|
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. |
United States43281 Posts
On November 27 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:
You read it here first! Genocide as the route to peace and prosperity!
Basques and Catalans getting in the way of the glorious modern Spanish nation? Just wipe them out! Bosnian Serbs stopping the revival of the Balkan Caliphat? Put a bullet in them! Kopts in the middle east? Kill them all! Do the same for the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and other minorities! Make the world more peaceful today and go shoot a local minority!
Noting that it works really well long term is not the same thing as advocating it as a solution.
|
On November 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:
You read it here first! Genocide as the route to peace and prosperity!
Basques and Catalans getting in the way of the glorious modern Spanish nation? Just wipe them out! Bosnian Serbs stopping the revival of the Balkan Caliphat? Put a bullet in them! Kopts in the middle east? Kill them all! Do the same for the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and other minorities! Make the world more peaceful today and go shoot a local minority! Noting that it works really well long term is not the same thing as advocating it as a solution.
Except that we will always find new minorities to use as a scapegoat. After native americans were all but wiped out, it was on to african americans and most recently hispanics and arabs. Sure, they're no longer just exterminated if they're a "nuisance" (clamoring for equal rights and practicing their weird traditions on our streets), but there are still clear dividing lines in society. And if we murder all the blacks, latinos and asians, arabs and other obvious minorities, people will start looking crookedly at their evangelist neighbour (or maybe gingers, as another famous southpark episode made fun of).
Inequality is a basic fact of life, and murdering people because they aren't the same as the minority will not only not solve anything, it will never end.
|
United States43281 Posts
On November 27 2013 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:
You read it here first! Genocide as the route to peace and prosperity!
Basques and Catalans getting in the way of the glorious modern Spanish nation? Just wipe them out! Bosnian Serbs stopping the revival of the Balkan Caliphat? Put a bullet in them! Kopts in the middle east? Kill them all! Do the same for the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and other minorities! Make the world more peaceful today and go shoot a local minority! Noting that it works really well long term is not the same thing as advocating it as a solution. Except that we will always find new minorities to use as a scapegoat. After native americans were all but wiped out, it was on to african americans and most recently hispanics and arabs. Sure, they're no longer just exterminated if they're a "nuisance" (clamoring for equal rights and practicing their weird traditions on our streets), but there are still clear dividing lines in society. And if we murder all the blacks, latinos and asians, arabs and other obvious minorities, people will start looking crookedly at their evangelist neighbour (or maybe gingers, as another famous southpark episode made fun of). Inequality is a basic fact of life, and murdering people because they aren't the same as the minority will not only not solve anything, it will never end.
Neither side is a scapegoat, they're just two groups with incompatible goals which aren't likely to learn to get along. I don't think you're understanding.
As for solving problems, when was the last time Australian Aboriginals launched rockets at Australian settlers building on their land? Of course it solves problems. A conflict needs two sides to exist.
|
On November 27 2013 23:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 23:33 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:
You read it here first! Genocide as the route to peace and prosperity!
Basques and Catalans getting in the way of the glorious modern Spanish nation? Just wipe them out! Bosnian Serbs stopping the revival of the Balkan Caliphat? Put a bullet in them! Kopts in the middle east? Kill them all! Do the same for the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and other minorities! Make the world more peaceful today and go shoot a local minority! Noting that it works really well long term is not the same thing as advocating it as a solution. Except that we will always find new minorities to use as a scapegoat. After native americans were all but wiped out, it was on to african americans and most recently hispanics and arabs. Sure, they're no longer just exterminated if they're a "nuisance" (clamoring for equal rights and practicing their weird traditions on our streets), but there are still clear dividing lines in society. And if we murder all the blacks, latinos and asians, arabs and other obvious minorities, people will start looking crookedly at their evangelist neighbour (or maybe gingers, as another famous southpark episode made fun of). Inequality is a basic fact of life, and murdering people because they aren't the same as the minority will not only not solve anything, it will never end. Neither side is a scapegoat, they're just two groups with incompatible goals which aren't likely to learn to get along. I don't think you're understanding. As for solving problems, when was the last time Australian Aboriginals launched rockets at Australian settlers building on their land? Of course it solves problems. A conflict needs two sides to exist.
