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 October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night
Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo).
Some people will argue that you are silly and all, because you said "WWIII", but this is actually true.
Impressive leap in logic. However if we are going to compare candidates and their likelihood to start World War 3 why would you think that Trump is any better with his whole notion that we attack anyone that insults our military ships? The guy who is easily baited by slights, perceived or real, or the woman who stated that a no fly zone wasn't a sure thing, but rather a possible outcome after talks? Self evident who is more dangerous I'd think.
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
She also clearly stated during the debate, which some may have either missed or ignored, that the no fly zones would be negotiated with russia and assad presumably.
On October 21 2016 19:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: Republican nominee, 2008
Political opponents have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I have had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It’s not for nothing that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.
Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time, when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and insult in many quarters. Today, it’s a world away from the cruel and type of bigotry of that time and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.
2016
Hillary is so corrupt she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt
The drift of the GOP in a nutshell.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the Dems are doing any better in the mudslinging department?
US politics have been on a steady decline for quite a while now - and it takes two to tango.
EDIT: Note, US isn't the only country suffering from this. Just look at the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark - maybe there is something in the air?
10 out of 10 generations believe that their government is in decline, and yet the world turns. 10 out of 10 people believe they are not malicious to others, and yet bad things happen.
On October 21 2016 19:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: Republican nominee, 2008
Political opponents have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I have had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It’s not for nothing that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.
Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time, when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and insult in many quarters. Today, it’s a world away from the cruel and type of bigotry of that time and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.
2016
Hillary is so corrupt she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt
The drift of the GOP in a nutshell.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the Dems are doing any better in the mudslinging department?
US politics have been on a steady decline for quite a while now - and it takes two to tango.
EDIT: Note, US isn't the only country suffering from this. Just look at the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark - maybe there is something in the air?
Exactly. It's been back and forth and both have weaknesses to attack in this policyless election. Also, who really sees attacking Obama on corruption charges in 2008, a senator with an unremarkable record? It was a different race and landscape.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
Less funny and just as pathetic as Trump-Clinton? Ouch.
On October 21 2016 19:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: Republican nominee, 2008
Political opponents have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I have had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It’s not for nothing that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.
Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time, when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and insult in many quarters. Today, it’s a world away from the cruel and type of bigotry of that time and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.
2016
Hillary is so corrupt she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt
The drift of the GOP in a nutshell.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the Dems are doing any better in the mudslinging department?
US politics have been on a steady decline for quite a while now - and it takes two to tango.
EDIT: Note, US isn't the only country suffering from this. Just look at the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark - maybe there is something in the air?
10 out of 10 generations believe that their government is in decline, and yet the world turns. 10 out of 10 people believe they are not malicious to others, and yet bad things happen.
The world can keep turning with governments in decline. There are also very objective measures of this decline such as the amount of collaboration across the isle as well as the rhetoric used.
I agree entirely with your second point though - everyone is blind to their own misdeeds. And we should probably all argue from less assertive positions.
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
Yeah you are right, the way he phrased it (WW3, Hillary "wants" war) is rather outrageous. But there's truth in it is what I wanted to say. We also need to acknowledge that there are people that are ready for a war against russia in various countries for diverse reasons. And, while I certainly don't think Hillary is one of those people, the idea of the no fly zone can be a great excuse for the few that want this conflict.
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night
Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo).
Some people will argue that you are silly and all, because you said "WWIII", but this is actually true.
Impressive leap in logic. However if we are going to compare candidates and their likelihood to start World War 3 why would you think that Trump is any better with his whole notion that we attack anyone that insults our military ships? The guy who is easily baited by slights, perceived or real, or the woman who stated that a no fly zone wasn't a sure thing, but rather a possible outcome after talks? Self evident who is more dangerous I'd think.
I never said Trump is better in this regards ; even if he seemed to be an isolationnist in the beginning (now his political stance is all over the place, which is, indeed, the best position to create a massive war).
