Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ISIS, u wot m8?

Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2014 8:49:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://pamelageller.com...

I'm unable to post the article, but what is allegedly Iraq's own problems just became global.

I personally blame da US, for overthrowing a secular Ba'athis Regime and replacing it with a, idk how to describe it......"proto-democratic fundamentalist based centralized state" based in Baghdad.

Keep in mind that the ISIS (or ISIL, never got the name situation) are starting to execute Iraqi soldiers who were captured.

I personally am for an Iranian-US Coalition against ISIL fighters, but keep in mind, a conscription order was given out by the Iraqi government. Iran is also allegedly sending it's special forces into Iraq.

Iraq has to make a stand. It has a good lot of men at its disposal. It can make a stand before Jihadists reach Baghdad. America has to pay attention to Iraq now. After pulling itself into a useless war in which America simply drove a marathon of men into Iraq without meeting any serious resistance, Obama has to see the threats that the ISIS presents. If Iraq falls, how about Afghanistan? Might the Taliban or Al-Qaida make a come back?

It is a game of dominoes in my opinion. Hbu DDo?
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2014 9:01:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What was I tellin you the other day about this?... It's coming...
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 5:34:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.

Gawd why didn't we stick with Baathism?
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 5:35:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/20/2014 9:01:32 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
What was I tellin you the other day about this?... It's coming...

No boss. Merica has to deal with it. They overthrew Baathism, and now they're dealing with Fundamentalism.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
Mr_Soundboard
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:26:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh the great righteous America
"Conscience is universal, the ability to adhere to that moral thought is not"
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.

You make setting up a puppet state so easy...

First, it is pretty difficult to maintain the loyalty of a nominally independent country halfway around the world. Especially given the sectarian violence that persisted after the initial invasion and would have occurred even with your plan. How do you plan on preventing the figurehead from going rogue?

Second, Iraq has always been unstable, your plan only exacerbates the sectarianism that has plagued the country over the last decade. Its not like the US was doing a stellar job governing Iraq prior to the establishment of the existing government. You just create another reason for civil unrest; your plan results in a less stable Iraq than we had before Isis.

Third, everyone would know what the us is doing. Your plan undermines global us leadership. Believe it or not the trust other countries have in the us is important for antiterror operations, intelligence sharing, and the ability to form coalitions like that which acted in Libya. It also impacts our ability to lead negotiations on international agreements like the TPP. US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Fourth, ISIS is spillover from Syria. Yes, bad governance in Iraq is fueling ISIS ability to recruit and establish a foothold in Iraq, but if the group weren't able to establish itself in Syria there wouldnt be any ISIS in Iraq. Your puppet master would be faring just as poorly as Maliki right now.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 10:50:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.

You make setting up a puppet state so easy...

First, it is pretty difficult to maintain the loyalty of a nominally independent country halfway around the world. Especially given the sectarian violence that persisted after the initial invasion and would have occurred even with your plan. How do you plan on preventing the figurehead from going rogue?

Second, Iraq has always been unstable, your plan only exacerbates the sectarianism that has plagued the country over the last decade. Its not like the US was doing a stellar job governing Iraq prior to the establishment of the existing government. You just create another reason for civil unrest; your plan results in a less stable Iraq than we had before Isis.

Third, everyone would know what the us is doing. Your plan undermines global us leadership. Believe it or not the trust other countries have in the us is important for antiterror operations, intelligence sharing, and the ability to form coalitions like that which acted in Libya. It also impacts our ability to lead negotiations on international agreements like the TPP. US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Fourth, ISIS is spillover from Syria. Yes, bad governance in Iraq is fueling ISIS ability to recruit and establish a foothold in Iraq, but if the group weren't able to establish itself in Syria there wouldnt be any ISIS in Iraq. Your puppet master would be faring just as poorly as Maliki right now.

The US has been creating puppet states all over the world for decades. In 1953 they overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with a puppet king because the Iranians nationalised the oil industry. Stuff like that really makes you proud of the home of the brave and the land of the free. Oh, and the US has no such 'credibility'... its foreign policy is basically 'Protect our global military and economic dominance like Machiavelli would'.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 1:17:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 10:50:43 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.

You make setting up a puppet state so easy...

First, it is pretty difficult to maintain the loyalty of a nominally independent country halfway around the world. Especially given the sectarian violence that persisted after the initial invasion and would have occurred even with your plan. How do you plan on preventing the figurehead from going rogue?

Second, Iraq has always been unstable, your plan only exacerbates the sectarianism that has plagued the country over the last decade. Its not like the US was doing a stellar job governing Iraq prior to the establishment of the existing government. You just create another reason for civil unrest; your plan results in a less stable Iraq than we had before Isis.

Third, everyone would know what the us is doing. Your plan undermines global us leadership. Believe it or not the trust other countries have in the us is important for antiterror operations, intelligence sharing, and the ability to form coalitions like that which acted in Libya. It also impacts our ability to lead negotiations on international agreements like the TPP. US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Fourth, ISIS is spillover from Syria. Yes, bad governance in Iraq is fueling ISIS ability to recruit and establish a foothold in Iraq, but if the group weren't able to establish itself in Syria there wouldnt be any ISIS in Iraq. Your puppet master would be faring just as poorly as Maliki right now.

The US has been creating puppet states all over the world for decades. In 1953 they overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with a puppet king because the Iranians nationalised the oil industry. Stuff like that really makes you proud of the home of the brave and the land of the free. Oh, and the US has no such 'credibility'... its foreign policy is basically 'Protect our global military and economic dominance like Machiavelli would'.

