|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 15, 2014 03:55 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:56, 15 Oct 2014.
|
artu said:
The threshold isn't Iraq or Syria becoming a super-power. Governments that can make decisions that benefits their people first can be inconvenient enough. Of course, they wouldn't nuke Iraq in such a scenario but they wouldn't support that with liberal idealism either.
I've said over and over again in multiple threads that I hardly believe the US wants to spread liberal idealism in Iraq or any country. I don't know why you insist implying that I think that. They should assist in implementing liberal institutions (rule of law, divison of power, private property). Liberal ideals is not something that can be politically imposed. Empirical research shows that those values evolve naturally as countries become more postmaterialist. The previous institutions are necessary for countries to reach that stage.
I never suggested it did. But it wasn't all brotherly trade and liberal ideals flying around either. WW2 is just yesterday by historical standards. And keep in mind that I live in a country that has been going through Westernization since 1830's and especially made a radical shift since the 1920's. Half the historians and sociologists study Westernization here. Now, let's look at the results. In Egypt, around 90 percent of the people answer "yes" when asked if converting from Islam should be punishable by death. (Although, I personally guess much less genuinely believe in that and care for it, most of them probably just nod yes with a reflex.) In Turkey, that ratio is around 10 percent. I'd say that is a qualitative difference in social norms. However, 50 percent of the people still vote for an Islamist party with very conservative values. Part of that is a reaction to such a vast change in social habits. We're talking almost 200 hundred years of reform here and still there is a reaction to it by a large sum of people, who freely vote for a party, that puts religion in a central role. So, excuse me if I skipped Niall Ferguson (I'll check him out) but I'm not talking out of my ass here.
And Turkey is a great example of a country that learned from the West. It is way more successful than Iraq or Syria for much of that reason. Other countries should try to do the same thing.
I'm not glorifying the West here, the world wars were horrible, but there are some core fundamentals that made the West more successful than the rest. These core fundamentals are rooted in economic liberalism (property, economic freedom) and political liberalism (rule of law, divison of power, freedom of speech et cetera).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 04:06 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
The West did not bypass the rest of the world by chance. I recommend the documentary and book "Civilization: Is the West History?", where historian Niall Ferguson makes a convincing case for some of the things that made the West more successful than the rest.
military conquests?
and that would be mostly England and France I suppose, at least, before the independance of the USA.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 04:29 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
But the state isn't a private defense organization. It does not have "customers". It is merely means to an end. That end is enforcing individual freedom and rights. If we can do that universally, we should. To restrict that to the nation state is statist.
What makes the state different from a private defense organization, aside from taxation, rhetoric, and a claim to sovereignty? But let's say that the state isn't like a private defense organization. In that case, what is it forcing us to pay for? How is it different from a robber? Then we want it to pay for as little as possible, so it would steal less from us - so then we want less activity in general, including intervention.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 04:51 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:06, 15 Oct 2014.
|
xerox said:
I've said over and over again in multiple threads that I hardly believe the US wants to spread liberal idealism in Iraq or any country. I don't know why you insist implying that I think that. They should assist in implementing liberal institutions (rule of law, divison of power, private property).
Yes, what I mean is, they wouldn't actively support those institutions either, if those result in political outcome that they don't prefer. (Such as nationalizing oil for example, with parliament vote). Also all those institutions function properly with the human factor, so you cant fast-forward them much either. Let me give you an example, Sevan Nisanyan, a writer here, wrote several articles ridiculing religion overwhelmingly and suggesting to make fun of Muhammed is within the limits of freedom of speech. The law couldn't touch him on that, instead, they got him on some construction law violation because he built some shack in his property without the proper license and registration. So he's in jail anyway. Such things are about tradition and mentality which again changes over time, if an authoritarian mentality is present, you can not wipe it away just by inserting modern institutions. The judges or the prosecutors will interpret the law in such a way, there will still be oppression. The labyrinths of modern law, full of technicalities is very servicable for that.
But still, I also think separation of powers is a good start, even if it's just for show in the beginning. (Yet, you need a state for that Mr. Anarcho-capitalist.)
Btw, Turkey is different from Iraq or Syria, it has the history of a multicultural empire and a very strong tradition of state (which sometimes results in bad and oppressive outcome also, but of course it's better than the chaos in our eastern neighbors.)
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 06:31 PM |
|
|
artu said:
But still, I also think separation of powers is a good start, even if it's just for show in the beginning. (Yet, you need a state for that Mr. Anarcho-capitalist.)
it's only for show unfortunately, because when we speak about separation of powers (which is still a good thing) we usually forget about the power of creating money, which actually seems to be the one which dominates everything.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 05:15 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 19 Oct 2014. |
|
Before dwelling specifically into the Middle Eastern situation, let me focus entirely on your personal stance for a moment here, Xerox. Since it does raise valid questions, but proposes certain solutions which I believe are unviable.
