiator...so shouldn't you just listen to what the negotiator is saying? It's a form of a threat, and ideally it's the best kind of threat - credible, but that you never have to act on.
If you view PLACE's actors as wanting to maximize other things - world peace, awesome toasters or attractive ladies of loose moral character - force may or may not be a wholly rational choice...but I'm pretty sure I've got the assumptions right here.
__________________
Whenever I catch so much as a glimpse of pr0n, I suddenly turn into a sex-crazed barbarian, slashing and clawing my way through whatever and whomever until I find something to put my weiner into. -- Taktix
As a starting point, that old libertarian saw about "initiation of force or fraud" seems appropriate for nations as well as individuals. I don't think we'd be weakened by a public foreign policy along the lines of "The United States will not initiate force or fraud. We expect all other nations to do the same." Sign treaties to that effect.
Disagree. The initiation of force isn't clearly expressable for governments because they all initiate force to some degree. I think this thought process is the flaw in nearly all libertarian foreign policy discussions. Saddam's existence was one big initiation of force. Does his nation have to initiate force against another nation for it to count? Okay, then what about Darfur?
In many countries the country and the despotic leader are the same. To me, all such arrangements by violence represent initiations of force that can be dealt with at any time under that principle. It's just a matter of costs and benefits.
As a starting point, that old libertarian saw about "initiation of force or fraud" seems appropriate for nations as well as individuals. I don't think we'd be weakened by a public foreign policy along the lines of "The United States will not initiate force or fraud. We expect all other nations to do the same." Sign treaties to that effect.
Then when we go to war under false pretenses, it's clearly impeachment time.
(I realize this doesn't really address intervention in Darfur or Georgia, because there's already obviously force being used there.)
Your parenthetical kinda reflects what's missing in the rest of your policy. I.e., your basic principle, fine as it is, leaves open the question of whether the United States should ever respond with force initiated against an ally, as opposed to against us. Or, more broadly, whether we should ever respond against force initiated against another nation (formal ally or not) on that other nation's behalf. (And if so, under what circumstances....)
__________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
Similarly, IIRC, Hitler admitted that had France made a military move when he remilitarized the Rhineland, he would have had no choice but to back off. But France was just running its mouth and opted against confrontation.
There's a huge difference between something happening on your doorstep and something happening halfway around the world. That's the difference between France failing to act in the face of aggression right in front of them and clearly moving in their direction ...and joe waving his hands about how we had to bomb the Serbs to prevent WW3.
If Russia were invading Canada, even if they weren't an ally so close to us that they have officers in NORAD, everything from saber-rattling to serious preparations to use force would be sensible. As it is currently, we'd probably immediately be at war.
Saddam's existence was one big initiation of force.
And so is Dubya's. Don't you get that yet? Is 7 years of torture, detention without trial, and unchecked wiretaps not enough for you to realize that the people whose foreign policy you endorse are nothing but a bunch of thugs? Do you realize yet what bed you laid down in?
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
Disagree. The initiation of force isn't clearly expressable for governments because they all initiate force to some degree...It's just a matter of costs and benefits.
And I'll note that the people justifying interventionism on the basis of hard-nosed costs and benefits, yourself included, tend to advocate foreign policy that incurs a great deal of cost. When asked to argue the benefits, those benefits are pretty damned vague, often not involving anything we could put on our metaphorical balance sheet.
Saddam's existence was one big initiation of force.
And so is Dubya's. Don't you get that yet? Is 7 years of torture, detention without trial, and unchecked wiretaps not enough for you to realize that the people whose foreign policy you endorse are nothing but a bunch of thugs? Do you realize yet what bed you laid down in?
The Russians justify their continued presence in Georgia with the exact same language we use to justify ours in Iraq. That's pretty damning to any American who doesn't believe "Whatever we do is all right because we do it."
And unlike us, the Russians didn't even have to make shit up to justify their initial invasion. The Georgians really were going after the South Ossetians and really did throw the first punch in this war; it's not as though the Russians had to invent stories about WMDs and mythical connections to 9/11.
By the same logic, we should all be fighting at the barricades to support the strain of totalitarianism that personally benefits us most.
Totalitarianism isn't always the benefit-maximizing choice, yo. If my assumptions about what Nation-state leaders are trying to maximize are correct, and I think they are, you have to keep in mind the point at which internal influence drops to zero with overthrow or unelection.
If you mean that my postulates and conclusions imply anything about behavior at the individual level where all the action really is, well, that's certainly not my intent. At the individual level everyone is trying to maximize something, but that can be anything.
__________________
Whenever I catch so much as a glimpse of pr0n, I suddenly turn into a sex-crazed barbarian, slashing and clawing my way through whatever and whomever until I find something to put my weiner into. -- Taktix
Similarly, IIRC, Hitler admitted that had France made a military move when he remilitarized the Rhineland, he would have had no choice but to back off. But France was just running its mouth and opted against confrontation.
There's a huge difference between something happening on your doorstep and something happening halfway around the world. That's the difference between France failing to act in the face of aggression right in front of them and clearly moving in their direction ...and joe waving his hands about how we had to bomb the Serbs to prevent WW3.
If Russia were invading Canada, even if they weren't an ally so close to us that they have officers in NORAD, everything from saber-rattling to serious preparations to use force would be sensible. As it is currently, we'd probably immediately be at war.
Not my point. My point was that consistent behavior--keeping your promises, in other words--prevents conflict, while going back on your word and opting toward a pacifist route invites conflict, as it generates a question as to whether you'll respond.
As far as a counterexample to the Rhineland, the Little and Triple Ententes were, for their time, the equivalent of us backing up Georgia.
So even if we wanted to go pacifist, we'd have to slowly and consistently back our commitments down to avoid inviting conflicts to start that wouldn't have otherwise.
__________________
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
But there's also the question of how far alliance commitments should go. If my little self makes a mutual self-defense pact with one of the big guys here, I hope that if someone attacks me as we're walking down the street my ally will step in and help defend me. But should I take our alliance to mean "I can throw the first punch at any big guy I see, secure in the knowledge that you'll step in and fight him?" That's basically what Georgia did.
By the same logic, we should all be fighting at the barricades to support the strain of totalitarianism that personally benefits us most.
Totalitarianism isn't always the benefit-maximizing choice, yo. If my assumptions about what Nation-state leaders are trying to maximize are correct, and I think they are, you have to keep in mind the point at which internal influence drops to zero with overthrow or unelection.
If you mean that my postulates and conclusions imply anything about behavior at the individual level where all the action really is, well, that's certainly not my intent. At the individual level everyone is trying to maximize something, but that can be anything.
I wonder why organizations of humans should be any more inclined to maximize sphere of influence (above everything else, as that seems to be the implication) any more so than individual humans. After all, organizations of humans are just made up of individual humans! What would have been added in the organization process that would shift things in that direction and to an all encompassing degree?
No, I think Eric's deduction from Timothy's logic is correct. I think it's an assumption of liberal thought, borne out by observation, that humans, in general, come to realize, in the long run, that cooperation is a better means to maximizing whatever they wanna maximize than the use of force. Not everyone sees it this way, especially stronger actors, but since it's true (in our humble opinion), we should assume they'll see it eventually. Or at least more so than they don't see it. But, of course, that doesn't mean folks (acting on their own or in organizations, which is how humans usually act) can't cause a lot of problems by not seeing it en route. And I suppose one may argue that for particular players, force is the utility maximizing strategy, not just for most. But that's getting pretty esoteric. Suffice to say force will be used sometimes regardless of the enlightened view that it's not the best strategy for most. It's the goal of the liberal thinker to convince others of this. It's hard enough in general, though, and more so when someone's pointing a gun at your head and saying you're maximizing my utility the way I say.
__________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
But there's also the question of how far alliance commitments should go. If my little self makes a mutual self-defense pact with one of the big guys here, I hope that if someone attacks me as we're walking down the street my ally will step in and help defend me. But should I take our alliance to mean "I can throw the first punch at any big guy I see, secure in the knowledge that you'll step in and fight him?" That's basically what Georgia did.
