Fires of revolution sweep the Arab World

[GenSeneca]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

OK...I can agree it can be subjective

Would you also agree that the term "moral" can be subjective? I disagree that our intervention was the morally correct decision but most people would probably agree with you on the subject. The US government's only moral obligation is to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States, not the rights of people in other countries.

Pragmatism is supposed to be "what works", but you don't know if something works till you try it, right? This means "pragmatism" exists squarely in the realm of the past tense; there is no way to claim a proposed action is "pragmatic" proir to its conclusion. Point being, people who claim we need to take an action, without regard for moral factors, and under the guise of it being the pragmatic solution, never have to admit their failures and are therefore never held accountable for their actions. I could offer many examples of politicians claiming a solution was pragmatic, only to have it fail, and rather than taking responsibility, they move right on to pushing the next "pragmatic" solution.

The way I see it is that we made a moral decision to intervene in a humanitarian context.. that humanitarian effort was widely failing, so we were forced to change the mission.

I disagree. The mission of UNOSOM I was to monitor the cease fire and provide humanitarian relief. We successfully did both. The "failure" came when violence escalated and resulted in the need for a new mission objective. Conditions changed, so the mission had to change.

Transitioning from UNOSOM I to UNITAF the humanitarian mission remained the same but the security mission was changed to provide security "by any means necessary" and the UN considers that mission a success. Later the mission transitioned once again from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. Once again the Humanitarian mission remained the same but the security mission was greatly expanded to include nation building and the securitization of the entire country.

In all three missions, the humanitarian mission remained the same, it was only the security mission that changed when violence in the country escalated. In all three missions the Humanitarian mission was considered a success while the final security mission, UNOSOM II, ultimately failed.

This brings me to your other example about Darfur.

In both examples, you cited US intervention as the morally correct decision. In the Somalia example we tried and failed, therefore you didn't consider it a pragmatic decision. In the Darfur example, we did not try, therefore could not fail, and this leads you to claim it as being a pragmatic decision.

The definition of pragmatism is supposed to be, "what works"... So in terms of pragmatism, is avoiding failure the same thing as achieving success?

Therefore, we intervened for a moral reason, that moral reason turned out to be a failure, so we had to change the mission in an effort to preserve the original mission..which ultimately led to total failure.

I understand why you think US intervention is the morally correct decision. I disagree and that's why I do not consider the decision to intervene as the right decision.

Do you believe the US government has a moral responsibility to all the people of the world or just US citizens?

Why not?

I can think of approximately 14 trillion reasons why we should look for an alternative.

If the only thing diplomacy has to offer is diplomacy, I don't see how that will really accomplish anything...

Uncle Sam isn't the only one with carrots and sticks. The private sector can offer many alternatives to throwing taxpayer money at foreign countries. Additionally, I think you should agree that many US interests are shared by other countries of the world and therefore should not require taxpayers to grease the wheels of diplomacy.

Well.. there is no example of the US acting "completely alone" because we would act in the form of bilateral agreements or setting up international agreements to act, which inherently involve other nations... but don't automatically involve the UN.

These bilateral agreements are based on mutual interests and arrived at through diplomacy, correct? So why do you feel we need to throw money at other countries for them to enter into these agreements?

Obviously I agree with you on the importance of oil and the reasons that you outline.

In a free market, prices are set based on supply and demand. The oil futures market is purely speculative and the price of oil is not determined by supply and demand. Since the price of oil is a primary driver in ecnomic stability around the world, the speculative futures market subjects our nation to unecessary risk. It's my contention that eliminating the futures market, and its resultant price fluctuations based on speculation, would go a long way to protecting and stabilizing not just our country but the global economy.

I would say our other interests include:

1) The War on Terrorism: In order to defeat extremists in many of these nations we are going to have to rely on (and maintain decent relations with) the governments of many nations in the Middle East.

