The News Thread

[CiG]

non-interventionist libertarian types

Aka people that don't want to throw millions of tax dollars down the drain trying to fix problems that can never be fixed.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Aka people who don't understand the concept of a return on investment when their country has its corporate tentacles in every other country.

 

[rms]

WW2 was caused by WW1.

I think historically it is agreed that this is the largest contributor to it, as I noted with the economic depression caused by the war. You keep blowing past the appeasement of the 30's though which means me wonder whatsup here.

Arab Spring

from my understanding, a pseudo free election met with public resistance. sure, we and likely many other western powers enticed and funded certain aspects of the resistance, but it hardly seems like a bad thing here.

Japan lacks natural resources, but they submit to the western order.

the east asian submission to the western philosophy on economics is unique and has lead to them, being China/SKorea/Japan to being relevant globally in the quickest time spans in the history of all developed nations. Reading through and trying to understand how rapid the transformation was for Japan following surrender is so baffling to me.

I do not think it's appropriate to expect all modernizing peoples and nations to succumb to the "model minority" idea

The US has more to lose than Russia has to gain over that one port.

likely, but that is kind of the point in being "right" and an idea I wrestle with domestically as well. I am pondering an idea where the gov't used to at least appear to be interested in being right rather than being economically focused -- which is how I see the 21st century role of government being. (IE : all government policies have to economically feasible rather than subsidizing ideas we agree with but may not be profitable. could say this with regards to owning/protecting federal land)

Never mind the "morality" on killing Syrians over one port.

yes, the troubled position of interventionist morality on a global scale. to hope for change one must kill

We could just preemptively nuke the rest of the world and "tilt the table" our way entirely. And control all the history books about it. Win-win amirite.

I guess, but this just dodges the point in question to appeal to the limits of the idea. I guess you find that more appealing

 

[rms]

Aka people that don't want to throw millions of tax dollars down the drain trying to fix problems that can never be fixed.

this can apply to a lot of domestic problems as well as global to which i think is the wrong mindset

 

[zabu of nΩd]

We could just preemptively nuke the rest of the world and "tilt the table" our way entirely. And control all the history books about it. Win-win amirite.

Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

 

[CiG]

this can apply to a lot of domestic problems as well as global to which i think is the wrong mindset

Agreed so we should at least adjust our priorities.

Aka people who don't understand the concept of a return on investment when their country has its corporate tentacles in every other country.

Exactly how much investment does the U.S. have in Syria?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Exactly how much investment does the U.S. have in Syria?

Well there's at least $4B in annual revenue according to this:

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25730/what-the-west-owes-syrians_us-and-european-arms-sa

 

[CiG]

And that's all on weapons sales? Am I reading that right?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah

 

[tagradh]

There's also the fact that a fucked up Syria/Iraq and all the ISIS business means that neighbouring countries are willing to spend more on waffen. And one of those countries has the 3rd largest defence (lols) budget in the world.


Also, lols @ the UK's ratio.

BUT WE'RE FLOODED WITH REFOOGES.

 

[tagradh]

Aka people that don't want to throw millions of tax dollars down the drain trying to fix problems that can never be fixed.

I think there are situations that can be improved, if not entirely fixed. But the countries that attempt to fix shit, for so many reasons, almost always fail. If you've got a shitty regime in charge and a reasonable level of opposition then I think going in, annihilating the regime and accepting that you have to commit billions and potentially decades to rebuilding can work. But that doesn't happen. In Afghanistan and Iraq 'we' (primarily the US and the UK) did the first part but then totally fucked off the rebuilding bit. With Syria no one can even be fucked with the first part. But when there's so many vested interests and when politics in countries like the US and the UK are dominated by populist morons and the general population hasn't got a fucking clue... Eh.

 

[Dak]

I think historically it is agreed that this is the largest contributor to it, as I noted with the economic depression caused by the war. You keep blowing past the appeasement of the 30's though which means me wonder whatsup here.

from my understanding, a pseudo free election met with public resistance. sure, we and likely many other western powers enticed and funded certain aspects of the resistance, but it hardly seems like a bad thing here.