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
She also clearly stated during the debate, which some may have either missed or ignored, that the no fly zones would be negotiated with russia and assad presumably.
I just don't understand this. It's basically blinding powder then. If you want a no fly zone, you need to enforce it : russia has UN veto, and why would they agree to it when they're that deep in the conflict ?
It's also not a given that "the world will keep turning" simply because it has done so in the past. There are countless examples from every historical period, including the current one, where people thought their government was in decline and things really did end badly.
Stability is not a given and people who think that we've got it all figured out and it's all uphill from here (with the exception of a few bumps in the road here and there) are ignoring historical precedent.
"amount of collaboration" and "rhetoric used" are not "very objective measures" because each requires a significant amount of contextualization/subjectivity/inductive reasoning in order for it to be judged properly. Political collaboration outside the vacuum of the poly sci classroom is an incredibly difficult to thing to measure for the same reason the stories behind the passage of bills like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold Act) or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are fascinating stories. Rhetoric, naturally, appeals to different people in many different ways, and while it's nice to pretend that political promises can be neatly unpackaged in the form of a self-satisfied fact checker, I think the reality of contemporary politics is a bit more complex than that.
As an aside, WhiteDog, you gotta realize that if closely adhering to one's foreign policy goals were a trend in US politics, the world would likely be a very different place. Remember, US politicians can only win on US votes, and to be frank, foreign policy on the the campaign trail as a general matter is almost entirely a game of puffery because Americans just don't know enough about the world to know anything to the contrary.
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
Yeah you are right, the way he phrased it (WW3, Hillary "wants" war) is rather outrageous. But there's truth in it is what I wanted to say.
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night
Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo).
Some people will argue that you are silly and all, because you said "WWIII", but this is actually true.
Impressive leap in logic. However if we are going to compare candidates and their likelihood to start World War 3 why would you think that Trump is any better with his whole notion that we attack anyone that insults our military ships? The guy who is easily baited by slights, perceived or real, or the woman who stated that a no fly zone wasn't a sure thing, but rather a possible outcome after talks? Self evident who is more dangerous I'd think.
I never said Trump is better in this regards ; altho he seemed to be an isolationnist in the beginning (altho now his political stance seems to be all over the place, which is, indeed, the best position to create a massive war).
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
She also clearly stated during the debate, which some may have either missed or ignored, that the no fly zones would be negotiated with russia and assad presumably.
I just don't understand this. It's basically blinding powder then. If you want a no fly zone, you need to enforce it : russia has UN veto, and why would they agree to it when they're that deep in the conflict ?
If it goes like Hillary says, that they negotiate it, it's probably not going to start a conflict but I don't see it ending well either.
If they do it unilaterally like blundering fools... well Russia could always respond in kind and that's how wars get started. Thankfully I don't see Hillary doing this because for all her posturing and warhawking she does seem to understand that you can't just start a nuclear war over any old conflict.
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night
Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo).
That doesn't seem even slightly hyperbolic to you? That she literally wants to start World War 3? Not even a little?
People get mad when they think I'm being insulting so I'll try and phrase this carefully. You need to look at the things that you're saying and ask yourself "would an idiot say this?" and then if the answer is "yes" you probably shouldn't say them. In the case of your most recent post that process failed.
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
She also clearly stated during the debate, which some may have either missed or ignored, that the no fly zones would be negotiated with russia and assad presumably.
I just don't understand this. It's basically blinding powder then. If you want a no fly zone, you need to enforce it : russia has UN veto, and why would they agree to it when they're that deep in the conflict ?
You think US & EU are talking of increasing sanctions on Russia for no apparent reason? That's the leverage for negotiations, whether it will work or not is another thing.
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night
Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo).
That doesn't seem even slightly hyperbolic to you? That she literally wants to start World War 3? Not even a little?