When was the last time Catalans launched rockets at their Castillian oppressors?
You're picking an arbitrary country without a war happening right now and saying that it's because the minority was all but exterminated, otherwise they would right now be at war. It's completely unfounded.
|
On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me."
Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't
|
United States43281 Posts
On November 27 2013 23:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 23:33 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:
You read it here first! Genocide as the route to peace and prosperity!
Basques and Catalans getting in the way of the glorious modern Spanish nation? Just wipe them out! Bosnian Serbs stopping the revival of the Balkan Caliphat? Put a bullet in them! Kopts in the middle east? Kill them all! Do the same for the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and other minorities! Make the world more peaceful today and go shoot a local minority! Noting that it works really well long term is not the same thing as advocating it as a solution. Except that we will always find new minorities to use as a scapegoat. After native americans were all but wiped out, it was on to african americans and most recently hispanics and arabs. Sure, they're no longer just exterminated if they're a "nuisance" (clamoring for equal rights and practicing their weird traditions on our streets), but there are still clear dividing lines in society. And if we murder all the blacks, latinos and asians, arabs and other obvious minorities, people will start looking crookedly at their evangelist neighbour (or maybe gingers, as another famous southpark episode made fun of). Inequality is a basic fact of life, and murdering people because they aren't the same as the minority will not only not solve anything, it will never end. Neither side is a scapegoat, they're just two groups with incompatible goals which aren't likely to learn to get along. I don't think you're understanding. As for solving problems, when was the last time Australian Aboriginals launched rockets at Australian settlers building on their land? Of course it solves problems. A conflict needs two sides to exist. When was the last time Catalans launched rockets at their Castillian oppressors? You're picking an arbitrary country without a war happening right now and saying that it's because the minority was all but exterminated, otherwise they would right now be at war. It's completely unfounded.
I'm saying that despite the grotesque injustice of the situation there is peace and prosperity because the wronged party was destroyed utterly. Australia is not an arbitrary country with no war, it is a country which had its own people and culture and was conquered and colonised by an outsider. What started this aside was someone claiming that you can't conquer and colonise without causing issues, Australia is an example of how you can. It is no arbitrary country, you simply don't understand what we're talking about.
|
On November 28 2013 00:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 23:49 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 23:33 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:
You read it here first! Genocide as the route to peace and prosperity!
Basques and Catalans getting in the way of the glorious modern Spanish nation? Just wipe them out! Bosnian Serbs stopping the revival of the Balkan Caliphat? Put a bullet in them! Kopts in the middle east? Kill them all! Do the same for the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Jews and other minorities! Make the world more peaceful today and go shoot a local minority! Noting that it works really well long term is not the same thing as advocating it as a solution. Except that we will always find new minorities to use as a scapegoat. After native americans were all but wiped out, it was on to african americans and most recently hispanics and arabs. Sure, they're no longer just exterminated if they're a "nuisance" (clamoring for equal rights and practicing their weird traditions on our streets), but there are still clear dividing lines in society. And if we murder all the blacks, latinos and asians, arabs and other obvious minorities, people will start looking crookedly at their evangelist neighbour (or maybe gingers, as another famous southpark episode made fun of). Inequality is a basic fact of life, and murdering people because they aren't the same as the minority will not only not solve anything, it will never end. Neither side is a scapegoat, they're just two groups with incompatible goals which aren't likely to learn to get along. I don't think you're understanding. As for solving problems, when was the last time Australian Aboriginals launched rockets at Australian settlers building on their land? Of course it solves problems. A conflict needs two sides to exist. When was the last time Catalans launched rockets at their Castillian oppressors? You're picking an arbitrary country without a war happening right now and saying that it's because the minority was all but exterminated, otherwise they would right now be at war. It's completely unfounded. I'm saying that despite the grotesque injustice of the situation there is peace and prosperity because the wronged party was destroyed utterly. Australia is not an arbitrary country with no war, it is a country which had its own people and culture and was conquered and colonised by an outsider. What started this aside was someone claiming that you can't conquer and colonise without causing issues, Australia is an example of how you can. It is no arbitrary country, you simply don't understand what we're talking about.