You fashion yourself an anarcho-capitalist. Or, at the very least, a kind of laissez faire minarchist akin to MVass. You are a young man that firmly believes every person's destiny should be in their own hands - which is a right, but also no less of a duty to yourself. This is because this freedom you treasure takes away certain cozy securities that make the nanny state demagogues so attractive to the public. What the welfare state proposes is that everyone is alleviated of a part of their self-responsibility, in exchange for entitling itself to a part of the sweat of your brow. This results in successful men giving away a significant portion of what they've earned for something they don't need, such as public healthcare, and unsuccessful men effectively being given other people's money which leads to them losing the motivation to take control of their lives and battle their misfortune or laziness. This is no more than theft, robbery by a coercive and organized force known as the State.
Let them create a fund - you'd have nothing against that. Let it be a matter of free association - those who would like to chip in and ensure that everyone within the fund gets as much aid as the fund can provide. Certainly, this wouldn't be as rich a fund as one with money stolen from unwilling people who can't profit from it - but that's their own issue to figure out. Certainly, voluntary charity groups would be able to reach the most endangered folk and fund themselves through promotion. Those who wouldn't be guaranteed to get other people's money for sitting on their arses, well, they'd be all the more motivated to sort their shyte out. To evolve the hell out of the ditch.
Of course, there would still be criminals out to rob or harm you, as well as outside forces who could threaten your independence. This is why the police and armed forces should exist, you don't deny that. MVass even believes it's alright to engage in a very limited state with this being the only necessary taxation, since you can't quite choose who to protect when push comes to shove. There can be no freeriders on this one.
So you get together, draw some borders or take those already laid in place somewhere along the caprices of history, and figure out what it takes to defend this place you call home and how much every one of its inhabitants should chip in to fund that. This ensures that you're protected from your neighbours and other states, as much as they fund this same thing. If a foreign country starts being a threat to your way of life, if it starts claiming it's building nukes and they're pointed at you, you'll damn well invest in defending yourself - if it'd be too risky or expensive to simply sit tight, you might make a military intervention to take their regime down and replace it with one that doesn't point nukes at you. Preferably one that also supports free association and equal rights for all its citizens, of course. If other states are willing to help, you'll make an alliance, and help each other out on this matter.
But then it occurs to you that there is a tiny state somewhere on the other side of the planet which suffers under the yoke of a tyrant, but it's far too small and underdeveloped to pose any kind of serious threat to you or your alliance. Frankly, it's a ridiculous place, but its people are denied freedom of religion and association and all these other things you can't imagine life without.
"Well then," you say, "we should send in our army to help them."
But that's expensive. Oh Lord, is it expensive. Someone has to pay for that. And that someone are your citizens.
"Are we endangered by these people?" they ask.
"Well, quite frankly, no," you reply honestly.
This confuses the libertarian folk somewhat. "What exactly is the problem, then?"
"Their rights are being trampled," you exclaim. "They are robbed and stoned and denied freedom of expression, religion, association."
"They should really fund themselves a police and an army to protect them," the libertarians say helpfully. "Did wonders for us, those did."
"You don't understand," you explain. "Their police and army is what oppresses them. Their leaders are corrupt and fanatical and their state is terrible. Every afternoon, they are required to defecate in front of their own doors, set a paper bag ablaze over it, and then ring their own doorbells and pretend they've been pranked. If they refuse to stomp the fire to put it out, their children are imprisoned and their testicles are removed by the means of a kukri."
"Goodness!" the people lament. "Well we really hope they sort it out then. I hear that Gandhi did wonders with some well placed protests and public disobedience."
"I'm not sure they'll be able to get rid of this authoritarian regime that way," you reply.
"Here," say the arms manufacturers. "What do you say we sell them these weapons at a discount? Just to cover the costs and a little extra."
"If money's the problem," the bankers say, "we can work out a credit deal with the rebels."
"Please, people, you have to listen to me," you're desperate to make them understand. "That would take too long and cause a heavy inner conflict with a whole lot of damage and casualties and bad blood. But if we help them in full force, if we intervene and topple their government with a series of airstrikes and a land invas-"
"Whoa there, dude," a circle of economically conscious hippies joins the discussion. "That sounds like a pretty heavy conflict with some serious damage and casualties there."
"Yes," you nod, "but we'll be clearing the way for their rebels to-"
"You mean send an invasive foreign force to blow them to smithereens and then say you did it to help the rebels - and do all this to lessen their inner conflict and bad blood?" a particularly perceptive history professor from a private elementary school asks. "And then ask them to follow and trust in our ideals?"