2) Containing Iran: Obviously the nuclear issue is important, but also keeping the spread of a radical Shia agenda into the rest of the Middle East must also play a role.

3) Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction: Links up with the Iranian issue, but if nuclear capability spreads throughout an already volatile region, it will upset the oil market, and potentially create an arms race in the region.

Aren't these interests shared by other nations of the world? If they are, then we should not have to use the taxpayer funded carrots and sticks to convince other countries to join us in finding solutions.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

Would you also agree that the term "moral" can be subjective? I disagree that our intervention was the morally correct decision but most people would probably agree with you on the subject. The US government's only moral obligation is to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States, not the rights of people in other countries.

I agree that the US government has no responsibility to protect the rights of people in other countries.. my point in saying that intervening in Somalia was a "moral" decision was simply to argue that a large segment of the American population would view it as such, and I think our leadership at the time took that viewpoint of morality.

Pragmatism is supposed to be "what works", but you don't know if something works till you try it, right? This means "pragmatism" exists squarely in the realm of the past tense; there is no way to claim a proposed action is "pragmatic" proir to its conclusion. Point being, people who claim we need to take an action, without regard for moral factors, and under the guise of it being the pragmatic solution, never have to admit their failures and are therefore never held accountable for their actions. I could offer many examples of politicians claiming a solution was pragmatic, only to have it fail, and rather than taking responsibility, they move right on to pushing the next "pragmatic" solution.

While you are correct that we won't know how something works until it actually occurs, we can look at the historical record, and make an educated guess on how something will turn out.

For example, if I were to jump off a five story building, I don't know for certain that I will die until I do it and die...but I can look at historical examples of other people who have done the same thing and conclude that it is a bad idea.

I would also disagree that people who take action under the guise of pragmatism never have to admit their mistakes. If they take action and it does not work, then it is a mistake.

I disagree. The mission of UNOSOM I was to monitor the cease fire and provide humanitarian relief. We successfully did both. The "failure" came when violence escalated and resulted in the need for a new mission objective. Conditions changed, so the mission had to change.

If our mission was the monitor a cease fire, how do we call that success when violence escalates and we have to change the mission?

Transitioning from UNOSOM I to UNITAF the humanitarian mission remained the same but the security mission was changed to provide security "by any means necessary" and the UN considers that mission a success. Later the mission transitioned once again from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. Once again the Humanitarian mission remained the same but the security mission was greatly expanded to include nation building and the securitization of the entire country.

It had to be changed...there was simply no way to conduct a successful humanitarian mission without securing the country. I don't think you can really argue that a mission was a success simply because the same element was including in each part.

If the humanitarian mission was a success, there would have been no need to change the mission. Therefore, the mission was changed (and ultimately led to failure) because of the inability to conduct a successful humanitarian mission.

In all three missions, the humanitarian mission remained the same, it was only the security mission that changed when violence in the country escalated. In all three missions the Humanitarian mission was considered a success while the final security mission, UNOSOM II, ultimately failed.

I think that is just splitting hairs. For example:

If I draw up a plan that calls for X to occur, and then have to implement following plans calling for Y and Z in an effort to ensure X can continue to occur and the entire thing fails, I don't really think I can call X a success and say it was just Y and Z that failed, since X necessitated Y and Z.

This brings me to your other example about Darfur.

In both examples, you cited US intervention as the morally correct decision. In the Somalia example we tried and failed, therefore you didn't consider it a pragmatic decision. In the Darfur example, we did not try, therefore could not fail, and this leads you to claim it as being a pragmatic decision.

I would think most people would look at those scenarios and think the moral decision would be to intervene.. Perhaps I simply assumed you would fall into that line of thought?

I view the reason we did not intervene in Darfur through the lens of American interests. It would not "work" (help American interests) to intervene, therefore it is pragmatic not to intervene.

The definition of pragmatism is supposed to be, "what works"... So in terms of pragmatism, is avoiding failure the same thing as achieving success?