I blow past the "appeasement" because everyone acts like it's the root cause when it's quite many links down the chain.

Pretty much every nation in the Middle East is some form of authoritarian regime. The US supported attempts to topple the ones that weren't going along with the US agenda. Bahrain brutally cracked down on their uprising but the US ignored it because Bahrain plays nice.

the east asian submission to the western philosophy on economics is unique and has lead to them, being China/SKorea/Japan to being relevant globally in the quickest time spans in the history of all developed nations. Reading through and trying to understand how rapid the transformation was for Japan following surrender is so baffling to me.

I do not think it's appropriate to expect all modernizing peoples and nations to succumb to the "model minority" idea

Neither do I, which is why intervening here is dumb. Japan is populated with Japanese, Syria is populated with Muslim Arabs. That they had any semblance of modernity is probably thanks to the Ba'athist regime (just like in Iraq).

yes, the troubled position of interventionist morality on a global scale. to hope for change one must kill

Change doesn't mean morality. If we want to talk about preferring other outcomes (which require killing), just be up front about it. There's nothing ethical or moral about killing people so other people stop killing those people, etc etc.

I guess, but this just dodges the point in question to appeal to the limits of the idea. I guess you find that more appealing

Seriously?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

There's more problems with nuking the world than just MAD (although that is the most salient problem). But when the discussion is about "tilting things to our favor", there's no particular option that is initially off the table, and that's before we even determine who "our" is.

Well there's at least $4B in annual revenue according to this:

That's a bit misleading. While $4b in revenue is nice for the MIC, it's not profit for the US - the taxpayers pay for those weapons transfers. Then they are also expected to pay for the refugees.

 

[rms]

I blow past the "appeasement" because everyone acts like it's the root cause when it's quite many links down the chain.

you may also blow past appeasement because the idea of non intervention facilitated the greatest casualty in human history, which would then force your own opinion to accept that fact and change because of it. but that doesn't seem to be the case here

The US supported attempts to topple the ones that weren't going along with the US agenda.

yes. and that agenda includes democratic societies because that is in our and the global economic interests. our global agenda isn't morally pure, but advocating for democratic regimes, albeit from a recent history of pseudo ones, is hardly a bad thing for most countries. and it's a bad thing for countries that don't have good 'free' options, ala the middle east.

Neither do I, which is why intervening here is dumb.

this whole japan tangent went literally nowhere

There's nothing ethical or moral about killing people so other people stop killing those people, etc etc.

i would disagree. if you killed a home intruder that intended to kill your family, i would say that is a moral and ethical action. i guess you don't

 

[Dak]

you may also blow past appeasement because the idea of non intervention facilitated the greatest casualty in human history, which would then force your own opinion to accept that fact and change because of it. but that doesn't seem to be the case here

It's quite arguable whether or not WWII was the greatest casualty [count] in human history. Average estimates are around 60 million for all sides involved. Soviet Russia has been estimated to have killed that many of it's own people excluding WWII losses, and the same for Maoist China. Why didn't "we" intervene in those cases?

yes. and that agenda includes democratic societies because that is in our and the global economic interests. our global agenda isn't morally pure, but advocating for democratic regimes, albeit from a recent history of pseudo ones, is hardly a bad thing for most countries. and it's a bad thing for countries that don't have good 'free' options, ala the middle east.

Look at how well democracy is working in Iraq and Libya. Conversely, the UAE and Qatar seem to be doing quite well without it.

i would disagree. if you killed a home intruder that intended to kill your family, i would say that is a moral and ethical action. i guess you don't

Self defense (which includes defending your home imo) =/= intervening elsewhere. A more accurate analogy would be if you and your brother started fighting in your house and I dropped a bomb on it or sprayed it with bullets from the outside to "help".