If the US has no credibility why does the international community continue to support and work with US-led foreign policy ventures? Why was the US able to kick Russia out of the G8? Why is the US able to coordinate TPP negotiations? How was the use able to form international consensus on Libya? Why do countries all around the world continue to allow the U.S. to maintain bases on their soil?

Certainly many countries have no confidence in the U.S., but many first world countries do trust that our goals are not world domination through any means necessary.

Britain knows we aren't trying to colonize the Middle East precisely because we didn't turn Iraq and Afghanistan into puppet states. Had we done what 16k suggested, the British leadership would view the Middle East policy of the U.S. very differently.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 2:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Do you consider Japan to be an obvious puppet state? After all, we wrote their constitution. US credibility however was not trashed by how we handled Japan post-WWII.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 2:25:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 1:17:13 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/29/2014 10:50:43 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.

You make setting up a puppet state so easy...

First, it is pretty difficult to maintain the loyalty of a nominally independent country halfway around the world. Especially given the sectarian violence that persisted after the initial invasion and would have occurred even with your plan. How do you plan on preventing the figurehead from going rogue?

Second, Iraq has always been unstable, your plan only exacerbates the sectarianism that has plagued the country over the last decade. Its not like the US was doing a stellar job governing Iraq prior to the establishment of the existing government. You just create another reason for civil unrest; your plan results in a less stable Iraq than we had before Isis.

Third, everyone would know what the us is doing. Your plan undermines global us leadership. Believe it or not the trust other countries have in the us is important for antiterror operations, intelligence sharing, and the ability to form coalitions like that which acted in Libya. It also impacts our ability to lead negotiations on international agreements like the TPP. US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Fourth, ISIS is spillover from Syria. Yes, bad governance in Iraq is fueling ISIS ability to recruit and establish a foothold in Iraq, but if the group weren't able to establish itself in Syria there wouldnt be any ISIS in Iraq. Your puppet master would be faring just as poorly as Maliki right now.

The US has been creating puppet states all over the world for decades. In 1953 they overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with a puppet king because the Iranians nationalised the oil industry. Stuff like that really makes you proud of the home of the brave and the land of the free. Oh, and the US has no such 'credibility'... its foreign policy is basically 'Protect our global military and economic dominance like Machiavelli would'.

If the US has no credibility why does the international community continue to support and work with US-led foreign policy ventures? Why was the US able to kick Russia out of the G8? Why is the US able to coordinate TPP negotiations? How was the use able to form international consensus on Libya? Why do countries all around the world continue to allow the U.S. to maintain bases on their soil?

Certainly many countries have no confidence in the U.S., but many first world countries do trust that our goals are not world domination through any means necessary.

Britain knows we aren't trying to colonize the Middle East precisely because we didn't turn Iraq and Afghanistan into puppet states. Had we done what 16k suggested, the British leadership would view the Middle East policy of the U.S. very differently.

I think if we understand 'world domination' a little more subtly than the creation of an empire, then I disagree with you, American hegemony is, for the most part, the goal of US foreign policy. For many countries, working with the US is simply the most intelligent course of action - it is, after all, the most powerful country in the world, particularly when it comes to military power. What I'm suggesting is that the 'hegemony' doesn't need to be a violent colonisation, it merely needs to be a sufficient level of control to allow American interests to go broadly unchallenged - which is very, very different from establishing complete control. The thousands of US military bases over the world is an example of this more subtle form of control - and they're there because its not the best idea to oppose US interests. The CIA has proved itself more than capable of orchestrating the overthrow of a foreign government...

Examples are places like Cuba. The US still has sanctions against Cuba, despite every country in the world apart from Israel holding those sanctions to be illegal. The reason for these sanctions is not that the US fears a Cuban invasion, but because the uncooperative Cuba's very existence challenges US power in South America. The US has sanctions against Iran - not because it fears attack, but because Iran is uncooperative with US interests. Plenty of countries have nuclear weapons, but under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have them, because it would act as a nuclear deterrent to US aggression.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 4:05:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 2:21:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Do you consider Japan to be an obvious puppet state? After all, we wrote their constitution. US credibility however was not trashed by how we handled Japan post-WWII.

Do we really need to discuss the difference between post-ww2 Japan and post 9-11 Iraq?

My initial statement had the built in claim that the legitimacy of the us invasion of Iraq and the handling of Iraq afterwards was already viewed by the global community as highly questionable. International opinion concerning Japan after WWII was considerably different. Obviously two similar decisions made in dissimilar circumstances can be perceived differently.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 2:25:37 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 1:17:13 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/29/2014 10:50:43 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
This is what I think we should have done with Iraq.

Gone in there, kicked their @ss (which is what we did), then do NOT disband their military, merely disarm them and put them on the streets with our own troops, choose a general that was corruptible, or another plausible leader, stick him in control, gradually rearm the men after a period of stabilizing the region, bam, puppet state. Much easier then democracy, they don't want it. They want a caliph, not an elected leader. So, "give" them their leader. It is sad, but right now, the middle east is *mostly* not working with democracy... we should let it happen naturally, not force it like we tried to do.

You make setting up a puppet state so easy...

First, it is pretty difficult to maintain the loyalty of a nominally independent country halfway around the world. Especially given the sectarian violence that persisted after the initial invasion and would have occurred even with your plan. How do you plan on preventing the figurehead from going rogue?