Actually, that wasn't what he said at all. But even if it was, I'm sure ticklishmusic would agree with you that if by "colonize" you mean eradicate everybody already living there and start over, you will not run into the problem of an oppressed population trying to rebel.
But what the conversation was about at that point was America using force to dominate other countries, particularly Iran, and I think we can all agree that exterminating 80million Persians in order to get their oil is not an option.
EDIT: and when I say "get their oil", I of course mean "bring freedom and democracy"!
|
Okay, well genocide is the equivalent of hitting the metaphorical house with a large meteor from orbit, destroying everything including the crappy foundation and leaving nothing but a 10 foot deep crater. Or killing cancer by cutting off the person's head, in which case you can say "we cured cancer! but the original person is kind of, you know, dead.
|
On November 27 2013 16:16 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 16:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 15:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 27 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 12:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yea. In Norway we had an assassination attempt towards William Nygaard after he published Rushdie, there's Rushdie himself, and there's Theo van Gogh and danish journalists following the cartoons. I'm by no means apologizing for these fatwas/attacks, they are by no means justified.. But they are on an entirely different level from 9/11, or london/madrid bombings, and they are targeted towards individuals. I guess with denmark it kinda became targeted towards any danish people, but honestly that's an anomaly, and there haven't been any real terrorist attacks against denmark. I'm not too familiar with reasonings behind attacks in india/indonesia, but I'm fairly certain they had little to do with "reduced india(nesian) presence in the middle east", (do correct me if I'm wrong) but that was why I specified western anyway. London, madrid, 9/11 were all direct retaliations towards "neo-imperialist" politics, exactly the type of politics xDaunt advocates.
You could argue that 9/11 every now and then is worth it (to allow yourself to continue being world dictator) and be consistent, but any realist approach to global politics actually needs to take possible retaliations into account, as according to the realist perspective, terrorist attacks aimed to weaken the opposition are not amoral, and terrorists are rationally acting from a struggle to attain relative power.
I'm not saying that you can ignore realism when you're an actor on the global political stage, but to argue that this is an ideal.. Suffice to say I greatly disagree with that. I don't know what you mean by "arguing that this is an ideal," but definitely don't construe my arguments regarding how foreign politics work as an argument that this how it should work ideally. I'm just being a realist. Again, let me pose this question to you: Even assuming that the US is at fault for its poor relations with the Muslim world and the resulting creation of terrorists, what do we about it now to make the terrorists go away? EDIT: Just to be clear, my solution is to eliminate and replace regimes (and not necessarily through military action) that harbor terrorists and kill off those terrorists that we can get to. To the extent that we can leave successful democracies in our wake, great, but it should be clear that that won't be universally possible in the Muslim world. Newsflash, it doesn't work that way. There is a reason that things in the world are the way they are-- a region has a certain dominant religious/ political/ ideological system because of every single thing that has happened there or that was related to there since the beginning of time. This skirts towards the entire universe being basically preordained and perfect knowledge = perfect predictions, but that's a little too philosophical for this discussion. Remember when every single great empire tried to impose its culture on conquered/ colonized/ allied areas? This isn't Civilization IV, so it didn't work. Basic psychology states that forcing someone to do something may get the result initially, but if you don't manage to align their underlying values with your directives, they will only obey as far as you watch them. Then as soon as you turn away, they will do their best to undermine you. Force, whether military or otherwise, is rarely effective over any meaningful period of time. Yeah, it does work that way. There are countless examples of "force" being successfully used to dominate others militarily, culturally, and economically over sustained periods of time. The eventual failure of those empires wasn't a result of the use of force. To the contrary, it was the result of other factors preventing a continued and sufficient use force to maintain the empire, leaving a void in power that others could exploit. Back to the matter at hand regarding what to do about the terrorists, I'm not pretending that my solution is either perfect or without significant cost. There are obvious limitations. However, my question posed remains unanswered. What is the alternative? Some people around here are very quick to assign blame to the US for causing this mess, but when it comes to actually proposing a solution, those same voices fall tellingly silent. Clearly, "be nice to the terrorists" isn't an option. Perhaps the difficulty in pointing out a solution suggests that the issue of who is to blame isn't quite as clear cut as some would presume? I'm not convinced this is an either/or question - surely it's possible to do more than one thing at once? To put it more bluntly, stop doing things that tend to motivate people into committing terrorism, while simultaneously defending yourself against terrorists you've already created.
