|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 16 2014 10:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 09:19 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 06:23 xDaunt wrote:
There's a difference between "tolerating" a country invading and taking over another and "tolerating" a humanitarian crisis. Allowing the former undermines world order, which is why it should not be allowed if at all possible -- particularly in important, strategic regions of the world. In a way, Iraq in 1990 was just doing what the United States would have no qualms about doing if it were similarly situated. We are talking about a country that invaded Grenada with overwhelming military force because the revolutionary government of the tiny island nation was building an airport. Iraq even offered to pull out before the United States invaded, but the United States rejected the offer, because Iraq wanted Israel to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction along with Iraq dismantling its own as a condition of the offer. The hypocrisy of the American position is that it thinks it is allowed to act with military force to impose its will on other peoples in the interest of "strategic concerns" but that other countries are never allowed to do so, and are rarely allowed to control their own countries if that control interferes with American interests. American foreign policy is built around trampling the Golden Rule at every opportunity despite it claiming to act as a peaceful guardian of freedom, democracy, and human decency. Here's the thing. I don't give two shits about whether the Americans have a hypocritical foreign policy. I expect the US to unapologetically pursue its interests. Fuck the world. The rest of the countries are a bunch of ingrates anyway because they too are unapologetically pursing their interests.
Speaking long term pursuing a morally justified foreign policy and pursuing your interests are the exact same thing. That's what the US has done until after WW II, arguably with pretty good results. As it turns out the "fuck the world" approach has lead to the US losing most of its wars and a lot of influence.
|
On September 16 2014 09:10 farvacola wrote:Whether or not one believes that oil was "taken" from the Middle East is going to depend on how one feels about international resource extraction in the vein of US contractors sweeping up suddenly vacant public utility and resource management outfits. I think it's clear which way you'd lean, Jonny 
The oilfield services were bid out. I've never seen evidence that the deals were bad for Iraq or that US companies received an unfair share of the contracts.
|
On September 16 2014 10:42 IgnE wrote:
Weren't you just talking about law and order a little bit ago? Or was that just cover for a might makes right moral philosophy?
When I was talking about world order, I was referring to the American world order. Rational foreign policy is strictly a function of self interest -- not morality.
|
On September 16 2014 09:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2014 08:56 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote:
I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear. I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling." Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians. The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion. I don't think we took any oil. Let's not act like Saddam was Mr. Rogers either. + Show Spoiler +Let's not act like we weren't supporting Saddam in the 80s. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are free to massacre your own people as long as you keep the oil flowing at low prices, but talk about nationalizing the oilfields, or pressuring Kuwait to stop flooding the market with oil, and suddenly you are one of the most dangerous threats in the world, requiring the US to bomb your country, killing tens of thousands of more innocent civilians than you ever did, to get rid of you.
Didn't say we never supported Saddam in the 80's. They were a cold war ally.
Are you kidding with the oil comments? It wasn't about 'pressuring Kuwait' --- they invaded Kuwait. You're just pushing oil conspiracy theory nonsense.
|
On September 16 2014 10:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 09:27 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2014 08:56 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote:
I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear. I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling." Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians. The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion. I don't think we took any oil. Let's not act like Saddam was Mr. Rogers either. + Show Spoiler +Let's not act like we weren't supporting Saddam in the 80s. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are free to massacre your own people as long as you keep the oil flowing at low prices, but talk about nationalizing the oilfields, or pressuring Kuwait to stop flooding the market with oil, and suddenly you are one of the most dangerous threats in the world, requiring the US to bomb your country, killing tens of thousands of more innocent civilians than you ever did, to get rid of you. Didn't say we never supported Saddam in the 80's. They were a cold war ally. Are you kidding with the oil comments? It wasn't about 'pressuring Kuwait' --- they invaded Kuwait. You're just pushing oil conspiracy theory nonsense.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC-set and agreed quotas.
|
On September 16 2014 11:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 10:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2014 09:27 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2014 08:56 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote:
I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear. I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling." Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians. The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion. I don't think we took any oil. Let's not act like Saddam was Mr. Rogers either. + Show Spoiler +Let's not act like we weren't supporting Saddam in the 80s. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are free to massacre your own people as long as you keep the oil flowing at low prices, but talk about nationalizing the oilfields, or pressuring Kuwait to stop flooding the market with oil, and suddenly you are one of the most dangerous threats in the world, requiring the US to bomb your country, killing tens of thousands of more innocent civilians than you ever did, to get rid of you. Didn't say we never supported Saddam in the 80's. They were a cold war ally. Are you kidding with the oil comments? It wasn't about 'pressuring Kuwait' --- they invaded Kuwait. You're just pushing oil conspiracy theory nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC-set and agreed quotas.
So? Quotas are routinely broken. Iraq also accused Kuwait of stealing oil from their side of a shared field.