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I think what's most concerning about the Syria bombing is how impulsive it is. Trump claims for years he is against meddling in the Middle East for years and even openly rips Obama for considering doing exactly what he did. This was even a factor in many people voting for him. He was about "America First" and would be less of a War Hawk/International Police that meddled in other nations' affairs. Then, after seeing a few videos of chemical attacks, he does a complete 180. The fact these videos were able to change his mind is itself concerning. What did he think the chemical attacks looked like 2013? Or did he just forget? The fact that he can do a 180 on a military position in a matter of days is very alarming. What happens when a more powerful nation does something that rubs him the wrong way?

 

[rms]

It's quite arguable whether or not WWII was the greatest casualty [count] in human history

not really. WW2 is a ~7 year period, CHN deaths from the Culture Revolution span decades. I imagine gulags, Siberian 'investment' and the establishment and maintaining of puppet regimes in Eastern Europe are the main culprits of post-WW2 soviet deaths and also span decades.

Soviet Russia has been estimated to have killed that many of it's own people excluding WWII losses, and the same for Maoist China. Why didn't "we" intervene in those cases?

instead of demonstrating a cohesive and effective argument against intervention, you instead are more focused on the complicated nature and to some extent hypocritical notion of U.S. intervention of the 20th and maybe 21st century. this is really boring and not really challenged by me. I have already commented on the practical nature of intervention when human cost as well as economic cost comes into play.

and you know why we didn't directly intervene into RUS or CHN -- that would be WW3. but you said we didn't learn from history

but i'm glad you're on my side, that non intervention led to as many deaths, roughly, as that of WW2 as well as the body count in WW2.

Self defense (which includes defending your home imo) =/= intervening elsewhere. A more accurate analogy would be if you and your brother started fighting in your house and I dropped a bomb on it or sprayed it with bullets from the outside to "help".

The analogy isn't about intervening, you are twisting all of this discussion instead of participating honestly in it.

The quote I used is quite clear,

There's nothing ethical or moral about killing people so other people stop killing those people, etc etc.

As evidenced by the quote, you said it is not ethical nor moral to kill 1 to save x+1. Now, you are saying it is ethical and/or moral to do this. referencing the scale of violence in response to this statement is a different point. you aren't conceding points that are blatantly contradicting your own POV nor acknowledging counter evidence.

Unless this becomes a more honest discussion, i'm just going to bow out. you've been in a Dak phase for like two weeks now and these phases are rather annoying =/

 

[rms]

What happens when a more powerful nation does something that rubs him the wrong way?

as more evidence comes out, it appears this is a political play more than anything else

 

[Dak]

not really. WW2 is a ~7 year period, CHN deaths from the Culture Revolution span decades. I imagine gulags, Siberian 'investment' and the establishment and maintaining of puppet regimes in Eastern Europe are the main culprits of post-WW2 soviet deaths and also span decades.

instead of demonstrating a cohesive and effective argument against intervention, you instead are more focused on the complicated nature and to some extent hypocritical notion of U.S. intervention of the 20th and maybe 21st century. this is really boring and not really challenged by me. I have already commented on the practical nature of intervention when human cost as well as economic cost comes into play.

and you know why we didn't directly intervene into RUS or CHN -- that would be WW3. but you said we didn't learn from history

but i'm glad you're on my side, that non intervention led to as many deaths, roughly, as that of WW2 as well as the body count in WW2.

Sure, ~7 years vs several decades. I don't see how you can argue objectively that one is better than the other. I'm saying intervention in practice has nothing to do ethics (other than as a political sales tactic), and little to do with material benefits to the average US person or especially the persons living in the place being intervened upon. At "best" it's about forcing "democracy" on the world, and at worst it's merely dick-swinging.

The analogy isn't about intervening, you are twisting all of this discussion instead of participating honestly in it.
The quote I used is quite clear,

As evidenced by the quote, you said it is not ethical nor moral to kill 1 to save x+1. Now, you are saying it is ethical and/or moral to do this. referencing the scale of violence in response to this statement is a different point. you aren't conceding points that are blatantly contradicting your own POV nor acknowledging counter evidence.