I haven't imposed any such limitation. I'm merely asking for a solution.
I don't think messing with admittedly weaker countries halfway around the world (notably lacking in extended strike capability) is the only solution here.
The US isn't messing around in those countries for shits and giggles. There are real interests at stake. Simple withdrawal isn't a realistic option, much less a good one.
Plus, I think you have a tendency to equate "people pissed off at us" with "terrorists". I would agree that "treating terrorists nicer" is a lost cause, because many people in that camp are too far gone. However, I would also argue that our definition of "terrorist" is far too broad, and we miss out on many opportunities that way. (as many have pointed out in this thread alone, telling Iran to go fuck itself after a chance for reconciliation following 9/11 was definitely a blunder)
I didn't bring the concept of "terrorists" into this conversation. Other people did in an attempt to discredit the principles of foreign policy that I was arguing.
That said, I don't think that there's much point distinguishing between "people pissed off at us" and "terrorists." The questions are still "what is the threat" and "what are we going to do about it to best protect our self-interests." Sometimes the answer will be diplomatic. Sometimes it will be more onerous.
|
On November 27 2013 23:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me." Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't
Trickle down is a criticism of supply side policies. No one should be advocating trickle down directly 
|
On November 28 2013 00:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 16:16 Funnytoss wrote:On November 27 2013 16:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 15:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 27 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 12:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yea. In Norway we had an assassination attempt towards William Nygaard after he published Rushdie, there's Rushdie himself, and there's Theo van Gogh and danish journalists following the cartoons. I'm by no means apologizing for these fatwas/attacks, they are by no means justified.. But they are on an entirely different level from 9/11, or london/madrid bombings, and they are targeted towards individuals. I guess with denmark it kinda became targeted towards any danish people, but honestly that's an anomaly, and there haven't been any real terrorist attacks against denmark. I'm not too familiar with reasonings behind attacks in india/indonesia, but I'm fairly certain they had little to do with "reduced india(nesian) presence in the middle east", (do correct me if I'm wrong) but that was why I specified western anyway. London, madrid, 9/11 were all direct retaliations towards "neo-imperialist" politics, exactly the type of politics xDaunt advocates.
You could argue that 9/11 every now and then is worth it (to allow yourself to continue being world dictator) and be consistent, but any realist approach to global politics actually needs to take possible retaliations into account, as according to the realist perspective, terrorist attacks aimed to weaken the opposition are not amoral, and terrorists are rationally acting from a struggle to attain relative power.
