|
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 November 29 2013 04:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? why not? Acting morally is a strategic option. Hell it just might accomplish something Morality in foreign policy is and should be an incidental concern. Doing something that is "good" in foreign policy shouldn't be done just because it is "good." It should be done because it will reap a benefit to the actor. Obviously, this matters less when the cost of the act is inconsequential.
Are you kidding me? Americas moral/liberal superiority(and they had a lot of superiority in these areas after WWII compared to the rest of the world) was the factor that gave the US the legitimation for their influential foreign policies in the following decades.
The, for the most part, unnecessary interventions in the Middle-East have reduced Americas influence significantly. Not just in the Middle-East, but also in many other parts of the world. Same goes for the whole NSA spying mess which has brought back a lot of Anti-American resentments again.
Americas lack of credibility is, at least in my opinion, the main reason why they're losing influence all over the world. If America wants to influence other countries they should stop stirring up nationalistic thinking in those countries and try to get their "moral high-ground" back.
Morality isn't an "incidental concern" it's the reason other countries listened to the US in the past and the lack of it is the reason countries don't listen to the US anymore.
|
That morality shouldn't play a role in foreign policy is one of the dumbest things I have read in a long time.
In fact, this very year, the US was trying to convince everybody that morality DOES play a role. Absolutely NOBODY wants to get involved in the completely absurd mess that is Syria's civil war, yet there was the US talking about a red line that had been crossed. What was that red line? Breaking a norm to not use morally reprehensible weapons (chemical ones in this case).
|
On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade?
|
On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
I'm interested in seeing how you can separate "good" actions or good ways of living from foreign policy.
|
Norway28747 Posts
On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US?
From a realist perspective, morality must play a role in US foreign policy if US wants continued support, which, from a realist perspective aiming to strengthen the US, is beneficial. This because the US happens to have important partners that identify with idealist values. Europe will, while the US has significant leeway due to a historical partnership, eventually identify with the more idealistic global superpower. (Which historically has been the US.)
Like, personally, I like doing the right thing because it is right. For me, that is the convincing argument why states should strive to be good. I don't need more of a motivation for that, the welfare of a Norwegian is not principally more valuable than the welfare of a Somalian, we're all worth equally much and if the purpose of society is to make life better, the purpose of a global society is to make life better everywhere.
But even if you act purely based on the self-interest, you must factor in morality because the global community around you responds very negatively to actions it considers amoral. I mean, the US can get away with significantly amoral actions, as has been empirically proven, but European support of the US during the cold war depended upon the US being considered as less amoral than the USSR.
It's like, what you are doing is equating the US to a sociopath. The sociopath ignores any empathetic plights and acts only out of self-interest. But many sociopaths actually function well in society and can be perceived as empathetic people, firstly because they realize that sometimes their self-interests align with those of other people (e.g. act of heroism can be explained by someone wanting the status of a hero), and secondly because being perceived as good makes your own life better. From my perspective, the Marshall plan is arguably the most successful piece of foreign policy ever implemented by the american government, regardless of whether you're examining it from realist or liberal lenses. If the US at the end of WW2 instead of helping us rebuild had rather stationed troops in Norway to strongman us into pledging our allegiance, I can assure you that Norwegian support for the US would have been much smaller - to this very day.
|
What xDaunt neglects to mention is that Hitler committed suicide in a bunker as the Soviets were wiping up the last dregs of the German army in Berlin. Burning every single bridge he had worked out pretty well for him.
#historicalcontext
|
In xDaunt's defence the optimal way to play the game is to reap the benefits of Morality (as argued by Nyxisto [edit:and liquid drone] above) without paying any of the cost. That is to get the other players to believe you are behaving in a moral way when in actual fact you aren't because morality has a cost.
And this is pretty much how most major powers play the game most of the time. If you want to analyse how these powers behave taking this as a truism is a very good place to start. Couple examples: West sees some significant resistance to Giddafi's rule in Lybia. Bangs on about the horrors of Gidaffi, imposes a no flyzone to start, bombs shit out of the place, empowers it's favoured replacement. Job's a good 'un. West sees some resistance to the regime in Bahrain. Does nothing. Lets Saudi Arabian troops introduce the protesters to the realities of the situation. When questioned talks vaguely about "stability" or some such, because this time the unknown future might do more harm than good. Horrors of civil war and all that. This job is also a good one.
