The News Thread

[rms]

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

this is too broad for me. the 2nd half is in reference to WW2?

How are Kuwait and Iraq not heavily materially motivated as well?

they are, didn't mean to imply that. it's that there was ethical gains that were large and economic/political. i'd say the eco/pol were larger which is what allowed a somewhat ethical change/intervention to occur

Why are elections automatically ethical?

they obviously aren't, but if the populace is willing to engage in a civil war to embolden elections, i would say they are 'more ethical' than dictatorship

I'm reading no objective reasons for intervening

do you mean no persuasive/convincing arguments here or no reasons?

 

[Dak]

this is too broad for me. the 2nd half is in reference to WW2?

Both were.

they are, didn't mean to imply that. it's that there was ethical gains that were large and economic/political. i'd say the eco/pol were larger which is what allowed a somewhat ethical change/intervention to occur

Ok. I don't see any ethical difference between Kuwaitis being in charge of Kuwait vs Iraqis other than who was amenable to US influence (obviously the Kuwaitis picked "the right side of history" (ie the more powerful side up to this point)). Kuwait has been a valuable ally in terms of both resources and geographic location for US control of regional resources. I had to spend several days there combined in my transit to and from Iraqi resource control operations.

they obviously aren't, but if the populace is willing to engage in a civil war to embolden elections, i would say they are 'more ethical' than dictatorship

Is it "the populace", or an externally inflamed potentially alternate authoritarian faction? I don't want to harp on this too much though since you were congenial to the non-objective preference of democracy.

do you mean no persuasive/convincing arguments here or no reasons?

Well I listed the reasons. It's all standard neocon "muh democracy" or "muh children" boilerplate. If TPTB want to knock out Syria because FUCK RUSSIA just say so, so we can deal with it in relevant terms.

 

[rms]

I don't see any ethical difference between Kuwaitis being in charge of Kuwait vs Iraqis other than who was amenable to US influence

=/ i guess this is the disconnect. kuwaitis having some semblance of sovereignty >>>>> iraqi having sovereignty over them

Is it "the populace", or an externally inflamed potentially alternate authoritarian faction?

seems like a very dark reading of the future but I said this earlier too -- the problem isn't deposing shitty people of power, it's that the next rung on the ladder is a tad less shitty or maybe even more shitty.

"muh democracy"

gotta admit though that 'muh democracy' is a more ethical thing, it's just that muh democracy is coded

 

[arg]

seems no matter who is president America is a bunch of warmongering idiots

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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.

Well it supports MIC jobs, and defense companies pay taxes too, so part of those sales go to benefits recipients

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think getting involved in Syria is really dumb, but I don't really have an issue if he takes out North Korea. They're technically a nuclear threat but only a serious one to South Korea (and their conventional artillery is more of a threat than their nukes). The sooner we destroy their leadership and military, the better. They have basically no chance at a democratic revolution at this point. It seems absolutely retarded that people are afraid about nuclear apocalypse when North Korea was allowed to develop nukes and is probably the single most likely government to use them in war today. Bill Clinton fucked up huge on NK and Dubya and Obama just ignored the problem.

 

[Dak]

=/ i guess this is the disconnect. kuwaitis having some semblance of sovereignty >>>>> iraqi having sovereignty over them

What's the real difference between Kuwaitis and Iraqis? A few decades of semi-democracy and kowtowing to the Anglo-American agenda? I hope you were pro-Confederacy, Southern sovereignty >>>> northerners having sovereignty.

gotta admit though that 'muh democracy' is a more ethical thing, it's just that muh democracy is coded

I see nothing a priori ethical about democracy. The majority can approve of heinous things.

Well it supports MIC jobs, and defense companies pay taxes too, so part of those sales go to benefits recipients

Yeah, the handful of people working in those companies get a benefit.

 

[rms]

eh, kind of tired of ignoring the case studies, which is what this discussion began on and requires, to only talk about theory

 

[Dak]

eh, kind of tired of ignoring the case studies, which is what this discussion began on and requires, to only talk about theory

I think you have to consider some counterfactual's when considering history. In all historical cases:

Purported positives of intervening:
Some different people die than would have maybe
Different power regime maybe
Different political structure maybe

Definite negatives to intervening
US casualties near certain
US treasure spent certainly

 

[rms]

i could counter all those points, and have for most, but you are interested in theoretical examples not with history. just losing interest man

 

[arg]

who gives a shit if dictators oppress / commit genocide on their people? would not spend a dime on them. blow them out of the sky/sea/earth if and only if they come near us, sure. we need a true libertarian non-interventionist government.

 

[Dak]

i could counter all those points, and have for most, but you are interested in theoretical examples not with history. just losing interest man

That's fine, but history provides us data. Theory informs the interpretation. You're pulling a "I let the facts speak for themselves" move, when facts never speak for themselves.

 

[rms]

I let "history" speak for itself, not "facts"

 

[Dak]

I let "history" speak for itself, not "facts"

Well no wonder this has gone nowhere. What is an account of history but an accumulation of purported facts, presented with a particular perspective?

