Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hoe bad is Iran?

slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 7:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I heard bibi state that iran is the number one threat. Im somewhat a disbeliever for these reasons.

1. All our current wars with terror groups are with sunni group. Iran is shia.

2. Iran supports groups like hezbula or other shia groups. Hezbola or hamas are not a threat to the US.

3. Iran has been enriching uranium since george bush was in office, well over a decade. back then it was estimated a decade before they would get nuke capability. Today the estimate is a decade away.

4. Other dangerous regimes, North Korea, have nukes. What evidence do have that iran would be willing to use them knowing it would result in their demise.

What convincing evidence do you have that iran is more dangerous than ISIL or other active Sunni terror groups?

Ps forgive my typos. Too hard to correct on my phone.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 7:33:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just what I thought. Got nothing.

Hear my words, if radical christans like Ted Cruz or Robert Menendez get their way they will have us at war with Iran within a decade.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 4:37:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
An NPR correspondent today said that Iran was seen as doing much, much more against ISIS than the US, and that maybe this is how it should be there. So, we were looking to get rid of Assad last year, and now this year we're scared sh!tless of the group that we were looking to use as a tool in getting rid of Assad, and should now rely upon the Iranians to take care of that problem? This line of reasoning is schizophrenic at best.

IMHO these conflicts are missing the bigger picture. What IS US foreign policy in the Middle East? What furthers US interests? Some people say we should just leave the world alone, in which case we should bring all of our troops home and just stay out of these kind of conflicts altogether. Others (including myself) say that the US should do its best to spread its influence worldwide, in which case our primary goal in the Middle East would be to control it.

IMHO we had a green light to go into Iraq AND Iran in 2003...we were willing to go through a lot of trouble to wage a war then and Bush declared them enemy #1. We should have done a thorough job then. Now, because of how fvcked up the occupation went, we've lost support and legitimacy throughout the Middle East, Iraq is a basket case, and Iran has only gotten stronger. I'm really not sure we have a good move to make there at this time. Probably the best thing to do would be to just fix Iraq to the best extent possible, and sometime in the future coin it a success in US foreign policy. That would probably take a generation of committed effort with generous aide packages, to erode the memories of the generation that remembers our invasion and botched occupation.
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
3/5/2015 11:55:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 4:37:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
An NPR correspondent today said that Iran was seen as doing much, much more against ISIS than the US, and that maybe this is how it should be there. So, we were looking to get rid of Assad last year, and now this year we're scared sh!tless of the group that we were looking to use as a tool in getting rid of Assad, and should now rely upon the Iranians to take care of that problem? This line of reasoning is schizophrenic at best.

IMHO these conflicts are missing the bigger picture. What IS US foreign policy in the Middle East? What furthers US interests? Some people say we should just leave the world alone, in which case we should bring all of our troops home and just stay out of these kind of conflicts altogether. Others (including myself) say that the US should do its best to spread its influence worldwide, in which case our primary goal in the Middle East would be to control it.

How can you be so obviously aggressive?

IMHO we had a green light to go into Iraq AND Iran in 2003...

Only in the sense that, yes, the US can do whatever it wants, because it is incredibly powerful.

we were willing to go through a lot of trouble to wage a war then and Bush declared them enemy #1. We should have done a thorough job then.

It sounds thoroughly moral to create a dictatorship in a country and then declare that country a grave enemy when it overthrows that dictatorship. I mean the reason why they're enemies is that they are not obedient, which seems to be a pretty tyrannical way to establish enemies.

Now, because of how fvcked up the occupation went, we've lost support and legitimacy throughout the Middle East,

I think US support and legitimacy was lost generally in the Middle East by the fact its shown again and again that it has no concern for anyone in the MIddle East to an extent any greater than those people serve their interests in money and power.

Iraq is a basket case, and Iran has only gotten stronger. I'm really not sure we have a good move to make there at this time. Probably the best thing to do would be to just fix Iraq to the best extent possible, and sometime in the future coin it a success in US foreign policy. That would probably take a generation of committed effort with generous aide packages, to erode the memories of the generation that remembers our invasion and botched occupation.

I think the fact there was an occupation at all is what is going to be remembered. I mean if you 'occupy a country' and nearly everyone greets you with open arms and loves you then it seems to me nothing like an occupation at all. 'Trying to fix Iraq' was the purpose of the war in the first place, except what your government and mine conceived of as 'fixing' the place was assuming control over it and using the country to gain power and wealth. It seems to me that the solution to the problem is generally quite obvious. People in the Middle East, apparently, have a lot of problems with the West, which has been made abundantly clear are entirely to do with the fact that America demands obedience. The 1998 fatwa written by Osama bin Laden is a presumably quite accurate description of Middle Eastern anger against the West, and aside from an undeveloped upon quote about making everyone a Muslim from Muhammad, all he talks about is a 'brutal crusade occupation'. When your elected government is literally replaced by a monarch who does what America tells him, clearly you aren't going to have a particularly favourable view of them. The solution is obviously not to just overthrow the government and replace it with essentially the same thing that made the Iranians revolt the first time. You don't make anger go away by doing the same thing that caused the anger to arise.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 5:03:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:55:57 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:37:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
An NPR correspondent today said that Iran was seen as doing much, much more against ISIS than the US, and that maybe this is how it should be there. So, we were looking to get rid of Assad last year, and now this year we're scared sh!tless of the group that we were looking to use as a tool in getting rid of Assad, and should now rely upon the Iranians to take care of that problem? This line of reasoning is schizophrenic at best.

IMHO these conflicts are missing the bigger picture. What IS US foreign policy in the Middle East? What furthers US interests? Some people say we should just leave the world alone, in which case we should bring all of our troops home and just stay out of these kind of conflicts altogether. Others (including myself) say that the US should do its best to spread its influence worldwide, in which case our primary goal in the Middle East would be to control it.

How can you be so obviously aggressive?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

IMHO we had a green light to go into Iraq AND Iran in 2003...

Only in the sense that, yes, the US can do whatever it wants, because it is incredibly powerful.

We also had public opinion, too.

we were willing to go through a lot of trouble to wage a war then and Bush declared them enemy #1. We should have done a thorough job then.

It sounds thoroughly moral to create a dictatorship in a country and then declare that country a grave enemy when it overthrows that dictatorship. I mean the reason why they're enemies is that they are not obedient, which seems to be a pretty tyrannical way to establish enemies.

Lack of obedience in the realm of security provision quite literally equates to war.

Now, because of how fvcked up the occupation went, we've lost support and legitimacy throughout the Middle East,

I think US support and legitimacy was lost generally in the Middle East by the fact its shown again and again that it has no concern for anyone in the MIddle East to an extent any greater than those people serve their interests in money and power.

Call me a cynic, but this is true of anyone who associates with friends and family too. I mean, power can manifest itself in many, many ways, and friendships typically are synonymous with some form of power.

Iraq is a basket case, and Iran has only gotten stronger. I'm really not sure we have a good move to make there at this time. Probably the best thing to do would be to just fix Iraq to the best extent possible, and sometime in the future coin it a success in US foreign policy. That would probably take a generation of committed effort with generous aide packages, to erode the memories of the generation that remembers our invasion and botched occupation.

I think the fact there was an occupation at all is what is going to be remembered. I mean if you 'occupy a country' and nearly everyone greets you with open arms and loves you then it seems to me nothing like an occupation at all. 'Trying to fix Iraq' was the purpose of the war in the first place, except what your government and mine conceived of as 'fixing' the place was assuming control over it and using the country to gain power and wealth.