Both times the players, our governments (at least if you're British French, Italian or United States of American) appear to take the moral high road while ensuring that our power and influence is the one that rules their countries.
The mistake that xDaunt made was in parenthesis.
"Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?"
It almost never has anything to do with foreign policy. But it obviously should do. And we should fight for a future in which it does.
|
On November 29 2013 06:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? From a realist perspective, morality must play a role in US foreign policy if US wants continued support, which, from a realist perspective aiming to strengthen the US, is beneficial. This because the US happens to have important partners that identify with idealist values. Europe will, while the US has significant leeway due to a historical partnership, eventually identify with the more idealistic global superpower. (Which historically has been the US.)
What is it that the US should really fear about doing something "bad?" The fact that it did something "bad" or the consequences of actually taking that "bad" action? Obviously, it's the latter that matters. That's why I keep saying that the morality of the act, in and of itself, doesn't matter.
Like, personally, I like doing the right thing because it is right. For me, that is the convincing argument why states should strive to be good. I don't need more of a motivation for that, the welfare of a Norwegian is not principally more valuable than the welfare of a Somalian, we're all worth equally much and if the purpose of society is to make life better, the purpose of a global society is to make life better everywhere.
This is all well and good, but a state can't base rational policy on the principle that its own citizens/denizens are no valuable or important than those in other states.
But even if you act purely based on the self-interest, you must factor in morality because the global community around you responds very negatively to actions it considers amoral. I mean, the US can get away with significantly amoral actions, as has been empirically proven, but European support of the US during the cold war depended upon the US being considered as less amoral than the USSR.
I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the US was less evil than the USSR. Still, is that really why Western Europe aligned itself with the US over the USSR? That idea certainly doesn't do a good job of explaining why the USSR had allies of its own.
It's like, what you are doing is equating the US to a sociopath. The sociopath ignores any empathetic plights and acts only out of self-interest. But many sociopaths actually function well in society and can be perceived as empathetic people, firstly because they realize that sometimes their self-interests align with those of other people (e.g. act of heroism can be explained by someone wanting the status of a hero), and secondly because being perceived as good makes your own life better. From my perspective, the Marshall plan is arguably the most successful piece of foreign policy ever implemented by the american government, regardless of whether you're examining it from realist or liberal lenses. If the US at the end of WW2 instead of helping us rebuild had rather stationed troops in Norway to strongman us into pledging our allegiance, I can assure you that Norwegian support for the US would have been much smaller - to this very day.
Yes, I think it is fair to say that rational state actors function like sociopaths in conducting their foreign policy.
As for the Marshall plan, do you really think that the US did it solely for selfless, benevolent reasons? (at least I presume that's why you're bringing it up)
|
On November 29 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? I'm interested in seeing how you can separate "good" actions or good ways of living from foreign policy.
Scary thought, huh?
|
On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade?
What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights.
|
On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights.
How does invading Iraq for its oil differ from beating up your neighbour so you can steal his sound system?
Even if your neighbour is a gigantic asshole who beats his wife, you are still not allowed to enter his house and beat him up. You have to call the cops (the UN) to deal with him.
|
On November 29 2013 07:12 Dapper_Cad wrote:
In xDaunt's defence the optimal way to play the game is to reap the benefits of Morality (as argued by Nyxisto [edit:and liquid drone] above) without paying any of the cost. That is to get the other players to believe you are behaving in a moral way when in actual fact you aren't because morality has a cost.
And this is pretty much how most major powers play the game most of the time. If you want to analyse how these powers behave taking this as a truism is a very good place to start. Couple examples: West sees some significant resistance to Giddafi's rule in Lybia. Bangs on about the horrors of Gidaffi, imposes a no flyzone to start, bombs shit out of the place, empowers it's favoured replacement. Job's a good 'un. West sees some resistance to the regime in Bahrain. Does nothing. Lets Saudi Arabian troops introduce the protesters to the realities of the situation. When questioned talks vaguely about "stability" or some such, because this time the unknown future might do more harm than good. Horrors of civil war and all that. This job is also a good one.