What "works" is supposed to be advancing American interests. If there are no interests to advance by intervening, then not intervening is what works, regardless of the genocide on the ground. (as in the case of Darfur)

I understand why you think US intervention is the morally correct decision. I disagree and that's why I do not consider the decision to intervene as the right decision.

I don't think US intervention is the morally correct decision, I don't ultimately care what the morally correct decision is, I want intervention when it is pragmatic (ie when it "works" to advance American interests)

Do you believe the US government has a moral responsibility to all the people of the world or just US citizens?

No.

I can think of approximately 14 trillion reasons why we should look for an alternative.

We do get a return on investment in many cases.

Uncle Sam isn't the only one with carrots and sticks. The private sector can offer many alternatives to throwing taxpayer money at foreign countries. Additionally, I think you should agree that many US interests are shared by other countries of the world and therefore should not require taxpayers to grease the wheels of diplomacy.

Many US interests are shared by the rest of the world... I am interested in what you see the private sector doing however to enhance our diplomatic efforts?

These bilateral agreements are based on mutual interests and arrived at through diplomacy, correct? So why do you feel we need to throw money at other countries for them to enter into these agreements?

In the example of Egypt, it was really the aid that got the treaty done. The treaty went a long way in advancing American interests. Without the aid, what else could have convinced Sadat to go along with it, when it ultimately led to his death?

In a free market, prices are set based on supply and demand. The oil futures market is purely speculative and the price of oil is not determined by supply and demand. Since the price of oil is a primary driver in ecnomic stability around the world, the speculative futures market subjects our nation to unecessary risk. It's my contention that eliminating the futures market, and its resultant price fluctuations based on speculation, would go a long way to protecting and stabilizing not just our country but the global economy.

I would argue that the existence of a futures market is due to the free market. Futures are ultimately just contracts between individuals to pay X amount for X commodity on X date. I find it hard to believe you would call for a government sanction elimination of such a system?

Aren't these interests shared by other nations of the world? If they are, then we should not have to use the taxpayer funded carrots and sticks to convince other countries to join us in finding solutions.

As opposed to using taxpayer funded carrots and sticks from other nations? Ultimately the United States foots most of the burden because we have the most to lose.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

I agree that the US government has no responsibility to protect the rights of people in other countries.

You mean unless such an action is deemed to advance US interests, correct?

While you are correct that we won't know how something works until it actually occurs, we can look at the historical record, and make an educated guess on how something will turn out.

For example, if I were to jump off a five story building, I don't know for certain that I will die until I do it and die...but I can look at historical examples of other people who have done the same thing and conclude that it is a bad idea.

If dieing is the objective, then such an action is pragmatic... It "works" to kill you. Hence my very fervent point about why it's necessary to make the objective perfectly clear when claiming an action will be pragmatic to reaching an otherwise ill defined goal.

Also, it's very easy for people to cherry pick information to claim an action would be pragmatic. I point to the example of PLC and his unsubstantiated belief that raising taxes results in revenue being a larger % of GDP. In his mind, raising taxes is the pragmatic action necessary to increase revenue and there is no shortage of people who agree with him, making that belief a "consensus" view.

That's another part of pragmatism that must be understood, fallibilism is one of its basic tenets. According to fallibilism, there are no absolutes, truth is considered subjective, therefore any opinion that becomes a "consensus" is considered true and all contrary opinions, no matter how well founded, are dismissed as idealogical clap trap. Just ask a warmer if Humans cause Climate Change, they will cite the "consensus" as their proof and dismiss anything to the contrary as being idealogically motivated.

I would also disagree that people who take action under the guise of pragmatism never have to admit their mistakes. If they take action and it does not work, then it is a mistake.

Taking money out of the SS fund to cover unsustainable government spending was considered the "pragmatic" solution to the budget problem - albeit temporarily, it worked. A handfull of decades later, that "pragmatic" decision is coming back to bite us in the ass.

