america vs. the world- blind americanism continued

[Sander]

Every human being is equal. Duh. It's the basis of every modern society in the world. I am sorry for you that you cannot see that.

Now, CCR, are you saying that those people do not deserve the same rights as normal citizens? Rights like the right to a free and fair trial?

And, yes, Wooz, that is where I am wrong. Sorry.

 

[John Uskglass]

Every human being is equal. Duh. It's the basis of every modern society in the world. I am sorry for you that you cannot see that.

Now, CCR, are you saying that those people do not deserve the same rights as normal citizens? Rights like the right to a free and fair trial?

And, yes, Wooz, that is where I am wrong. Sorry.

"we belive that all men are created equal" is what I belive in. A man who despises progress, holds a hatred for his fellow man or woman because they do not adhere to your faith, or any such thing, is not equal to an ideal human being (whatever that may be).

 

[The physopathic Polock]

"we belive that all men are created equal" is what I belive in. A man who despises progress, holds a hatred for his fellow man or woman because they do not adhere to your faith, or any such thing, is not equal to an ideal human being (whatever that may be).

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal then others"-George Orwell, Animal Farm

 

[welsh]

This is one of the reasons why I am such a strong support of free speech as a bedrock principle of a democratic society.

Within free speech lies free thought, and that free thought includes the right to hate someone, for their faith, ethnicity, national background, gender. It's sad, but you can't have a freedom of thought without a freedom to hate.

This is why hate speech laws are so tough to survive judicial scrutiny.

It's not hate that's bad, it's when that speech is used to create harm. Harm is when the smack down comes.

I have muslim friends here and I respect their faith even as they respect mine. I believe that they don't hold such animosity in their hearts, just as I believe most Christians can respect that others are entitled to their own faiths. I also believe that people of different faiths can live together peacefully, and that what we see coming out of the middle east has much to do with their own economic and social frustrations, more than a religious based ideology.

But then, maybe I'm something of an idealist.

McCarthy's Red Scare was mostly a fraud that took advantage of the fear of common people of a hidden enemy. You see this a lot in the science fiction of the day- a lot of people see it in the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (great flick). It was that fear of an unknown enemy, based on the very real rise of communism not only in Eastern Europe but in Western Europe as well and in other parts of the world, and the fear that such a communist system might ruin their way of life.

In the process, fear was able to overcome good judgment, and the president of the time, Eisenhower, let McCarthy run along his leash. McCarthy was finally undone when a nice old man proved that McCarthy had done nothing more than libel innocent people, shaming McCarthy, ("Mr. McCarthy, how could you do some a thing?") and did it on national TV, that McCarthism came to an end.

But that requires someone willing to go after the truth, and let the truth speak for itself. "To tell the truth and shame the devil."
This is a problem of the current administration, a lack of transparency. But that's an executive perogative, to push the boundaries of the law to further it's power. All branches of government do that in one sort of another. But the ebb and flow of power is again being seen, with the court telling the executive that it has gone too far and demanding that the legislature take its lead.

Fear, the goal of terror, is the problem. It isn't the danger or need of having an enemy. The US has had enemies in the past, least you want to dismiss a cold war as irrelevant. The US is the dominant power, and as such it will have enemies for that is part of the price it pays for that position. THat the attack happened on American soil was startling.

Let me put it in perspective- the World Trade Center employed nearly 50,000 people. I live in a small city of 50,000 people. Had the terror attacks been a few hours later that day, had there been more people, we are talking about something analogous to my entire city being wiped out.

Osama Bin Laden is one of the greatest pricks that ever lived. Not only because he killed 3,000 people that day, but because he fundamentally changed the way Americans had come to live and expect to live. And for what? A society in which women can only walk the streets wearing a hood over their heads? Where a bunch of mullahs can profit off the backwardness of a society? Where Osama's vision of a religious utopia can exist regardless of the fact that he would be putting the middle east back to the 11th Century.

Fuck him. He deserves great and serious pain.

It pissed me off that he's still out there. Tonight, in the news, there was an alert because a county not more than an hour from my town was mentioned in terrorist chatter.

Don't tell me about fictional enemies.

But the beauty of the country is that First Amendment right to free speech, and free thinking. For in that is the power to tell truth to lie, and to allow honest debate. But terror creates the fear that pushes common people to put their faith in the executive of the state, and so the state becomes powerful by being seen as the protector of the people. This is the Hobbesian contract coming to term- we trust in the state to protect us, at a minimum, and it has to deliver.

And so it should. But Americans live in a democracy, and that means a few things-

(1) that we have a right to think what we want and speak as we should, and even to hate each other as long as that falls short of harming each other.

(2) the state works for us. That means we have the right to a transparent government, not one that will hide behind the cloak of national security or public interest.

(3) We are responsible for that state- through our election we choose who represents us and what those policies are. We are responsible for the future we make for ourselves.

It is in the free debate about what is right that we should decide whether another round of McCarthism will begin. IS there one taking place, I doubt it. If anything I think the terror attacks created by a real enemy led to a temporary expansion of the state's power which is now under fairly significant attack.

But that's why it comes down to the average citizen to decide for themselves if they want to live in fear or freedom. For in freedom also exists the fact that someone, somewhere, will hate you for reasons real or virtual. That's the price you pay.

Are there problems with the level of human rights today in the US. Yes, I think so. But I think if you took any country that suffered a series of terror attacks as did the US, you might find something similar happening. The question, I think, lies not in what happened since 9-11, but what will happen in the future.

 

[Wooz]

First of all, it wasn't 9-11 itself that changed the world, but Bush's reaction to it.
Remember. All the world supported the USA, and would cooperate in a struggle against terrorism. Declaring, boasting, a *WAR* against terrorism was probably the most stupid thing to do. Terrorists are invisible, they do not have a big Cobra base in the middle of the pacific ocean. Terrorists act, exist and move regardless of countries, and declaring WAR on them just makes it easier to recruit more fanatic extremists, for they have a justification to their cause.
After 9-11, your country had support worldwide, from France, Germany, Russia to *China*. The headline on "Le Monde" even was "We are all Americans". Your government could have used that support to something more constructive than brainwashing half of the country into rebuilding the big business/ military machine. Nowadays, as you can see, most of the world's relation to the United States has made a 180 turn.

Welsh, you forgot to say Bush is just the same prick as Osama if not worse. How many innocent Iraquis died? No matter. This whole situation turns the 9-11 victims, for the Americans, and the innocents killed, for the Iraquis/ Islamic fundamentalists into martyrs, in which name thou shalt kill.

CC: I am sorry that you can't see that destroying one's culture, killing people in order to expand Islam over your nation is the same as destroying one's culture and killing people in order to expand america's neoconservatist rule over your nation.

 

[Sander]

CCR: Are you seriously suggesting that you would be better than those people if you took away their human rights? They are human beings, even though they have done despicable things, and as human beings, they still deserve the same rights as everyone else. They deserve a fair trial, they deserve fair treatment, they deserve every one of those things.
What you seem to fail to see is that treating them as lesser human beings makes YOU a lesser human being.

welsh: You are right there, but up to a point. I think that the USA does need an enemy to stand strong, and I did mention communism as the common enemy during the cold war, in case you hadn't noticed it(which you seem to imply). While enemies do come and go, without a common enemy, the USA isn't as united and headstrong and dangerous as it is now.