People get mad when they think I'm being insulting so I'll try and phrase this carefully. You need to look at the things that you're saying and ask yourself "would an idiot say this?" and then if the answer is "yes" you probably shouldn't say them. In the case of your most recent post that process failed.
It's one of those things that the_donald repeated ad nauseam until they started believing it, cult behavior in that place will be studied for generations
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
She specifically addressed this. She's not going to open by enforcing it without telling anyone else that it's started and just start shooting down Russian jets everywhere. She explicitly said that that is not how it is going to work and that the no fly zone will be negotiated in partnership with Russia. They're going to be enforcing it too, at least on paper, because it's that or be the retard who got shot down in a no fly zone. Even if the US just invites them to the meeting and says "we're doing a no fly zone, this is the area, deal with it, bye" and gives them a total fait accompli they'll still not enter it because it's sufficiently public that the no fly zone is going on and Russia has been consulted that if they get themselves shot down in it then that's their fault.
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
Likewise even were a Russian jet to get shot down, he's not going to prime the nuclear warheads and obliterate DC. Again, rational actor. Hell, Turkey shot one down and nothing happened.
No part of consulting with Russia to impose a no fly zone over Syria will lead to WW3. The worst case scenario that could come out of it, US pilots killing Russian pilots, still wouldn't lead to WW3. But the parties involved are too rational to create even that scenario because they know that it profits no-one and can only make them look bad.
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
Yeah you are right, the way he phrased it (WW3, Hillary "wants" war) is rather outrageous. But there's truth in it is what I wanted to say.
On October 21 2016 22:14 On_Slaught wrote:
On October 21 2016 21:39 WhiteDog wrote:
On October 21 2016 21:30 GoTuNk! wrote:
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night
Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo).
Some people will argue that you are silly and all, because you said "WWIII", but this is actually true.
Impressive leap in logic. However if we are going to compare candidates and their likelihood to start World War 3 why would you think that Trump is any better with his whole notion that we attack anyone that insults our military ships? The guy who is easily baited by slights, perceived or real, or the woman who stated that a no fly zone wasn't a sure thing, but rather a possible outcome after talks? Self evident who is more dangerous I'd think.
I never said Trump is better in this regards ; altho he seemed to be an isolationnist in the beginning (altho now his political stance seems to be all over the place, which is, indeed, the best position to create a massive war).
On October 21 2016 22:22 Trainrunnef wrote:
On October 21 2016 22:12 farvacola wrote:
On October 21 2016 21:57 WhiteDog wrote:
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion.
Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war.
On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes
French politics is as pathetic, but less funny.
I would take a closer look at the post you claimed to agree with and what you wrote above; they are entirely different points. I don't disagree that any line drawing in Syria relative to Russia's involvement has the potential to escalate the conflict, but to say that Clinton wants to start WW3 is outright stupid.
She also clearly stated during the debate, which some may have either missed or ignored, that the no fly zones would be negotiated with russia and assad presumably.
I just don't understand this. It's basically blinding powder then. If you want a no fly zone, you need to enforce it : russia has UN veto, and why would they agree to it when they're that deep in the conflict ?
If it goes like Hillary says, that they negotiate it, it's probably not going to start a conflict but I don't see it ending well either.
If they do it unilaterally like blundering fools... well Russia could always respond in kind and that's how wars get started. Thankfully I don't see Hillary doing this because for all her posturing and warhawking she does seem to understand that you can't just start a nuclear war over any old conflict.
One thing that's relevant to this I think is looking at how the DNC is moving and changing. Bernie and Warren are gaining considerable influence over DNC voters and likely younger DNC members (Sanders has been raising a lot of money for likeminded congress contenders). Not that either of them are extremely anti-war, but both are at least less committed to it and their bases certainly are more anti-war than hawkish. I think this rise could potentially be a partial offset for Clinton's hawkishness if she has to weigh party support (especially if Dems take control of the house and senate) with any aggressive foreign policy options. Doubly so with a fair bit of isolationism/anti-war sentiment from certain groups on the right.