IMHO the main problem was that we did not set out with the goal of controlling the country. Rumsfeld knew what kind of force he needed to properly occupy Iraq, and he brought only 1/3 of that force into the country. He also dismissed the Iraqi army so that self-rule, instead of US martial law, was not possible either.

What people remember about Iraq is that the country spiraled out of control through sectarian strife, the exact kind of sectarian strife that the army chief of staff publicly warned would happen if the US did not deploy enough troops in theater. This army chief of staff was subsequently forced to retire.
https://www.youtube.com...

The commander of US forces in Iraq, while deployed to Iraq, agreed with the army chief of staff, that we needed more troops to secure the country, and that we never accomplished that goal from the very beginning because of inadequate troop deployment. http://www.nytimes.com...

Had we controlled the country, most of the sectarian strife would not have had an opportunity to express itself. Yes, this is brutally repressive, no question, that is what martial law entails. Regardless, if done properly, it will lay the groundwork for economic development, which with (a lot of) time would have resulted in a successful transition to a prosperous and "obedient" Iraq, much like how South Korea and Taiwan both underwent decades of totalitarian rule and numerous human rights atrocities before becoming developed, democratic economies.

It seems to me that the solution to the problem is generally quite obvious. People in the Middle East, apparently, have a lot of problems with the West, which has been made abundantly clear are entirely to do with the fact that America demands obedience. The 1998 fatwa written by Osama bin Laden is a presumably quite accurate description of Middle Eastern anger against the West, and aside from an undeveloped upon quote about making everyone a Muslim from Muhammad, all he talks about is a 'brutal crusade occupation'. When your elected government is literally replaced by a monarch who does what America tells him, clearly you aren't going to have a particularly favourable view of them. The solution is obviously not to just overthrow the government and replace it with essentially the same thing that made the Iranians revolt the first time. You don't make anger go away by doing the same thing that caused the anger to arise.

You can placate and control anger. It takes power to do so.
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?
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 7:15:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 4:53:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Threats to Israel are not threats to the US.

The only option is to let the Middle East burn for 20 years or so.

That is a good point. Let me ask this. Is Iran a greater threat to Isreal or would ISIL be a greater threat if they had the power, weapons and control that Iran posesses?

your other post brings up how completely jacked up our middle east policy is. I read in walll street journal yesterday that Iran has military leadership over up to 100,000 Iraq tropps that are actively fighting ISIL. Pretty nuts.

I guess my main point is simply that just because our ally says that Iran is the greatest threat does not mean we should accept that as fact without studying it and understanding it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 7:15:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:53:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Threats to Israel are not threats to the US.

The only option is to let the Middle East burn for 20 years or so.

That is a good point. Let me ask this. Is Iran a greater threat to Isreal or would ISIL be a greater threat if they had the power, weapons and control that Iran posesses?

your other post brings up how completely jacked up our middle east policy is. I read in walll street journal yesterday that Iran has military leadership over up to 100,000 Iraq tropps that are actively fighting ISIL. Pretty nuts.

I guess my main point is simply that just because our ally says that Iran is the greatest threat does not mean we should accept that as fact without studying it and understanding it.

Difficult to compare ISIL with Iran.

Iran has intense desire to wipe out Israel, ISIL, does not have that mandate toward the USA,
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/6/2015 7:15:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:53:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Threats to Israel are not threats to the US.

The only option is to let the Middle East burn for 20 years or so.

That is a good point. Let me ask this. Is Iran a greater threat to Isreal or would ISIL be a greater threat if they had the power, weapons and control that Iran posesses?

your other post brings up how completely jacked up our middle east policy is. I read in walll street journal yesterday that Iran has military leadership over up to 100,000 Iraq tropps that are actively fighting ISIL. Pretty nuts.

I guess my main point is simply that just because our ally says that Iran is the greatest threat does not mean we should accept that as fact without studying it and understanding it.

Difficult to compare ISIL with Iran.

Iran has intense desire to wipe out Israel, ISIL, does not have that mandate toward the USA,

Please quantify that intense desire. If it is so intense why are they not shooting their long range missiles at Isreal?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 3:29:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 3:22:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/6/2015 7:15:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:53:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Threats to Israel are not threats to the US.

The only option is to let the Middle East burn for 20 years or so.

That is a good point. Let me ask this. Is Iran a greater threat to Isreal or would ISIL be a greater threat if they had the power, weapons and control that Iran posesses?

your other post brings up how completely jacked up our middle east policy is. I read in walll street journal yesterday that Iran has military leadership over up to 100,000 Iraq tropps that are actively fighting ISIL. Pretty nuts.

I guess my main point is simply that just because our ally says that Iran is the greatest threat does not mean we should accept that as fact without studying it and understanding it.

Difficult to compare ISIL with Iran.

Iran has intense desire to wipe out Israel, ISIL, does not have that mandate toward the USA,

Please quantify that intense desire. If it is so intense why are they not shooting their long range missiles at Isreal?

This is a silly question to ask. We would wage war with Iran in a heartbeat if it did that.
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
3/7/2015 10:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 5:03:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
We also had public opinion, too.

And exactly how strong do you think the opinion of the public would have had to been to prevent the war? They ignore us all the time. It's effectively an irrelevance until it becomes harder to ignore the people than actually listen to them, which appears to be a fairly extraordinary situation.

Lack of obedience in the realm of security provision quite literally equates to war.

That seems to be a false equivocation to me. If you believe that it's possible for a nation to make decisions for itself and coexist with the US, then what you've said is false. It's bizarre to assert that 'peace' can only exist when everyone does what America tells them.

successful transition to a prosperous and "obedient" Iraq,

Of those two aims, which do you think motivated the decision to declare war? The second one, of course. Why would the American government care for the well-being of an Iraqi?

You can placate and control anger. It takes power to do so.

Really now? So when someone's angry with you because you broke into their house and kicked the sh*t out of them, the answer to this problem is simply that the last time you did it, you didn't kick them hard enough, and you should proceed to try again?

Call me a cynic, but this is true of anyone who associates with friends and family too. I mean, power can manifest itself in many, many ways, and friendships typically are synonymous with some form of power.

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about. If you were a cynic, then you'd have exactly the same view I do, which is that people in power are concerned with maintaining that power, and not with helping out poor brown people in far away countries. Your position on US foreign policy is the opposite of cynicism in that you think they actually try to 'solve problems' in any sense other than procuring even more power and wealth.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 11:00:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:44:41 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/6/2015 5:03:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
We also had public opinion, too.

And exactly how strong do you think the opinion of the public would have had to been to prevent the war? They ignore us all the time. It's effectively an irrelevance until it becomes harder to ignore the people than actually listen to them, which appears to be a fairly extraordinary situation.

The public voted for war. Yes, it was manipulated, but that was the vote nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com...

For the record, I don't think it was a well thought-out vote, but it was the vote.

Lack of obedience in the realm of security provision quite literally equates to war.

That seems to be a false equivocation to me. If you believe that it's possible for a nation to make decisions for itself and coexist with the US, then what you've said is false. It's bizarre to assert that 'peace' can only exist when everyone does what America tells them.

Disagreements in security quite literally mean disagreements between who gets to live and who gets to die. It's absolutely imperative that nations agree when it comes to security.

It doesn't matter who is asserting what, or who has power over what...if you care about "peace", then what matters is agreement on this specific issue, period.

successful transition to a prosperous and "obedient" Iraq,

Of those two aims, which do you think motivated the decision to declare war? The second one, of course. Why would the American government care for the well-being of an Iraqi?