What's more, is that there certainly IS paranoia. While the terrorist attacks were and are terrible, and shouldn't happen, the fear and paranoia is going too far now. Last night on the news I heard that there is a suspected case of BSE(Mad Cow Disease, which can cause the Creutzfeld Jacob brain disease if infected meat is eaten by humans) in the state of Washington. If it is BSE, it would be the first time BSE has been found in the USA. But what I found completely idiotic was that the minister of agriculture(If it's called that...) said that there was no link to terrorism.
What?? IS there now a need to say that there is NO link to terrorism when there could possibly be a disease in a cow which has caused the death of a total of 130 people WORLD-WIDE EVER?? What is that? How paranoid do you have to be to think that the possible appearance of an animal disease ould be the work of terroists??

Now, welsh, again you go and try to justify what has happened by saying that it would've happened in other countries as well. If that is realism, then I don't even want to be a realist. Fuck it, it isn't good, so it shouldn't happen. But it has happened, now don't go and justify it by saying that other countries may have done the same thing. Here's something to think about: where would the world be now without people who say that things should not be like this, even though others say that it is realistic? We wouldn't have democracy, equality, voting rights for everyone, human rights, freedom of speech and a lot of other things....

 

[welsh]

Welsh, you forgot to say Bush is just the same prick as Osama if not worse. How many innocent Iraquis died? No matter. This whole situation turns the 9-11 victims, for the Americans, and the innocents killed, for the Iraquis/ Islamic fundamentalists into martyrs, in which name thou shalt kill.

I am not going to argue Wooz about the whether GB used 9-11 for other political purposes. I have expressed that I don’t like a president that lies to a people, or uses facades to justify a war. I expect and demand more transparency just as I believe in the right of people to justify and argue their positions.

You know Wooz, that’s an interesting point. My wife and I went to see the Last Samurai yesterday and she was talking about the differences between the Buddhist samurai warriors and the Islamist militants, primarily how one set of beliefs was portrayed as about finding inner peace for the preparation of death, but how the Islamists seem so aggressive.

It seemed to me that the difference was this. The Zen Buddhism of the samurai was fatalistic. Life was a preparation of death and best achieved through the gaining of perfection. It is fatalistic. They accept that they will die and live with the idea of dieing with honor. The Islamic militant or suicide bomber dies with the idea of making a better world, based on the ideals of Islam, in which there is a stronger sense of the relationship of God and man and a better, more utopian world. The militant is therefore an idealist who hopes his sacrifice will bring about a better world. One sees similar trends in Christian fundamentalists as well.

But then compare that to the US position. I am not going to cry tears for the end of the Taliban regime. These folks were harboring terrorists. But the mission in Iraq is based on another set of ideals- that of western democracy and capitalism as bringing to the people a better way of life. In that sense it is a clash of cultures and ideologies- one that favors a better world through a more traditional based religion, and the other by forcing the region to undertake a transition towards modernity. In both cases political power comes from the barrel of a gun, but also from a different set of values which offer distinctive rewards.

welsh: You are right there, but up to a point. I think that the USA does need an enemy to stand strong, and I did mention communism as the common enemy during the cold war, in case you hadn't noticed it(which you seem to imply). While enemies do come and go, without a common enemy, the USA isn't as united and headstrong and dangerous as it is now.

I disagree Sander. As you pointed out the US has had long periods without enemies and did well. Before World War 2 for instance the US had perhaps it’s most significant growth. By the turn of the century in 1900 the US was outperforming just about every other country in the world.

I think it’s Shakespeare that writes, “If all is well, leave it so, wake not the sleeping wolf.”

The US is a country that is willing to use violence politically. Violence is very much a part of US culture. Historically we have the case of World War 2, the last time in which we were attacked, where again the US was caught unprepared for a strike, but once called into action became a superpower. I will credit the Russians with much of the credit for the defeat of Germany, but they didn’t do it alone. Japan, well that was mostly a win by the US.

What I think you have after 9-11 was that someone foolish awoke the sleeping wolf. That’s another reason why Osama was such a prick. Not only was this danger hidden and among us (a fear similar to that felt during the Red Scare of the 50s and 20s) but they had also undertaken an orchestrated attack against civilian targets which could potentially have had dire consequences. The number of casualties of 9-11 were very close to those at Pearl Harbor, and in Pearl Harbor that brought the US powerfully into World War 2.

But let’s get back to your argument- that the US needs a common enemy to stand strong.
In other words you are arguing that a common enemy is a necessary condition for the US to stand strong. You might also argue that it is a sufficient condition. But you have also pointed out that this hasn’t always been true.

The US has been strong without powerful enemies. From the end of the Cold War until 9-11 the only real enemy was Iraq and mostly that was contained. North Korea but again, generally contained. Thus a use of containment strategy was working. Similar strategy was used during the Cold War, with success. In the Cold War there was a global strategic enemy, and a very real one. In the later case these have been contained regional threats. Most Americans never really thought about it.

Before World War 2, no real common enemy. No real common enemy between 1900 and 1914, and before that the only enemy was the Spanish which were a had-been empire quickly destroyed during the Spanish-American War. Yet these were periods of unity and growth.

Arguably, it is possible that having a common enemy might also be a time when the US is weakening. The US was in relative decline during the 1960s and 70s during the Cold War.

Thus a common enemy might be a reason for growth or weakness- in otherwords the outcome is uncertain.

So a common enemy is not a necessary condition, nor is it a sufficient condition.

If it ain’t a necessary or sufficient condition, it’s superfluous. Thus your argument is flawed.

What's more, is that there certainly IS paranoia. While the terrorist attacks were and are terrible, and shouldn't happen, the fear and paranoia is going too far now. Last night on the news I heard that there is a suspected case of BSE(Mad Cow Disease…. w said that there was no link to terrorism.
What?? IS there now a need to say that there is NO link to terrorism when there could possibly be a disease in a cow which has caused the death of a total of 130 people WORLD-WIDE EVER?? What is that? How paranoid do you have to be to think that the possible appearance of an animal disease ould be the work of terroists??

Damn Sander, how insensitive can you be! You do realize that the US is currently on a high alert of a terrorist strike. You do realize that we did get hit with an attack that could have killed as many of 50K lives and people are still worried that there might be a strike with a nuclear device. Remember, terrorism is about terrifying people on a mass scale. Don’t you think people have the right to be a little nervous?

While I think that the press has a bad habit of sensationalizing this to make a story and that people put too much faith in this news, I also think there is justification to be a little worried. With all this talk of weapons of mass destruction, it’s a bit of a relief to hear that there are cases of Mad Cow disease which are just that. IF anything this works to calm the country down, especially around the holidays.

This is a time where a lot of people are traveling, enjoying the holidays. There are people who are afraid to fly because of a few rumors that Al Queida might try another stunt by hijacking airplanes.