Both times the players, our governments (at least if you're British French, Italian or United States of American) appear to take the moral high road while ensuring that our power and influence is the one that rules their countries.
Close, but not quite. The idea isn't to make other countries think that you're taking the moral high road; this doesn't really matter in an of itself. The idea is to do whatever you can to best advance your national interests. Think about it like its a game.
Let's say Country 1 is presented with situation A, and it can respond to situation A in one of three ways: X, Y, and Z. For the sake of the game, let's presume that Country 1 has perfect information regarding the immediate and future consequences of X, Y, and Z. Country 1 knows that response X will give a result that is good for Country 1, response Y will give a neutral result, and response Z will give a bad result. Obviously, Country 1, as a rational state actor looking to advance its interests as best as it can, will choose response X.
Let's take the same situation, and add the following information. Response X will still give the best result, but it requires Country 1 to do something immoral or even evil. In contrast, responses Y and Z entail Country 1 doing something that is "morally good." My point is that Country 1, as a rational state actor, should still choose response X.
The mistake that xDaunt made was in parenthesis.
"Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy?"
It almost never has anything to do with foreign policy. But it obviously should do. And we should fight for a future in which it does.
No, it's not a mistake. I was referring to how countries should act in the present. In a prior post, I already stated that ideally countries wouldn't have to act in the manor that I was describing.
|
Norway28747 Posts
On November 29 2013 13:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 06:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? From a realist perspective, morality must play a role in US foreign policy if US wants continued support, which, from a realist perspective aiming to strengthen the US, is beneficial. This because the US happens to have important partners that identify with idealist values. Europe will, while the US has significant leeway due to a historical partnership, eventually identify with the more idealistic global superpower. (Which historically has been the US.) What is it that the US should really fear about doing something "bad?" The fact that it did something "bad" or the consequences of actually taking that "bad" action? Obviously, it's the latter that matters. That's why I keep saying that the morality of the act, in and of itself, doesn't matter. Show nested quote +Like, personally, I like doing the right thing because it is right. For me, that is the convincing argument why states should strive to be good. I don't need more of a motivation for that, the welfare of a Norwegian is not principally more valuable than the welfare of a Somalian, we're all worth equally much and if the purpose of society is to make life better, the purpose of a global society is to make life better everywhere. This is all well and good, but a state can't base rational policy on the principle that its own citizens/denizens are no valuable or important than those in other states. Show nested quote +But even if you act purely based on the self-interest, you must factor in morality because the global community around you responds very negatively to actions it considers amoral. I mean, the US can get away with significantly amoral actions, as has been empirically proven, but European support of the US during the cold war depended upon the US being considered as less amoral than the USSR. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the US was less evil than the USSR. Still, is that really why Western Europe aligned itself with the US over the USSR? That idea certainly doesn't do a good job of explaining why the USSR had allies of its own. Show nested quote +It's like, what you are doing is equating the US to a sociopath. The sociopath ignores any empathetic plights and acts only out of self-interest. But many sociopaths actually function well in society and can be perceived as empathetic people, firstly because they realize that sometimes their self-interests align with those of other people (e.g. act of heroism can be explained by someone wanting the status of a hero), and secondly because being perceived as good makes your own life better. From my perspective, the Marshall plan is arguably the most successful piece of foreign policy ever implemented by the american government, regardless of whether you're examining it from realist or liberal lenses. If the US at the end of WW2 instead of helping us rebuild had rather stationed troops in Norway to strongman us into pledging our allegiance, I can assure you that Norwegian support for the US would have been much smaller - to this very day. Yes, I think it is fair to say that rational state actors function like sociopaths in conducting their foreign policy. As for the Marshall plan, do you really think that the US did it solely for selfless, benevolent reasons? (at least I presume that's why you're bringing it up)
I don't think the Marshall plan was done for selfless, benevolent reasons at all. I'm saying that realist and liberal perspectives actually align politically on a sufficiently long term basis. (Well, disregarding the notion that relative growth is equal or preferable to absolute growth  ). My reasoning being that if you want to actually want to increase your political influence, making a country and its population understand that a relationship is beneficial is the best way to go about it. The Marshall plan and how our good relationship with USA protected us (Norway) from a perceived Soviet threat to this day influences the Norwegian political debate regarding NATO membership - in the sense that support for NATO membership was barely, if at all, influenced by our semi-forced participation in the Iraq war - something almost no Norwegians supported.