If our mission was the monitor a cease fire, how do we call that success when violence escalates and we have to change the mission? ...I don't think you can really argue that a mission was a success simply because the same element was including in each part....Therefore, the mission was changed (and ultimately led to failure) because of the inability to conduct a successful humanitarian mission.

The UN is the one who has cited the humanitarian mission a success and the political/military mission a failure.

I would think most people would look at those scenarios and think the moral decision would be to intervene.. Perhaps I simply assumed you would fall into that line of thought?

I have already agreed that most people would consider our intervention to be the correct moral decision but I disagree with that opinion. The belief our intervention is moral is based on the moral code of Altruism, a moral code which I completely reject.

I view the reason we did not intervene in Darfur through the lens of American interests. It would not "work" (help American interests) to intervene, therefore it is pragmatic not to intervene.

What "works" is supposed to be advancing American interests. If there are no interests to advance by intervening, then not intervening is what works, regardless of the genocide on the ground. (as in the case of Darfur)

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If advancing American interests is the pragmatic decision, and you consider non-intervention in Darfur to be pragmatic, then explain how our decision to avoid risking failure equates to advancing American interests. Seems I was correct, any decision that precludes the risk of failure can be considered pragmatic.

I want intervention when it is pragmatic (ie when it "works" to advance American interests)

You just claimed non-intervention can be pragmatic. Perhaps you should define the term "American interests" and explain precisely what constitutes an advancement of American interests.

We do get a return on investment in many cases.

Is that the proper role of government, a taxpayer funded hedge fund?

Many US interests are shared by the rest of the world...

Why should we offer those countries incentives to do whats in their best interest?

I am interested in what you see the private sector doing however to enhance our diplomatic efforts?

When is it not in a countries best interest to have the US as a trade partner?

In the example of Egypt, it was really the aid that got the treaty done.

Again, if its in the best interest of both countries to sign a treaty, then one nation shouldn't have to fork over incentives to seal the deal.

The treaty went a long way in advancing American interests.

Not sure exactly which treaty you're referring to here but I doubt they offer us anything in that treaty we cannot obtain, or are already obtaining, from other countries. For example, Rendition (aka the outsourcing of torture) is something we've used Egypt for but we have that same deal with many other countries.

I would argue that the existence of a futures market is due to the free market. Futures are ultimately just contracts between individuals to pay X amount for X commodity on X date. I find it hard to believe you would call for a government sanction elimination of such a system?

You see a legitimate market mechanism, I see fraud. You cannot claim the futures market is based on actual supply and demand, you know it's entirely speculative. A free market is based on supply and demand, not speculation.

As opposed to using taxpayer funded carrots and sticks from other nations?

Here's a thought, how about they pay us incentives to enter into agreements?

Ultimately the United States foots most of the burden because we have the most to lose.

I disagree that we have the most to lose but we certainly bear the largest financial burden.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

You mean unless such an action is deemed to advance US interests, correct?

Yes.

If dieing is the objective, then such an action is pragmatic... It "works" to kill you. Hence my very fervent point about why it's necessary to make the objective perfectly clear when claiming an action will be pragmatic to reaching an otherwise ill defined goal.

I don't disagree, one would assume however that "dieing" would not be an "American interest."

Also, it's very easy for people to cherry pick information to claim an action would be pragmatic. I point to the example of PLC and his unsubstantiated belief that raising taxes results in revenue being a larger % of GDP. In his mind, raising taxes is the pragmatic action necessary to increase revenue and there is no shortage of people who agree with him, making that belief a "consensus" view.

That's another part of pragmatism that must be understood, fallibilism is one of its basic tenets. According to fallibilism, there are no absolutes, truth is considered subjective, therefore any opinion that becomes a "consensus" is considered true and all contrary opinions, no matter how well founded, are dismissed as idealogical clap trap. Just ask a warmer if Humans cause Climate Change, they will cite the "consensus" as their proof and dismiss anything to the contrary as being idealogically motivated.