Now, welsh, again you go and try to justify what has happened by saying that it would've happened in other countries as well. If that is realism, then I don't even want to be a realist. Fuck it, it isn't good, so it shouldn't happen. But it has happened, now don't go and justify it by saying that other countries may have done the same thing. Here's something to think about: where would the world be now without people who say that things should not be like this, even though others say that it is realistic? We wouldn't have democracy, equality, voting rights for everyone, human rights, freedom of speech and a lot of other things....

Would any other country have done differently? Hell if the Netherlands had been hit with an attack that risked 50,000 lives and killed 3,000, I think the US would still have gone after Osama in Afghanistan if only out of the obligations set out in Art. 5 of the NATO treaty. Why, reality. Again, you are claiming idealism without taking into considering the real world in which those ideals should exist.

Sander it is quite a mistake to label oneself as an idealist and than use that label as an umbrella to rest of the world. I have a lot of respect for idealism and faith in my fellow man. That’s another reason in the post above the main ideas were to support the free exchange of information and the civil responsibility of citizens for their system of governance. It’s ironic that you are using essentially the same argument I used in another post yesterday defending idealism to make this claim that without idealism all these high ideals would not have been achieved.

But without recognizing that the real world exists than these ideals would not have come about. Without trying to take responsibility for the world around you, but seeing it as it really is and then trying to figure out how to make it better, such values of freedom of speech, voting rights, etc. would not be. The reality is that these rights didn’t exist merely as ideals, but in response to real world issues that called for better standards. Free speech was the first step towards political protest against the tyranny of kings. Free association led to unions and political parties, equal rights recognize the legal rights of women in the workplace. Ideals are born of reality, but also must apply to that reality as well.

It is fine for you to hold your head high and claim, “I am an idealist, so what if my ideals are not realistic, I am true to my ideas!” Ok, so you are enthusiastic and true to ideals, but what about your responsibility to your fellow man? Where can responsibility grow if not in response to the real world in which you live? Thus the banner of idealism is also an umbrella that shields you from the realities in which you live, the grim realities that should be addressed. It allows you to hide and feel superior without actually making much difference.

I have argued against the cynicism and pessimism of utilitarianism and force elsewhere, but I think it fair that you reappraise yourself that this concept of “idealism without responsibility” is yet another form of moral bankruptcy. Unless you are able to apply your ideals to the real work, you’re just jerking off and feeling good about yourself. Great! How about testing those ideals pragmatically and see how far they go? Sander, even the most conceptual ideas usually lead to useful tangible applications. In other words, having ideas is the first step. You have to test them out against the way the world really is. This was why your “benevolent dictator thesis” was so hollow. It doesn’t work and has higher costs than benefits.

What you sometimes argue is ideas without showing judgment, discretion or responsibility. That’s lazy thinking. Unless you are willing to accept the costs of your ideals and be honest them about, than you are merely saying “There! I have said my peace, I might be unrealistic but I am idealist, now I will go back to my corner and skulk.” Only when you are willing to see how those ideals impact a society do you become responsible. And that which is yours, that is your creation, you should be responsible for.

Think about it. Lenin was an idealist- and yet look how many people died. Pol Pot, Hitler? (Note, Stalin wasn’t- he was a most brutal of paranoid realists).

Idealism without being aware or considering pragmatic or real applications or even being aware of the real world around you is just sloppy as well as narcissism. Before you can afford yourself the right to tell others how they should live, at least go out and see what really is.

 

[geekpocket]

Sander, direct attacks are only one way to defeat the enemy. Cutting off their supplies (which terrorists dont have the resources/manpower to stop Americas supply routes), demoralizing them through continuous and random attacks, and poisoning their food. Though not commonly used that's one of the oldest tricks in the book. I don't think it's likely that some terrorists would be able to contaminate the cows in Washington, but it's not something i would dismiss without examining first.

 

[Sander]

Three things, first the mad cow disease thingy:
MAd Cows disease would be the most idiotic and stupid way to attack the USA ever. First of all, it's inefficient, it's relatively easily contained if found out(which isn't too hard-seeing as how the cows are mad). But, as you mentioned, it could indeed be an attack on a food supply. While you do have a point that could theoretically so, there are better ways to do such a thing.
It doesn't however really harm people. It can take up to 8 years for the disease to become apparent(and effective) in humans, and it certainly isn't effective as killing.
Although I have to give you that it could have been an attack on food-supplies, I find it highly unlikely.

And, welsh, you are right that a common enemy isn't necessary. But I think that a common enemy unites the people, it was perhaps badly phrased, but I did not mean making the USA economically stronger or something of that kind. A common enemy unites the people of the USA, and I think that that is very visible.

Then there is idealism. YOu say that they went after Osama and would have done so anyway, and I agree that they should have. I never said they should not have gone after Osama. Some things Bush has done were good, and I do know that there will always be victims in a war, and that those victims are sometimes necessary. In the case of Afghanistan, I think it was good, although I don't agree with all the military actions, I am not a military strategist, and I cannot truly judge on what would have been better. I haven't said anything about Afghanistan, though.
What I have said things about has been Iraq, I still am opposed to the war in Iraq, especially the way in which it has been handled by the Bush administration. I think it should never have gone like this, and that there were certainly other ways. For one, they should've waited until the new weapons inspectors hhad done their job, they shouldn't have attacked under false pretenses, and they shouldn't have ignored the UN(Yes, I know that lgally it was all fine). But I have said all these things before.
Now you accuse me of not being pragmatic-but I disagree here. I think I'm being realtively pragmatic.
One thing I fail to see, is why in hell's name those things I've just mentioned were NOT adhered to by the USA. "To please the public"(Which works, there are enough fools out there who STILL believe that there was actually a legimit terrorist threat from Iraq), but I don't think it was unreasonable of me to want them to do it in the way I wanted them to do it. I see nothing wrong with it, and I don't see anything unrealistic about. it.

You are right, of course, that idealism needs to be paired with realism. I am an (aspiring) pacifist, but I do not expect wars to end and armies to stop existing, for one, it would suck for all the military personnel. But I do expect countries to do as much as they can to avoid wars-something which I haven't seen in the Bush admin.

Now, even though I don't show it, I am relatively pragmatic. I realise that communism would never work without a committed people, a happy people, and probably democracy and freedom of speech as well. Communism is basically a pipe dream. Pure socialism is as well. I think we will eventually be moving towards socialism, but never pure socialism. There need to be goals for people, otherwise they not only lose motivation, but you have the problem of a possible "Brave New World". Which would suck. I am pragmatic with a lot of things, but I also tend to want leaders of this world to do idealistic things. I want the USA to do it especially, because they are the leading country, and they do have an exemplary role. This is not realistic, but I can still argue that it should be so, and I do.

Lastly, I don't think I actually use my idealism as a protective shield, it is not like I'm saying "Oh, you think I shouldn't think this way, your arguments are better, but I'm an idealist, so I don't agree, hah!"
No, what I am saying is "Well, it isn't realistic to ask of them to do this, however it would be better, neater, and it would not really have any bad consequences for them because.....and that is why I think they should. I do know that they won't, but I still feel that they should."
That is what I do.
What you, and others, do at times, though, is using realism as a shield. Although it is a bit more logical I find it annoying to see people say "They wouldn't have acted differently, so why should we?"
Which is what you did, even here. And I hate that, thinking like that will NEVER change anything. Ever.