Second, Iraq has always been unstable, your plan only exacerbates the sectarianism that has plagued the country over the last decade. Its not like the US was doing a stellar job governing Iraq prior to the establishment of the existing government. You just create another reason for civil unrest; your plan results in a less stable Iraq than we had before Isis.

Third, everyone would know what the us is doing. Your plan undermines global us leadership. Believe it or not the trust other countries have in the us is important for antiterror operations, intelligence sharing, and the ability to form coalitions like that which acted in Libya. It also impacts our ability to lead negotiations on international agreements like the TPP. US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Fourth, ISIS is spillover from Syria. Yes, bad governance in Iraq is fueling ISIS ability to recruit and establish a foothold in Iraq, but if the group weren't able to establish itself in Syria there wouldnt be any ISIS in Iraq. Your puppet master would be faring just as poorly as Maliki right now.

The US has been creating puppet states all over the world for decades. In 1953 they overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with a puppet king because the Iranians nationalised the oil industry. Stuff like that really makes you proud of the home of the brave and the land of the free. Oh, and the US has no such 'credibility'... its foreign policy is basically 'Protect our global military and economic dominance like Machiavelli would'.

If the US has no credibility why does the international community continue to support and work with US-led foreign policy ventures? Why was the US able to kick Russia out of the G8? Why is the US able to coordinate TPP negotiations? How was the use able to form international consensus on Libya? Why do countries all around the world continue to allow the U.S. to maintain bases on their soil?

Certainly many countries have no confidence in the U.S., but many first world countries do trust that our goals are not world domination through any means necessary.

Britain knows we aren't trying to colonize the Middle East precisely because we didn't turn Iraq and Afghanistan into puppet states. Had we done what 16k suggested, the British leadership would view the Middle East policy of the U.S. very differently.

I think if we understand 'world domination' a little more subtly than the creation of an empire, then I disagree with you, American hegemony is, for the most part, the goal of US foreign policy. For many countries, working with the US is simply the most intelligent course of action - it is, after all, the most powerful country in the world, particularly when it comes to military power. What I'm suggesting is that the 'hegemony' doesn't need to be a violent colonisation, it merely needs to be a sufficient level of control to allow American interests to go broadly unchallenged - which is very, very different from establishing complete control. The thousands of US military bases over the world is an example of this more subtle form of control - and they're there because its not the best idea to oppose US interests. The CIA has proved itself more than capable of orchestrating the overthrow of a foreign government...

Examples are places like Cuba. The US still has sanctions against Cuba, despite every country in the world apart from Israel holding those sanctions to be illegal. The reason for these sanctions is not that the US fears a Cuban invasion, but because the uncooperative Cuba's very existence challenges US power in South America. The US has sanctions against Iran - not because it fears attack, but because Iran is uncooperative with US interests. Plenty of countries have nuclear weapons, but under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have them, because it would act as a nuclear deterrent to US aggression.

That's all well and good, but the degree to which members of the global community accept and desire to collaborate with American hegemony is a function of their faith in what the goals of hegemony are.

If Britain thought a goal of us hegemony was to set up puppet states in the middle east, it would be much less on-board with us heg. Power relations don't exist for their own sake, they serve the interests of international actors. The creation of puppet states does not align with the interests of many international actors. Thus my argument above..
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 5:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 4:09:43 PM, Raisor wrote:

"That's all well and good, but the degree to which members of the global community accept and desire to collaborate with American hegemony is a function of their faith in what the goals of hegemony are.

If Britain thought a goal of us hegemony was to set up puppet states in the middle east, it would be much less on-board with us heg. Power relations don't exist for their own sake, they serve the interests of international actors. The creation of puppet states does not align with the interests of many international actors. Thus my argument above.."

Well, uh, I mentioned the 1953 coup in Iran... the major collaborator with the US in this obviously imperialistic behaviour (I mean seriously, overthrowing a democratic government because it decided to nationalise the oil industry) was indeed Britain.

I don't see what is difficult about this whole idea. Countries cooperate with the US firstly because its in their interests to, or they simply don't care about the ridiculous levels of American hypocrisy because that's just how things are. American credibility in the international community quite clearly rests on its extreme power, rather than on any kind of moral admiration of the US. I mean, it tortures people, spies on everyone, overthrows foreign governments with impunity, sanctions those who it doesn't like in violation of international law, launches assassinations and drone strikes on whoever it wants in whichever country it wants... it's not a great record.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 5:54:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 5:17:51 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 4:09:43 PM, Raisor wrote:

"That's all well and good, but the degree to which members of the global community accept and desire to collaborate with American hegemony is a function of their faith in what the goals of hegemony are.

If Britain thought a goal of us hegemony was to set up puppet states in the middle east, it would be much less on-board with us heg. Power relations don't exist for their own sake, they serve the interests of international actors. The creation of puppet states does not align with the interests of many international actors. Thus my argument above.."

Well, uh, I mentioned the 1953 coup in Iran... the major collaborator with the US in this obviously imperialistic behaviour (I mean seriously, overthrowing a democratic government because it decided to nationalise the oil industry) was indeed Britain.

I don't see what is difficult about this whole idea. Countries cooperate with the US firstly because its in their interests to, or they simply don't care about the ridiculous levels of American hypocrisy because that's just how things are. American credibility in the international community quite clearly rests on its extreme power, rather than on any kind of moral admiration of the US. I mean, it tortures people, spies on everyone, overthrows foreign governments with impunity, sanctions those who it doesn't like in violation of international law, launches assassinations and drone strikes on whoever it wants in whichever country it wants... it's not a great record.