I'm not saying that you can ignore realism when you're an actor on the global political stage, but to argue that this is an ideal.. Suffice to say I greatly disagree with that. I don't know what you mean by "arguing that this is an ideal," but definitely don't construe my arguments regarding how foreign politics work as an argument that this how it should work ideally. I'm just being a realist. Again, let me pose this question to you: Even assuming that the US is at fault for its poor relations with the Muslim world and the resulting creation of terrorists, what do we about it now to make the terrorists go away? EDIT: Just to be clear, my solution is to eliminate and replace regimes (and not necessarily through military action) that harbor terrorists and kill off those terrorists that we can get to. To the extent that we can leave successful democracies in our wake, great, but it should be clear that that won't be universally possible in the Muslim world. Newsflash, it doesn't work that way. There is a reason that things in the world are the way they are-- a region has a certain dominant religious/ political/ ideological system because of every single thing that has happened there or that was related to there since the beginning of time. This skirts towards the entire universe being basically preordained and perfect knowledge = perfect predictions, but that's a little too philosophical for this discussion. Remember when every single great empire tried to impose its culture on conquered/ colonized/ allied areas? This isn't Civilization IV, so it didn't work. Basic psychology states that forcing someone to do something may get the result initially, but if you don't manage to align their underlying values with your directives, they will only obey as far as you watch them. Then as soon as you turn away, they will do their best to undermine you. Force, whether military or otherwise, is rarely effective over any meaningful period of time. Yeah, it does work that way. There are countless examples of "force" being successfully used to dominate others militarily, culturally, and economically over sustained periods of time. The eventual failure of those empires wasn't a result of the use of force. To the contrary, it was the result of other factors preventing a continued and sufficient use force to maintain the empire, leaving a void in power that others could exploit. Back to the matter at hand regarding what to do about the terrorists, I'm not pretending that my solution is either perfect or without significant cost. There are obvious limitations. However, my question posed remains unanswered. What is the alternative? Some people around here are very quick to assign blame to the US for causing this mess, but when it comes to actually proposing a solution, those same voices fall tellingly silent. Clearly, "be nice to the terrorists" isn't an option. Perhaps the difficulty in pointing out a solution suggests that the issue of who is to blame isn't quite as clear cut as some would presume? I'm not convinced this is an either/or question - surely it's possible to do more than one thing at once? To put it more bluntly, stop doing things that tend to motivate people into committing terrorism, while simultaneously defending yourself against terrorists you've already created. I haven't imposed any such limitation. I'm merely asking for a solution. Show nested quote +I don't think messing with admittedly weaker countries halfway around the world (notably lacking in extended strike capability) is the only solution here. The US isn't messing around in those countries for shits and giggles. There are real interests at stake. Simple withdrawal isn't a realistic option, much less a good one. Show nested quote +Plus, I think you have a tendency to equate "people pissed off at us" with "terrorists". I would agree that "treating terrorists nicer" is a lost cause, because many people in that camp are too far gone. However, I would also argue that our definition of "terrorist" is far too broad, and we miss out on many opportunities that way. (as many have pointed out in this thread alone, telling Iran to go fuck itself after a chance for reconciliation following 9/11 was definitely a blunder) I didn't bring the concept of "terrorists" into this conversation. Other people did in an attempt to discredit the principles of foreign policy that I was arguing. That said, I don't think that there's much point distinguishing between "people pissed off at us" and "terrorists." The questions are still "what is the threat" and "what are we going to do about it to best protect our self-interests." Sometimes the answer will be diplomatic. Sometimes it will be more onerous.
You're demanding constructive solutions to an entirely self-imposed (and ill-defined) problem. In such a case, re-defining the problem IS the optimal solution.
If you curbed the scope of your proclaimed self-interests to more reasonable and internationally agreeable extents, you would generate considerably less backlash, and overall threat would be handled easier, cheaper, and with less invasive government involvement (both domestically and abroad).
The "interests" United States are trying to protect are unsustainable in the long term, and at some point both the direct backlash and inherent negative effects will outweigh any benefits gained and become too difficult and expensive to handle. Actually, you might be past that point already.
|
oh dangly danglar remember SAM is the conspiracy theorist around here, don't try to one up me with secret puppet master historiography
|
On November 28 2013 01:39 Talin wrote:
You're demanding constructive solutions to an entirely self-imposed (and ill-defined) problem. In such a case, re-defining the problem IS the optimal solution.
If you curbed the scope of your proclaimed self-interests to more reasonable and internationally agreeable extents, you would generate considerably less backlash, and overall threat would be handled easier, cheaper, and with less invasive government involvement (both domestically and abroad).
The "interests" United States are trying to protect are unsustainable in the long term, and at some point both the direct backlash and inherent negative effects will outweigh any benefits gained and become too difficult and expensive to handle. Actually, you might be past that point already.