The two aims are complementary. With (US assisted) prosperity comes compliance to US policy.

You can placate and control anger. It takes power to do so.

Really now? So when someone's angry with you because you broke into their house and kicked the sh*t out of them, the answer to this problem is simply that the last time you did it, you didn't kick them hard enough, and you should proceed to try again?

There are many, many ways to project power. One is retaliation, another is restrainment. A third option would be to "call the cops" but there are no cops in international affairs, aren't there? There are only bullies, vigilantes, and "neighborhood watch" programs.

friendships typically are synonymous with some form of power.

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just think about this for a bit.
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
3/8/2015 8:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 11:00:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:44:41 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/6/2015 5:03:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
We also had public opinion, too.

And exactly how strong do you think the opinion of the public would have had to been to prevent the war? They ignore us all the time. It's effectively an irrelevance until it becomes harder to ignore the people than actually listen to them, which appears to be a fairly extraordinary situation.

The public voted for war. Yes, it was manipulated, but that was the vote nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com...

For the record, I don't think it was a well thought-out vote, but it was the vote.

That's a fair opinion, but frankly it's too easy to frighten people into violence. Didn't ISIS behead two Japanese guys, and all of a sudden some people are calling for it to renounce its pacifism? lol.

Lack of obedience in the realm of security provision quite literally equates to war.

That seems to be a false equivocation to me. If you believe that it's possible for a nation to make decisions for itself and coexist with the US, then what you've said is false. It's bizarre to assert that 'peace' can only exist when everyone does what America tells them.

Disagreements in security quite literally mean disagreements between who gets to live and who gets to die. It's absolutely imperative that nations agree when it comes to security.

It doesn't matter who is asserting what, or who has power over what...if you care about "peace", then what matters is agreement on this specific issue, period.

Obedience is quite different to an agreement... and unfortunately I don't know exactly what you mean by 'this specific issue'. The WMDs he never had? In any case, history shows that disagreeing with the US on what economic policy you want in your country is apparently justification for a war. Simply not being an 'ally', or really more of a servant, appears to be enough.

successful transition to a prosperous and "obedient" Iraq,

Of those two aims, which do you think motivated the decision to declare war? The second one, of course. Why would the American government care for the well-being of an Iraqi?

The two aims are complementary. With (US assisted) prosperity comes compliance to US policy.

I don't really know what examples of this you could cite, or at least whether they could possibly outweigh the countless destitute countries the US has previously invaded, e.g. Haiti.

You can placate and control anger. It takes power to do so.

Really now? So when someone's angry with you because you broke into their house and kicked the sh*t out of them, the answer to this problem is simply that the last time you did it, you didn't kick them hard enough, and you should proceed to try again?

There are many, many ways to project power. One is retaliation, another is restrainment. A third option would be to "call the cops" but there are no cops in international affairs, aren't there? There are only bullies, vigilantes, and "neighborhood watch" programs.

If 'projecting power' is the only way to assure peace in the world we live in, which is a bizarre enough assertion as it is, it would only entail that the world needs to be changed, unless of course you want to assert that there can be no peace whatsoever between anyone without the 'projection of power'.


friendships typically are synonymous with some form of power.

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just think about this for a bit.

One interesting fact about Wocambs is that he actually has friends, and, perhaps even more surprisingly, as far as he is aware, there really aren't many people who know him who actually dislike him. I don't conceive of my friendships as relations of power. I enjoy them because they seem to be the exact opposite.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 5:55:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:38:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/7/2015 11:00:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Didn't ISIS behead two Japanese guys, and all of a sudden some people are calling for it to renounce its pacifism? lol.

There's always been a vocal element in Japan looking to remilitarize. It becomes more vocal whenever something catalyzes that element.

Lack of obedience in the realm of security provision quite literally equates to war.

That seems to be a false equivocation to me. If you believe that it's possible for a nation to make decisions for itself and coexist with the US, then what you've said is false. It's bizarre to assert that 'peace' can only exist when everyone does what America tells them.

Disagreements in security quite literally mean disagreements between who gets to live and who gets to die. It's absolutely imperative that nations agree when it comes to security.

It doesn't matter who is asserting what, or who has power over what...if you care about "peace", then what matters is agreement on this specific issue, period.

Obedience is quite different to an agreement... and unfortunately I don't know exactly what you mean by 'this specific issue'.

1) Obedience is a form of agreement.
2) "specific issue" = security.

disagreeing with [ANY COUNTRY] on [SECURITY ISSUES] is [] a war.

Corrected.

successful transition to a prosperous and "obedient" Iraq,

Of those two aims, which do you think motivated the decision to declare war? The second one, of course. Why would the American government care for the well-being of an Iraqi?

The two aims are complementary. With (US assisted) prosperity comes compliance to US policy.

I don't really know what examples of this you could cite, or at least whether they could possibly outweigh the countless destitute countries the US has previously invaded, e.g. Haiti.

I've been citing Taiwan and South Korea pretty consistently in this thread.

You can placate and control anger. It takes power to do so.

Really now? So when someone's angry with you because you broke into their house and kicked the sh*t out of them, the answer to this problem is simply that the last time you did it, you didn't kick them hard enough, and you should proceed to try again?

There are many, many ways to project power. One is retaliation, another is restrainment. A third option would be to "call the cops" but there are no cops in international affairs, aren't there? There are only bullies, vigilantes, and "neighborhood watch" programs.

If 'projecting power' is the only way to assure peace in the world we live in, which is a bizarre enough assertion as it is,

That's like saying that cops enforcing the peace is a "bizarre enough assertion". Why would that be "bizarre"? Do you think that the police actually contribute to intra-national violence and don't provide a net benefit? Do you think the streets would be safer if there was zero enforcement of laws or if there were no laws at all?

I can already imagine your answer to that last question is "yes", but we've had that discussion before. IMHO your conception of society is wholly unrealistic and doesn't even constitute "society".

friendships typically are synonymous with some form of power.

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just think about this for a bit.

One interesting fact about Wocambs is that he actually has friends,

I suggest you be a bit more civil in your tone. This can very easily be interpreted as an insult.

and, perhaps even more surprisingly, as far as he is aware, there really aren't many people who know him who actually dislike him. I don't conceive of my friendships as relations of power. I enjoy them because they seem to be the exact opposite.

I didn't say they were relations of power. I said they were synonymous with some form of power. That you have a group of friends with which you do things or share similar ideals gives validity to the things you do and the ideals you have. That validation is a kind of power. That's different from what you're implying, whether or not you have power over your friends or vice versa...rather, it's about whether or not you have power over people who are not your friends. You have more of that kind of power with friends than without, and that power is ever-present in any and all friendships.
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 6:08:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As it is, we've barely had 2 exchanges in this thread and I'm already repeating several points. I have doubts you're able to follow the argument.
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?
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 7:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 6:08:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
As it is, we've barely had 2 exchanges in this thread and I'm already repeating several points. I have doubts you're able to follow the argument.

oohhh 10,000th
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 11:05:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2015 5:55:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
There's always been a vocal element in Japan looking to remilitarize. It becomes more vocal whenever something catalyzes that element.

Fair. Wouldn't it be hilarious though, if two decapitations is all it takes?

1) Obedience is a form of agreement.
2) "specific issue" = security.

That is true, actually, but I more meant that 'agreeing to obey a command' is not the only kind of agreement. Presumably by 'security' you mean 'security of American hegemony', and as far as I'm aware imperialism is not a just cause for a war. It would seem to make all war justified.