I don't agree that pragmatism inherently means whatever the most people believe is true. Just because a lot of people believe something does not mean that it "works" in that manner.

I also don't agree that fallibilism means whatever becomes the consensus becomes "true." Fallibilism just means that what we "know" might be mistaken.

Taking money out of the SS fund to cover unsustainable government spending was considered the "pragmatic" solution to the budget problem - albeit temporarily, it worked. A handfull of decades later, that "pragmatic" decision is coming back to bite us in the ass.

It is not pragmatic because it didn't actually "work", unless you want to make the bogus argument that it was a success because it created a large problem later.

The UN is the one who has cited the humanitarian mission a success and the political/military mission a failure.

That makes it no less a bogus claim. Ultimately the humanitarian mission was part of the political/military mission, and it all ended in failure.

If the UN can make all the distinctions they want, but ultimately we failed.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If advancing American interests is the pragmatic decision, and you consider non-intervention in Darfur to be pragmatic, then explain how our decision to avoid risking failure equates to advancing American interests. Seems I was correct, any decision that precludes the risk of failure can be considered pragmatic.

Not so. Intervening in Darfur would not advance any American interests, and therefore is not pragmatic.

In Darfur we are not "risking failure", there are simply no interests to pursue through intervention.

You just claimed non-intervention can be pragmatic. Perhaps you should define the term "American interests" and explain precisely what constitutes an advancement of American interests.

In terms of Darfur, I don't think there are any American interests to advance... In terms of other interests they vary from area to area, so it just depends.

Is that the proper role of government, a taxpayer funded hedge fund?


Why should we offer those countries incentives to do whats in their best interest?

Not all countries share our interests in every scenario. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is a good example I think.. and one in which we needed outside alternatives to get it done.

When is it not in a countries best interest to have the US as a trade partner?

Unless you are prepared to restrict trade when nations do not go along with us then this point is meaningless....

Again, if its in the best interest of both countries to sign a treaty, then one nation shouldn't have to fork over incentives to seal the deal.

In many cases, those incentives are what make it in the best interests of both nations.

Not sure exactly which treaty you're referring to here but I doubt they offer us anything in that treaty we cannot obtain, or are already obtaining, from other countries. For example, Rendition (aka the outsourcing of torture) is something we've used Egypt for but we have that same deal with many other countries.

So you would argue the the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty could have been obtained without any incentives for Egypt?

You see a legitimate market mechanism, I see fraud. You cannot claim the futures market is based on actual supply and demand, you know it's entirely speculative. A free market is based on supply and demand, not speculation.

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. Futures markets are at their core contracts between private individuals.

Here's a thought, how about they pay us incentives to enter into agreements?

In many cases, we do get incentives for entering into agreements.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

I don't agree that pragmatism inherently means whatever the most people believe is true.

I have tried twice to address your comments and it has occupied the greater portion of my reply. I will make a new thread to discuss this topic in order for us to remain focused on the topic of this thread.

If the UN can make all the distinctions they want, but ultimately we failed.

Take it up with the UN.

Not so. Intervening in Darfur would not advance any American interests, and therefore is not pragmatic.

You said earlier the decision to not intervene was the pragmatic decision. Is the decision to not intervene in Darfur pragmatic or not?

Not all countries share our interests in every scenario. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is a good example I think.. and one in which we needed outside alternatives to get it done.

I'm not suggesting we coerce or bribe other nations into agreements. In fact I believe they should only enter into agreements when they consider them to be of mutual benefit and without "outside alternatives" to sweeten the pot.

Unless you are prepared to restrict trade when nations do not go along with us then this point is meaningless....

I'll take that as an admission that it is in the best interest of other countries to have the US as a trade partner. That being the case, other countries would be acting against their own best interest to restrict or boycott trade with our country.