PS: Would you stop with the benevolent dictator thingie already? How many times do I have to say that it was all theory, and that it could never work in practice? I have NEVER argued that it should actually be tried!! So please, stop twisting my own words there.

 

[welsh]

Sander-
I had a more detailed response but it will have to wait. In the meantime.

(1) The insertion of realism to your ideological arguments is often to bring you back to earth and get you grounded in reality. There have been other posts where the importance of ideas has been emphasized.

(2) "I want the USA to do it especially, because they are the leading country, and they do have an exemplary role. This is not realistic, but I can still argue that it should be so, and I do. "

This argument has already been beaten down, yet it returns.

(3) You do realize that by taking this position, "This is not realistic, but I can still argue that it should be so, and I do. " you are much more like Paladin Solo than perhaps you care to admit?

The difference seems to be one of political leanings, with PS on the far right and you, increasingly, to the far left.

 

[Sander]

2) It has been beaten down? Where? And might I again add that I do mention the fact that it is not realistic. I do wish them to do those things, though.
The argument I almost always is "They SHOULD do it in that way, but it's not realistic. That sucks."

3) Hmm, perhaps, but is that not the consequence of idealism? That when you take extreme political stances they may not be entirely realistic, and that you can get beaten down by that, but that you at least try to argue that things should not be in a certain way?
By arguing that way you are opening yourself up to attack, but you are also taking a moral and idealistic position which would make the world better.
I think that in debating I should try to keep idealistic and realistic arguments a bit more seperated, though. From now on, I will try to be more realistic, or at least to argue that things should be such and such from idealistic points of view, but also that things aren't like that, and that thus....etc. I'll try....heh.

Now, about Paladin Solo, though. I actually respect Paladin Solo for bringing out his idea(l)s, and how he thinks things should be. I don't beat on him for that.
I DO beat on him for saying things like "China only has a couple of nuclear warheads, they wouldn't last fifteen minutes in a nuclear war", and I beat on him for things that I, because of idealism, detest.
In other words, I beat on some stupid things, and I beat on things I disagree with. I don't have any problem with him being like me, though. At least not as long as I make statements like the one I just mentioned.

If I do, though, warn me. Quickly. Ehe.

 

[welsh]

2) It has been beaten down? Where? And might I again add that I do mention the fact that it is not realistic. I do wish them to do those things, though.
The argument I almost always is "They SHOULD do it in that way, but it's not realistic. That sucks."

As Good As It Gets (1997)

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: Easy. I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability. -

Don't make me beat you with Elissar's crowbar and no I will not go searching through the threads to find the times when you have made the "US should do this because it's the leading nation and should be moral."

Which is an idealistic argument based on a normative values but which, at least as you pitch it, lacks empirical weight. It's paper thin.

I've even had to come in and pitch why it might be wise for the US to take such a position from a pragmatic view.

The "They should do this , but they won't, that sucks." is self-aware sloppy reasoning even with the disclaimer. It's also pessimistic. You have not made the normative argument why your position is better, you have not made an argument why your position is more ideal than one in which a state restrains itself from being idealistic (because as you have pointed out there are both good and bad ideals) nor under what circumstances such a position might be possible, pragmatic and rational.

An argument should be comprised of a few parts. People will argue with this framework but generally speaking this is how people make good arguments. There needs to be a claim. That claim needs to be backed by your own reasons why that claim is valid and evidence from the real world that supports that claim. There should be (explicit or implied) a theory tieing your reasons and evidence to that claim. But the argument should also consider the costs and benefits of that position and weigh them against alternatives. That would make your arguments more well reasoned.

A good normative argument, or an idealist argument, doesn't just make the claim that "this is right" or "this is ideal" but weighs them against other norms and values or ideals. They should also consider the practical implications of those ideals.

3) Hmm, perhaps, but is that not the consequence of idealism? That when you take extreme political stances they may not be entirely realistic, and that you can get beaten down by that, but that you at least try to argue that things should not be in a certain way?

Nope, that's just grandstanding and it also makes you look foolish. By engaging in an intellectual debate you are involved in a dialogue and that dialogue implies that you have taken the other person's position seriously or at least that you have thought through your position and its consequences. It is probably dishonest, and irresponsible to take a position and not consider the consequences.

The idea of "winning" an argument is not to wave the banner of idealism, but to convince others that you are right and that they should accept your position. But if, by doing so, they bear the consequences.

Seriously, Sander, see the film or read the play Antigone. Here you have this very serious debate between an old king who does a cruel if realistic thing against a young ideological woman. You tend to sympathize with the young ideologue because it would be nice if the world were different, but you also hold her in ridicule because she's somewhat foolish and prone, and in her own way self-destructive for being such. Worse, she might have been able to win, but argued badly.

By arguing that way you are opening yourself up to attack, but you are also taking a moral and idealistic position which would make the world better.

Perhaps but you cannot tell that unless you consider a few things- the possibility of seeing your suggestions realized, and the consequences of those positions.

This is why Paladin Solo's suggestions and thoughts are often held to such ridicule-because they don't take into consideration the consequences or likelihood that they could be implemented.

If you want to convince someone you have to prove more than, "oh it would be a better world if only...." What, we lived in never never land?

No, you have to prove that your ideals are better, than your norms should be accepted, that the consequences of your claims do not outweighed the benefits.

That's harder but it makes for a better argument.

Note that not all the comments here are arguments, most are just discussions.

I think that in debating I should try to keep idealistic and realistic arguments a bit more seperated, though. From now on, I will try to be more realistic, or at least to argue that things should be such and such from idealistic points of view, but also that things aren't like that, and that thus....etc. I'll try....heh.

Please try, but think about the construct of the argument itself. Think more carefully about the reasons and evidence you have to support the claims you make, but also measure the costs and benefits in both real and ideal ways.

A good argument is not just logical but also responsible.

Now, about Paladin Solo, though. I actually respect Paladin Solo for bringing out his idea(l)s, and how he thinks things should be. I don't beat on him for that.
I DO beat on him for saying things like "China only has a couple of nuclear warheads, they wouldn't last fifteen minutes in a nuclear war", and I beat on him for things that I, because of idealism, detest.
In other words, I beat on some stupid things, and I beat on things I disagree with. I don't have any problem with him being like me, though. At least not as long as I make statements like the one I just mentioned.

If I do, though, warn me. Quickly. Ehe.

Thus the problem- you often attack him for realistic reasons- The number of nukes in China's arsenal and it's ability to survive. But that brings you back to the tangible, real world. The argument of Paladin Solo that we should mix church and state raises all sorts of legal,ethical, moral and pragmatic problems that seemed to be forgotten.

But you are taking the same position when you say "The US should do the moral thing because it's the leading country."

You do the same thing by taking the stand, "well that's idealism!"

(See movie quote above for the problem)

No, that's not idealism. Idealism takes itself seriously, recognizes that there are other ideals and values, and thinks through it's position. The claim of "well that's idealism" is just shallow thinking.