Point taken, and I think Georgia's behavior should be considered in this. I should point out, though, that Georgia may have had their own provocations from Russia or South Ossetia to deal with. I've only heard a little about this so I'm not very clear on it, but I do know six Georgian police or peacekeepers were killed in South Ossetia shortly before Georgia's shelling began. Regardless, the question of what happens when allies behave badly, or when their behavior is questionable at the least, is a good one. Actually reminds me, in some respects, of our support (perceived, at the least) of Israel, whom most Americans assumed were the obvious good guys when our support for them began. I'm not one to park in either side's camp in that conflict, but I think I can conservatively say that Israel's behavior has not always been as beyond rapproach as we originally assumed it would be, which hasn't served us well, even if the consequences are not as bad as getting dragged into a nuclear war would be.
__________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
I should point out, though, that Georgia may have had their own provocations from Russia or South Ossetia to deal with.
You're right, they did, but they were extremely rash and not a little dumb in reacting the way they did.
In this specific case, I'm with Thoreau: it's not worth expending lives defending an administration who acts this rashly. I think Russia is trying to re-emerge as an empire, and it's worth containing that (again), but in this instance the Georgians did themselves no favors.
__________________
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
If containing the expansionist ambitions of a country on the other side of the globe is a worthy public policy goal, what about antitrust law to contain the expansion of a large company in the US? Keep in mind that oftentimes large companies have cozy relationships with the state and use their relationship with a coercive entity to gain advantages that they would not enjoy in a situation of pure competition in an open market.
Yes, there are very obvious differences, but I think some of the underlying concerns are the same: The expansion of large entities is something we fear, even if those entities cannot personal coerce us. I don't live in Russia or a country that Russia seeks as a satellite, and I don't work for a large corporation that might be a target of antitrust law. Yet one could argue that I am negatively impacted by the expansion of either large organization.
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
So even if we wanted to go pacifist, we'd have to slowly and consistently back our commitments down to avoid inviting conflicts to start that wouldn't have otherwise.
Thoreau, would you be so kind as to make up a long-winded disclaimer about how those of us who desire a less interventionist foreign policy would like to carry that out by formally withdrawing from treaties and alliances in a deliberate manner, not by having the President pretend he's not home while Russian troops invade a NATO country?
I will agree about consistency, though, Sandy - and that the reverse of your "going pacifist" scenario is very true, as shown by the whirlwind Georgia reaped by attacking after making a ceasefire agreement.
Question, though - when did "pacifist" come to mean "not wanting to get involved in other countries' wars"?
Thoreau, would you be so kind as to make up a long-winded disclaimer about how those of us who desire a less interventionist foreign policy would like to carry that out by formally withdrawing from treaties and alliances in a deliberate manner, not by having the President pretend he's not home while Russian troops invade a NATO country?
*Although I favor a less interventionist policy in the long-run, I believe that any change in policy should be implemented gradually and in consultation with current allies and other countries that may need to ramp up their defensive capabilities in response. Withdrawal from different regions may have to happen at different paces, and it may be necessary to reserve the option of force in prescribed circumstances. Nuclear weapons and future nuclear acquisitions by current allies in light of changing defense postures would have to be discussed with the goal of avoiding proliferation and nuclear war, and the US may wish to reserve the right to intervene in the event of likely nuclear war, or not, in accordance with our interests. None of this should be construed as a desire to go completely pacifist and refrain from retaliations against attacks on the US. Void where prohibited. Decoder rings may be surrendered upon suitable proof of non-decoder status. Consult a patent lawyer for fructose-loaded details.
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
Saddam's existence was one big initiation of force.
And so is Dubya's. Don't you get that yet? Is 7 years of torture, detention without trial, and unchecked wiretaps not enough for you to realize that the people whose foreign policy you endorse are nothing but a bunch of thugs? Do you realize yet what bed you laid down in?
The Russians justify their continued presence in Georgia with the exact same language we use to justify ours in Iraq. That's pretty damning to any American who doesn't believe "Whatever we do is all right because we do it."
And unlike us, the Russians didn't even have to make shit up to justify their initial invasion. The Georgians really were going after the South Ossetians and really did throw the first punch in this war; it's not as though the Russians had to invent stories about WMDs and mythical connections to 9/11.
Yeah, the Russians didn't need to make stuff up to justify the initial invasion. Which raises the question of why they did.
My read on this conflict is that Russia had at least a very legitimate case for stepping in and liberating South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they'd just done that I'm not sure I could have much complained. But then they started acting like total assholes, basically flattened a Georgian city, and refused to leave after signing a cease-fire. They managed to blow a lot of the credibility and moral high ground they went in with.
Thoreau, would you be so kind as to make up a long-winded disclaimer about how those of us who desire a less interventionist foreign policy would like to carry that out by formally withdrawing from treaties and alliances in a deliberate manner, not by having the President pretend he's not home while Russian troops invade a NATO country?
*Although I favor a less interventionist policy in the long-run, I believe that any change in policy should be implemented gradually and in consultation with current allies and other countries that may need to ramp up their defensive capabilities in response. Withdrawal from different regions may have to happen at different paces, and it may be necessary to reserve the option of force in prescribed circumstances. Nuclear weapons and future nuclear acquisitions by current allies in light of changing defense postures would have to be discussed with the goal of avoiding proliferation and nuclear war, and the US may wish to reserve the right to intervene in the event of likely nuclear war, or not, in accordance with our interests. None of this should be construed as a desire to go completely pacifist and refrain from retaliations against attacks on the US. Void where prohibited. Decoder rings may be surrendered upon suitable proof of non-decoder status. Consult a patent lawyer for fructose-loaded details.
Ask your doctor if Pacifex® is right for you.
__________________
"pimpin' ain't easy, especially when you're very bad at it and feel like you should be good at it." -- dhex
Saddam's existence was one big initiation of force.
And so is Dubya's. Don't you get that yet? Is 7 years of torture, detention without trial, and unchecked wiretaps not enough for you to realize that the people whose foreign policy you endorse are nothing but a bunch of thugs? Do you realize yet what bed you laid down in?
Did you miss the part where I said "All goverments initiate force to one degree or another?" Is there something I've ever said that has made you think I want another Bush term in office? Where did I ever say that detention without trial, torture and unchecked wiretaps are cool? What bed did I lay down in, thoreau?
There is no arbiter of these behaviors on an international stage. There is no meaningful international law on par with domestic criminal law. There's just agreements between nations. Enforcement means a military. The conditions on the international stage are: 1) there exists a globally deployable agent of force that is directed by a single nation; 2) there exists such a force that is somehow collectively directed by a bunch of nations; 3) there exists no such force.
I'm saying option 3 is distinctly bad, option 2 might be nice if in-fighting didn't make it a joke and other people took it seriously (see - the UN), and option 1 kinda sucks, but it is better than the plausible alternatives.
*Although I favor a less interventionist policy in the long-run, I believe that any change in policy should be implemented gradually and in consultation with current allies and other countries that may need to ramp up their defensive capabilities in response. Withdrawal from different regions may have to happen at different paces, and it may be necessary to reserve the option of force in prescribed circumstances. Nuclear weapons and future nuclear acquisitions by current allies in light of changing defense postures would have to be discussed with the goal of avoiding proliferation and nuclear war, and the US may wish to reserve the right to intervene in the event of likely nuclear war, or not, in accordance with our interests. None of this should be construed as a desire to go completely pacifist and refrain from retaliations against attacks on the US. Void where prohibited. Decoder rings may be surrendered upon suitable proof of non-decoder status. Consult a patent lawyer for fructose-loaded details.
My read on this conflict is that Russia had at least a very legitimate case for stepping in and liberating South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they'd just done that I'm not sure I could have much complained. But then they started acting like total assholes, basically flattened a Georgian city, and refused to leave after signing a cease-fire. They managed to blow a lot of the credibility and moral high ground they went in with.
The "total assholes" link leads to a story about Russians using cluster bombs in Georgia. Asshole behavior indeed, but we've done the same in Iraq. Once again: our Iraqi adventures haven't just made us militarily unable to do a damn thing about this Russian business; we can't even criticize them on moral grounds. And they're using the same language to defend their actions that we use to defend ours: "Oh, we'll leave once we can guarantee peace and stability!"
Big thanks to Cheney and Bush and all the assholes who voted for them in 2004. Thanks to you guys, we didn't even need outside forces to bring America down.