There isn't anything difficult, I follow your argument. I disagree that countries don't care about actions that go contrary to the stated values of the us. I think drone strikes and espionage have an impact on the ability of the us to further is interests because of how the international community perceives these things. I similarly think creating a puppet state in Iraq would have similarly hurt the ability of the us to further its interests.

It isn't a binary issue. I don't disagree that the us has done things to undermine its credibility, I don't deny that the us has political capital inspire of this. I do claim that the us has some nonzero credibility and that credibility impacts the us ability to operate on the international scene.

If other countries had literally zero confidence in the stated goals of us foreign policy, they would have no reason to cooperate on multilateral issues like Libya. Libya required a huge amount of diplomatic assurance by the us to European countries regarding the scope and goals of the operation. The us had to convince skeptical countries to back the Libyan campaign, and they did. If the credibility of the us was zero, that could not have happened. If the credibility of the us was irrelevant, those assurances wouldn't have been needed.

Convincing other actors of your intentions and goals is important to international relations. The issue is nuanced.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 6:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 5:54:00 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/29/2014 5:17:51 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 4:09:43 PM, Raisor wrote:

"That's all well and good, but the degree to which members of the global community accept and desire to collaborate with American hegemony is a function of their faith in what the goals of hegemony are.

If Britain thought a goal of us hegemony was to set up puppet states in the middle east, it would be much less on-board with us heg. Power relations don't exist for their own sake, they serve the interests of international actors. The creation of puppet states does not align with the interests of many international actors. Thus my argument above.."

Well, uh, I mentioned the 1953 coup in Iran... the major collaborator with the US in this obviously imperialistic behaviour (I mean seriously, overthrowing a democratic government because it decided to nationalise the oil industry) was indeed Britain.

I don't see what is difficult about this whole idea. Countries cooperate with the US firstly because its in their interests to, or they simply don't care about the ridiculous levels of American hypocrisy because that's just how things are. American credibility in the international community quite clearly rests on its extreme power, rather than on any kind of moral admiration of the US. I mean, it tortures people, spies on everyone, overthrows foreign governments with impunity, sanctions those who it doesn't like in violation of international law, launches assassinations and drone strikes on whoever it wants in whichever country it wants... it's not a great record.

There isn't anything difficult, I follow your argument. I disagree that countries don't care about actions that go contrary to the stated values of the us. I think drone strikes and espionage have an impact on the ability of the us to further is interests because of how the international community perceives these things. I similarly think creating a puppet state in Iraq would have similarly hurt the ability of the us to further its interests.

It isn't a binary issue. I don't disagree that the us has done things to undermine its credibility, I don't deny that the us has political capital inspire of this. I do claim that the us has some nonzero credibility and that credibility impacts the us ability to operate on the international scene.

If other countries had literally zero confidence in the stated goals of us foreign policy, they would have no reason to cooperate on multilateral issues like Libya. Libya required a huge amount of diplomatic assurance by the us to European countries regarding the scope and goals of the operation. The us had to convince skeptical countries to back the Libyan campaign, and they did. If the credibility of the us was zero, that could not have happened. If the credibility of the us was irrelevant, those assurances wouldn't have been needed.

Convincing other actors of your intentions and goals is important to international relations. The issue is nuanced.

I don't know what you mean by 'zero confidence in the stated goals', since I am pretty sure I never said such a thing. Confidence in the moral integrity of their goals?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 4:05:24 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/29/2014 2:21:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Do you consider Japan to be an obvious puppet state? After all, we wrote their constitution. US credibility however was not trashed by how we handled Japan post-WWII.

Do we really need to discuss the difference between post-ww2 Japan and post 9-11 Iraq?

Yes we do.

My initial statement had the built in claim that the legitimacy of the us invasion of Iraq and the handling of Iraq afterwards was already viewed by the global community as highly questionable. International opinion concerning Japan after WWII was considerably different. Obviously two similar decisions made in dissimilar circumstances can be perceived differently.

And what made the circumstances different? I remember you made a comment before that all international politics was about was relative power relations. In this sense, given your argument about US credibility, that credibility was thus already lost regardless of whether or not the US even had a decision to make regarding Iraq, because on a power parity basis, the US finds itself today first among peers instead of the sole surviving nation of a cataclysmic war.

The question would then be whether or not such a stance is actually valid. After all, we do indeed spend more on our military than next 26 nations combined. So, could we have prosecuted Iraq in such a manner as to demonstrate how our primal position is as unchallenged today as it was at the end of WWII? IMHO we could have. But, we didn't.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:48:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 11:02:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2014 4:05:24 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/29/2014 2:21:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:28:42 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/20/2014 10:10:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
US credibility was trashed by Iraq without making it into an obvious puppet state, you would leave the US in a terrible position.

Do you consider Japan to be an obvious puppet state? After all, we wrote their constitution. US credibility however was not trashed by how we handled Japan post-WWII.

Do we really need to discuss the difference between post-ww2 Japan and post 9-11 Iraq?

Yes we do.

My initial statement had the built in claim that the legitimacy of the us invasion of Iraq and the handling of Iraq afterwards was already viewed by the global community as highly questionable. International opinion concerning Japan after WWII was considerably different. Obviously two similar decisions made in dissimilar circumstances can be perceived differently.

And what made the circumstances different? I remember you made a comment before that all international politics was about was relative power relations. In this sense, given your argument about US credibility, that credibility was thus already lost regardless of whether or not the US even had a decision to make regarding Iraq, because on a power parity basis, the US finds itself today first among peers instead of the sole surviving nation of a cataclysmic war.