I applaud both of you for raising ideas and making arguments.

But both you and he need to think carefully about how you think through your arguments first.

 

[welsh]

Back to the argument-

Three things, first the mad cow disease thingy:
MAd Cows disease would be the most idiotic and stupid way to....
Although I have to give you that it could have been an attack on food-supplies, I find it highly unlikely.

I kind of agree. Unless the terrorists were targetting the beef industry which will take a hit over this. Considering the consumption of beef in the US and internationally, economically, scaring people away from a burger will carry a heavy price.

And, welsh, you are right that a common enemy isn't necessary. But I think that a common enemy unites the people, it was perhaps badly phrased, but I did not mean making the USA economically stronger or something of that kind. A common enemy unites the people of the USA, and I think that that is very visible.

Ok, you are targetting the US specifically on this one, but it seems a common function of any group that an attack against that group raises the defensiveness of all within that group. Doesn't matter of your are American or anything else. That a presidential leader could use that for power has already been addressed above.

Does this make the US unique- no.
Does this make US president's unique- no.

Your argument was that the US often needs this- no
Your argument said that a common enemy often unifies people- no.

This is a claim of either the obvious or it's superflous and weak.

Then there is idealism. YOu say that they went after Osama and would have done so anyway, and I agree that they should have.... I haven't said anything about Afghanistan, though.

Wait a second. This got started when I printed an article from teh Economist about size, then you made a comment about needing a common enemy and talking about 9-11 and terrorism.
My comment was about 9-11 and the perpetrators of that as well as the importance of free speech and transparent government.

On the side I will also agree that this entire War against Terrorism seems fabricated. Terrorists are not breeds of villians, but people who utilize terror as a weapon. During WW 2 when the ALgerians were cutting off the ears of German Soliders- that was terrorism too. "An attack against one target with the intended purpose of causing fear in others" = a minimalist but honest definition of terrorism.

Then you made an extension that the US needs this and only now applied it to Iraq. Bullshit stretching here to cover your argument. Sloppy!

What I have said things about has been Iraq, I still am opposed to the war in Iraq, especially the way in which it has been handled by the Bush administration. I....But I have said all these things before.

Yes you have, but that wasn't what got this argument going again was it? You were talking about the 9-11 enemy- Osama. I agree that the war against Iraq could have been done better. But now you are trying to stretch the original to cover this. My positions above were about the 9-11 attacks, not about the rather hazy threat from Iraq which I have repeatedly argued were not real threats against the US homeland.

Now you accuse me of not being pragmatic-but I disagree here. I think I'm being realtively pragmatic.

no, now I accuse you of cheating!

One thing I fail to see, is why in hell's name those things I've just mentioned were NOT adhered to by the USA. "To please the public"(Which works, there are enough fools out there who STILL believe that there was actually a legimit terrorist threat from Iraq), but I don't think it was unreasonable of me to want them to do it in the way I wanted them to do it. I see nothing wrong with it, and I don't see anything unrealistic about. it.

Problem here is that no one else sees the argument either.

You are right, of course, that idealism needs to be paired with realism. I am an (aspiring) pacifist, but I do not expect wars to end and armies to stop existing, for one, it would suck for all the military personnel. But I do expect countries to do as much as they can to avoid wars-something which I haven't seen in the Bush admin.

actually if you look at the Bush record his sabre rattling is more carefully focused then you are pointing out.

Now here you raise a pragmatic consequence- that the existance of the military is important for labor.

A bit weak, perhaps, but better.

Now, even though I don't show it, I am relatively pragmatic. I realise that communism would never work without a committed people, a happy people, and probably democracy and freedom of speech as well. Communism is basically a pipe dream. Pure socialism is as well. I think we will eventually be moving towards socialism, but never pure socialism. There need to be goals for people, otherwise they not only lose motivation, but you have the problem of a possible "Brave New World". Which would suck. I am pragmatic with a lot of things, but I also tend to want leaders of this world to do idealistic things. I want the USA to do it especially, because they are the leading country, and they do have an exemplary role. This is not realistic, but I can still argue that it should be so, and I do.

There it is.

You seem to be becoming an idealogue. I would suggest that it is better to be an independent critical thinker. Clinging to -isms is shorthand for thinking for yourself.

You are less making an argument than a declaration of "this is what I believe." You are not saying necessarily why you believe that to be the case.

Can you have communism and freedom of speech?
What is pure socialism?
Why do you think the world is becoming more socialistic when plenty of indicators point to a decline of the welfare state and a more globally competitive economy?
Why should leaders be better doing idealistic things? What, like Hitler or Mao?
Why should the US, by virtue of it's strength, be an idealistic leader? Isn't it already?

These are just some of the claims you make without much to support them. What you have is declarations, not argument.

Lastly, I don't think I actually use my idealism as a protective shield, it is not like I'm saying "Oh, you think I shouldn't think this way, your arguments are better, but I'm an idealist, so I don't agree, hah!"
No, what I am saying is "Well, it isn't realistic to ask of them to do this, however it would be better, neater, and it would not really have any bad consequences for them because.....and that is why I think they should. I do know that they won't, but I still feel that they should."

Rarely do you do the "It would not really have bad conseqeunces fo rthem because..." nearly enough.

And yes, you use the "idealism is my shield" bit a lot. You have a few times in the past few posts.

What you, and others, do at times, though, is using realism as a shield. Although it is a bit more logical I find it annoying to see people say "They wouldn't have acted differently, so why should we?"
Which is what you did, even here. And I hate that, thinking like that will NEVER change anything. Ever.

One way to test for the validity of a hypothesis is to test if it's generalizable. Would others do the same-yes, then it's realistic.

Why do I throw out the realism. For much the same reason I and others do when King/PS does it. It grounds the argument back in reality and not in the ether of ideas. Why, because we live in the real world even if we breath in the ether.

However, we have argued that the world can and should change. I have made a number of arguments here advocating change. So the claim "THinking that will never change anything, ever," is a bit dishonest and extreme.

Sander- the problem with being an ideologue is that you try to fit the world within your ideas and then try to sell the ideas to others. The purpose is not a dialogue but a conquest. A dialogue requires rational people to make reasonable arguments. Not make declarations or sound bytes.

Would you stop with the benevolent dictator thingie already? How many times do I have to say that it was all theory, and that it could never work in practice? I have NEVER argued that it should actually be tried!! So please, stop twisting my own words there.

What is the point of a theory if it can't be utilized? It's just bullshit. Dude, take responsibility for your arguments.

 

[Wooz]

Welsh wrote

Ok, you are targetting the US specifically on this one, but it seems a common function of any group that an attack against that group raises the defensiveness of all within that group. Doesn't matter of your are American or anything else. That a presidential leader could use that for power has already been addressed above.

Does this make the US unique- no.
Does this make US president's unique- no.

Your argument was that the US often needs this- no
Your argument said that a common enemy often unifies people- no.

While I agree that the US isn't the only country to react that way, I believe that it is a fine example on how to boost up the armament industry and obtain support to a war, by spreading the "imminent threat" argument.
It was done in Vietnam, the threat were the commies.
The US government is doing it since 9-11, the threat being the foul subhuman terrorists of darkness. And the countries suspected to harbour terrorists.