I've been citing Taiwan and South Korea pretty consistently in this thread.

It's my understanding that Japan's economic policy was quite independent from America, and it's that model that Taiwan and South Korea pursued. I don't really see how it's an example of America invading a country and then attempting to 'build it up'.

That's like saying that cops enforcing the peace is a "bizarre enough assertion". Why would that be "bizarre"? Do you think that the police actually contribute to intra-national violence and don't provide a net benefit? Do you think the streets would be safer if there was zero enforcement of laws or if there were no laws at all?

America is the world's police force? You make the mistake of thinking that because 'we', far more accurately our governments, who pay little attention to us, wield power over the world, that it is peaceful. People stopping other people from being violent clearly reduces violence, but I don't see that this requires that one group dominates all the others, which appears to be what you're asserting.

I can already imagine your answer to that last question is "yes", but we've had that discussion before. IMHO your conception of society is wholly unrealistic and doesn't even constitute "society".

I don't think you really understand what I want to see, which is fair enough. The most effective way to establish peace is to make it so that no one wants to break the peace. If that fails, then there is always the notion that other people won't allow you to, but that in no way requires a group to have a monopoly of force on the others. I am certain that any evidence on the subject would show that both of those methods are more effective of assuring peace or preventing crime than exerting power on people. Our societies are today as internally peaceful as they've ever been, I think, and I seriously doubt you would propose that this is because the police have simply become incredibly effective, and not because people's quality of life has improved and attitudes towards violence have changed. I think what I'm saying is made even more clear by what we're actually talking about - foreign policy. Our 'enemies' have stated the reasons for their actions quite clearly: they hate US foreign policy towards the Middle East, and the domestic ones also feel discriminated against at home. Your solution is to simply do exactly what made them enemies in the first place. They are angered by the fact that the US seeks to control their homes and deny them self-determination, as well as all the deaths that have been caused. Their response, of course, is as unthoughtful as I think yours is - attacking the US clearly just provokes more violence. The same is true of attacking them.

I suggest you be a bit more civil in your tone. This can very easily be interpreted as an insult.

Heh, no, I meant you might be surprised that I have friends, since I apparently don't understand that power is the foundation of friendship.

I didn't say they were relations of power. I said they were synonymous with some form of power. That you have a group of friends with which you do things or share similar ideals gives validity to the things you do and the ideals you have. That validation is a kind of power. That's different from what you're implying, whether or not you have power over your friends or vice versa...rather, it's about whether or not you have power over people who are not your friends. You have more of that kind of power with friends than without, and that power is ever-present in any and all friendships.

Feeling validated as a person, feeling good about yourself, doesn't seem to have anything to do with having power over anyone. I understand what you're saying, popular ideas are 'powerful' ones, etc., but I think that's a misunderstanding, at least when discussing what I mean. Someone in the same room as Mohammed Ali in his prime is less physically powerful, but that doesn't entail that he 'has power' over that person, in the sense I mean. He has the ability to take power over that person in that way, certainly, but he doesn't have to exert it, and that possibility doesn't have to be sanctioned. Is there a single interaction between two people that you don't conceive of as having one party exert power over the other? If there is, then that is what I mean.

As it is, we've barely had 2 exchanges in this thread and I'm already repeating several points. I have doubts you're able to follow the argument.

Well that's a little nasty. I doubt that your powers of comprehension so belittle mine. Frankly, we should stop talking about power, because you insist on defining any effect anyone has on anyone else as an exertion of power, which is true in one sense, in that 'I have the power to cause that effect', but not true in the sense that any authority, oppression, domination etc. is present.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 11:30:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 11:05:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/9/2015 5:55:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
There's always been a vocal element in Japan looking to remilitarize. It becomes more vocal whenever something catalyzes that element.

Fair. Wouldn't it be hilarious though, if two decapitations is all it takes?

It could very well be the straw that broke the camel's back. Not saying it would, just that it could.

1) Obedience is a form of agreement.
2) "specific issue" = security.

That is true, actually, but I more meant that 'agreeing to obey a command' is not the only kind of agreement. Presumably by 'security' you mean 'security of American hegemony', and as far as I'm aware imperialism is not a just cause for a war. It would seem to make all war justified.

Well, hegemony is relative...it's not just what is outside the continental US. I mean, we have a regional hegemony in north America...the question is, with only this hegemony are we safe? Obviously not, right? 9/11?

I've been citing Taiwan and South Korea pretty consistently in this thread.

It's my understanding that Japan's economic policy was quite independent from America, and it's that model that Taiwan and South Korea pursued. I don't really see how it's an example of America invading a country and then attempting to 'build it up'.

IMHO Japan's economic policy is entirely dependent upon American permission. See Plaza Accords. We forced them to fix their currency at high rates so that our exports could be more competitive vis a vis theirs.

America most certainly occupied Japan, wrote their constitution, and then built them up so that they could withstand communist influence.

That's like saying that cops enforcing the peace is a "bizarre enough assertion". Why would that be "bizarre"? Do you think that the police actually contribute to intra-national violence and don't provide a net benefit? Do you think the streets would be safer if there was zero enforcement of laws or if there were no laws at all?

America is the world's police force?

Think about your local neighborhood. Is it safer or more dangerous because of the police? I used the word "intra-national" for a reason.

I can already imagine your answer to that last question is "yes", but we've had that discussion before. IMHO your conception of society is wholly unrealistic and doesn't even constitute "society".

I don't think you really understand what I want to see, which is fair enough. The most effective way to establish peace is to make it so that no one wants to break the peace. If that fails, then there is always the notion that other people won't allow you to, but that in no way requires a group to have a monopoly of force on the others. I am certain that any evidence on the subject would show that both of those methods are more effective of assuring peace or preventing crime than exerting power on people.

I agree on preference, but such a calculus should in no way preclude the option of monopolizing power into one entity. It just makes such an option the least preferable.

Our societies are today as internally peaceful as they've ever been, I think, and I seriously doubt you would propose that this is because the police have simply become incredibly effective, and not because people's quality of life has improved and attitudes towards violence have changed.

I think effective policing allows for QOL improvements. Ineffective policing stifles such.

I think what I'm saying is made even more clear by what we're actually talking about - foreign policy. Our 'enemies' have stated the reasons for their actions quite clearly: they hate US foreign policy towards the Middle East, and the domestic ones also feel discriminated against at home. Your solution is to simply do exactly what made them enemies in the first place. They are angered by the fact that the US seeks to control their homes and deny them self-determination, as well as all the deaths that have been caused. Their response, of course, is as unthoughtful as I think yours is - attacking the US clearly just provokes more violence. The same is true of attacking them.

I don't think they're angered by control...they're angered by abuse of power/control.

Again, in Taiwan/SK, the US unquestionably controls foreign policy affairs there through our military guarantees, without which those nations would be largely defenseless against at the very least Chinese aggression. Those nations want us there.

I didn't say they were relations of power. I said they were synonymous with some form of power. That you have a group of friends with which you do things or share similar ideals gives validity to the things you do and the ideals you have. That validation is a kind of power. That's different from what you're implying, whether or not you have power over your friends or vice versa...rather, it's about whether or not you have power over people who are not your friends. You have more of that kind of power with friends than without, and that power is ever-present in any and all friendships.