So, Jason, explain how America can realistically handle this little situation in a manner befitting the mighty Noble Winner Of The Cold War stature we held before the current administration screwed it up. We can't even criticize them on moral grounds because we have no such ground to stand on anymore. Russians using cluster bombs? Yeah, so did we in Iraq. Russians flattening cities? Ditto. Russians say they'll leave when peace and stability can be guaranteed? Heh, they're plagiarizing us.
Question, though - when did "pacifist" come to mean "not wanting to get involved in other countries' wars"?
How many pacifists do you know who want to get involved in other countries' wars? ;)
__________________
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
I've also thought for a while that wealthy countries really ought to pay for their own defense rather than rely on us.
There's not a lot of point in allying only with poor countries if you're interested in burdensharing or RSI.
__________________
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
saying that voting for Bush in 2004 was an act of "bringing America down" was the hyperbole, Jennifer.
Russia used our language re: Afghanistan when discussing Chechnya. There's this little issue of nuance you're missing. Just as religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the "War on Terror" and "peace and stability invasions" languages are the last refuge of those who want to invade for what are most certainly not strategy reasons (after all, if Russia had a bit of global strategy in its head, it would have seen that this invasion would almost certainly lead to Poland and the Ukraine assenting to missile-defense system).
You're drawing an analogy without taking intent into consideration. After all, it's true that we leveled German and Japanese cities; however, the intent was vastly different from Hitler's when he did it.
It may be all well and good to say that intent doesn't matter; those who are dead are dead and the intent certainly doesn't matter to them. But in terms of strategy and long-term policy goals, intent certainly does matter.
The invasion of Iraq and the invasion of South Ossetia are completely disanalogous, in terms of motivations of the invading party, in terms of the dynamic between the invaded and the invader, etc.
You're being overly simplistic.
__________________
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
saying that voting for Bush in 2004 was an act of "bringing America down" was the hyperbole, Jennifer.
And thus worthy of focus to the exclusion of all other issues raised.
Quote:
Russia used our language re: Afghanistan when discussing Chechnya. There's this little issue of nuance you're missing. Just as religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the "War on Terror" and "peace and stability invasions" languages are the last refuge of those who want to invade for what are most certainly not strategy reasons (after all, if Russia had a bit of global strategy in its head, it would have seen that this invasion would almost certainly lead to Poland and the Ukraine assenting to missile-defense system).
You're drawing an analogy without taking intent into consideration. After all, it's true that we leveled German and Japanese cities; however, the intent was vastly different from Hitler's when he did it.
Oh, God, not the Hitler analogies. Saddam was Hitler back in 2003, and I guess Russia's Hitler now. Or not; they're certainly not angels in this scenario, but their basis for invading a country on their border was much better than our basis for invading a country on the opposite side of the world from us. People arguing the Russia-in Georgia case in any Georgia vs. Iraq comparisons can certainly bring up differences of intent; people arguing the America-in-Iraq side, not so much.
Quote:
The invasion of Iraq and the invasion of South Ossetia are completely disanalogous, in terms of motivations of the invading party, in terms of the dynamic between the invaded and the invader, etc.
On that, we completely agree. We just disagree on which major power comes off worse in the comparison.
And thus worthy of focus to the exclusion of all other issues raised.
well, not intellectually speaking, but overstating your case, as a debating tactic and in the interest of dialogue, has a tendency to lead to people shutting you out. Kind of akin to how I shut out the John Birch Society for the Black Helicopterism even if they have other valid things to say: "one utterance of 'aw shit' ruins ten utterances of 'good job son'"
Jennifer wrote:
Oh, God, not the Hitler analogies. Saddam was Hitler back in 2003, and I guess Russia's Hitler now. Or not
You're entirely missing the boat on what I am saying. You're arguing a purely consequentalist theory, in that:
The U.S invaded a country; Russia invaded a country
The U.S. leveled cities; Russia leveled cities
Which makes the United States morally equivalent...or worse than, Russia.
The WWII analogy was to highlight the fact that you're disregarding intent (at least up until this):
Quote:
their basis for invading a country on their border was much better than our basis for invading a country on the opposite side of the world from us. People arguing the Russia-in Georgia case in any Georgia vs. Iraq comparisons can certainly bring up differences of intent; people arguing the America-in-Iraq side, not so much.
That would be Russia's ostensible basis, not their true intent or motivation for doing so. If you're inclined to take their rationale at face value, be my guest. Frankly, I still don't know why we invaded Iraq (and I will not be dragged into another Iraq debate, since they're fucking fruitless endeavors), but I am highly skeptical that our intent (for Iraq) was as nefarious as Russia's (in my judgment) likely is in this case.
If you take a look at the wars the United States has been involved in, they are either resolutely against what most people would think our own self-interest would be (WWI, WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, Kosovo/Serbia) or are conducted for large-scale strategic reasons (Vietnam, as misguided as the domino theory was; Korea). These are manifestly better intents than Russia's.
Of course, this is where I get highly irritated with folks who overstate the case (*ahem*); reasonable people can disagree about the best foreign policy for America to pursue. That's a fact of life, and to ascribe ill-intent or out-and-out malevolence because you disagree with someone on either a subjective point ("our rationales are worse than their rationales") or conjecture is malevolent on your part.
__________________
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
Thanks to you guys, we didn't even need outside forces to bring America down.
Tread softly kids, and you might get a good look at hyperbolus jennifericus.
Well, Jason, if America won't be brought down by a disastrous war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and replacement of the 4th amendment with "The Decider Decides" then what, exactly WILL bring America down?
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
Thanks to you guys, we didn't even need outside forces to bring America down.
Tread softly kids, and you might get a good look at hyperbolus jennifericus.
Well, Jason, if America won't be brought down by a disastrous war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and replacement of the 4th amendment with "The Decider Decides" then what, exactly WILL bring America down?
Thanks to you guys, we didn't even need outside forces to bring America down.
Tread softly kids, and you might get a good look at hyperbolus jennifericus.
Well, Jason, if America won't be brought down by a disastrous war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and replacement of the 4th amendment with "The Decider Decides" then what, exactly WILL bring America down?
Socialized medicine. So long as the Iraq war doesn't lead us into that, he'll still support it (in the sense of "arguing in favor of its continuance").
As depressed as I am about the present, it's not like foreign adventures are some new thing for us. Yes, I think that the current gang of thugs is worse than a lot of the other administrations we've had, but it's not like Iraq is the first time we've gone forth and slaughtered people who weren't a threat to us. As Greenwald observed, there's a bipartisan consensus that every President should have at least one foreign slaughter expedition on his resume.
Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that's its military power. That's not the way to deal in the 21st century.
As Greenwald pointed out, America makes a point of spilling foreign blood on a regular basis, and it's been that way for some time. Sometimes we spill a lot of it, sometimes a little of it, and sometimes we have our proxies do it for us, but those blood offerings are made at regular intervals. I mean, if we don't send heavily armed government employees into Grenada, we'll be in grave danger!
So perhaps this storm will pass. It sucks for the foreigners, but we'll survive. Then again, no country can be top dog forever. Even Rome fell, eventually. And when we are no longer top dog, somebody might remember all the blood that we spilled. God help us then.
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
That would be Russia's ostensible basis, not their true intent or motivation for doing so. If you're inclined to take their rationale at face value, be my guest. Frankly, I still don't know why we invaded Iraq (and I will not be dragged into another Iraq debate, since they're fucking fruitless endeavors), but I am highly skeptical that our intent (for Iraq) was as nefarious as Russia's (in my judgment) likely is in this case.
So your argument boils down to "I have no idea why we invaded Iraq, but I'm sure our intentions were good, or at least better than Russia's?" On what do you base this statement of faith?
As depressed as I am about the present, it's not like foreign adventures are some new thing for us. Yes, I think that the current gang of thugs is worse than a lot of the other administrations we've had, but it's not like Iraq is the first time we've gone forth and slaughtered people who weren't a threat to us.
It's not just that, Thoreau. Think of this: would you have believed -- would any of us have believed -- anyone in 2000 who said "Don't vote for Bush! If you do, then in less than 8 years the American government will openly insist it has the right to torture people, and arrest and detain them without trial! And the government will say it has the right to listen in on conversations WITHOUT a warrant, and it will expand to include a huge bureaucracy with the power to regulate things like how much shampoo and ice water Americans can bring on airplanes, and maintain a secret terrorist watch list with over 1 million names on it, and say it has the right to confiscate ANY books, computers, or any other computerized or written materials at the border without a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing?"