Credibility isn't binary - Germany can believe that we mean to establish a free democracy in Iraq while being skeptical that this motive won't be subordinated to other objectives such as oil security.

Credibility wasn't "lost" by the Iraq invasion, it was "damaged" Installing a puppet dictator would further "damage" credibility.

Credibility isn't a function of power parity. No one believes a word Russia says because they have proven time and time again that they are committed to a particular brand of hard-nosed realism that shows little concern for Human Rights. Russia could not have organized the Libyan campaign, because everyone knows it is full of shiiit. No one would have trusted Russia to organize the overthrow of an existing government.

The US actually has some credibility- it dumps huge amounts of money into democracy promotion and humanitarian aid. In terms of gross income, the US spent almost ten times as much on humanitarian aid than Russia. That works out to a hundred times as much in terms of dollars spent.

http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org...

This reads on the international scene, other countries know that the US does have an actual interest in improving humanitarian conditions.

The US also pressures other countries to expand human rights like freedom of speech. The fact that we maintain a free press and restrictions on the government's ability to search its citizens while pressuring other countries like China signals to the rest of the world we have an actual interest in these issues. Often the pressure we apply to other countries on human rights issues works at a cross purpose to other national interests.

Yes, IR is all about power relations. But those power relations are used in service of certain goals. Credibility is how other countries read the stated goals of other actors.

One of the stated goals of the Iraq war was democracy promotion. Establishing a puppet state would signal to the world that we aren't interested in even superficially adhering to our stated intentions.


The question would then be whether or not such a stance is actually valid. After all, we do indeed spend more on our military than next 26 nations combined. So, could we have prosecuted Iraq in such a manner as to demonstrate how our primal position is as unchallenged today as it was at the end of WWII? IMHO we could have. But, we didn't.

I apologize, but I don't follow your point here. I agree we could have exercised a much greater show of force in Iraq, I do not understand what relevance that has to the topic at hand. Perhaps you could further elaborate?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 12:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 10:48:56 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:02:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

My initial statement had the built in claim that the legitimacy of the us invasion of Iraq and the handling of Iraq afterwards was already viewed by the global community as highly questionable. International opinion concerning Japan after WWII was considerably different. Obviously two similar decisions made in dissimilar circumstances can be perceived differently.

And what made the circumstances different? I remember you made a comment before that all international politics was about was relative power relations. In this sense, given your argument about US credibility, that credibility was thus already lost regardless of whether or not the US even had a decision to make regarding Iraq, because on a power parity basis, the US finds itself today first among peers instead of the sole surviving nation of a cataclysmic war.

Credibility isn't binary - Germany can believe that we mean to establish a free democracy in Iraq while being skeptical that this motive won't be subordinated to other objectives such as oil security.

This is semantics. When you lose credibility, it doesn't mean you don't have credibility. Really, given your own prior arguments about power relations, I would think you would instinctively understand the relativism intrinsic in the language I am using.

Credibility wasn't "lost" by the Iraq invasion, it was "damaged" Installing a puppet dictator would further "damage" credibility.

Again this is flatly refuted by precedence in Japan and Korea. Replace "dictator" with "regime". We gained credibility because our direct control over Japan resulted in stability and positive change for Japan.

Credibility isn't a function of power parity. No one believes a word Russia says because they have proven time and time again that they are committed to a particular brand of hard-nosed realism that shows little concern for Human Rights.

Perhaps no one cares what Russia, the US, Japan, Iran, [insert your country here] says, but rather what they do. And, if they are not able to assert themselves in the world stage, they lose credibility. Given your avatar, I would think you would instinctively understand such a state of affairs. You sound more like Ned Stark right now than Tywin Lannister.

Russia could not have organized the Libyan campaign, because everyone knows it is full of shiiit. No one would have trusted Russia to organize the overthrow of an existing government.

So the Ukraine/Crimea does not count?

The US actually has some credibility- it dumps huge amounts of money into democracy promotion and humanitarian aid. In terms of gross income, the US spent almost ten times as much on humanitarian aid than Russia. That works out to a hundred times as much in terms of dollars spent.

http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org...

This reads on the international scene, other countries know that the US does have an actual interest in improving humanitarian conditions.

What matters is if a country would benefit by interacting with another country. This is why what we did worked in Japan, even though we ruled over that country for five years via martial law and wrote their governing document, which is much, much more overtly imperialistic than installing puppet regimes or "nation-building".

All the other stuff you're talking about is insignificant fluff by comparison. If humanitarian aid results in a country devolving into crisis after crisis, people will not care who provides that aid or what amount that aid was. I would imagine that Libya risks being an archetypal example of this logic. I do not know what makes you think that Libya right now represents a marketable model for US intervention. I also do not know what makes you think US intervention would ever be welcome in any sovereign nation. I'm fairly certain even NATO would like to see the US out of its member countries if they could conceivably do so. Our presence is never welcome, only tolerated.

Perhaps this goes back to exactly what you mean by "credibility", which seems to equate for you to likability. Again, surprising given your avatar. Tywin Lannister is the ultimate realist.

The US also pressures other countries to expand human rights like freedom of speech. The fact that we maintain a free press and restrictions on the government's ability to search its citizens while pressuring other countries like China signals to the rest of the world we have an actual interest in these issues. Often the pressure we apply to other countries on human rights issues works at a cross purpose to other national interests.

The difference IMHO is essentially a measure of the level of security in respective nations. We are very secure, as is NATO, and so we afford our citizenry ample freedoms. Countries like China, which before the communists took over was wracked by over 100 years of rebellion, civil war, foreign incursions, and quasi-colonization attempts, is far less secure, and so affords its citizenry far fewer freedoms.