Edit: I should also add that, prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had been increasing oil production. Far from constraining supply, they were one of the bigger contributors to supply.
|
Senate Republicans on Monday blocked for the fourth time a bill that would strengthen federal equal pay laws for women.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would ban employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with each other, impose harsher penalties for pay discrimination and require employers to be able to show that wage gaps between men and women are based on factors other than gender.
The bill needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and advance to a final vote on passage, but it fell short Monday by a vote of 52 to 40. Senate Democrats have brought the bill to the floor four times since 2011, and each time Republicans have rejected it.
"The wage gap not only hurts our families, it hurts the economy," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said before the vote. "If it were reversed, I'd be standing here fighting for the men. It's not right."
Republicans say they oppose the bill because they believe it would discourage employers from hiring women, out of a fear of lawsuits. The GOP has accused Democrats of staging a "show vote" on the bill in an election year, knowing it won't pass.
Source
|
On September 16 2014 11:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 11:00 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 10:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2014 09:27 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2014 08:56 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote:
I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear. I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling." Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians. The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion. I don't think we took any oil. Let's not act like Saddam was Mr. Rogers either. + Show Spoiler +Let's not act like we weren't supporting Saddam in the 80s. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are free to massacre your own people as long as you keep the oil flowing at low prices, but talk about nationalizing the oilfields, or pressuring Kuwait to stop flooding the market with oil, and suddenly you are one of the most dangerous threats in the world, requiring the US to bomb your country, killing tens of thousands of more innocent civilians than you ever did, to get rid of you. Didn't say we never supported Saddam in the 80's. They were a cold war ally. Are you kidding with the oil comments? It wasn't about 'pressuring Kuwait' --- they invaded Kuwait. You're just pushing oil conspiracy theory nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC-set and agreed quotas. So? Quotas are routinely broken. Iraq also accused Kuwait of stealing oil from their side of a shared field. Edit: I should also add that, prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had been increasing oil production. Far from constraining supply, they were one of the bigger contributors to supply.
So no, I wasn't kidding with the oil comments. The United States routinely intervenes in countries for far lesser reasons. But thanks for contributing your usual nonsense to the discussion.
|
On September 16 2014 10:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 10:42 IgnE wrote:
Weren't you just talking about law and order a little bit ago? Or was that just cover for a might makes right moral philosophy? When I was talking about world order, I was referring to the American world order. Rational foreign policy is strictly a function of self interest -- not morality.
And why would we pursue a rational foreign policy instead of a moral one? Do you pursue a rational interest policy in your own life or a moral one? Are you amoral?
|
On September 16 2014 11:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 10:42 IgnE wrote:
Weren't you just talking about law and order a little bit ago? Or was that just cover for a might makes right moral philosophy? When I was talking about world order, I was referring to the American world order. Rational foreign policy is strictly a function of self interest -- not morality. And why would we pursue a rational foreign policy instead of a moral one? Do you pursue a rational interest policy in your own life or a moral one? Are you amoral?
Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it.
Funny enough, one is unlikely to find a more "moral" person than I am.
|
America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders.
Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it.
Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
morality has different strands.
|
On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Show nested quote +Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it.
How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2?
|
On September 16 2014 12:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it. How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2?
I don't really know, depends on what your definition of innocent is. I also don't know what you're getting at. There can be just wars that are messy and end up with a lot of dead civilians, and there can be unjust wars with little casualties.
|
On September 16 2014 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it. How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2? I don't really know, depends on what your definition of innocent is. I also don't know what you're getting at. There can be just wars that are messy and end up with a lot of dead civilians, and there can be unjust wars with little casualties.
The point is this. War is a necessary tool of foreign policy. Successfully prosecuting a war requires immoral actions. Ergo, a state cannot reliably act morally and survive.
|
On September 16 2014 12:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2014 12:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it. How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2? I don't really know, depends on what your definition of innocent is. I also don't know what you're getting at. There can be just wars that are messy and end up with a lot of dead civilians, and there can be unjust wars with little casualties. The point is this. War is a necessary tool of foreign policy. Successfully prosecuting a war requires immoral actions. Ergo, a state cannot reliably act morally and survive.
That's just a pretty weird definition of morality. I don't think many people have a problem with the morality of the US actions in WW II, even given the number of dead civilians . Freeing a continent of the Nazis sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to do. People have a problem with the US going to war because of geopolitical nonsense, resource greed or other disgusting motives.
|
On September 16 2014 12:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 11:50 IgnE wrote:On September 16 2014 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 10:42 IgnE wrote:
Weren't you just talking about law and order a little bit ago? Or was that just cover for a might makes right moral philosophy? When I was talking about world order, I was referring to the American world order. Rational foreign policy is strictly a function of self interest -- not morality. And why would we pursue a rational foreign policy instead of a moral one? Do you pursue a rational interest policy in your own life or a moral one? Are you amoral? Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Funny enough, one is unlikely to find a more "moral" person than I am.