Or at least one can hope that will happen, I'm not sure any anti-war sentiments have deterred Obama very much.
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY.
Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to.
I remember a long time ago I was listening to some historian who was trying to figure out the reasons for WWI. Everybody in the room was ready to say "it's because that dude got killed in this shithole and then ...". In reality, if you look at it closely, it is much more complicated. We are in a situation of increasing tensions, economic trouble, there are various conflicts that appeared throughout the world and they have indirect impact on global powers. So no, nobody knows what or how a WWIII might appear, but it could very well.
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY.
Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to.
Im sorry, if all of the cold war shit pre USSR break didnt cause WWIII none of this shit has the remotest chance for that to happen.
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY.
Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to.
There have been a great many incidents far more serious than the one you're suggesting will be the trigger for WW3 in the past and in none of them has either government escalated the situation beyond the point of no return because neither government sees any advantage in doing so. And Russia is a shadow of its former self in that regard. You're arguing for a scenario in which Russia commits national suicide.
Please, spell out to me exactly how this happens. I'll start.
Clinton calls up Putin and says "my guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far and then Putin says..."
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY.
Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to.
Im sorry, if all of the cold war shit pre USSR break didnt cause WWIII none of this shit has the remotest chance for that to happen.
Cold war was much more simpler. A period of economic growth, lack of unemployment, politician were highly respected, democracy functionning well, etc. It was basically two side facing each others, with a few small countries trying to figure out where to stand. Today, we have some superpowers, some small powers, everybody trying to play its own little game. It's completly different. I'm not saying WWIII must happen, I'm saying nobody knows. In this context, the US is played more than it is a player in my opinion.
Clinton calls up Putin and says "my guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far and then Putin says..."
Either one of the actor accept to fold, or they go at it. Until now, it's always the US that has folded. For Russia, there is much more than just rationality at stake : it is also about how they view themselves at the world level, the fact that they are coming back from a long slumber, and their desire to assert themselves as a world leader, against everybody else, and especially the US.
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY.
The problem with homo economicus is that it assumes people in general rationally pursue their material interests in an optimal manner, which evidently isn't true of the average person since people are driven by much more than just material gain and aren't necessarily rational. But of course some specific people and especially companies and countries do that, using homo economicus to ridicule a scenario involving Putin/Russia being rational, or anyone specific really, betrays a lack of understanding of the term.
Putin isn't going to go "well, I guess I'll send jets in anyway and see what happens" just to try and prove some obscure point. He's a rational actor who knows better than to pointlessly escalate situations from a position of weakness.
BAAAM WE HAVE OUR FIRST ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. IF AGENT A DO AS THE HOMO OECONOMICUS TELLS US, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO WAR BETWEEN AGENT A AND B AND WE WILL MAXIMIZE UTILITY.
Sorry I had to. I hope people don't base their foreign policy on the idea that their opponents will behave as "rationality" tells them to.
Im sorry, if all of the cold war shit pre USSR break didnt cause WWIII none of this shit has the remotest chance for that to happen.
Cold war was much more simpler. A period of economic growth, lack of unemployment, politician were highly respected, democracy functionning well, etc. It was basically two side facing each others, with a few small countries trying to figure out where to stand. Today, we have some superpowers, some small powers, everybody trying to play its own little game. It's completly different. I'm not saying WWIII must happen, I'm saying nobody knows. In this context, the US is played more than it is a player in my opinion.
Clinton calls up Putin and says "my guys are putting together their plans for a no fly zone, come have your guys take a look at what we have so far and then Putin says..."
Either one of the actor accept to fold, or they go at it. Until now, it's always the US that has folded.
Ok let me make it clear then. . I KNOW that WWIII is not going to happen for the exact reasons that you spelled out. Everyone has found its more beneficial to play their little games and thrash out their issues by proxy rather than direct conflict. You will not see WWIII in your lifetime.
EPT