This logic pans out here too. Our freedoms have been slowly eroding post-9/11, because 9/11 proved that we are not as secure as we once thought we were. Our constitution authorizes the use of martial law and suspension of liberties during times of rebellion and invasion. China had ample amounts of both for well over a century.

What thus results is that all you are saying is that the US enjoys a prodigious power advantage, an advantage that affords us security and thus freedom, and is pressuring other countries to conform to its will. If other countries don't, we achieve justification for exerting our will within their borders, i.e. Iraq, Libya, etc...

Yes, IR is all about power relations. But those power relations are used in service of certain goals. Credibility is how other countries read the stated goals of other actors.

Credibility deals with power accumulation and the ability to accumulate more power. The goal of IR is to increase the power base through whatever means would result in that end. If you cannot, you do not have credibility.

Any other ostensible goal or end is subservient to the accumulation of more power.

One of the stated goals of the Iraq war was democracy promotion. Establishing a puppet state would signal to the world that we aren't interested in even superficially adhering to our stated intentions.

I think there was a lot wrong in how we handled Iraq, and IMHO a lot of it dealt with incoherency and ineptitude at the highest levels of government in the US.

The question would then be whether or not such a stance is actually valid. After all, we do indeed spend more on our military than next 26 nations combined. So, could we have prosecuted Iraq in such a manner as to demonstrate how our primal position is as unchallenged today as it was at the end of WWII? IMHO we could have. But, we didn't.

I apologize, but I don't follow your point here. I agree we could have exercised a much greater show of force in Iraq, I do not understand what relevance that has to the topic at hand. Perhaps you could further elaborate?

With more force we could have better secured the country. Sure, we could have enlisted the help of the Iraqi army as well, but in the end, we failed to secure Iraq, and the consequences are that Iraq is falling apart. A greater show of force, IMHO outright, temporary US administration of Iraq, would have been preferable given US control would have led to stability in the country. I had a debate that advocated this line of reasoning:

http://www.debate.org...

A more stable Iraq benefits those that advocate for the status-quo, and the US is the prime advocate for such given our primal position as global (near-) hegemon.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:02:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wrichcirw ,

I actually don't think our positions are so fundamentally divergent.

I only make the point that power elations do not exist in a vacuum. The us exercises it's power for certain purposes. On my view, it is absurd to say that the purpose is always simply to gain more power; power elations do not exist for the sake of power elations. The us exercises it's power elations to enhance the security of us people, often to enhance the security of non-us people, to improve the economic conditions of the us people, and I contend also for democracy promotion and humanitarian purposes.

I don't think intervention in Bosnia or Somalia was carried out for compelling us security reasons. Bill Clinton has said repeatedly that he regrets not intervening in Rwanda. I cite these examples to show that us power relations take I to consideration humanitarian motivation.

Even Tywain Lannister exercised his power for the sake of some other value- family. A realist conception of power relations which ignores the motivations of actors is a faulty model. Tywain sought to acquire power for his family, not merely for the sake of acquiring power. Moreover, Tywain understood that other actors have motivations other than power and that how his own motivations were perceived by other actors was important to his goals. He masked his involvement in the Red Wedding to maintain his credibility as the hand of the king!

Reducing all state interaction to power relations neglects important aspects of human behavior. If nothing else, the Cold War demonstrates that ideology, I.e. credible motivation, is an important factor in international relations. On a power model, Cuba should have sided with the us. Aligning with the us would have been massively beneficial for Cuban influence; for a variety of motivational reasons, the Cuban government instead chose to aligne with the ussr.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wake up people! The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is the same people the Obama administration was funding here recently when Bashar Al Assad was in control of Syria.

This president is involved in some crooked crap as well as some of these Republicans. Not ALL. Specifically, I would say Lindsay Graham and John McCain.

These people should be held in contempt for war crimes people! They aided and got their hands in this mess! Now what are we going to do?! Sit back and do nothing? This is absolutely ridiculous. I think some of our government officials deserve to be hung from a tree!

You may say, "Haroush! Come on now! You have lost it on this issue.."

No I haven't. Let's think about all these events in chronological order.. Look at the systematic breakdown of the different countries in the middle east. Then look at how we have responded and reacted to these "surprise" situations that keep popping up.

Honestly, we should have a bunch of veterans marching up to the white house right now and shaking that gate in front of the White house until it falls apart!

It's obvious we have been lied to and it is obvious America is a glutton for punishment.

I here so many liberals say... All of this mess in Iraq is Republicans fault, but yet look at who reporters in the Middle East are putting the blame on... Our President and his administration!

I think it is time people start facing up to the truth and stop hiding behind some curtain like a kid with stage fright.

"Oh, what about those WMD's Haroush?"

There was WMD's! That's why there have been reports I.S.I.S is using them effectively as we speak!

"Oh, I thought killing Saddam Hussein would end the global war on terrorism?"

G.W.Bush didn't mean it like that when he said by killing Saddam Hussein would be crucial to winning the war on terror. He meant that by getting rid of Saddam Hussein would greatly alleviate terrorism at the given point of time.

"The war on Iraq was just about oil"

No it wasn't just about oil, it was also about maintaining a stable world economy.

You need money to buy food right?

"Haroush, you are ridiculous..."

I don't care if you think I am or not.. I am just addressing the truth here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:02:00 PM, Raisor wrote:
Wrichcirw ,

I actually don't think our positions are so fundamentally divergent.