These statements are empty.
|
On September 16 2014 12:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2014 12:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it. How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2? I don't really know, depends on what your definition of innocent is. I also don't know what you're getting at. There can be just wars that are messy and end up with a lot of dead civilians, and there can be unjust wars with little casualties. The point is this. War is a necessary tool of foreign policy. Successfully prosecuting a war requires immoral actions. Ergo, a state cannot reliably act morally and survive.
That's just stupid. Nothing else to be said about it really. Maybe get your head out of whatever century it's in and into the 21st. Lots of states are surviving just fine without wars, or large armies. No one is going to invade Sweden just because they can. The Mongol Hordes have been vanquished. Even the evil Islamic terrorists can't do the damage that we've done to ourselves.
With what we've spent on warfare since 9/11, we could've given every student in the US a free college education, given totally free healthcare to all uninsured, housed the homeless, fed the poor, etc.
Since you've been an advocate for warfare at every step I've noticed, I guess you just have to keep going with it, because the alternative is admitting that you're just stupidly arrogant (hello!) and on the wrong side of humanity. I suppose that'd suck.
On September 16 2014 12:04 xDaunt wrote:
Funny enough, one is unlikely to find a more "moral" person than I am.
Said every jerk that ever lived.
|
On September 16 2014 12:45 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2014 12:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it. How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2? I don't really know, depends on what your definition of innocent is. I also don't know what you're getting at. There can be just wars that are messy and end up with a lot of dead civilians, and there can be unjust wars with little casualties. The point is this. War is a necessary tool of foreign policy. Successfully prosecuting a war requires immoral actions. Ergo, a state cannot reliably act morally and survive. That's just stupid. Nothing else to be said about it really. Maybe get your head out of whatever century it's in and into the 21st. Lots of states are surviving just fine without wars, or large armies. No one is going to invade Sweden just because they can.
Been following the news about Ukraine lately?
Let's be clear: I'm as much an advocate for just war as anybody. I think war needs to be defensive, proportional, and waged by just means. Attacking countries without declaring war is wrong. So are drone strikes outside of active theatres of war.
But countries absolutely do need military force to defend themselves. If South Korea's army disappeared into the ether, and the US wasn't going to back them up, North Korea would be in Seoul tomorrow morning. If the US army and its deterrent effect disappeared, we would see a rush of wars of conquest across the globe. If Taiwan wasn't heavily defended, China would have taken it ages ago. Putin has now carved off territories of neighboring countries insufficiently able to defend themselves (and insufficiently backed by powerful allies) several times now. Pretty much every state in the Middle East borders countries that would like to see its government overthrown or borders erased. India is in constant border skirmishes with its neighbors, occasionally trading fire.
This whole "21st century means interstate warfare is a thing of the past" is as naive now as it has been every other time it's been said of one new period or another.
Edit: Also, no-one invades Sweden because they border friendly countries and are under the military umbrella of the West. If Sweden was a resource-rich country bordering Russia without close ties to Europe/US/China, you can absolutely bet they would face military threats.
|
On September 16 2014 12:45 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:17 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2014 12:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2014 12:09 Nyxisto wrote:America has never acted more selfish regarding foreign policy as they do now, and they've also never had less success than they are having now. There is no historical basis for this "selfishness is rational" claim. Historically a good dose of moral principles has always worked wonders. Nations ultimately won't survive following a moral national policy. The necessities of war (among others) prohibit it. Americas liberation of Europe was a pretty moral war. If war happens as a last resort there's nothing immoral about it. How many innocents did the US slaughter during WW2? I don't really know, depends on what your definition of innocent is. I also don't know what you're getting at. There can be just wars that are messy and end up with a lot of dead civilians, and there can be unjust wars with little casualties. The point is this. War is a necessary tool of foreign policy. Successfully prosecuting a war requires immoral actions. Ergo, a state cannot reliably act morally and survive. That's just stupid. Nothing else to be said about it really. Maybe get your head out of whatever century it's in and into the 21st. Lots of states are surviving just fine without wars, or large armies. No one is going to invade Sweden just because they can. The Mongol Hordes have been vanquished. Even the evil Islamic terrorists can't do the damage that we've done to ourselves. With what we've spent on warfare since 9/11, we could've given every student in the US a free college education, given totally free healthcare to all uninsured, housed the homeless, fed the poor, etc. Since you've been an advocate for warfare at every step I've noticed, I guess you just have to keep going with it, because the alternative is admitting that you're just stupidly arrogant (hello!) and on the wrong side of humanity. I suppose that'd suck. Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 12:04 xDaunt wrote:
Funny enough, one is unlikely to find a more "moral" person than I am. Said every jerk that ever lived.
Wars actually help the economy and all that jazz. But yes, because every year we arent at war everyone gets free college education and healthcare! Fuck it, costs a few billion a week, damn maybe we could give everyone like 200$ free walmart gift cards instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