If the Saudi would have increased the price of an oil barrel dramatically, making Iraq the only possible alternative for oil supply, *and* if the UN lifted the embargo on Saddam, then MAYBE he would be a serious *threat* to the United States, as everybody would be pumping serious cash into his regime.(That's one of the reasons he had to be removed, to maintain oil prices without financing a US-hostile dictatorship)

Back to topic, "reboosting" the economy via the armament business has been done before, in similar consequences, in 1936, Germany. The problem with building more and more weapons is that someday you'll have to use them, and making people paranoid and xenophobic isn't a good idea either.

My point is that inducing paranoia to the people to gain support in 'security' measures is a well-known trick to rip your money and your life off, by creating the illusion that the government is your protector, and its actions to keep you safe are always absolutely legitimate.

"Die, die, die, die, die for your government"

 

[Sander]

What is the point of a theory if it can't be utilized? It's just bullshit. Dude, take responsibility for your arguments.

First: The argument was ALWAYS theoretical. Something I said from the beginning. Theoretically the benign dictator would be the best form of government. It could never work, and I've always said it. So I don't see how you could possibly attack me there without ignoring parts of what I said.

Idealism:
Welsh, I think you're being way too harsh and actually ignoring a lot of things.

1) "They should do this, but don't" argument is NOT sloppy-self-awareness, it is merely stating how you think things should be. Why is it so bloody hard for you to understand that I feel that certain things should have been done a different, even though that may not be realistic? Why?
That'd be the same as saying that the libertarian party in the USA is being stupid because they'll never get any kind of majority. So? Does that stop them, and, does that somehow make them more or less right? Does that in any way detract from their argumentative position?

Now, I don't make empirical arguments why my position is better, according to you. I strongly disagree, in this thread, I haven't. Not with the things you pointed out, why not? Because they were small examples and I wasn't about to go and derail the entire thread to discuss socialsm/communism and the rest of my ideals. I'd be happy to, and I'd be able to provide you with plenty of solid arguments, but I did not want to, which is why I left those arguments out.
Now, the main difference for the USA to actually go through the UN, to await the weapon's inspectors and to come clean about their reasoning would be:
a) Morally. They would be doing a good thing, they'd be making the government more transparent and more controllable by the people. WHat's more, they wouldn't have damaged the belief in the government and the Bush administration(what little belief there was to begin with...) of several people, like me.

b) Public support. The public who support him now would've supported him if he had told the real reasons as well. And I'm certain that a lot of people actually wouldn't've been that hard on him, and aren't that hard hon him. Why am I so certain? Because I am certain that I would have at least partially supported him if he had at least used the argument "Saddam is a bad mofo, let's go through the UN and kick him the fuck out." But Bush didn't. So now Bush is a lying scumbag who used bad reasoning and flawed arguyments to play the public. And I hate that. It's bad for governments, and it's bad for the basis on which governments are built.

c) Support from countries. If he had gone through the UN other ccountries would have supported him, which is obviously good.

Okay, the second part. Antigone et al.
Antigone was a bit interesting to read and see(in theater), and you are partially right. I did think of Antigone as foolish, but not because she stood up against the king or used bad arguments, but because she was risking her life. THAT was what I found foolish about her.
Now, the fact that you think that I do not think through other people's positions, or do not think through my position shows that either I'm not being very clear in it, or that you're not paying attention. I do think every single position through, but why would that stop me from presenting my (ideologic) case? Because I think my own position through, I do realise that it is not entirely realistic to ask Bush to say that he wanted oil. I would've preferred him to, but it's more wishful thinking than actual reasonable expectation. I could say a lot more extreme and unreasonable things of "this is how it should be", but I don't, because that would be stupid. I think my own position through with empirical reasoning, and I weigh it off to other position. And I come to the conclusion that my position is better.
The positions where I then use the "I am idealist" argument are the positions where it all boils down to morals. Where I am asked why I think that human life is too valuable to be watsed like that. I have no choice to answer then but with the words "I think that way." , and it's things like that lead to "I am idealist.". I do not use "I am idealist" as an argument in itself, nor do I use it to protect myself or even my point of my view. I use it to justify, to justify it morally, because it can be hard to explain it otherwise.

I have to admit though, that I've gone to some extremes recently. Before the war started in that debate I used almost solely empirical arguments, while now I've gone to more moralistic arguments. So you are right in that.

On to the next part:
You say that I should take into account the likeliness of things happening. Then I ask why. Why do I have to take into account that it's absolutely unlikely that the government will become more truthful when I argue that they SHOULD become more truthful? That very thinking is incredibly annoying. What you fail to realise here is that i everyone every time a change should be felt stopped and thought "Ah, what's the point, it'll probably never happen anyway." nothing will ever change. While it may take centuries for things to change, if you never take up the argument in the first place, it'll never change anyway. So, no, I will not take into account the likeliness of things happening, or only up to a certain point. Arguments need to be raised, I'm not saying that I will actually achieve something by saying those things, but I'm not going to stop saying those things because they are unlikely. I will, however, be less extreme and go back to more empirical arguments.

When will I stop saying those things then? I will stop saying that people should be doing those things from an empirical point of view when it will effect tham adversely. IN other words, I won't be arguing that the Bush admin should say that they went in there for the oil, because that would just be stupid of them.
But I will not stop saying that they should do certain things when it wouldn't effect them adversely, but not positively either. I can't see why they shouldn't have emphasized the argument "Saddam is a bad mofo, we need to kick him out." Of course, this would mean that there would've been people saying "screw that, it's not our country that's in danger.", but I do know that there would have been people who would have been more supportive. So, here it is a weighing between the part where it woul dbe slightly more beneficial for the governemnt, and more moral. I then argue that they should've taken the moral way. Why? Because it's morals. YOu cannot expect me to be without morals and to not take them into consideration, welsh.

That's about it for idealism. Next up.

_____________________________________________

I rest my case with the USA needs a common enemy, welsh. I was kind of stating the obvious there, but I was also trying to argue that the USA has had a common enemy through it's history of strong foreign politics. Clinton was the exception here, so that kind of neutralizes my argument, unless someone can come up with a good explanation. I can't.

Okay. 9-11 vs. Iraq.
You're mixing things up, here, welsh. First off, the part where I did say that I was talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan was the part where you said "Any other country would have done the same thing." I have never EVER said that Afghanistan should not have been attacked. Ever. So that's what I said. Then you say that I stretched my argument.
Well, I didn't. I just didn't say specifically that I was talking about Iraq originally, instead of Afghanistan. It was a better statement of my argument instead of stretching it.

actually if you look at the Bush record his sabre rattling is more carefully focused then you are pointing out.

Now here you raise a pragmatic consequence- that the existance of the military is important for labor.

A bit weak, perhaps, but better.

Bush's sabre rattling is more focused, but war could have still been avoided in Iraq. While he isn't storming in on everything country, he didn't avoid the war in Iraq either.

The pragmatic consequence was only a small example of one of the many consequences of having no army. SO please don't pick on me for that.