This is what I meant when I said that the Marshall plan is the most successful piece of foreign policy regardless of whether you have a realist or liberal perspective; it improved Western European quality of life while strengthening our bond with USA and improving your own economy by expanding your trade market. And it still resonates politically 60 years later. Much like how in southern america and the middle east and various other areas of the world where the USA has tried to accomplish their political aims through use of force, overtly or covertly, the populations are largely less favorably inclined towards the USA even if transgressions happened 40 years ago. Whether you think its fine for the US to be a sociopath or not doesn't necessarily make any difference regarding how it should behave internationally, you still need to abandon the point of view that you can dictate the behavior of other countries "or else", because the consequence of this policy is a fragmented, warred world of different allegiances where the only benefactors are weapon producers.  Now, obviously, this all can't just be reverted overnight - building a positive image takes a long time, and benefits cannot be expected to immediately be reaped, but I mean, would you rather want your allies to be like Europe or like Saudi Arabia?
|
On November 29 2013 14:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 13:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 06:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? From a realist perspective, morality must play a role in US foreign policy if US wants continued support, which, from a realist perspective aiming to strengthen the US, is beneficial. This because the US happens to have important partners that identify with idealist values. Europe will, while the US has significant leeway due to a historical partnership, eventually identify with the more idealistic global superpower. (Which historically has been the US.) What is it that the US should really fear about doing something "bad?" The fact that it did something "bad" or the consequences of actually taking that "bad" action? Obviously, it's the latter that matters. That's why I keep saying that the morality of the act, in and of itself, doesn't matter. Like, personally, I like doing the right thing because it is right. For me, that is the convincing argument why states should strive to be good. I don't need more of a motivation for that, the welfare of a Norwegian is not principally more valuable than the welfare of a Somalian, we're all worth equally much and if the purpose of society is to make life better, the purpose of a global society is to make life better everywhere. This is all well and good, but a state can't base rational policy on the principle that its own citizens/denizens are no valuable or important than those in other states. But even if you act purely based on the self-interest, you must factor in morality because the global community around you responds very negatively to actions it considers amoral. I mean, the US can get away with significantly amoral actions, as has been empirically proven, but European support of the US during the cold war depended upon the US being considered as less amoral than the USSR. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the US was less evil than the USSR. Still, is that really why Western Europe aligned itself with the US over the USSR? That idea certainly doesn't do a good job of explaining why the USSR had allies of its own. It's like, what you are doing is equating the US to a sociopath. The sociopath ignores any empathetic plights and acts only out of self-interest. But many sociopaths actually function well in society and can be perceived as empathetic people, firstly because they realize that sometimes their self-interests align with those of other people (e.g. act of heroism can be explained by someone wanting the status of a hero), and secondly because being perceived as good makes your own life better. From my perspective, the Marshall plan is arguably the most successful piece of foreign policy ever implemented by the american government, regardless of whether you're examining it from realist or liberal lenses. If the US at the end of WW2 instead of helping us rebuild had rather stationed troops in Norway to strongman us into pledging our allegiance, I can assure you that Norwegian support for the US would have been much smaller - to this very day. Yes, I think it is fair to say that rational state actors function like sociopaths in conducting their foreign policy. As for the Marshall plan, do you really think that the US did it solely for selfless, benevolent reasons? (at least I presume that's why you're bringing it up) I don't think the Marshall plan was done for selfless, benevolent reasons at all. I'm saying that realist and liberal perspectives actually align politically on a sufficiently long term basis. (Well, disregarding the notion that relative growth is equal or preferable to absolute growth ). My reasoning being that if you want to actually want to increase your political influence, making a country and its population understand that a relationship is beneficial is the best way to go about it. The Marshall plan and how our good relationship with USA protected us (Norway) from a perceived Soviet threat to this day influences the Norwegian political debate regarding NATO membership - in the sense that support for NATO membership was barely, if at all, influenced by our semi-forced participation in the Iraq war - something almost no Norwegians supported. This is what I meant when I said that the Marshall plan is the most successful piece of foreign policy regardless of whether you have a realist or liberal perspective; it improved Western European quality of life while strengthening our bond with USA and improving your own economy by expanding your trade market. And it still resonates politically 60 years later. Much like how in southern america and the middle east and various other areas of the world where the USA has tried to accomplish their political aims through use of force, overtly or covertly, the populations are largely less favorably inclined towards the USA even if transgressions happened 40 years ago. Whether you think its fine for the US to be a sociopath or not doesn't necessarily make any difference regarding how it should behave internationally, you still need to abandon the point of view that you can dictate the behavior of other countries "or else", because the consequence of this policy is a fragmented, warred world of different allegiances where the only benefactors are weapon producers. Now, obviously, this all can't just be reverted overnight - building a positive image takes a long time, and benefits cannot be expected to immediately be reaped, but I mean, would you rather want your allies to be like Europe or like Saudi Arabia?