Feeling validated as a person, feeling good about yourself, doesn't seem to have anything to do with having power over anyone. I understand what you're saying, popular ideas are 'powerful' ones, etc., but I think that's a misunderstanding, at least when discussing what I mean. Someone in the same room as Mohammed Ali in his prime is less physically powerful, but that doesn't entail that he 'has power' over that person, in the sense I mean. He has the ability to take power over that person in that way, certainly, but he doesn't have to exert it, and that possibility doesn't have to be sanctioned. Is there a single interaction between two people that you don't conceive of as having one party exert power over the other? If there is, then that is what I mean.

Let's run with this. Suppose you and Mohammad Ali went to a rib joint...the owner wants to treat you guys to $30 in ribs.

Mohammad Ali thinks he should get more ribs for whatever the reason...maybe he thinks the owner gave you guys a free meal because of his reputation (i.e. divine right, yes), or maybe he just thinks he's bigger so he deserves more ribs (right by might, yes?). What are you going to say to Mohammad Ali? What would happen if you said "no?"

As it is, we've barely had 2 exchanges in this thread and I'm already repeating several points. I have doubts you're able to follow the argument.

Well that's a little nasty.

Apologies.

I doubt that your powers of comprehension so belittle mine. Frankly, we should stop talking about power, because you insist on defining any effect anyone has on anyone else as an exertion of power, which is true in one sense, in that 'I have the power to cause that effect', but not true in the sense that any authority, oppression, domination etc. is present.

Well, IMHO in a world of scarcity, laying claim on anything precludes anyone else laying that same claim. Domination is natural in such a state of affairs...if someone is drinking a bottle of water, that's a bottle of water you're not going to be able to drink. If that water makes a significant difference, then you are being dominated.
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?
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:24:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 3:29:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:22:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/6/2015 7:15:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:53:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Threats to Israel are not threats to the US.

The only option is to let the Middle East burn for 20 years or so.

That is a good point. Let me ask this. Is Iran a greater threat to Isreal or would ISIL be a greater threat if they had the power, weapons and control that Iran posesses?

your other post brings up how completely jacked up our middle east policy is. I read in walll street journal yesterday that Iran has military leadership over up to 100,000 Iraq tropps that are actively fighting ISIL. Pretty nuts.

I guess my main point is simply that just because our ally says that Iran is the greatest threat does not mean we should accept that as fact without studying it and understanding it.

Difficult to compare ISIL with Iran.

Iran has intense desire to wipe out Israel, ISIL, does not have that mandate toward the USA,

Please quantify that intense desire. If it is so intense why are they not shooting their long range missiles at Isreal?

This is a silly question to ask. We would wage war with Iran in a heartbeat if it did that.

And if they had nuclear weapons that suddenly changes?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:51:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 6:24:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:29:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:22:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/6/2015 7:15:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:53:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Threats to Israel are not threats to the US.

The only option is to let the Middle East burn for 20 years or so.

That is a good point. Let me ask this. Is Iran a greater threat to Isreal or would ISIL be a greater threat if they had the power, weapons and control that Iran posesses?

your other post brings up how completely jacked up our middle east policy is. I read in walll street journal yesterday that Iran has military leadership over up to 100,000 Iraq tropps that are actively fighting ISIL. Pretty nuts.

I guess my main point is simply that just because our ally says that Iran is the greatest threat does not mean we should accept that as fact without studying it and understanding it.

Difficult to compare ISIL with Iran.

Iran has intense desire to wipe out Israel, ISIL, does not have that mandate toward the USA,

Please quantify that intense desire. If it is so intense why are they not shooting their long range missiles at Isreal?

This is a silly question to ask. We would wage war with Iran in a heartbeat if it did that.

And if they had nuclear weapons that suddenly changes?

Yes, it does.
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:11:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 6:24:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:29:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:22:58 PM, slo1 wrote:

Please quantify that intense desire. If it is so intense why are they not shooting their long range missiles at Isreal?

This is a silly question to ask. We would wage war with Iran in a heartbeat if it did that.

And if they had nuclear weapons that suddenly changes?

I don't know if this will help you conceptualize what kind of game changer WMDs are...think of nukes as the ultimate political poison pill. Think of what corporations can do to each other without poison pill provisions, and then think about how careful corporations are with those provisions in place.

We would have to be MUCH more careful with our foreign policy if nukes proliferated. There would be strict limits to what we could credibly threaten. More than likely any regime with nukes would become immune to invasion. Those nukes grant them a LOT of negotiating power...not just politically, but on the battlefield especially.

If there's any lesson aspiring nuclear powers learned from our invasion of Iraq, it's that they have nothing to lose from actually using WMDs in the event of a US invasion. We are going to find them guilty in a kangaroo court and kill them regardless. This makes them that much more dangerous.
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
3/12/2015 11:08:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 11:30:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 11:05:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/9/2015 5:55:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
There's always been a vocal element in Japan looking to remilitarize. It becomes more vocal whenever something catalyzes that element.

Fair. Wouldn't it be hilarious though, if two decapitations is all it takes?

It could very well be the straw that broke the camel's back. Not saying it would, just that it could.

If there's a Fox News or a Daily Mail in Japan, they're probably working very hard to make that happen haha.

1) Obedience is a form of agreement.
2) "specific issue" = security.

That is true, actually, but I more meant that 'agreeing to obey a command' is not the only kind of agreement. Presumably by 'security' you mean 'security of American hegemony', and as far as I'm aware imperialism is not a just cause for a war. It would seem to make all war justified.

Well, hegemony is relative...it's not just what is outside the continental US. I mean, we have a regional hegemony in north America...the question is, with only this hegemony are we safe? Obviously not, right? 9/11?

You reckon these wars are to prevent terrorist attacks, or does it make more sense to think that this is the justification they tell us?

I've been citing Taiwan and South Korea pretty consistently in this thread.

It's my understanding that Japan's economic policy was quite independent from America, and it's that model that Taiwan and South Korea pursued. I don't really see how it's an example of America invading a country and then attempting to 'build it up'.

IMHO Japan's economic policy is entirely dependent upon American permission. See Plaza Accords. We forced them to fix their currency at high rates so that our exports could be more competitive vis a vis theirs.

Isn't that an example of a policy created after Japan was already economically powerful, and isn't it also thought to have led to a recession in Japan?

America most certainly occupied Japan, wrote their constitution, and then built them up so that they could withstand communist influence.

You don't need to 'build a country up' to make its government obedient and anti-communist. Just look at what your government did to South America.

America is the world's police force?

Think about your local neighborhood. Is it safer or more dangerous because of the police? I used the word "intra-national" for a reason.

As far as I'm aware, people in my neighbourhood think it's the police's job to deal with crime, so naturally if they disappeared, things would become a little confused. Is that your justification for imperialism?

I don't think you really understand what I want to see, which is fair enough. The most effective way to establish peace is to make it so that no one wants to break the peace. If that fails, then there is always the notion that other people won't allow you to, but that in no way requires a group to have a monopoly of force on the others. I am certain that any evidence on the subject would show that both of those methods are more effective of assuring peace or preventing crime than exerting power on people.

I agree on preference, but such a calculus should in no way preclude the option of monopolizing power into one entity. It just makes such an option the least preferable.

'Monopolising power into one entity' in itself is not actually a solution, as I said, unless the 'solution' is simply to give sanction to the entity carrying out most of the violence.

Our societies are today as internally peaceful as they've ever been, I think, and I seriously doubt you would propose that this is because the police have simply become incredibly effective, and not because people's quality of life has improved and attitudes towards violence have changed.

I think effective policing allows for QOL improvements. Ineffective policing stifles such.

So you do think that it's due to policing, somehow?