I only make the point that power elations do not exist in a vacuum. The us exercises it's power for certain purposes. On my view, it is absurd to say that the purpose is always simply to gain more power; power elations do not exist for the sake of power elations. The us exercises it's power elations to enhance the security of us people, often to enhance the security of non-us people, to improve the economic conditions of the us people, and I contend also for democracy promotion and humanitarian purposes.

Excepting the underlined, all of the rest involves the accumulation of more power. Enhancement of one's own security is synonymous with the grab for more power. Enhancing the economies of "free countries" like Japan benefit us directly, as they are unquestionably subject to our hegemonic influences. One could even argue that democracy and humanitarian aid stifle the will to rebellion, and thus maintain the status quo and enhance security as well.

I don't think intervention in Bosnia or Somalia was carried out for compelling us security reasons. Bill Clinton has said repeatedly that he regrets not intervening in Rwanda. I cite these examples to show that us power relations take I to consideration humanitarian motivation.

Bosnia easily so, if violence erupted on NATO's borders, it risked engulfing NATO as well, or at the very least causing a humanitarian crisis that NATO would have had to shoulder.

I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Even Tywain Lannister exercised his power for the sake of some other value- family. A realist conception of power relations which ignores the motivations of actors is a faulty model. Tywain sought to acquire power for his family, not merely for the sake of acquiring power. Moreover, Tywain understood that other actors have motivations other than power and that how his own motivations were perceived by other actors was important to his goals. He masked his involvement in the Red Wedding to maintain his credibility as the hand of the king!

Tywin Lannister saw his family as existing for one purpose - the store and exercise of power. He considered family to be an extension of his own self-identity. His first speech to Jaime Lannister while skinning the stag made this rather clear. The way he treats his family as if they were nothing but tools in his realist calculus make this even clearer. He saw family as his way (the only way) to achieve a sort of immortality.

He masked his involvement in the Red Wedding because that was the only way it could have been pulled off. Had Robb Stark known that Walder Frey was in cahoots with Tywin Lannister, he would not have returned to the Twins.

Reducing all state interaction to power relations neglects important aspects of human behavior. If nothing else, the Cold War demonstrates that ideology, I.e. credible motivation, is an important factor in international relations. On a power model, Cuba should have sided with the us. Aligning with the us would have been massively beneficial for Cuban influence; for a variety of motivational reasons, the Cuban government instead chose to aligne with the ussr.

Cuba HAD been aligned with us, but suffered crisis after crisis after crisis...Cuba is an archetype of what I have been saying, that if state interaction does not materially benefit both actors, they will find other actors to engage with in a productive manner. Ideology matters little in this calculus.

Another example is China. Out of all of the West, America had been on the best terms with China, giving a good deal of aid to the KMT and not being a causal element in exacerbating the civil unrest in that country. Did America benefit from this aid? No, China aligned itself with the USSR because (excluding analysis on the Chinese civil war) the USSR granted even more aid to China than America. It was the USSR that gave nuclear technology to China, for example. China stood to gain more from an alliance with the USSR, and so it allied with the USSR.

The Cold War was the result of ideological differences masking a realist power play by both the USSR and the US. It is the underlying power relations that is the causal force in IR, and not ideological differences.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:08:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.

Hmmm...this does make a cogent case for the cons of the US military-industrial complex. Those industries must stay profitable in a capitalistic society, and so they create a battleground to peddle their wares, at least the ones that are approaching obsolescence. What better place than Africa to do this? What could possibly go wrong (yes this is a loaded question)?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:10:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:08:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.

Hmmm...this does make a cogent case for the cons of the US military-industrial complex. Those industries must stay profitable in a capitalistic society, and so they create a battleground to peddle their wares, at least the ones that are approaching obsolescence. What better place than Africa to do this? What could possibly go wrong (yes this is a loaded question)?

My point, is that there is little in the form of responsibility in how we distribute arms.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:11:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:10:35 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:08:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.

Hmmm...this does make a cogent case for the cons of the US military-industrial complex. Those industries must stay profitable in a capitalistic society, and so they create a battleground to peddle their wares, at least the ones that are approaching obsolescence. What better place than Africa to do this? What could possibly go wrong (yes this is a loaded question)?

My point, is that there is little in the form of responsibility in how we distribute arms.

Well, you know how the corporate profit motive works - internalize the profits, externalize the social costs.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:12:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:11:34 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:10:35 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:08:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.

Hmmm...this does make a cogent case for the cons of the US military-industrial complex. Those industries must stay profitable in a capitalistic society, and so they create a battleground to peddle their wares, at least the ones that are approaching obsolescence. What better place than Africa to do this? What could possibly go wrong (yes this is a loaded question)?

My point, is that there is little in the form of responsibility in how we distribute arms.

Well, you know how the corporate profit motive works - internalize the profits, externalize the social costs.

Of course, although arms sales are mandated by congress. We either restrict where guns can go, or raise prices so they're impossible to sell. The government has lots of control over the arms industry.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:14:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:12:53 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:11:34 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:10:35 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:08:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.

Hmmm...this does make a cogent case for the cons of the US military-industrial complex. Those industries must stay profitable in a capitalistic society, and so they create a battleground to peddle their wares, at least the ones that are approaching obsolescence. What better place than Africa to do this? What could possibly go wrong (yes this is a loaded question)?

My point, is that there is little in the form of responsibility in how we distribute arms.

Well, you know how the corporate profit motive works - internalize the profits, externalize the social costs.