Your error is in presuming that I think that it's is a "self-imposed problem" as opposed to a "cost of doing business." Imperial policy, for lack of a better term, has some striking benefits. Is the US to simply give those up? If it does, who will step into its shoes? What's the real cost of such a withdrawal?
|
Another day, another delay...
Online health care enrollment for small businesses delayed
President Barack Obama's administration has announced yet another delay in the rollout of the health care law.
An online health insurance marketplace for small businesses is being put off until November 2014 to make sure the HealthCare.gov website gets fixed first.
According to an internal administration document obtained by The Associated Press, employers who want to buy marketplace plans for their workers now will need to go through an agent, broker or insurance company.
The administration says the plan will allow small businesses to buy coverage, without slowing technical repairs to the hobbled federal site.
The marketplace was supposed to provide small businesses a new way to shop for coverage.
It's the latest in a stream of missed deadlines, including a postponement for a Spanish sign-up tool announced this week.
Link
|
On November 28 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 01:39 Talin wrote:
You're demanding constructive solutions to an entirely self-imposed (and ill-defined) problem. In such a case, re-defining the problem IS the optimal solution.
If you curbed the scope of your proclaimed self-interests to more reasonable and internationally agreeable extents, you would generate considerably less backlash, and overall threat would be handled easier, cheaper, and with less invasive government involvement (both domestically and abroad).
The "interests" United States are trying to protect are unsustainable in the long term, and at some point both the direct backlash and inherent negative effects will outweigh any benefits gained and become too difficult and expensive to handle. Actually, you might be past that point already. Your error is in presuming that I think that it's is a "self-imposed problem" as opposed to a "cost of doing business." Imperial policy, for lack of a better term, has some striking benefits. Is the US to simply give those up? If it does, who will step into its shoes? What's the real cost of such a withdrawal?
If you're paying an increasingly unreasonable price for the benefits you gain, you're not running a very successful business. If you continue running it, you're going to end up bankrupt sooner rather than later.
I hate making historical analogies, but imperial policy tends to have a limited lifespan. Either you end it, or it ends you.
|
On November 28 2013 04:06 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2013 01:39 Talin wrote:
You're demanding constructive solutions to an entirely self-imposed (and ill-defined) problem. In such a case, re-defining the problem IS the optimal solution.
If you curbed the scope of your proclaimed self-interests to more reasonable and internationally agreeable extents, you would generate considerably less backlash, and overall threat would be handled easier, cheaper, and with less invasive government involvement (both domestically and abroad).
The "interests" United States are trying to protect are unsustainable in the long term, and at some point both the direct backlash and inherent negative effects will outweigh any benefits gained and become too difficult and expensive to handle. Actually, you might be past that point already. Your error is in presuming that I think that it's is a "self-imposed problem" as opposed to a "cost of doing business." Imperial policy, for lack of a better term, has some striking benefits. Is the US to simply give those up? If it does, who will step into its shoes? What's the real cost of such a withdrawal? If you're paying an increasingly unreasonable price for the benefits you gain, you're not running a very successful business. If you continue running it, you're going to end up bankrupt sooner rather than later. I hate making historical analogies, but imperial policy tends to have a limited lifespan. Either you end it, or it ends you.
This so generalized that it's meaningless. Again, what your solution? What would you have the US do?
|
I'm not really sure what people are arguing for at this point; the thread's getting confusing.
It'd be helpful if people could do a recap of what their own claims/positions are (rather than the long chains of responding to each other's posts).
|
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol.
|
On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol.
That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so. People just want to argue that Americans are a bunch of imperialist dicks and leave it at that.
|
On November 28 2013 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
xDaunt is hawkish, most of the rest of the forum isn't, it's pretty much that simple lol. That's about it. I'm just challenging people to present concrete alternatives to hardball American foreign policy, yet no one wants or seems able to do so.
No, you're challenging people to present alternatives to US foreign policy that protect current US interests around the world, even though there's no rational working policy that could possibly accomplish that (including your current, hardball one).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