I think what I'm saying is made even more clear by what we're actually talking about - foreign policy. Our 'enemies' have stated the reasons for their actions quite clearly: they hate US foreign policy towards the Middle East, and the domestic ones also feel discriminated against at home. Your solution is to simply do exactly what made them enemies in the first place. They are angered by the fact that the US seeks to control their homes and deny them self-determination, as well as all the deaths that have been caused. Their response, of course, is as unthoughtful as I think yours is - attacking the US clearly just provokes more violence. The same is true of attacking them.

I don't think they're angered by control...they're angered by abuse of power/control.

Again, in Taiwan/SK, the US unquestionably controls foreign policy affairs there through our military guarantees, without which those nations would be largely defenseless against at the very least Chinese aggression. Those nations want us there.

If 'they want us there', then it isn't control. If South Korea had an election, and the US overturned the result, I hardly think they'd welcome that.

Let's run with this. Suppose you and Mohammad Ali went to a rib joint...the owner wants to treat you guys to $30 in ribs.

Mohammad Ali thinks he should get more ribs for whatever the reason...maybe he thinks the owner gave you guys a free meal because of his reputation (i.e. divine right, yes), or maybe he just thinks he's bigger so he deserves more ribs (right by might, yes?). What are you going to say to Mohammad Ali? What would happen if you said "no?"

Being a young black Muslim, he would have presumably assaulted me without provocation and then beheaded me before we even got there, 'cus, you know, he'd hate my freedoms... indeed, he could choose to do that, just like I could choose to stick a knife between his ribs. Maybe he's so damn stupid I could give him less and trick him into thinking that he's getting most of them. We certainly have the ability to do this to each other, but what I'm talking about is an actual relationship of control, which would only exist when one of us decided to create it. His ability to beat the sh*t out of me doesn't entail that he is in control of me, just that in a certain situation he could take control. I'm sorry if I've said something confusing but that is what I mean. Clearly when I think people should be equal they should be in the impossible situation of having equal ability to control each other.

As it is, we've barely had 2 exchanges in this thread and I'm already repeating several points. I have doubts you're able to follow the argument.

Well that's a little nasty.

Apologies.

Aw, thank you.

I doubt that your powers of comprehension so belittle mine. Frankly, we should stop talking about power, because you insist on defining any effect anyone has on anyone else as an exertion of power, which is true in one sense, in that 'I have the power to cause that effect', but not true in the sense that any authority, oppression, domination etc. is present.

Well, IMHO in a world of scarcity, laying claim on anything precludes anyone else laying that same claim. Domination is natural in such a state of affairs...if someone is drinking a bottle of water, that's a bottle of water you're not going to be able to drink. If that water makes a significant difference, then you are being dominate

Unless you're saying that it's impossible to avoid, then I don't know what you're trying to prove. Sometimes people want to rape other people. That's a perfectly 'natural' state of affairs too.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:13:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 11:08:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/11/2015 11:30:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

You reckon these wars are to prevent terrorist attacks, or does it make more sense to think that this is the justification they tell us?

Well, the terrorist threat (i.e. asymmetric warfare) is real, that's hard to deny, and it's also hard to deny the basic reasoning that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i.e. terrorists may seek out rogue states or even just non-aligned states as allies (after all this is exactly what al Qaeda did with the Taliban in Afghanistan). So, one viable reason for us warring in the Middle East is to prevent such. It's a very easy sell, so it makes sense to highlight that point.

However, you also get some rather high ranking politicians lamenting that they can't tie in oil in public (can't find any links right now, sorry). It's a valid strategic concern, but it's much harder to sell because then you're tying oil dollars and Exxon profits with bombs and cadavers, which regardless of its strategic implications just seems really, really calloused on the surface.

IMHO Japan's economic policy is entirely dependent upon American permission. See Plaza Accords. We forced them to fix their currency at high rates so that our exports could be more competitive vis a vis theirs.

Isn't that an example of a policy created after Japan was already economically powerful, and isn't it also thought to have led to a recession in Japan?

Powerful, but subservient. Yes, IMHO it did lead to a recession in Japan, a necessary condition to maintain US hegemony over it. GDP graphs from the Plaza Accords to present are telling. At one point Japan was looking to overtake US GDP...now, that's a pipe dream. China continually cites the deleterious effects of the Plaza Accords whenever the US goes on about Chinese currency manipulation, the idea being that China is not within the US sphere of influence and that there's not much reason to expect such a policy approach to work against it.

America most certainly occupied Japan, wrote their constitution, and then built them up so that they could withstand communist influence.

You don't need to 'build a country up' to make its government obedient and anti-communist. Just look at what your government did to South America.

I would think South America corroborates my point. We didn't build those countries up, and thus they've had numerous communist rebellions and are anything but obedient.

As far as I'm aware, people in my neighbourhood think it's the police's job to deal with crime, so naturally if they disappeared, things would become a little confused. Is that your justification for imperialism?

For the hegemonic impulse, yes. It's in the link I gave you a while back on "offensive realism". The intractible problem is that everyone is vying to become the hegemon, and this vying process tends to be violent. There are no cops to break up the fights, after all.

I don't think you really understand what I want to see, which is fair enough. The most effective way to establish peace is to make it so that no one wants to break the peace. If that fails, then there is always the notion that other people won't allow you to, but that in no way requires a group to have a monopoly of force on the others. I am certain that any evidence on the subject would show that both of those methods are more effective of assuring peace or preventing crime than exerting power on people.

I agree on preference, but such a calculus should in no way preclude the option of monopolizing power into one entity. It just makes such an option the least preferable.

'Monopolising power into one entity' in itself is not actually a solution, as I said, unless the 'solution' is simply to give sanction to the entity carrying out most of the violence.

Such an amalgamation of power allows for more effective force projection. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". It allows for the availability of actions that would be inconceivable if not for concentration of power. Yes, there are some rather deleterious side effects, but regardless, when the patient is in critical condition, you're going to inject all kinds of crap to keep him/her alive, with a heavy emphasis on pain killers.

I think effective policing allows for QOL improvements. Ineffective policing stifles such.

So you do think that it's due to policing, somehow?

I think policing is a necessary part of the equation. It's not the only part, and arguably it's not the most important part, but it's an absolutely necessary part. Do you recall that fasces argument I made a while back? The string that ties the bundle of sticks together?

Again, in Taiwan/SK, the US unquestionably controls foreign policy affairs there through our military guarantees, without which those nations would be largely defenseless against at the very least Chinese aggression. Those nations want us there.

If 'they want us there', then it isn't control.

It's control. If we are there and they want us there, it's not only control but also good leadership.

If South Korea had an election, and the US overturned the result, I hardly think they'd welcome that.

Look up Roh Moo Hyun, take note of his pro-independence stance (from both China and the US) and note that he's now dead. Chen Sui Bian in Taiwan took a similar stance, he's now serving a decades long prison sentence for corruption. I don't believe in coincidence in this instance.

Let's run with this. Suppose you and Mohammad Ali went to a rib joint...the owner wants to treat you guys to $30 in ribs. [etc]

Being a young black Muslim, he would have presumably assaulted me without provocation and then beheaded me before we even got there, 'cus, you know, he'd hate my freedoms... indeed, he could choose to do that, just like I could choose to stick a knife between his ribs. Maybe he's so damn stupid I could give him less and trick him into thinking that he's getting most of them. We certainly have the ability to do this to each other, but what I'm talking about is an actual relationship of control, which would only exist when one of us decided to create it. His ability to beat the sh*t out of me doesn't entail that he is in control of me, just that in a certain situation he could take control. I'm sorry if I've said something confusing but that is what I mean. Clearly when I think people should be equal they should be in the impossible situation of having equal ability to control each other.

lol, how would you and Ali share the ribs then? Control of some sort is going to become an issue, isn't it? Meanwhile, the rib joint owner is laughing his @ss off. =)

As it is, we've barely had 2 exchanges in this thread and I'm already repeating several points. I have doubts you're able to follow the argument.