Facts do not speak for themselves. They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theories or visions are mere isolated curiosities. - Thomas Sowell

 

[rms]

What is an account of history but an accumulation of purported facts, presented with a particular perspective?

"what is an argument but an accumulation of purported facts, presented with a particular perspective?"

I guess I know why you chose psych now

They speak for or against competing theories.

I use historical examples, not historical facts, to argue my theory. You use no historical evidence to support your claim and do nothing to disprove mine. Instead, you're only interested in 'theory' and seemingly playing devil's advocate for most of it or just shifting it to talk about what you want to talk about.

seems naive to assume the US will influence more outside of conflict than CHN/RUS/IRAN as they all support the current regime

Why does it matter whatsoever to the US what happens in Syria?

perfect example -- no logical connection to the statement I proposed, nor is my claim disputed. Just instead ignored and shifted to why is Syria relevant to the U.S.

 

[Dak]

"what is an argument but an accumulation of purported facts, presented with a particular perspective?"

This isn't entirely accurate, but close enough. A presentation of history is an argument, loosely.

I use historical examples, not historical facts, to argue my theory

Can you distinguish between examples and facts? I'm confused.

You use no historical evidence to support your claim and do nothing to disprove mine. Instead, you're only interested in 'theory' and seemingly playing devil's advocate for most of it or just shifting it to talk about what you want to talk about.

Well I obviously can't give a counter example of not-interfering in a situation where the interference occurred. But even to appeal to examples of interference or non-interference as providing good or bad outcomes requires agreement on the metrics, as well as their relative weight.

perfect example -- no logical connection to the statement I proposed, nor is my claim disputed. Just instead ignored and shifted to why is Syria relevant to the U.S.

I'm not denying that if the US doesn't intervene, RU/Iran will continue to have significant influence. I'm asking why that matters. In what way is your life, or the life of the average American demonstrably worse because Assad is in power in Syria, and probably in power because of Russian/Iranian support?

 

[rms]

Can you distinguish between examples and facts? I'm confused.

Facts are absolute and examples are just pieces of evidence that illustrate the larger argument. When I say intervening is better than non intervening, i recognize the possibility that this isn't true because every conflict is different

In what way is your life, or the life of the average American demonstrably worse because Assad is in power in Syria, and probably in power because of Russian/Iranian support?

I've already said your focus is too limited for a discussion on global politics. Acting like a 21st Cold War wouldn't escalate with more and more nations aligning with Russia as opposed to us/or neutrality. A 21st century Cold War's effects on the local populace should be obvious as well

 

[Dak]

Facts are absolute and examples are just pieces of evidence that illustrate the larger argument.

Examples aren't supposed to be factual in historical examples?

When I say intervening is better than non intervening, i recognize the possibility that this isn't true because every conflict is different

I've already said your focus is too limited for a discussion on global politics. Acting like a 21st Cold War wouldn't escalate with more and more nations aligning with Russia as opposed to us/or neutrality. A 21st century Cold War's effects on the local populace should be obvious as well

I'm very much opposed to escalating tensions, in large part because of the potential for a hot war. Intervening in Syria certainly does that. The fact that the US has been attempting to topple Assad for years now - in spite of Russian interests - would make it appear that we may already have a Cold War-lite ongoing.

 

[rms]

Examples aren't supposed to be factual in historical examples?

when I assert that non-intervention greatly influenced death counts in WW2, it's becomes 'closer' to a fact when I further cite every example of military intervention since the war, especially juxtaposed with non intervention in the Soviet Union and China. Those are now 3 examples that embolden my position and make the point hard to argue against. I wouldn't call it a fact because there's always a chance a convincing POV makes me re-think it. I just look at the evidence that's available and form the most logical opinion from it & me.

I'm very much opposed to escalating tensions

And Russia being invested in the region&regime does not escalate tensions already? so narrow, I don't get it

would make it appear that we may already have a Cold War-lite ongoing.

it clicks!

 

[Dak]

when I assert that non-intervention greatly influenced death counts in WW2, it's becomes 'closer' to a fact when I further cite every example of military intervention since the war, especially juxtaposed with non intervention in the Soviet Union and China. Those are now 3 examples that embolden my position and make the point hard to argue against. I wouldn't call it a fact because there's always a chance a convincing POV makes me re-think it. I just look at the evidence that's available and form the most logical opinion from it & me.

What would intervention in Europe have looked like? I'm sure it would include deaths. Comparing known death counts from historical events to the counterfactual of "less" deaths if there had been some earlier course of action isn't appealing to examples - it's engaging in counterfactuals. Intervention in the Pacific carries the same risk.

You're concerned about a Cold War but then saying that we should have directly attacked Russia and China on the heels of WWII to prevent Communism from taking lives. Was that even feasible? Assuming it is feasible, would it have saved lives?

Your logical conclusions rely on assumptions and counterfactuals which you aren't even acknowledging.

And Russia being invested in the region&regime does not escalate tensions already? so narrow, I don't get it

Russia is only ~400 miles away from Syria, the US is over 4,500 miles away if I estimated correctly. To put it a different way, Russia is closer to Syria than you are to me, while the US is farther away from Syria than any number of Euro UMers and you or I. I think Russia has a legitimate "interest" in the region.