In many cases, those incentives are what make it in the best interests of both nations.

I'm simply not convinced that foreign dictators being propped up by the US care about what's in their nations best interest... Their own personal interest, sure, but the nations interests, no.

So you would argue the the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty could have been obtained without any incentives for Egypt?

You never know till you try.

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. Futures markets are at their core contracts between private individuals.

According to that Wiki definition, the state plays no role in protecting against fraud. Also, prices in a free market are determined by supply and demand, not speculation. Lastly, I offered reform of the futures market as a way to stabilize the global economy - which is ironic considering the futures market was created in an effort to stabilize the global economy. It's simply an alternative to the policy of propping up foreign dictators at US taxpayer expense.

In many cases, we do get incentives for entering into agreements.

Such as? It seems to me the US military protects many nations, Japan and South Korea are just two examples, it doesn't strike me as absurd to ask these countries to foot the bill for the defense of their country.

 

[sparrow]

The Muslim Brotherhood said yesterday that they would review Egypt's peace treaty with Israel should they come to power but many protesters said they want the peace treaty with Israel to remain. They also don't want any mainstream political party to take control and that includes the Muslim Brotherhood. Could this mean there is a new wave of middle-class educated youth emerging who are not religious zealouts of Islam?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Muslim Brotherhood said yesterday that they would review Egypt's peace treaty with Israel should they come to power but many protesters said they want the peace treaty with Israel to remain. They also don't want any mainstream political party to take control and that includes the Muslim Brotherhood. Could this mean there is a new wave of middle-class educated youth emerging who are not religious zealouts of Islam?

well its not hard to see that yes there is alot of that...notice the complete lack of burning flags or Israel or US...no chanting death to X...all the protests where about democracy freedom and such. Egypt is a fairly secular nation...while still yes Muslim..the Muslim Brotherhood is said to have at at most 20-30% support...and that number is far less with the younger who make up the growing part of the population. They are not in the street with non violent protests...in order to go to war. I tihnk many would like to see Egypt step up its pushing Israel though and as many feel they are the only nation that really has the power to make Israel think twice about its Illegal settlements...( the other the US of course) Taking a harder stance on the Issue of Palestine..does not mean one has to go to a stance of whip Israel of the earth...of course the Tyrants in charge want you to think those are the only 2 options...Death of Israel...or there brutal leadership.

 

[sparrow]

well its not hard to see that yes there is alot of that...notice the complete lack of burning flags or Israel or US...no chanting death to X...all the protests where about democracy freedom and such. Egypt is a fairly secular nation...while still yes Muslim..the Muslim Brotherhood is said to have at at most 20-30% support...and that number is far less with the younger who make up the growing part of the population. They are not in the street with non violent protests...in order to go to war. I tihnk many would like to see Egypt step up its pushing Israel though and as many feel they are the only nation that really has the power to make Israel think twice about its Illegal settlements...( the other the US of course) Taking a harder stance on the Issue of Palestine..does not mean one has to go to a stance of whip Israel of the earth...of course the Tyrants in charge want you to think those are the only 2 options...Death of Israel...or there brutal leadership.

Yes pocket, these people are somehow different. The Muslim Brotherhood said yesterday that they wanted a secular, democratic Egypt, rather than one dominated by Sharia or Islamic law. I nearly fell off my chair with shock and could hardly believe it. Does it get any better than this?

 

[Gipper]

Yes pocket, these people are somehow different. The Muslim Brotherhood said yesterday that they wanted a secular, democratic Egypt, rather than one dominated by Sharia or Islamic law. I nearly fell off my chair with shock and could hardly believe it. Does it get any better than this?

Yes and some American liberals believe the Muslim Brotherhood when they say this, while ignoring the decades of evidence to the contrary.

They are so easily duped.