This is all fucking insane. And it's all absolutely true.
Quote:
no country can be top dog forever. Even Rome fell, eventually. And when we are no longer top dog, somebody might remember all the blood that we spilled. God help us then.
I'll bet that there are a lot of useful idiots who thought that we'd be bringing peace and freedom to Iraq. Their intentions were good. Guess what? Ditto for the commies, and we all know how that worked out.
Other Americans were thoroughly worked-over by the propaganda machine and actually believed that they were in danger. Their motives were understandable, but fear is always dangerous. Remember what Yoda said about Annakin....
I suspect that some Americans just wanted to go beat the crap out of somebody in the Middle East after 9/11. Their intentions were not so good.
And out leaders? Well, for them the intentions were pretty damn dark. Darker than Putin? Less dark than Putin? I don't know, and I don't intend to stare into either soul because Cheney and Putin are both cesspools of evil.
What about Russians? Oh, I'll bet that a lot of Russians believe that this is for the benefit of South Ossetians being victimized by Georgia (and, for all I know, it's entirely possible that Georgia was doing some nasty shit to South Ossetians). Their motives are understandable. But for some of them, I'll bet it's a nationalism thing.
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
Russia used our language re: Afghanistan when discussing Chechnya. There's this little issue of nuance you're missing. Just as religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the "War on Terror" and "peace and stability invasions" languages are the last refuge of those who want to invade for what are most certainly not strategy reasons (after all, if Russia had a bit of global strategy in its head, it would have seen that this invasion would almost certainly lead to Poland and the Ukraine assenting to missile-defense system).
The thing that's crazy is that if the Russians had played their hand competently this wouldn't have been true. If they'd gone in, taken South Ossetia, and stopped, there might have been some grumbling but they would have had a reasonable amount of moral high ground and people would have lived. Instead they invaded Georgia proper, used cluster bombs, committed war crimes (irregular forces following the main army to pillage), and refused to leave after signing a cease fire. This threw away the high ground they had, and pushed most of the world from wishy-washy pro-Russia-ism into firm disapproval (even if it doesn't lead to concrete action).
No one's going to intervene to protect Georgia militarily. But the Russians have just made everyone a bit more inclined to do things that will annoy them. That can't be what they wanted.
"The bloody American empire / Bush junta will come down some day and the world is going to remember what evils America wrought and feed on its bloated, torturing-and-war-making carcass."
That sum it up there, thoreau and Jennifer? I'll try not to have my eyes roll out of my head too badly. I just want to make sure we can get past the same crap I've been hearing for years and move on to a different issue.
Or is Iraq all you guys think about?
__________________
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
That would be Russia's ostensible basis, not their true intent or motivation for doing so.
You or I or anyone else making comments about Russia's "true" motivation makes about as much sense as the President thinking he could read Putin's soul by looking in his eyes. In no way do you possess the qualifications to make that sort of concrete statement.
__________________
I CAUTION YOU / IN DEFEATING ORCS WE MAY FIND THE ONLY VILLAIN LEFT TO FACE IS OUR OWN PREJUDICE--qwantz.com
Thanks to you guys, we didn't even need outside forces to bring America down.
Tread softly kids, and you might get a good look at hyperbolus jennifericus.
Well, Jason, if America won't be brought down by a disastrous war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and replacement of the 4th amendment with "The Decider Decides" then what, exactly WILL bring America down?
Socialized medicine. So long as the Iraq war doesn't lead us into that, he'll still support it (in the sense of "arguing in favor of its continuance").
You folks have a frankly ridiculous definition of 'bringing the country down'. It's how Jennifer operates. Handwringing and hyperbole are her tools of choice. Oil will bring the country down. The trade deficit will bring the country down. Buy silver. We're all going to suffer. Blah blah blah. I'm used to that. What struck me as particularly funny is the notion that we have ALREADY been brought down by Bush voters, which, while vague, to me suggests a Roman collapse of some sort. If you just mean 'viewed with more cynicism than in the recent past', well sure, but that reading doesn't jibe with 'it didn't even take outsiders to bring the country down.'
In point of fact, there are few if any places on this globe with more respect for individual rights than the US has RIGHT NOW. I'm fully acknowledging here our policy of detentions (which I hate), the war on drugs (which I hate), warrantless wiretapping (which I hate), torture of enemy combatants (which I hate) and any number of other evils. To answer your question, it would take quite a bit more than what we are actually experiencing on these fronts to 'bring America down'.
Thinking on it, it is the tendency to view deviations from the right policy as the equivalent of seeing no human rights protections anywhere - which just isn't the case. There is a universe of moral space between US policy and that of, say, Kim Jong Il. And don't counter argue with me as though I'm defending our current state as ideal. Clearly, I don't believe that. I'm just looking for a little perspective - a little more Kerry Howley and a little less KMW if you will.
Oh, and I don't recall agitating for a continuance of the current Iraq situation. I recall saying that it is complicated and that if we could leave a semi stable democratic Iraq, the outcome of the whole thing may be viewed differently in the sweep of history and many here assume. I'm uncertain if going home now is the correct option, but it is the direction I'm leaning given current levels of stability. I oppose permanent military bases in Iraq flat out.
More oh, incorrectly done socialized medicine will create a pile of bodies you wouldn't believe - dwarfing Iraq in body count and suffering. I do believe this is true.
"The bloody American empire / Bush junta will come down some day and the world is going to remember what evils America wrought and feed on its bloated, torturing-and-war-making carcass."
That sum it up there, thoreau and Jennifer? I'll try not to have my eyes roll out of my head too badly. I just want to make sure we can get past the same crap I've been hearing for years and move on to a different issue.
1) You can only get into so many fights before somebody eventually says "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
2) I don't think it has to be a dramatic and bloody collapse, and I hope it isn't. An orderly rearrangement of priorities, a gradual shifting and sharing of responsibilities, and a reorganization into a more secure position would put us in a situation where we can be safe despite not being top dog.
The best way to provoke retaliation is to fight until the end, until it isn't sustainable, until we are the despised loser and somebody else is ascendant. Nobody can be #1 forever. Even if you view the world as a savage and bloody place where morality means nothing, the brutal boss eventually gets killed by his #2, while the guy who finds a safe and useful niche survives the power shifts.
__________________
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
I'd still like to know, Ayn Randian, on what you base your statement of faith: You admit you have no idea why we invaded Iraq, but you're convinced it was for a noble cause. Is this based on anything more than "Americans are always the good guys?"
Jason wrote:
There is a universe of moral space between US policy and that of, say, Kim Jong Il.
Indeed there is. But merely saying "We're better than North Korea" isn't saying very much. "The land of the free" used to be a much better motto than "Hey, it could be worse!"
In point of fact, there are few if any places on this globe with more respect for individual rights than the US has RIGHT NOW. I'm fully acknowledging here our policy of detentions (which I hate), the war on drugs (which I hate), warrantless wiretapping (which I hate), torture of enemy combatants (which I hate) and any number of other evils. To answer your question, it would take quite a bit more than what we are actually experiencing on these fronts to 'bring America down'.
And have you any indication that these trends are reversing rather than growing stronger? Our country's going down the same way people are growing older: you don't just go to bed one night as a Healthy Young Person and wake up the next morning elderly and decrepit. It's slow and it's gradual, but it happens.
But the analogy fails in one important way: individual aging is inevitable. The decline of our nation doesn't have to be. Yeah, we won't always be top dog forever -- no country is -- but we don't have to shit on our own ideals on our way down. We don't have to behave in ways that'll make other countries super-pissed-off at us. Yet we're doing it anyway.
As much as I was against our conquest of Iraq, I doubt that it played any major role in Russia's decision to do all that they've done (and are doing) in Georgia. Maybe a teensy one, and that sucks sho' enough, but we shouldn't mistake a teensy factor for a significant factor, and they'd find some way of justifying what they did whether we gave them some convenient rhetoric to use or not (and actually I'd say their rhetoric is at least as reminiscent of our Slavic interventions under Clinton since their primary justification is preventing "genocide"), and ultimately, the military reality is at least as important if not much more so insofar as either regards what Russia does and how the rest of the world responds.