Of course, although arms sales are mandated by congress.

...i.e. people who are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.

We either restrict where guns can go, or raise prices so they're impossible to sell. The government has lots of control over the arms industry.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:16:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:14:00 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:12:53 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:11:34 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:10:35 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:08:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:45:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Mali, CAR, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia, and now possibly Nigeria. The only three countries that take interest in Africa are the US, France, and China. Although the US is to caught up in the Middle East to dedicate large scale operations. Our policy is to supply weapons to factions in Africa for the most part. This isn't a justifiable foreign policy. For example, arms to Eritrea come from the US (Eritrea is a despotic dictatorship which regularly commits democide), and, in addition, we need to only look no farther than Sudan. We regularly assisted the factions fighting Sudan, and since South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, the same factions we gave guns to are fighting the new government. Throwing guns at a problem was a Reagan tactic, and its not helping us.

Hmmm...this does make a cogent case for the cons of the US military-industrial complex. Those industries must stay profitable in a capitalistic society, and so they create a battleground to peddle their wares, at least the ones that are approaching obsolescence. What better place than Africa to do this? What could possibly go wrong (yes this is a loaded question)?

My point, is that there is little in the form of responsibility in how we distribute arms.

Well, you know how the corporate profit motive works - internalize the profits, externalize the social costs.

Of course, although arms sales are mandated by congress.

...i.e. people who are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.

True. Although generally corporations don't need to lobby congress. Foreign policy decisions require more guns than they can produce.

We either restrict where guns can go, or raise prices so they're impossible to sell. The government has lots of control over the arms industry.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 11:11:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:02:00 PM, Raisor wrote:
Wrichcirw ,

I actually don't think our positions are so fundamentally divergent.

I only make the point that power elations do not exist in a vacuum. The us exercises it's power for certain purposes. On my view, it is absurd to say that the purpose is always simply to gain more power; power elations do not exist for the sake of power elations. The us exercises it's power elations to enhance the security of us people, often to enhance the security of non-us people, to improve the economic conditions of the us people, and I contend also for democracy promotion and humanitarian purposes.

Excepting the underlined, all of the rest involves the accumulation of more power. Enhancement of one's own security is synonymous with the grab for more power. Enhancing the economies of "free countries" like Japan benefit us directly, as they are unquestionably subject to our hegemonic influences. One could even argue that democracy and humanitarian aid stifle the will to rebellion, and thus maintain the status quo and enhance security as well.

I don't think intervention in Bosnia or Somalia was carried out for compelling us security reasons. Bill Clinton has said repeatedly that he regrets not intervening in Rwanda. I cite these examples to show that us power relations take I to consideration humanitarian motivation.

Bosnia easily so, if violence erupted on NATO's borders, it risked engulfing NATO as well, or at the very least causing a humanitarian crisis that NATO would have had to shoulder.

I do not understand at all the West's policy on Africa. I would think it would be in the West's interests to be much more pro-active in promoting stability in the region, but the region has been anything but stable and has been the archetype for hell on earth. Instead, China is doing this. That seems to be the West letting a golden opportunity slip by, but the West has had over 60 years post-WWII to make a difference.

Even Tywain Lannister exercised his power for the sake of some other value- family. A realist conception of power relations which ignores the motivations of actors is a faulty model. Tywain sought to acquire power for his family, not merely for the sake of acquiring power. Moreover, Tywain understood that other actors have motivations other than power and that how his own motivations were perceived by other actors was important to his goals. He masked his involvement in the Red Wedding to maintain his credibility as the hand of the king!

Tywin Lannister saw his family as existing for one purpose - the store and exercise of power. He considered family to be an extension of his own self-identity. His first speech to Jaime Lannister while skinning the stag made this rather clear. The way he treats his family as if they were nothing but tools in his realist calculus make this even clearer. He saw family as his way (the only way) to achieve a sort of immortality.

He masked his involvement in the Red Wedding because that was the only way it could have been pulled off. Had Robb Stark known that Walder Frey was in cahoots with Tywin Lannister, he would not have returned to the Twins.

Reducing all state interaction to power relations neglects important aspects of human behavior. If nothing else, the Cold War demonstrates that ideology, I.e. credible motivation, is an important factor in international relations. On a power model, Cuba should have sided with the us. Aligning with the us would have been massively beneficial for Cuban influence; for a variety of motivational reasons, the Cuban government instead chose to aligne with the ussr.

Cuba HAD been aligned with us, but suffered crisis after crisis after crisis...Cuba is an archetype of what I have been saying, that if state interaction does not materially benefit both actors, they will find other actors to engage with in a productive manner. Ideology matters little in this calculus.

Another example is China. Out of all of the West, America had been on the best terms with China, giving a good deal of aid to the KMT and not being a causal element in exacerbating the civil unrest in that country. Did America benefit from this aid? No, China aligned itself with the USSR because (excluding analysis on the Chinese civil war) the USSR granted even more aid to China than America. It was the USSR that gave nuclear technology to China, for example. China stood to gain more from an alliance with the USSR, and so it allied with the USSR.

The Cold War was the result of ideological differences masking a realist power play by both the USSR and the US. It is the underlying power relations that is the causal force in IR, and not ideological differences.

I think we simply disagree. I don't deny that power relations and security are primary motivations in IR, I only think there are other motivations as well.

Have you read the book "What Moves Man?" It is a pretty concise and well respected book that offers some fundamental criticism of realist theory while acknowledging its explanatory power. I'm not saying it will change your mind, but if you are interested in this sort of thing I highly recommend it.