As I said before I didn't go into detail with those things because I didn't want to derail the thread. If you want to address my thoughts on the matter, though, please, feel free to do it. I would rather do it in another thread, though.

As I've also said before, I'm going to have to step back and go back to the more empirical arguments. I fear I've shot, but shot too far with the idealism. Heh.

 

[DarkCorp]

Do we even know why the government does the shady shit it does? We supported Noriega because we needed a non communist in control of the Panama canal. Could you imagine what would have happened if the soviets had control of it? Sure Noriega was a bad guy but in order to make america safe, people have to suffer. America annexed Hawaii, a downright invasion. But if we didn't have a staging point to break through fortress europe, would we have won WW2? Better yet, what if the Japanese got control of Hawaii? Or what about S. America? Would you prefer to hide in an isolationistic shell until we have a super sized Cuba? The fact of the matter is that would be tough as fighting the Nazis with the entire european continent and the vast oil fields of the Soviet Union under their control. The best defense is making sure your opponent has no offense.

All these americans go and complain yet they don't want to wait in mile long gas lines due to other countries holding america hostage with oil? Would female americans protest american intervention if non-intervention meant they could be forced to wear burkhas and they could be killed for saying the devil ain't real?

The world isn't made of sugar plums and fairies. We live in a world where every country is constantly vying for a bigger piece of the pie. Not only are enemies, but even allies try to send spies in eachothers territory to maintain the status quo. If a country thats is number one doesn't stay on the ball, then a new country will be number one

 

[welsh]

Darkcorp- SO basically you are saying imperialism is ok?

One could argue that what we are seeing now is the legacy of cold war policies that supported authoritarian dictators as a lesser evil to communist dictatorships. But maybe had we supported new democracies, a lot of these problems might have been avoided.

Idealism:
Welsh, I think you're being way too harsh and actually ignoring a lot of things.

yes, I am. This is not personal Sander as an attack. More it's about trying to force you to reflect, to bring you back to earth, to caution against ideological extremes, and to make your arguments more rigorous. I think you are capable of making better arguments than some which you have offered up recently.

1) "They should do this, but don't" argument is NOT sloppy-self-awareness, it is merely stating how you think things should be. Why is it so bloody hard for you to understand that I feel that certain things should have been done a different, even though that may not be realistic? Why?

No more is that sloppy argument than saying either "I believe that the US has a God given mission to root out evil of terrorism where ever it exists and as president I will see to it that we destroy the scourge." - George Bush.

This kind of thinking is not an argument but a declaration. It has the danger of becoming sloganism in the wrong hands.

That'd be the same as saying that the libertarian party in the USA is being stupid because they'll never get any kind of majority. So? Does that stop them, and, does that somehow make them more or less right? Does that in any way detract from their argumentative position?

In another thread you made the argument that libertarianism is more a movement than a party, and I agree. SUre there is a Libertarian party, but it is more a movement of people who share libertarian ideals, many of which don't belong to that party. THey have an ideological position regarding the nature of the relationship between state and citizen and seem to be doing well because there are currently no other "fashionable" theories and those that point out the vacuousness of the libertarians are often called- socialists, marxists or commies. That's the problem- there is no dialogue.

But the goal of the libertarians is to convince a person of their ideas rather than put a person in office. That is the underlying objective.

Now, I don't make empirical arguments why my position is better, according to you. I strongly disagree, in this thread, I haven't. Not with the things you pointed out, why not? Because they were small examples and I wasn't about to go and derail the entire thread ...Now, the main difference for the USA to actually go through the UN, to await the weapon's inspectors and to come clean about their reasoning would be:
a) Morally. ...b) Public support. ...c) Support from countries.

That is a better argument.

Okay, the second part. Antigone et al.
Antigone was a bit interesting to read and see(in theater), and you are partially right. I did think of Antigone as foolish, but not because she stood up against the king or used bad arguments, but because she was risking her life. THAT was what I found foolish about her.

So the danger was extreme ideals?

Now, the fact that you think that I do not think through other people's positions, or do not think through my position shows that either I'm not being very clear in it, or that you're not paying attention

Probably a bit of both. But the onus is on you to be clear.

The positions where I then use the "I am idealist" argument are the positions where it all boils down to morals.... use it to justify, to justify it morally, because it can be hard to explain it otherwise.

THere are core ideals and principles that most people believe in. One can think of these as "warrants" that are so fundamental that you will get little objection.

However, getting to these core ideals is not always easy and in good arguments there is clash of values. But if you make an idealistic or normative argument you need to be willing to break it down to those core principles. One can think of this as almost a "race to the bottom" in that you are getting to what are the essential values. However it is either dishonest or short-sighted not to see that other values often conflict. However, the stronger argument weighs those values, while the weak argument ignores them.

I have to admit though, that I've gone to some extremes recently. Before the war started in that debate I used almost solely empirical arguments, while now I've gone to more moralistic arguments. So you are right in that.

Reflection is a good thing Sander. You need to come back to earth. The danger of extremes is when you adopt them as your own. What you adopt becomes yours and thus hard to abandon. The danger is that you may also blind yourself. I have made this argument to legal colleagues- good lawyers, as good debaters, are not ideologues but deep thinkers.

On to the next part:
You say that I should take into account the likeliness of things happening. Then I ask why. Why do I have to take into account that it's absolutely unlikely that the government will become more truthful when I argue that they SHOULD become more truthful?

I think this is another danger of ideal extremes- cynacism. Maybe making an argument about greater truthfulness and transparency is a better argument because that SHOULD be realized and that it governments have become more transparent in part because people demand that.

That a particular administration is less truthful than it should be raises serious policy and normative questions, and worth considering. People should expect a government to be truthful, or why should we trust in the social contract?

While it may take centuries for things to change, if you never take up the argument in the first place, it'll never change anyway. So, no, I will not take into account the likeliness of things happening, or only up to a certain point. Arguments need to be raised, I'm not saying that I will actually achieve something by saying those things, but I'm not going to stop saying those things because they are unlikely. I will, however, be less extreme and go back to more empirical arguments.

One of the great mistakes of people, especially the young, is to think that idealism means optimism, and realism means pessimism.

This is fiction.

Realism is only an awareness of what is, why it is and how it occurs. Idealism is only the conception of a more "perfect" world. The world does change, and often for the better. TO be blind to that fact means to miss out on much that is wonderful in the world. To have faith only in idealism is perhaps the worst pessimism of all, for it suggests that only in dreams are the hopes realized. That is also a form of fatalism.

But the world does change, and often for the better, if influenced by the right factors.

This next bit I address above, about the concept of fundamental values, or core values.

When will I stop saying those things then?.... YOu cannot expect me to be without morals and to not take them into consideration, welsh.

Nor have I. I ask that you take them more seriously and question them a bit. Values and ideals change with reconsideration. They are not fixed in stone- not even the core values.

That's about it for idealism. Next up.
I rest my case with the USA needs a common enemy, welsh. I was kind of stating the obvious there, but I was also trying to argue that the USA has had a common enemy through it's history of strong foreign politics. Clinton was the exception here, so that kind of neutralizes my argument, unless someone can come up with a good explanation. I can't.