When I say that a country should act without morality in mind, I'm not saying that the country should always act like an asshole, which I think is the critical point that people are missing. Go back to my thought experiment above. If Response X was both the most moral response and the response that would best advance Country 1's interests, then Country 1 should choose response X. When confronted with a situation in which it a must act, a country must assess for each possible responsive action the the range of possible outcomes, the likelihood of each outcome, the expected outcome, and risk tolerance. This is a morality neutral analysis that looks strictly at the bottom line.
|
On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights.
Saying that it is okay during peacetime for a country to freeze the assets of another because might makes right instead of relying on international consensus certainly threatens the implicit respect for property rights necessary for international markets to operate efficiently.
|
On November 29 2013 15:29 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights. Saying that it is okay during peacetime for a country to freeze the assets of another because might makes right instead of relying on international consensus certainly threatens the implicit respect for property rights necessary for international markets to operate efficiently.
So what? People break laws and other social norms all of the time. Just because something is illegal or "forbidden" doesn't mean that it can't be done.The real issue is what is the consequence for violating such a law or norm. Clearly the US was getting away with whatever it was doing.
|
On November 29 2013 15:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 15:29 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights. Saying that it is okay during peacetime for a country to freeze the assets of another because might makes right instead of relying on international consensus certainly threatens the implicit respect for property rights necessary for international markets to operate efficiently. So what? People break laws and other social norms all of the time. Just because something is illegal or "forbidden" doesn't mean that it can't be done.The real issue is what is the consequence for violating such a law or norm. Clearly the US was getting away with whatever it was doing.
Right, because of international consensus, not because Obama pulled aside his jacket to reveal a gun at his side and stared intently at the other world leaders at the UN or something.
|
On November 29 2013 15:41 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 15:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 15:29 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights. Saying that it is okay during peacetime for a country to freeze the assets of another because might makes right instead of relying on international consensus certainly threatens the implicit respect for property rights necessary for international markets to operate efficiently. So what? People break laws and other social norms all of the time. Just because something is illegal or "forbidden" doesn't mean that it can't be done.The real issue is what is the consequence for violating such a law or norm. Clearly the US was getting away with whatever it was doing. Right, because of international consensus, not because Obama pulled aside his jacket to reveal a gun at his side and stared intently at the other world leaders at the UN or something.
That's irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter why the US got away with withholding something that belonged to Iran -- whether it be international consensus, threats of force, or liberal use of hookers and coke. The bottom line is that the US gave Iran something that it didn't have to. I'm just curious as to what the US actually bought from Iran. Right now, it doesn't look like much.
|
On November 29 2013 15:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 15:41 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 15:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 15:29 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights. Saying that it is okay during peacetime for a country to freeze the assets of another because might makes right instead of relying on international consensus certainly threatens the implicit respect for property rights necessary for international markets to operate efficiently. So what? People break laws and other social norms all of the time. Just because something is illegal or "forbidden" doesn't mean that it can't be done.The real issue is what is the consequence for violating such a law or norm. Clearly the US was getting away with whatever it was doing. Right, because of international consensus, not because Obama pulled aside his jacket to reveal a gun at his side and stared intently at the other world leaders at the UN or something. That's irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter why the US got away with withholding something that belonged to Iran -- whether it be international consensus, threats of force, or liberal use of hookers and coke. The bottom line is that the US gave Iran something that it didn't have to. I'm just curious as to what the US actually bought from Iran. Right now, it doesn't look like much.