EDIT: added "insofar"; not sure if I've ever used that before!! :-)
__________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
I'd still like to know, Ayn Randian, on what you base your statement of faith: You admit you have no idea why we invaded Iraq, but you're convinced it was for a noble cause. Is this based on anything more than "Americans are always the good guys?"
Go re-read my posts about the origins of most of America's war. Also, I told you this isn't about Iraq and I'm not getting dragged into it. You have an unhealthy obsession with Iraq. These cases are not analogous and I don't have anything further to say on it (again).
__________________
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
Indeed there is. But merely saying "We're better than North Korea" isn't saying very much. "The land of the free" used to be a much better motto than "Hey, it could be worse!"
See, I hate this. We're better than North Korea and almost anywhere else you'd care to name along most rights variables you'd care to look at. You know that. I even said that, but you choose to pick up this tired bit of rhetorical fluff and run with it. Again, you like to argue as though any deviation from an ideal state is the sign of the End Times, then turn around when someone illustrates what End Times really is and respond with "Well, better than End Times isn't saying very much." Yeah, but that is how YOU framed the argument, "...brought America down".
you like to argue as though any deviation from an ideal state is the sign of the End Times, then turn around when someone illustrates what End Times really is and respond with "Well, better than End Times isn't saying very much." Yeah, but that is how YOU framed the argument, "...brought America down".
No, my complaint isn't that we're Less Than Ideal, but that over the last few years we've been moving further from the ideal, rather than closer to it.
We never achieved our goal of "liberty and justice for all," but for most of our history we always got closer and closer: Jim Crow was vile, but better than the slavery which came before. In time we even ended Jim Crow. Women's situation grew steadily better from 1776 to now, and so forth.
But we stopped making progress; now we're backing up. We're living off our principal, so to speak. Yeah, the average person today is far less likely to be tortured by the American government than the North Korean government ... but until a short time ago, nobody who was tortured by a representative of the American government had this done legally. Now torture is considered acceptable in certain cases ... do you consider this an improvement or a step back?
I remember posting this somewhere else: if the government passed a law saying that women could only vote after paying a $20 poll tax (and no, I don't think this will really happen), I would view this as a VERY bad sign. Yes, an American woman w
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
I wanted "Thoreau is too chicken to defend Kiev"!
That's it, 150 more posts so I can get that title.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
I'm seriously. Only 148 responses to go after this one.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Well it is a cowardly hippie reference, if that makes you feel better.
♫And the man at the back
said everyone attack
and it turned into a ballroom blitz♫
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Shem was upset over length. I'm prepared to compromise on "Chicken over Kiev."
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
No no no he said, "Give peas a chance."
Really, he just wants you to introduce a little more variety into your diet.
Of course, you know what peas go really well with?
Dropping bombs on other people.
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Actually, I prefer my bombings with fava beans and a nice chianti.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Why do you think a nuclear-armed Germany or Poland wouldn't halt Russia?
Remaining a part of NATO and committing to retaliation upon attack of European countries would clearly result in that, yes - but you'll need to explain how exactly that would happen if neither point were true.
And in WW1, our entry could have been avoided, with an entirely different settlement by the belligerents that wouldn't have lead to the same circumstances. I know people like to look to WW2 for general lessons, but it was a peculiar moment in history, rather significantly set up by an unnecessary US foreign adventure years prior.
Define "major". If you mean "total war between the great powers", that's rather patently because the potential belligerents all had nuclear weapons, making things like invasions of each other unfeasible. Nukes are the qualitative difference, not US interventionism.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
I oppose any policy of a-peas-ment.
All the world loves a clown.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August is considered by many to be the definitive history of the lead up to WW1.
In it, she shows quite clearly how 1) Allowing smaller powers to drag larger powers into their wars; 2) Having no clear line of what would and would not be tolerated; and 3) Not being willing to negotiate led to the stupidity of that war.
The further inability on both sides to see that the continuing the war was costing them more than they could possibly hope to gain from it - indeed, it was costing them more than they would lose by making even the most drastic concessions to the enemy - contributed to the slaughter dragging on for four years. It was the "sunk cost" fallacy written in the blood of 10 million people.
One of the few bright stars in the whole mess was General Pershing who, for whatever reason, refused to let American soldiers be used to maintain the same battle plans that the French and British had been following for the previous 3 years.
The point of all this is that, in any alliance, no nation should commit itself to costs that are greater than the benefits of the alliance, nor should any nation allow its allies to treat the alliance as a blank cheque.
All I ask is a good horse and a fair day.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Yes, but the European powers who continued the war despite its futility demonstrated that they are crazy and unpredictable and not to be messed with.
And hence Europe was peaceful and secure from 1919 onward.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
"Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
and they've hardly bothered us since then."
Tom Lerher, "MLF Lullaby
All I ask is a good horse and a fair day.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Actually a factor behind the "Having no clear line of what would and would not be tolerated" was the easy offering of alliances to desperate smaller powers by countries that had no intention of backing them up (e.g. the "Little Entente"). One of the key things in being a good cooperator, business partner, or ally is being reliable. France and Britain were completely unreliable and crazy and unpredictable, and that led to war--despite large trade flows and economic cooperation among the large combatants.
Similarly, IIRC, Hitler admitted that had France made a military move when he remilitarized the Rhineland, he would have had no choice but to back off. But France was just running its mouth and opted against confrontation.
Believe it or not you can believe alliances are necessary without sanctioning the invasion of Iraq. Even if you (
pacefuck Ted Rall) approve of Afghanistan.This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
There are indeed perfectly good reasons why one might believe in the need for alliances while opposing the invasion of Iraq. I realize that. I'm not even sure that I oppose all alliances for the US. However, even before the Iraq War I saw no reason why we must take sides in so many conflicts around the globe. I've also thought for a while that wealthy countries really ought to pay for their own defense rather than rely on us.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Neelix was the straw that broke the camel's back. Nerds chained in the football locker rooms of hell don't suffer the way I'd have made Neelix suffer if I'd been on board that fucking ship. No wonder someone tried to wipe out the Talaxians! I'm not sure I blame them. If someone had just shoved that little bastard out an airlock, I might have been a fan. Janeway's Hepburn impression even might have been tolerable if she'd shoved him out herself.
How they derived that show from the sexual adventures of Captain Kirk and his merry band of ass-kickers, I'll never understand. Wussies in space?! How do you get from the original Star Trek to wussies in space?
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Crazy isn't the goal. Rational analyzers of costs and benefits who are at some point of aggression willing to respond with force is the goal. The bridge you can't seem to cross is that the use of force is not always crazy.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
As a starting point, that old libertarian saw about "initiation of force or fraud" seems appropriate for nations as well as individuals. I don't think we'd be weakened by a public foreign policy along the lines of "The United States will not initiate force or fraud. We expect all other nations to do the same." Sign treaties to that effect.
Then when we go to war under false pretenses, it's clearly impeachment time.
(I realize this doesn't really address intervention in Darfur or Georgia, because there's already obviously force being used there.)
A parasite feeding on bacteria growing on fungus growing on cow excrement? The only way the parasitic chain could get any longer would be if the cow excrement worked for the government.
- Smacky
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Suppose the following:
1) Nation-states are inevitable
2) Nation-states, like all human organizations, tend to expand their sphere of power over time.
I conclude that side-taking in any conflict is an unavoidable consequence.
Once you've concluded that, you get into the argument over how best to take sides, and that might be all we've really got in this imperfect world. In an ideal world people would ignore conflicts that didn't concern them, but I think best case people take sides in a way that doesn't hurt anything or make anyone else dead.
Now, the problem with that is pretty straight-forward game theory. You have a country, let's call it PLACE. Well, you also have a set of actors who define the use of PLACE's military resources. Those actors are assumed here to want to maximize two things: PLACE's influence and their own influence within the heirarchy of PLACE's government. Depending on the situation, those two constraints might both be well served by the use of force, which makes it a coldly rational decision. Even the Brinksmanship strategy can be perfectly rational if you do it right - look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for a classic example of this. The goal isn't to demonstrate that "PLACE be crazy" it's to demonstrate that there are certain unpredictable elements within the power structure that can't be fully controlled by PLACE's negotiator...so shouldn't you just listen to what the negotiator is saying? It's a form of a threat, and ideally it's the best kind of threat - credible, but that you never have to act on.