No, you can't really rest your case because it doesn't hold much water. You argue for a "constructed enemy" when real enemies have existed, and you can't consider periods of growth when no enemies were apparent.

So the argument is nonsense. What you can do is say, "Yes, there are big holes, better to think of a better theory," then to try to plug them up. THat argument is sunk.

Okay. 9-11 vs. Iraq..... First off, the part where I did say that I was talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan ...... So that's what I said. Then you say that I stretched my argument.

The enemy was terrorism, primarily Osama's happy cave dwelling camel humping assholes, operating from Afghanistan. That is the 9-11 enemy, not Saddam. You stretched it. 9-11 was stretched into this 2003 to launch an invasion of Iraq.

Better argument- Bush used his popular support to steam roll an invasion of Iraq- the window of opportunity theory. WHich is more consistent than the "common enemy" theory.

Well, I didn't.

Yes you did.

I just didn't say specifically that I was talking about Iraq originally, instead of Afghanistan. It was a better statement of my argument instead of stretching it.

no you are covering by saying you were just sloppy. Tsk tsk

Bush's sabre rattling is more focused, but war could have still been avoided in Iraq. While he isn't storming in on everything country, he didn't avoid the war in Iraq either.

No, you don't see Bush storming into North Korea or sabre rattling too harsh with the Chinese- but they got nukes.

As I said before I didn't go into detail with those things because I didn't want to derail the thread. If you want to address my thoughts on the matter, though, please, feel free to do it. I would rather do it in another thread, though.

As I've also said before, I'm going to have to step back and go back to the more empirical arguments. I fear I've shot, but shot too far with the idealism. Heh.

Excuses, excuses. You're lucky we like you bud.

Yes, empirics are good. Nothing like real proof to make an argument real. Too much idealism is like stroking off. You're really just dicking around with yourself in the end, and eventually it blinds you to the real world.

 

[DarkCorp]

No imperialism indeed is never right., fair, just, whatever

However, as I said earlier, the world is not made of sugar plums and fairies. If we do not control oil, then we can be held hostage by it. If we leave communist expansion unchecked, it would soon grow to such an unprecendeted size that responding to an attack would be too late.

As said before no nation in the world that has been powerful had been exempt. The Romans controlled the entire european continent, the british isles, and parts of africa and the middle east. The English, Spanish, French also waged wars for resources, territory and power. Our favorite narrator tells us how Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.

It is in our human nature to survive by whatever means necessary and adopt a way of life most convenient for us. And once again the saying that the best defense is making sure your opponent has no offense. The roman empire gained power, but at the expense of enslaving conquered peoples and pillaging their lands. Oh yeah, the british doped up the chinese with opium and then took advantage of the country like they did to India. The Spanish killed thousands for gold and territory in S. America and Mexico. The Germans did the same to Europe as Napolean did. The Japanese did horrible things to the chinese, koreans, and other people under their yoke. When one group lives it up, another group suffers, its the balance of life.

In short it is not fair that other countries may not have nukes but the U.S. does. It is not right to support corrupt dictatorships to serve our interests. It is also not right to invade other countries and setup a puppet dictator or annex their lands. However, we live in a very nasty world boys and girls. I also wish to live in a Utopia where we all exist to help one another out, but that isn't going to happen, atleast not for a long time.

We have learned from history that powerful nations tend to want to stay in power. If the U.S. gets weak, then another country WILL take advantage and that would not be a very cool idea. Well the citizens that live in the new super power country will.

 

[DarkCorp]

PS: And so what would have happened if we let the U.S.S.R, grown unchecked?

Communism would have become such a problem that the U.S. and her allies may have needed to fight WW3, not a conventional war, but a thermonuclear holocaust that would lead to our fav game potentially coming to life.

Imperialism always has its faults. Romans, French, Germans, Japanese, English, they all had their fare share of insurgents and partisans. However, their main problem was that those countries were all landlocked and multiple superpowers, locked so close together, will always have to fight wars.

With the distance between the U.S.S.R, and the U.S. and the advent of destructive modern weapons, nuclear weapons would have been the primary weapon to put the other side under. Since nukes put both sides under MAD (mutually assured destruction), a major war had been avoided.

 

[welsh]

It is one of the ironies that nuclear weapons, criticized by peace advocates since being detonated, might be the reason why there have been no major wars in Europe since the Second World War (major meaning two great powers going directly against each other). The closest we have come have been "near things" as in Cuba in '62 and the middle east in '73. We have had proxy contests where combatants did square off each other- as in Korea and Vietnam, but no direct confrontations.

But the problem with imperialism is that of "overstretch" - going too far with your imperialiistic tendencies (at least through those utilizing raw military coercive force. As one British foreign minister said, "our military men would have us colonize the moon to defend India if they could." Jack Snyder's "Myuths of Empires" is both a cautionary tale of those consequences as well as an interesting causal argument. Darkcorp you might want to check it out- good history and a fairly easy read.

Then one must also consider the dangers of a security delimma- here two countries, equally desirous of security, begin to threaten each other because both are trying to maximize their individual security. Because the realisti/Hobbesian world places them in a situation where neither can trust the interests of the others, because communication is dangerous and (as Fearon argues) there is an incentive to keep some info private (does Iran really have the bomb or want the bomb or not?) creates uncertainty, thereby increasing the risks and likelihood of preemptive strikes to debilitate the enemy before they hit you. Arguably this happens in the '67 war between Israel and it's neighbors.

Add one more wrinkle- the hegemonic stability argument in which wars are more likily to occur between declining and rising power over who controls the status quo. While I think the economic arguments are often better (Kindleberger) the military side of this also makes for some serious questions (see Gilpin or Copeland). Here because one country is rising and another is declining, and since preeminance means you get to shape the world in your image, the desire to maintain hegemony or acquire it leds to conflict. Again, a danger of imperialism without restraints.

Darkcorp I think you make a valid point- would the world be better off with another nation as hegemon or dominant power? Certainlyt not had it been the Soviets- Not if it were China or Japan (although I doubt either has that power).

What if it were Europe? Here again, because of the difficulty of creating a federated nation, the European countries would eventually look to leadership of the powerful states- that could be Germany, France or, perhaps one day, Russia. Would you put greater trust in either of these countries if they were the most powerful.

But that said, one has to look back at the role of the US and give Sander's position it's due. The question the US has to ask is whether what we are doing is somehow self-destructive. Given the power and privilege of dominance, is the US ruining it's future with current policies? Could the US be a better leader in making a more peaceful world.

Again, as Sander pointed out, we cannot trust that the status quo is permanent. Reality changes. In fact one might argue that change is constant. So the question of the US is in someways also the trick to a good marriage of sorts.

The question is not whether you should stay the same or change. That question is foolish- change is constant. The question then becomes how should you change. For the US that issue is, "How should you change to retain your privilege for the long term." or " Are current policies counter productive to US long-term interests."

I would add another issue- Changes in dominance often lead to conflict. Historically the periods of peaceful transition are rare. That the Brits were able to transition hegemony to the US because of Britiain's relative decline to US relative empowerment, is remarkable. If the US is to be surpassed will it be Europe? If so, can that transition be made peacefully?