Actually, we're literally getting even more than we bargained for.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/28/iran-invites-un-inspectors-to-arak-heavy-water-facility/
|
On November 29 2013 15:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2013 15:41 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 15:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 15:29 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 06:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 29 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2013 01:53 mcc wrote:On November 28 2013 19:43 hypercube wrote:On November 28 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: This is a little cliche, but what exactly do you think was going through Hitler's mind when Chamberlain and the French gave him Czechoslovakia? Do you think he thought "hey, what a bunch of nice guys. I'll do something nice for them next time"? Clearly not. His line of thought went something like this, "ROFL THOSE STUPID, WEAK FOOLS. I wonder what I can bend them over for next time." Learn to think like a exploitative, cheesing asshole when you're analyzing these events, and you'll be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It's not cliche it's a terrible attempt to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. The funniest part is that his nazi analogy can much easier be applied to US than to Iran. If we should take anything from xDaunt post it is that both parties/governments are "exploitative, cheesing assholes" and neither of them are "good guys" in any sense. Didn't I already say 465577 times that morality has (should have) nothing to do with foreign policy? Edit: and where did I ever say that this didn't apply to the US? How about respect for property, then? Are you suddenly against free trade? What I am saying isn't incompatible with free trade or property rights. Saying that it is okay during peacetime for a country to freeze the assets of another because might makes right instead of relying on international consensus certainly threatens the implicit respect for property rights necessary for international markets to operate efficiently. So what? People break laws and other social norms all of the time. Just because something is illegal or "forbidden" doesn't mean that it can't be done.The real issue is what is the consequence for violating such a law or norm. Clearly the US was getting away with whatever it was doing. Right, because of international consensus, not because Obama pulled aside his jacket to reveal a gun at his side and stared intently at the other world leaders at the UN or something. That's irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter why the US got away with withholding something that belonged to Iran -- whether it be international consensus, threats of force, or liberal use of hookers and coke. The bottom line is that the US gave Iran something that it didn't have to. I'm just curious as to what the US actually bought from Iran. Right now, it doesn't look like much.
Lets look at it from a practical non moral perspective then, there are essentially two scenarios that will happen at the end of six months:
1. The world powers come to an agreement with Iran such as it agrees to something like a peaceful nuclear program with heavy supervision in order to make sure they are not enriching uranium past the points they should and in exchange the sanctions against them are lifted and the money is returned (there would probably be some differences but at the end of the day any agreement will probably look something like that)
or
2. We do not come to an agreement with Iran over the program. Now what would happen next is probably impossible to know but it isn't hard to hazard a guess
a. The current sanctions against Iran would immediately go back into place
b. The US armed with the case that the crippling sanctions they did forced Iran to come to bargaining table just to get them temporarily lessened would then go to security council and ask for sanctions so harsh that they force Iran's hand and they would probably get them.
c. Assuming that either option b does not happen or that Israel loses patience waiting you can also assume they might start to openly make a military move on Iran (as opposed to the covert assassinations of scientists they are allegedly doing right now)
Now the overall question is if the negotiations fail can you get b to be more damaging to Iran then if they had never come to the table in the first place and if you can that at the very least the 6 month period was worth it and if you can not you at least have the cover to protect Israel when they eventually choose c. That to me seems like the logical approach to all of this and why the deal was made.
I am also taking the assumption that the public reports about how the leader in Iran wants a deal but is trying to deal with the revolutionary guard as true. It is not relevant to the moral position but it is easier to make a deal with someone who actually wants to get one done (though it is a sort of ironic situation in that regard if the reports are true).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