If you view PLACE's actors as wanting to maximize other things - world peace, awesome toasters or attractive ladies of loose moral character - force may or may not be a wholly rational choice...but I'm pretty sure I've got the assumptions right here.
Whenever I catch so much as a glimpse of pr0n, I suddenly turn into a sex-crazed barbarian, slashing and clawing my way through whatever and whomever until I find something to put my weiner into. -- Taktix
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Disagree. The initiation of force isn't clearly expressable for governments because they all initiate force to some degree. I think this thought process is the flaw in nearly all libertarian foreign policy discussions. Saddam's existence was one big initiation of force. Does his nation have to initiate force against another nation for it to count? Okay, then what about Darfur?
In many countries the country and the despotic leader are the same. To me, all such arrangements by violence represent initiations of force that can be dealt with at any time under that principle. It's just a matter of costs and benefits.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Your parenthetical kinda reflects what's missing in the rest of your policy. I.e., your basic principle, fine as it is, leaves open the question of whether the United States should ever respond with force initiated against an ally, as opposed to against us. Or, more broadly, whether we should ever respond against force initiated against another nation (formal ally or not) on that other nation's behalf. (And if so, under what circumstances....)
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
There's a huge difference between something happening on your doorstep and something happening halfway around the world. That's the difference between France failing to act in the face of aggression right in front of them and clearly moving in their direction ...and joe waving his hands about how we had to bomb the Serbs to prevent WW3.
If Russia were invading Canada, even if they weren't an ally so close to us that they have officers in NORAD, everything from saber-rattling to serious preparations to use force would be sensible. As it is currently, we'd probably immediately be at war.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
By the same logic, we should all be fighting at the barricades to support the strain of totalitarianism that personally benefits us most.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
And so is Dubya's. Don't you get that yet? Is 7 years of torture, detention without trial, and unchecked wiretaps not enough for you to realize that the people whose foreign policy you endorse are nothing but a bunch of thugs? Do you realize yet what bed you laid down in?
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
And I'll note that the people justifying interventionism on the basis of hard-nosed costs and benefits, yourself included, tend to advocate foreign policy that incurs a great deal of cost. When asked to argue the benefits, those benefits are pretty damned vague, often not involving anything we could put on our metaphorical balance sheet.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
The Russians justify their continued presence in Georgia with the exact same language we use to justify ours in Iraq. That's pretty damning to any American who doesn't believe "Whatever we do is all right because we do it."
And unlike us, the Russians didn't even have to make shit up to justify their initial invasion. The Georgians really were going after the South Ossetians and really did throw the first punch in this war; it's not as though the Russians had to invent stories about WMDs and mythical connections to 9/11.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Totalitarianism isn't always the benefit-maximizing choice, yo. If my assumptions about what Nation-state leaders are trying to maximize are correct, and I think they are, you have to keep in mind the point at which internal influence drops to zero with overthrow or unelection.
If you mean that my postulates and conclusions imply anything about behavior at the individual level where all the action really is, well, that's certainly not my intent. At the individual level everyone is trying to maximize something, but that can be anything.
Whenever I catch so much as a glimpse of pr0n, I suddenly turn into a sex-crazed barbarian, slashing and clawing my way through whatever and whomever until I find something to put my weiner into. -- Taktix
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Not my point. My point was that consistent behavior--keeping your promises, in other words--prevents conflict, while going back on your word and opting toward a pacifist route invites conflict, as it generates a question as to whether you'll respond.
As far as a counterexample to the Rhineland, the Little and Triple Ententes were, for their time, the equivalent of us backing up Georgia.
So even if we wanted to go pacifist, we'd have to slowly and consistently back our commitments down to avoid inviting conflicts to start that wouldn't have otherwise.
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
But there's also the question of how far alliance commitments should go. If my little self makes a mutual self-defense pact with one of the big guys here, I hope that if someone attacks me as we're walking down the street my ally will step in and help defend me. But should I take our alliance to mean "I can throw the first punch at any big guy I see, secure in the knowledge that you'll step in and fight him?" That's basically what Georgia did.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
I wonder why organizations of humans should be any more inclined to maximize sphere of influence (above everything else, as that seems to be the implication) any more so than individual humans. After all, organizations of humans are just made up of individual humans! What would have been added in the organization process that would shift things in that direction and to an all encompassing degree?
No, I think Eric's deduction from Timothy's logic is correct. I think it's an assumption of liberal thought, borne out by observation, that humans, in general, come to realize, in the long run, that cooperation is a better means to maximizing whatever they wanna maximize than the use of force. Not everyone sees it this way, especially stronger actors, but since it's true (in our humble opinion), we should assume they'll see it eventually. Or at least more so than they don't see it. But, of course, that doesn't mean folks (acting on their own or in organizations, which is how humans usually act) can't cause a lot of problems by not seeing it en route. And I suppose one may argue that for particular players, force is the utility maximizing strategy, not just for most. But that's getting pretty esoteric. Suffice to say force will be used sometimes regardless of the enlightened view that it's not the best strategy for most. It's the goal of the liberal thinker to convince others of this. It's hard enough in general, though, and more so when someone's pointing a gun at your head and saying you're maximizing my utility the way I say.
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Point taken, and I think Georgia's behavior should be considered in this. I should point out, though, that Georgia may have had their own provocations from Russia or South Ossetia to deal with. I've only heard a little about this so I'm not very clear on it, but I do know six Georgian police or peacekeepers were killed in South Ossetia shortly before Georgia's shelling began. Regardless, the question of what happens when allies behave badly, or when their behavior is questionable at the least, is a good one. Actually reminds me, in some respects, of our support (perceived, at the least) of Israel, whom most Americans assumed were the obvious good guys when our support for them began. I'm not one to park in either side's camp in that conflict, but I think I can conservatively say that Israel's behavior has not always been as beyond rapproach as we originally assumed it would be, which hasn't served us well, even if the consequences are not as bad as getting dragged into a nuclear war would be.
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
You're right, they did, but they were extremely rash and not a little dumb in reacting the way they did.
In this specific case, I'm with Thoreau: it's not worth expending lives defending an administration who acts this rashly. I think Russia is trying to re-emerge as an empire, and it's worth containing that (again), but in this instance the Georgians did themselves no favors.
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
If containing the expansionist ambitions of a country on the other side of the globe is a worthy public policy goal, what about antitrust law to contain the expansion of a large company in the US? Keep in mind that oftentimes large companies have cozy relationships with the state and use their relationship with a coercive entity to gain advantages that they would not enjoy in a situation of pure competition in an open market.
Yes, there are very obvious differences, but I think some of the underlying concerns are the same: The expansion of large entities is something we fear, even if those entities cannot personal coerce us. I don't live in Russia or a country that Russia seeks as a satellite, and I don't work for a large corporation that might be a target of antitrust law. Yet one could argue that I am negatively impacted by the expansion of either large organization.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Thoreau, would you be so kind as to make up a long-winded disclaimer about how those of us who desire a less interventionist foreign policy would like to carry that out by formally withdrawing from treaties and alliances in a deliberate manner, not by having the President pretend he's not home while Russian troops invade a NATO country?
I will agree about consistency, though, Sandy - and that the reverse of your "going pacifist" scenario is very true, as shown by the whirlwind Georgia reaped by attacking after making a ceasefire agreement.
Question, though - when did "pacifist" come to mean "not wanting to get involved in other countries' wars"?
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
*Although I favor a less interventionist policy in the long-run, I believe that any change in policy should be implemented gradually and in consultation with current allies and other countries that may need to ramp up their defensive capabilities in response. Withdrawal from different regions may have to happen at different paces, and it may be necessary to reserve the option of force in prescribed circumstances. Nuclear weapons and future nuclear acquisitions by current allies in light of changing defense postures would have to be discussed with the goal of avoiding proliferation and nuclear war, and the US may wish to reserve the right to intervene in the event of likely nuclear war, or not, in accordance with our interests. None of this should be construed as a desire to go completely pacifist and refrain from retaliations against attacks on the US. Void where prohibited. Decoder rings may be surrendered upon suitable proof of non-decoder status. Consult a patent lawyer for fructose-loaded details.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Yeah, the Russians didn't need to make stuff up to justify the initial invasion. Which raises the question of why they did.