"Besides," his 8 year old student adds, "we fought for our own freedom. Why wouldn't they do it, too? Isn't that best left to them?"
"They don't need to do it," you attempt. "They have us to help them."
"I didn't have anyone to help me," a meat industry magnate storms into the room, "when I lost both my parents to a car accident and was left out with a mortgage I couldn't pay and went out in the cold. But I worked my way up! What else was I supposed to do? Let someone finance me? Hell no! I bled for what I achieved and I'm glad a communist welfare state using other people's money had nothing to do with it!"
"Seriously though," asks a talking spider with mutton chops and a top hat because this entire allegory stopped making sense a long time ago anyway, "how is it immoral to tax your own countrymen to finance your medicine to save your life, but a moral obligation of complete strangers to finance the toppling of your government?"
I will leave the rest of the tale for you to finish. If I like it, I'll include it into the canon lore of this quite awesome fictional world I just created.
I've also noticed another fine young lad with a baklava avatar going around the boards and must say I like his visual style.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 12:21 PM |
|
|
that post is so much win, bak.  
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 02:32 PM |
|
|
You can repay me by not making those baby black widows you mentioned in the other thread cannibalize each other. What's the matter with you. They're baby spiders.
And this way you can make yourself a swarm.
Stay on topic please, Bak. Oh, I am on topic. Hungry little spiders being kept in a box and not given food until they start eating each other is a far better allegory for the corporate reality of neoliberal economics than I could ever think up.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 03:52 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 15:54, 17 Oct 2014.
|
/offtopic:
i don't have 200-250 containers for each hatchling. best to breed the elite. cannibalism happens in nature anyway, if there isn't any other prey available. and what kind of person would i be, to interfere with nature's savagery struggle to survive?
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 04:49 PM |
|
Edited by kayna at 16:51, 17 Oct 2014.
|
|
Lolth would approve. And yes, nice post, always fun to read a well explained illogicality.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 03:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
bonus applied by Corribus on 19 Oct 2014.
Well deserved Bak. But I wish you'd had; free recently outdated weapons to "actors." But that's too picky.
Btw, I don't like that borrowing stuff, For a bit, I kept thinking (I dig that sweet flaky desert) this topic pulled Bak out when my History thread couldn't?...no, twasn't you.
NRN
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 10:57 PM |
|
|
lol.
this is why you shouldn't get rid of tyrants, unless they become a significant threat to you or your allies. because you have to keep playing "authority" in a foreign nation, regardless of what you may have promised before. it was a stupid thing to promise, anyway. i wonder when any u.s. "authority" will actually come out and say that the u.s. shouldn't have gotten rid of saddam...
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 08:53 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 09:06, 08 Nov 2014.
|
|
Saddam was a scapegoat and an excuse for the invasion, of course he was doomed from day one. When Bush & crew initiated the whole thing, nobody really gave a rat's arse how will the power vacuum be filled after the dictator is removed, I suppose some especially dumb "experts" (I've no doubt that the White House has many of them, the US policy in the Middle East constantly proves it) even thought that it would be enough to support Saddam's opposition in the "new Iraq" with weapons, troops and "democratization" to stabilize the country in mid-term. If you remember, 11 years back it was all about bio-weapons - which turned to be non-existent - and how badly the Iraqi folk need to be liberated from the bloodthirsty mass murderer. And while Saddam definitely was a mass murderer, he also kept that Sunni-Shia border country together and prevented the emergence of abominations like ISIS. An eventual deposition of Assad will have similar results, although he may not be innocent when it comes to the surge of the Jihad movements in the region.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 09:48 AM |
|
|
The only one left fixated on overthrowing Esad is Erdogan, though. The IS is so overwhelmingly brutal, fanatical and idiotic, they automatically make their enemy the lesser evil no matter who he is. Even AKP cant support them, at least directly, anymore.
Here's a very interesting article about the Kobane resistance and some skeptical speculation about the positions of US and Turkey. It's quite speculative without any evidence as I already said but within the limits of reasonable doubt:
The War Nerd
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 11:32 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 16:37, 08 Nov 2014.
|
|
It is certainly true that ISIS are no great fighting force and they owe their successes mostly to the status quo turmoil of the areas where they operate (and yes, because they are media stars). But they aren't to be underestimated exactly because the region allows such tattered "armies" to flourish and gain ground even without any great military skills. The ideological influence, which is much easier to spread in an atmosphere of a constant conflict, is the important bit, not so mich whether the idiots carry AKs.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2014 06:11 PM |
|
|
"as the blast knocks the turret half-off and turns anyone inside to instant bulgoki"
LOOOOOLLLLL.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 09, 2014 08:21 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
...they aren't to be underestimated exactly because the region allows such tattered "armies" to flourish and gain ground even without any great military skills.