Well that's a little nasty.

Apologies.

Aw, thank you.

lol, yw. I don't aim to be nasty here, I just aim to treat others like I'm treated by them.

Well, IMHO in a world of scarcity, laying claim on anything precludes anyone else laying that same claim. Domination is natural in such a state of affairs...if someone is drinking a bottle of water, that's a bottle of water you're not going to be able to drink. If that water makes a significant difference, then you are being dominate

Unless you're saying that it's impossible to avoid, then I don't know what you're trying to prove. Sometimes people want to rape other people. That's a perfectly 'natural' state of affairs too.

Replace the word "rape" with "sex" and I'd agree with you. Here's the thing, is a prostitute that needs money being "coerced" to have sex?

I mean, all else being the same, I'd rather be paid to not work than to be paid to work. Am I being "coerced" to work?
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?
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:32:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 7:33:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Just what I thought. Got nothing.

Hear my words, if radical christans like Ted Cruz or Robert Menendez get their way they will have us at war with Iran within a decade.

Well if the War in Iraq would've gone well you would've seen a war in Iran as well. Though I'm currious, what occured to the nuclear blueprints the US gave Iran?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 1:52:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 7:33:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
Just what I thought. Got nothing.

Hear my words, if radical christans like Ted Cruz or Robert Menendez get their way they will have us at war with Iran within a decade.

They are not radical Christians. Radical Christians are the breed of Evangelicals who are hanging people for being gay or telling people they are gay just to be hung down over in Uganda. Ted Cruz and his like are a bunch of children compared to the people actually killed by radical Christians.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 1:54:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, Iran is against ISIS also. And if they get nuclear, doesn't mean it is a weapon. If is it, well if that is a big issue we best march over to Russia and tell them how they can not have a Nuke, and then we should too ourselves since our last President alone declared basically war on the premise of his talk with 'God'. No one needs Nukes, everyone unless a better is found, should use nuclear energy if it is the right area. Not all places can have one built for fairly obvious reasons.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 9:27:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 8:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well, the terrorist threat (i.e. asymmetric warfare) is real

And, as every terrorist has gone to great lengths to make clear, directly caused by American foreign policy.

terrorists may seek out rogue states or even just non-aligned states as allies (after all this is exactly what al Qaeda did with the Taliban in Afghanistan)

That example is somewhat ruined by the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the Taliban and Al Qaeda both grew out from US-funded anti-Soviet mujahideen groups. I mean, this isn't 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', it's more like 'my friend is my friend, but that other friend is now our enemy'.

Powerful, but subservient... it did lead to a recession in Japan

So you're dropping the idea that the US 'built them up', seeing as the only interaction you've so far pointed to is of the US actually damaging their economy?

I would think South America corroborates my point. We didn't build those countries up, and thus they've had numerous communist rebellions and are anything but obedient.

You burned them down. It's a good thing not everyone let you do that.

For the hegemonic impulse, yes. It's in the link I gave you a while back on "offensive realism". The intractible problem is that everyone is vying to become the hegemon,

An unsupported assertion contrary to incredibly obvious observations.

There are no cops to break up the fights, after all

You don't need the police to break up fights, you know.

Such an amalgamation of power allows for more effective force projection. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". It allows for the availability of actions that would be inconceivable if not for concentration of power. Yes, there are some rather deleterious side effects, but regardless, when the patient is in critical condition, you're going to inject all kinds of crap to keep him/her alive, with a heavy emphasis on pain killers.

More effective than what, and why exactly should I support an action unthinkable without concentrated power?

I think policing is a necessary part of the equation. It's not the only part, and arguably it's not the most important part, but it's an absolutely necessary part. Do you recall that fasces argument I made a while back? The string that ties the bundle of sticks together?

No one's arguing that single sticks are stronger than a bundle, but what I am arguing is that as far as I'm aware no one has the right to go around tying strings around people who don't want that.

It's control. If we are there and they want us there, it's not only control but also good leadership.

That's like saying I'm in control of someone when I f*ck them. I've only got the control they give me, which is why it isn't rape.

Look up Roh Moo Hyun, take note of his pro-independence stance (from both China and the US) and note that he's now dead. Chen Sui Bian in Taiwan took a similar stance, he's now serving a decades long prison sentence for corruption. I don't believe in coincidence in this instance.

It really staggers me how immoral you are sometimes. So you think it's good to be a hypocrite? In any case, it's the same shrouded undermining of the people you see everywhere, which people seem not to be aware of. I think if they issued a notice stating that either the Koreans ought to overthrow their leader or they will be invaded by the US things would be a little different. I mean, that's terrorism. American brand, of course.

lol, how would you and Ali share the ribs then? Control of some sort is going to become an issue, isn't it? Meanwhile, the rib joint owner is laughing his @ss off. =)

I don't really know what you're talking about or what is so funny.

lol, yw. I don't aim to be nasty here, I just aim to treat others like I'm treated by them.

That's an awfully dumb principle, both vicious and judgemental.

Replace the word "rape" with "sex" and I'd agree with you. Here's the thing, is a prostitute that needs money being "coerced" to have sex?

It seems inconsistent to argue that all people always want to be the dictator of everyone else and then claim that people don't really want to rape each other, they just want sex, if that is what you are saying.

I mean, all else being the same, I'd rather be paid to not work than to be paid to work. Am I being "coerced" to work?

If the reason you do that job is that doing it will grant you access to something being violenty withheld from you by someone who has no right to do that then yes, you are being coerced to work.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 9:26:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:27:52 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well, the terrorist threat (i.e. asymmetric warfare) is real

And, as every terrorist has gone to great lengths to make clear, directly caused by American foreign policy.

No, this is not true. We did not attack the terrorists' homeland...we didn't give them cause to attack us. In fact we were defending them from Soviet incursion, and for our trouble bin Laden decided to fly some planes into our cities.

Now, you can say that we have no business there whatsoever, and again I'd refer you to realist theory, that it's not about justifiability than inevitability, that if we don't go in there, someone else will, and if we do nothing, eventually they'll come here, too.

terrorists may seek out rogue states or even just non-aligned states as allies (after all this is exactly what al Qaeda did with the Taliban in Afghanistan)

That example is somewhat ruined by the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the Taliban and Al Qaeda both grew out from US-funded anti-Soviet mujahideen groups. I mean, this isn't 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', it's more like 'my friend is my friend, but that other friend is now our enemy'.

Yes, well, the alternative was to have Afghanistan become part of the USSR sphere of influence, and the USSR was already quite antagonistic towards us. Giving them a free pass in the Middle East does not serve our strategic interests.

Regardless of how bad the situation seems now, IMHO it would be far worse for our interests had the USSR stayed in power and continued to expand.

Powerful, but subservient... it did lead to a recession in Japan

So you're dropping the idea that the US 'built them up', seeing as the only interaction you've so far pointed to is of the US actually damaging their economy?

We did build them up...I'm not dropping that at all. They were key beneficiaries of the Marshall Plan.