My read on this conflict is that Russia had at least a very legitimate case for stepping in and liberating South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they'd just done that I'm not sure I could have much complained. But then they started acting like total assholes, basically flattened a Georgian city, and refused to leave after signing a cease-fire. They managed to blow a lot of the credibility and moral high ground they went in with.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Ask your doctor if Pacifex® is right for you.
"pimpin' ain't easy, especially when you're very bad at it and feel like you should be good at it." -- dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
When do countries not prepare an official diplomatic statement of why they're the good guys for doing something?
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Did you miss the part where I said "All goverments initiate force to one degree or another?" Is there something I've ever said that has made you think I want another Bush term in office? Where did I ever say that detention without trial, torture and unchecked wiretaps are cool? What bed did I lay down in, thoreau?
There is no arbiter of these behaviors on an international stage. There is no meaningful international law on par with domestic criminal law. There's just agreements between nations. Enforcement means a military. The conditions on the international stage are: 1) there exists a globally deployable agent of force that is directed by a single nation; 2) there exists such a force that is somehow collectively directed by a bunch of nations; 3) there exists no such force.
I'm saying option 3 is distinctly bad, option 2 might be nice if in-fighting didn't make it a joke and other people took it seriously (see - the UN), and option 1 kinda sucks, but it is better than the plausible alternatives.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Thank you, sir.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
The "total assholes" link leads to a story about Russians using cluster bombs in Georgia. Asshole behavior indeed, but we've done the same in Iraq. Once again: our Iraqi adventures haven't just made us militarily unable to do a damn thing about this Russian business; we can't even criticize them on moral grounds. And they're using the same language to defend their actions that we use to defend ours: "Oh, we'll leave once we can guarantee peace and stability!"
Big thanks to Cheney and Bush and all the assholes who voted for them in 2004. Thanks to you guys, we didn't even need outside forces to bring America down.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Tread softly kids, and you might get a good look at hyperbolus jennifericus.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
So, Jason, explain how America can realistically handle this little situation in a manner befitting the mighty Noble Winner Of The Cold War stature we held before the current administration screwed it up. We can't even criticize them on moral grounds because we have no such ground to stand on anymore. Russians using cluster bombs? Yeah, so did we in Iraq. Russians flattening cities? Ditto. Russians say they'll leave when peace and stability can be guaranteed? Heh, they're plagiarizing us.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
How many pacifists do you know who want to get involved in other countries' wars? ;)
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
There's not a lot of point in allying only with poor countries if you're interested in burdensharing or RSI.
This is a personal problem. There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable use of high explosives. This is not one of those exceptions.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Yeah, But the 'poor bloody infantry' from poor countries make great cannon fodder.
All I ask is a good horse and a fair day.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
saying that voting for Bush in 2004 was an act of "bringing America down" was the hyperbole, Jennifer.
Russia used our language re: Afghanistan when discussing Chechnya. There's this little issue of nuance you're missing. Just as religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the "War on Terror" and "peace and stability invasions" languages are the last refuge of those who want to invade for what are most certainly not strategy reasons (after all, if Russia had a bit of global strategy in its head, it would have seen that this invasion would almost certainly lead to Poland and the Ukraine assenting to missile-defense system).
You're drawing an analogy without taking intent into consideration. After all, it's true that we leveled German and Japanese cities; however, the intent was vastly different from Hitler's when he did it.
It may be all well and good to say that intent doesn't matter; those who are dead are dead and the intent certainly doesn't matter to them. But in terms of strategy and long-term policy goals, intent certainly does matter.
The invasion of Iraq and the invasion of South Ossetia are completely disanalogous, in terms of motivations of the invading party, in terms of the dynamic between the invaded and the invader, etc.
You're being overly simplistic.
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
And thus worthy of focus to the exclusion of all other issues raised.
Oh, God, not the Hitler analogies. Saddam was Hitler back in 2003, and I guess Russia's Hitler now. Or not; they're certainly not angels in this scenario, but their basis for invading a country on their border was much better than our basis for invading a country on the opposite side of the world from us. People arguing the Russia-in Georgia case in any Georgia vs. Iraq comparisons can certainly bring up differences of intent; people arguing the America-in-Iraq side, not so much.
On that, we completely agree. We just disagree on which major power comes off worse in the comparison.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
well, not intellectually speaking, but overstating your case, as a debating tactic and in the interest of dialogue, has a tendency to lead to people shutting you out. Kind of akin to how I shut out the John Birch Society for the Black Helicopterism even if they have other valid things to say: "one utterance of 'aw shit' ruins ten utterances of 'good job son'"
You're entirely missing the boat on what I am saying. You're arguing a purely consequentalist theory, in that:
The U.S invaded a country; Russia invaded a country
The U.S. leveled cities; Russia leveled cities
Which makes the United States morally equivalent...or worse than, Russia.
The WWII analogy was to highlight the fact that you're disregarding intent (at least up until this):
That would be Russia's ostensible basis, not their true intent or motivation for doing so. If you're inclined to take their rationale at face value, be my guest. Frankly, I still don't know why we invaded Iraq (and I will not be dragged into another Iraq debate, since they're fucking fruitless endeavors), but I am highly skeptical that our intent (for Iraq) was as nefarious as Russia's (in my judgment) likely is in this case.
If you take a look at the wars the United States has been involved in, they are either resolutely against what most people would think our own self-interest would be (WWI, WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, Kosovo/Serbia) or are conducted for large-scale strategic reasons (Vietnam, as misguided as the domino theory was; Korea). These are manifestly better intents than Russia's.
Of course, this is where I get highly irritated with folks who overstate the case (*ahem*); reasonable people can disagree about the best foreign policy for America to pursue. That's a fact of life, and to ascribe ill-intent or out-and-out malevolence because you disagree with someone on either a subjective point ("our rationales are worse than their rationales") or conjecture is malevolent on your part.
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Well, Jason, if America won't be brought down by a disastrous war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and replacement of the 4th amendment with "The Decider Decides" then what, exactly WILL bring America down?
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Fred Phelps.
All I ask is a good horse and a fair day.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Socialized medicine. So long as the Iraq war doesn't lead us into that, he'll still support it (in the sense of "arguing in favor of its continuance").
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
On a slightly different note:
As depressed as I am about the present, it's not like foreign adventures are some new thing for us. Yes, I think that the current gang of thugs is worse than a lot of the other administrations we've had, but it's not like Iraq is the first time we've gone forth and slaughtered people who weren't a threat to us. As Greenwald observed, there's a bipartisan consensus that every President should have at least one foreign slaughter expedition on his resume.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/19/rice/
The context for this was Condoleeza Rice saying:
As Greenwald pointed out, America makes a point of spilling foreign blood on a regular basis, and it's been that way for some time. Sometimes we spill a lot of it, sometimes a little of it, and sometimes we have our proxies do it for us, but those blood offerings are made at regular intervals. I mean, if we don't send heavily armed government employees into Grenada, we'll be in grave danger!
So perhaps this storm will pass. It sucks for the foreigners, but we'll survive. Then again, no country can be top dog forever. Even Rome fell, eventually. And when we are no longer top dog, somebody might remember all the blood that we spilled. God help us then.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
So your argument boils down to "I have no idea why we invaded Iraq, but I'm sure our intentions were good, or at least better than Russia's?" On what do you base this statement of faith?
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
It's not just that, Thoreau. Think of this: would you have believed -- would any of us have believed -- anyone in 2000 who said "Don't vote for Bush! If you do, then in less than 8 years the American government will openly insist it has the right to torture people, and arrest and detain them without trial! And the government will say it has the right to listen in on conversations WITHOUT a warrant, and it will expand to include a huge bureaucracy with the power to regulate things like how much shampoo and ice water Americans can bring on airplanes, and maintain a secret terrorist watch list with over 1 million names on it, and say it has the right to confiscate ANY books, computers, or any other computerized or written materials at the border without a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing?"
This is all fucking insane. And it's all absolutely true.
Agreed.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Regarding intent in Iraq and South Ossetia:
I'll bet that there are a lot of useful idiots who thought that we'd be bringing peace and freedom to Iraq. Their intentions were good. Guess what? Ditto for the commies, and we all know how that worked out.