Unless this becomes a more honest discussion, i'm just going to bow out. you've been in a Dak phase for like two weeks now and these phases are rather annoying =/

Your understanding of what I said is all wrong, so apparently it wasn't clear. "Killing people so other people stop killing those people". I guess that's too generally stated so I'll state it very specifically for this incident: Killing Syrian civilians so Assad's forces stop killing Syrian civilians. At no time on this topic have we ever been talking about defense, strictly intervention. Assad is no danger to the US, and is fighting purportedly dangerous enemies (ISIS). So we are fighting an undangerous Assad incurring plenty of civilian "collateral" damage, because he has incurred civilian collateral damage in fighting dangerous ISIS. There's no ethical imperative here, no material benefit here. The US is just one more pig in the muckhole.

 

[rms]

I don't see how you can argue objectively that one is better than the other.

The casualty scale of intervening and not intervening tips so heavily to one side that it seems strange to say they are equal in terms of repercussions.

I'm saying intervention in practice has nothing to do ethics

Kuwait/Iraq I would argue has a major portion to do with ethics. Korea too I would say

Central America, I would say, is an example of economic interests far and away outweighing any 'noble' cause. Vietnam probably belongs here

Killing Syrian civilians so Assad's forces stop killing Syrian civilians.

You say this as if the body count is equal or the reasonings behind the killings don't matter.

Assad is no danger to the US

Allegiance to RUS/Iran is definitely a 'danger' to the U.S. as well as our interests in the region. Just simply don't agree with your political assessment of the country, region nor regime throughout.

because he has incurred civilian collateral damage in fighting dangerous ISIS. There's no ethical imperative here, no material benefit here

labeling his country's uprising to his psuedo election as "ISIS" is being very disingenuous to my understanding of the conflict.

giving/helping Syria "free and fair" elections (which obviously are not pure if we 'win' here) is an ethical benefit to intervention. history has depicted good things when 'colonized' peoples begin to experience liberalism, in that they establish their own states and eventually repeal external interests in control.

the U.S., to me, is obviously interested in regional and economic measures more than 'freedom' for Syrians, but that does not mean intervention is purely practical

 

[Dak]

The casualty scale of intervening and not intervening tips so heavily to one side that it seems strange to say they are equal in terms of repercussions.

How many more died because of intervening? Many less Japanese and Americans would have died at a minimum.

Kuwait/Iraq I would argue has a major portion to do with ethics. Korea too I would say

Central America, I would say, is an example of economic interests far and away outweighing any 'noble' cause. Vietnam probably belongs here

How are Kuwait and Iraq not heavily materially motivated as well? Large oil reserves in both. Conversely, interventions in CA and Vietnam were mostly proxy wars with the Communist powers.

You say this as if the body count is equal or the reasonings behind the killings don't matter.

Allegiance to RUS/Iran is definitely a 'danger' to the U.S. as well as our interests in the region. Just simply don't agree with your political assessment of the country, region nor regime throughout.

We don't even know what the body count is, and who is responsible for which. The US is supporting the opposition, which has its own body counts. The degree to which Russian/Iranian threats to the US are increased by the existence of a resourceless slice of land in the levant is minimal. You can fail to agree, but I read a lot of military commentary, and I'm reading no objective reasons for intervening. It's either some "think of the children" or "muh democracy" boilerplate, or there's Russophobia. There may be serious geopolitical reasons for attack Iraq, Libya, and Syria, but they sure as hell aren't being discussed publicly, and I would assert that it is because these serious geopolitical reasons aren't what the average US citizen would consider actually related to the nation's citizen's interests.

labeling his country's uprising to his psuedo election as "ISIS" is being very disingenuous to my understanding of the conflict.

giving/helping Syria "free and fair" elections (which obviously are not pure if we 'win' here) is an ethical benefit to intervention. history has depicted good things when 'colonized' peoples begin to experience liberalism, in that they establish their own states and eventually repeal external interests in control.

the U.S., to me, is obviously interested in regional and economic measures more than 'freedom' for Syrians, but that does not mean intervention is purely practical

Why are elections automatically ethical? Every political regime has its opposing malcontents. Funding, arming, and instigating them is fraught with problems, both practical and ethical.