I would think South America corroborates my point. We didn't build those countries up, and thus they've had numerous communist rebellions and are anything but obedient.

You burned them down. It's a good thing not everyone let you do that.

Regardless, we didn't build them up. Had we done that, perhaps we would have had less reason to burn them down, yes?

For the hegemonic impulse, yes. It's in the link I gave you a while back on "offensive realism". The intractible problem is that everyone is vying to become the hegemon,

An unsupported assertion contrary to incredibly obvious observations.

Then cite an "incredibly obvious observation". This theory is far more sound than you give it credit for.

There are no cops to break up the fights, after all

You don't need the police to break up fights, you know.

Yes, well, the assailants can kill each other too, but that doesn't benefit anyone, doesn't it?

Such an amalgamation of power allows for more effective force projection. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". It allows for the availability of actions that would be inconceivable if not for concentration of power. Yes, there are some rather deleterious side effects, but regardless, when the patient is in critical condition, you're going to inject all kinds of crap to keep him/her alive, with a heavy emphasis on pain killers.

More effective than what, and why exactly should I support an action unthinkable without concentrated power?

Because you value your existence?

No one's arguing that single sticks are stronger than a bundle, but what I am arguing is that as far as I'm aware no one has the right to go around tying strings around people who don't want that.

They are free to break any laws they wish to attempt to leave, just like the polity is free to make an example out of them if it can.

Look up Roh Moo Hyun, take note of his pro-independence stance (from both China and the US) and note that he's now dead. Chen Sui Bian in Taiwan took a similar stance, he's now serving a decades long prison sentence for corruption. I don't believe in coincidence in this instance.

It really staggers me how immoral you are sometimes. So you think it's good to be a hypocrite? In any case, it's the same shrouded undermining of the people you see everywhere, which people seem not to be aware of. I think if they issued a notice stating that either the Koreans ought to overthrow their leader or they will be invaded by the US things would be a little different. I mean, that's terrorism. American brand, of course.

How is this at all hypocritical? Is Taiwan and SK in good shape regardless of my suspicions of whether or not the US had a hand in these corruption charges? Yes, it is. The key here is to divorce well-being from sovereignty...the two are separate and significant aspects of existence. For example, children have no sovereignty yet under the care and guidance of most parents are treated quite well. We don't consider this to be a poor state of affairs, even if the parents at times do things we would consider to be morally questionable, like sending the kid to bed without supper, or threatening to spank the kid if s/he ditches school.

lol, how would you and Ali share the ribs then? Control of some sort is going to become an issue, isn't it? Meanwhile, the rib joint owner is laughing his @ss off. =)

I don't really know what you're talking about or what is so funny.

Control is inevitable, and to think that you can devise a system with no control is, well, unrealistic.

lol, yw. I don't aim to be nasty here, I just aim to treat others like I'm treated by them.

That's an awfully dumb principle, both vicious and judgemental.

Not at all true. It's quite nice and pleasant when the other party is nice and pleasant. It's a system called "justice", something of which you apparently have no conception.

Replace the word "rape" with "sex" and I'd agree with you. Here's the thing, is a prostitute that needs money being "coerced" to have sex?

It seems inconsistent to argue that all people always want to be the dictator of everyone else and then claim that people don't really want to rape each other, they just want sex, if that is what you are saying.
[rearranged]
It's control. If we are there and they want us there, it's not only control but also good leadership.

That's like saying I'm in control of someone when I f*ck them. I've only got the control they give me, which is why it isn't rape.

This sounds like agreement with my point.

I mean, all else being the same, I'd rather be paid to not work than to be paid to work. Am I being "coerced" to work?

If the reason you do that job is that doing it will grant you access to something being violenty withheld from you by someone who has no right to do that then yes, you are being coerced to work.

And you would be applying that same "violence" back at the other person by with-holding your labor in exchange for a wage. It's just economics, you can frame market forces as "violence" if you want or just learn to work with the system.
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?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 7:41:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/15/2015 9:27:52 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It really staggers me how immoral you are sometimes.

Let's make this sub-discussion really, really simple, since you are rather transfixed on morality.

I've read significant parts of Tolstoy's work "The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You", where he lays out a moral framework based upon his understanding of the Bible. It's pertinent to this discussion because he applied this moral framework to war and peace (not the book, but the states of being).

His conclusion was quite simple - to emulate biblical morality, one must not ever respond to evil with evil, what he called "The Doctrine of Non-resistance to Evil by Force". This sounds very, very similar to what you are advocating, yes?

The results are also quite simple - if one uses force against you in a manner you deem to be "evil", to be moral, one cannot respond with force, even if your very life is being threatened. This is what Tolstoy was advocating to peasants that were being conscripted to fight Russia's wars. Well...that leads to either a quick death or complete disenfranchisement...I don't think this requires much of an imagination to conclude. From a biblical standpoint, such a state of affairs is perfectly justifiable, because this world is temporal, it's heaven that matters. So, if you lose everything in this world, including your life, who cares? God doesn't, and neither should you.

If you buy this, good for you...but if you think this world does matter, then to think there's another reality waiting for you out there is just a tad delusional. So, if you value your existence, Tolstoy's brand of morality is untenable. In the end, responding to force is more about applying laws of physics in your favor, much like using fire to cook your food, or riding a horse to save yourself from exhaustion. When such matters are life and death matters, it makes sense to use such means at your disposal...similarly, if life and death requires a forceful response to war, it also makes sense to use military means at your disposal.
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
3/17/2015 6:24:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 7:41:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/15/2015 9:27:52 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:13:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It really staggers me how immoral you are sometimes.

Let's make this sub-discussion really, really simple, since you are rather transfixed on morality.

I've read significant parts of Tolstoy's work "The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You", where he lays out a moral framework based upon his understanding of the Bible. It's pertinent to this discussion because he applied this moral framework to war and peace (not the book, but the states of being).

His conclusion was quite simple - to emulate biblical morality, one must not ever respond to evil with evil, what he called "The Doctrine of Non-resistance to Evil by Force". This sounds very, very similar to what you are advocating, yes?

The results are also quite simple - if one uses force against you in a manner you deem to be "evil", to be moral, one cannot respond with force, even if your very life is being threatened. This is what Tolstoy was advocating to peasants that were being conscripted to fight Russia's wars. Well...that leads to either a quick death or complete disenfranchisement...I don't think this requires much of an imagination to conclude. From a biblical standpoint, such a state of affairs is perfectly justifiable, because this world is temporal, it's heaven that matters. So, if you lose everything in this world, including your life, who cares? God doesn't, and neither should you.

If you buy this, good for you...but if you think this world does matter, then to think there's another reality waiting for you out there is just a tad delusional. So, if you value your existence, Tolstoy's brand of morality is untenable. In the end, responding to force is more about applying laws of physics in your favor, much like using fire to cook your food, or riding a horse to save yourself from exhaustion. When such matters are life and death matters, it makes sense to use such means at your disposal...similarly, if life and death requires a forceful response to war, it also makes sense to use military means at your disposal.

1. The force you advocate has caused the deaths of Western civilians
2. The force you advocate has caused the deaths of children
3. The force you advocate has absolutely failed to show any positive results whatsoever after over a decade of its deployment

Try to depict me as the impractical saint, but your ideas have literally been empirically proven to be completely worthless. They have accomplished nothing but death. They have done nothing but make the world a worse place. The difference between you and me is not that I am an absurd pacifist, I am simply above idiotic and vicious cycles of blood for blood. Terrorists can live with themselves because they think like you.