Other Americans were thoroughly worked-over by the propaganda machine and actually believed that they were in danger. Their motives were understandable, but fear is always dangerous. Remember what Yoda said about Annakin....
I suspect that some Americans just wanted to go beat the crap out of somebody in the Middle East after 9/11. Their intentions were not so good.
And out leaders? Well, for them the intentions were pretty damn dark. Darker than Putin? Less dark than Putin? I don't know, and I don't intend to stare into either soul because Cheney and Putin are both cesspools of evil.
What about Russians? Oh, I'll bet that a lot of Russians believe that this is for the benefit of South Ossetians being victimized by Georgia (and, for all I know, it's entirely possible that Georgia was doing some nasty shit to South Ossetians). Their motives are understandable. But for some of them, I'll bet it's a nationalism thing.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
The thing that's crazy is that if the Russians had played their hand competently this wouldn't have been true. If they'd gone in, taken South Ossetia, and stopped, there might have been some grumbling but they would have had a reasonable amount of moral high ground and people would have lived. Instead they invaded Georgia proper, used cluster bombs, committed war crimes (irregular forces following the main army to pillage), and refused to leave after signing a cease fire. This threw away the high ground they had, and pushed most of the world from wishy-washy pro-Russia-ism into firm disapproval (even if it doesn't lead to concrete action).
No one's going to intervene to protect Georgia militarily. But the Russians have just made everyone a bit more inclined to do things that will annoy them. That can't be what they wanted.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
"The bloody American empire / Bush junta will come down some day and the world is going to remember what evils America wrought and feed on its bloated, torturing-and-war-making carcass."
That sum it up there, thoreau and Jennifer? I'll try not to have my eyes roll out of my head too badly. I just want to make sure we can get past the same crap I've been hearing for years and move on to a different issue.
Or is Iraq all you guys think about?
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
You or I or anyone else making comments about Russia's "true" motivation makes about as much sense as the President thinking he could read Putin's soul by looking in his eyes. In no way do you possess the qualifications to make that sort of concrete statement.
I CAUTION YOU / IN DEFEATING ORCS WE MAY FIND THE ONLY VILLAIN LEFT TO FACE IS OUR OWN PREJUDICE--qwantz.com
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
You folks have a frankly ridiculous definition of 'bringing the country down'. It's how Jennifer operates. Handwringing and hyperbole are her tools of choice. Oil will bring the country down. The trade deficit will bring the country down. Buy silver. We're all going to suffer. Blah blah blah. I'm used to that. What struck me as particularly funny is the notion that we have ALREADY been brought down by Bush voters, which, while vague, to me suggests a Roman collapse of some sort. If you just mean 'viewed with more cynicism than in the recent past', well sure, but that reading doesn't jibe with 'it didn't even take outsiders to bring the country down.'
In point of fact, there are few if any places on this globe with more respect for individual rights than the US has RIGHT NOW. I'm fully acknowledging here our policy of detentions (which I hate), the war on drugs (which I hate), warrantless wiretapping (which I hate), torture of enemy combatants (which I hate) and any number of other evils. To answer your question, it would take quite a bit more than what we are actually experiencing on these fronts to 'bring America down'.
Thinking on it, it is the tendency to view deviations from the right policy as the equivalent of seeing no human rights protections anywhere - which just isn't the case. There is a universe of moral space between US policy and that of, say, Kim Jong Il. And don't counter argue with me as though I'm defending our current state as ideal. Clearly, I don't believe that. I'm just looking for a little perspective - a little more Kerry Howley and a little less KMW if you will.
Oh, and I don't recall agitating for a continuance of the current Iraq situation. I recall saying that it is complicated and that if we could leave a semi stable democratic Iraq, the outcome of the whole thing may be viewed differently in the sweep of history and many here assume. I'm uncertain if going home now is the correct option, but it is the direction I'm leaning given current levels of stability. I oppose permanent military bases in Iraq flat out.
More oh, incorrectly done socialized medicine will create a pile of bodies you wouldn't believe - dwarfing Iraq in body count and suffering. I do believe this is true.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
1) You can only get into so many fights before somebody eventually says "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
2) I don't think it has to be a dramatic and bloody collapse, and I hope it isn't. An orderly rearrangement of priorities, a gradual shifting and sharing of responsibilities, and a reorganization into a more secure position would put us in a situation where we can be safe despite not being top dog.
The best way to provoke retaliation is to fight until the end, until it isn't sustainable, until we are the despised loser and somebody else is ascendant. Nobody can be #1 forever. Even if you view the world as a savage and bloody place where morality means nothing, the brutal boss eventually gets killed by his #2, while the guy who finds a safe and useful niche survives the power shifts.
"the only thing worse than a freeper is a blue state freeper that doesn't realize they're a freeper." -dhex
hoisted by their own waterboard!
-dhex
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
I'd still like to know, Ayn Randian, on what you base your statement of faith: You admit you have no idea why we invaded Iraq, but you're convinced it was for a noble cause. Is this based on anything more than "Americans are always the good guys?"
Indeed there is. But merely saying "We're better than North Korea" isn't saying very much. "The land of the free" used to be a much better motto than "Hey, it could be worse!"
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
And have you any indication that these trends are reversing rather than growing stronger? Our country's going down the same way people are growing older: you don't just go to bed one night as a Healthy Young Person and wake up the next morning elderly and decrepit. It's slow and it's gradual, but it happens.
But the analogy fails in one important way: individual aging is inevitable. The decline of our nation doesn't have to be. Yeah, we won't always be top dog forever -- no country is -- but we don't have to shit on our own ideals on our way down. We don't have to behave in ways that'll make other countries super-pissed-off at us. Yet we're doing it anyway.
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
As much as I was against our conquest of Iraq, I doubt that it played any major role in Russia's decision to do all that they've done (and are doing) in Georgia. Maybe a teensy one, and that sucks sho' enough, but we shouldn't mistake a teensy factor for a significant factor, and they'd find some way of justifying what they did whether we gave them some convenient rhetoric to use or not (and actually I'd say their rhetoric is at least as reminiscent of our Slavic interventions under Clinton since their primary justification is preventing "genocide"), and ultimately, the military reality is at least as important if not much more so insofar as either regards what Russia does and how the rest of the world responds.
EDIT: added "insofar"; not sure if I've ever used that before!! :-)
Never underestimate the stupidity of intelligent people!!
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
*thinks hard*
Um, I don't think all the "human shield" folks who went to Iraq were from Coalition countries?
All I got. :D
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Go re-read my posts about the origins of most of America's war. Also, I told you this isn't about Iraq and I'm not getting dragged into it. You have an unhealthy obsession with Iraq. These cases are not analogous and I don't have anything further to say on it (again).
Someday if Jennifer serves on a jury, I would like to see her rise up in the middle of the trial and yell, "No, you're out of water! And you're out of water! They're out of water! This whole trial is out of water!". - Stevo Darkly-
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
Well, we're at the point of ad hominems. It may not be time to stick the fork in, but someone fetch it from the drawer...
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
See, I hate this. We're better than North Korea and almost anywhere else you'd care to name along most rights variables you'd care to look at. You know that. I even said that, but you choose to pick up this tired bit of rhetorical fluff and run with it. Again, you like to argue as though any deviation from an ideal state is the sign of the End Times, then turn around when someone illustrates what End Times really is and respond with "Well, better than End Times isn't saying very much." Yeah, but that is how YOU framed the argument, "...brought America down".
Re: All thoreau is Saying is Give Peace a Chance
No, my complaint isn't that we're Less Than Ideal, but that over the last few years we've been moving further from the ideal, rather than closer to it.
We never achieved our goal of "liberty and justice for all," but for most of our history we always got closer and closer: Jim Crow was vile, but better than the slavery which came before. In time we even ended Jim Crow. Women's situation grew steadily better from 1776 to now, and so forth.
But we stopped making progress; now we're backing up. We're living off our principal, so to speak. Yeah, the average person today is far less likely to be tortured by the American government than the North Korean government ... but until a short time ago, nobody who was tortured by a representative of the American government had this done legally. Now torture is considered acceptable in certain cases ... do you consider this an improvement or a step back?
I remember posting this somewhere else: if the government passed a law saying that women could only vote after paying a $20 poll tax (and no, I don't think this will really happen), I would view this as a VERY bad sign. Yes, an American woman w