I thought about this a while back and realized something I think is a "bit lost nowadays" (at times by some) and that's the sad fact that for decades now, Western Powers have been supplying not only weapons but military-training which obviously must include "tactics and logistics" to name only a couple of aspects and switching benefactors like hopscotch depending on which way the wind blows best for national interest at that time. Add all those years together and every time any group takes a hit there's a large pool that's now been training there own for a very long time now, with recent "updates"...like as we type...once more! <imo> Likely the biggest mistake the West has ever made when it comes to sensible foreign policy at any time in history. Oil; how it deludes rational thought.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 11, 2014 08:36 AM |
|
|
|
@Markkur, there is nothing new about that. Realpolitik has been the cornerstone concept of every major power's foreign policy for centuries, no exceptions. Big guys use the small guys to gain advantage against the other big guys and care little for local repercussions (which could be very short-sighted from their own perspective but that hardly changes anything). Sugarcoated propaganda is a relatively new addition to the mix but its purpose is not to change the essence but to cover it. In the end it always bogs down to interests, which are almost always related to resources (not necessarily oil, that's a new thing too). That's a good thing to remember when one listens to the news but people just don't give a damn about it and prefer to listen to fairy-tales for good and evil in an epic struggle where the good (that's us, always) will win.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 11, 2014 09:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:27, 11 Nov 2014.
|
You know my stance on such matters and your point is as solid as a stone, Zenofex. But that's just one side of the story. "The small guys" stay small because they are exploited but also, they are getting exploited because they keep thinking small. Look at Japan, not significantly rich in natural resources, a bunch of little islands in the middle of the Pacific, not a long history of colonization, industry or technological superiority either. They even got nuked only 70 years ago, surrendering to a super power unconditionally. And today, they are in G8. (Well, G7 now, since Russia got kicked out because of Ukraine.)
If you don't respect your own citizens, nobody else will, if you position your own children in targeted buildings for "psychological defense tactics," people wont take it seriously when you cry out genocide, if you keep bringing thieves and thugs to authority only because they keep shouting Allah-u Ekber, you will learn it the hard way that Allah is not so "ekber" (great, almighty) after all. Corruption at such magnitude will "naturally" be exploited, because in politics, power always fills over the empty space.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 15, 2014 01:37 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 13:40, 15 Nov 2014.
|
[Start of Rant directed @ thin air.}
I think a compound-reason looms very large; in a age when the human is replaced everywhere by The Machine...young men and especially in the Middle-East are standing about, with nothing within reasonable reach.(perfect fodder for BS)Desiring to stay in their present countries, no matter how desolate, is hardly uncommon. The Irish in the mid-nineteenth century were certainly of the same mindset.
My main point; all that growing idle time for generations now has lead to the continuance and worsening of an early 20th century war-cry; "here's another crusade" as if the U.S. is still only a band of zealous, blind, ignorant, UN-Christian warlords from the early to late Middle-ages. Most of those "Heathen Franks"{Muslim-quote} were truly only after "riches and land grabs." It's a fact, every leader got a piece of that sandy-pie or he went back home.
There have been no crusades for centuries and Christianity today is as a whole is mostly a fat and lazy old dog, (edit= in the U.S.)sleeping behind rose-colored stained glass and too timid to look outside for more than a personal gripe about a local church or some cherry-picked-news-story that reinforces self ignorance and or fear.
But how many of the deadly militants of today believe "the old crusade-rot is sacred truth" is very difficult to establish. However, <imvho> it's highly unlikely that the main fervor of now is chiefly fueled by historical/present resource grabs by Western Corporations.
My personal gripe; the U.S. as a nation is NOT at any time promoting Jesus anywhere in this world...it NEVER really has; as a Christian I would never want that. Thankfully, the U.S. has never been a Theocracy. I say this for one reason only, the dialogue and thinking of the M.E. people must move away from this propaganda-BS and re-start the debate or outcry where all wars have centered for about the last 200 years; power. control and GREED. The facts of today should be everyone's source, not a mantra of myth/propaganda.
FTR, I'm not justifying anyone taking human life because I just can't go there willingly. As unnatural and uncomfortable as having Compassion and Forgiveness for the enemy is, it is indispensable for any end to any Conflict. Banning that ideal always results in revenge, or at the very least, a ticking you know what from reading the news everyday.
Sorry, a tad mad this morning, about the endless cycle of dealt-death.
PEACE
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