But, they also believe high speed rail is the Holy Grail of economic development.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yes pocket, these people are somehow different. The Muslim Brotherhood said yesterday that they wanted a secular, democratic Egypt, rather than one dominated by Sharia or Islamic law. I nearly fell off my chair with shock and could hardly believe it. Does it get any better than this?

This is true, they have long given up some of the ideas they had before..in order to fit the realistic mold of what the people of Egypt want. not unlike Evangelicals who believe strongly themselves...but don't want to have it Biblical law.After many years of being cracked down on, they where forced to do two things...radicalize even more...or reform a bit to try to get there ideas excepted by more people. the More Radical wing is still there, but often many of them spit off to join other groups...But as I have suggested before..the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is not a monolithic organization..It has no clear leader, and you will find a variety of ideas on how far to take things within the group. some fail to understand this, due to the fact they know nothing about it, other then what some talking head on Fox news told them, who they did no real research on them.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

I have tried twice to address your comments and it has occupied the greater portion of my reply. I will make a new thread to discuss this topic in order for us to remain focused on the topic of this thread.

Ok.

Take it up with the UN.

I am glad to know that you apparently back UN reports without question.

I just don't see how you agree that mission X was failing, thus created the need for mission Y, which failed, but it was not X that failed.. it was Y. It all failed.

You said earlier the decision to not intervene was the pragmatic decision. Is the decision to not intervene in Darfur pragmatic or not?

You have misread my post. I said the decision not to intervene in Darfur was pragmatic from the start. It could become pragmatic in my opinion if there were American interests that could be advanced through such an action.

I'm not suggesting we coerce or bribe other nations into agreements. In fact I believe they should only enter into agreements when they consider them to be of mutual benefit and without "outside alternatives" to sweeten the pot.

In many cases, those "outside alternatives" are what make a deal mutually agreeable. In many cases however, they are not needed. In many trade deals we don't need those, but they are critically important in other agreements...such as the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

I'll take that as an admission that it is in the best interest of other countries to have the US as a trade partner. That being the case, other countries would be acting against their own best interest to restrict or boycott trade with our country.

Obviously trading with the US is in many nations best interest. But in terms of non-trade agreements, that point is irrelevant.

I'm simply not convinced that foreign dictators being propped up by the US care about what's in their nations best interest... Their own personal interest, sure, but the nations interests, no.

It doesn't matter. Even if they are in it for their own personal interests, they are often going to want something to sweeten the pot.

You never know till you try.

So, in your opinion (since the US should not meddle), the US should have just stayed out of it, and Egypt and Israel would have pursued peace on their own? That is ridiculous.

According to that Wiki definition, the state plays no role in protecting against fraud. Also, prices in a free market are determined by supply and demand, not speculation. Lastly, I offered reform of the futures market as a way to stabilize the global economy - which is ironic considering the futures market was created in an effort to stabilize the global economy. It's simply an alternative to the policy of propping up foreign dictators at US taxpayer expense.

So..we prop up foreign dictators because of the instability created by the futures market?

As for the futures market, it is nothing more than contracts between private individuals..the government needs to stay out of it.

Such as? It seems to me the US military protects many nations, Japan and South Korea are just two examples, it doesn't strike me as absurd to ask these countries to foot the bill for the defense of their country.

In terms of Japan, in the post Cold-War era, our relations for now are more based on trade, but there was certainly more to it during the Cold War. Additionally, we still are able to use bases in Japan (and our presence in South Korea) to project power in Asia and stem Chinese influence.

For South Korea, obviously it was also a bigger deal militarily in the Cold War, and today trade is the major issue, but we are still able to keep North Korea at bay with our presence their, and project power into Asia.

As for the "bill", I would argue the return we see on being able to project power anywhere in the world, as quickly as we can, (something that would not be possible without bases in other countries) is far greater than the cost we bear.

It comes down to this in my mind: Are we better off as a superpower or not?

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

I am glad to know that you apparently back UN reports without question.

Their claim, not mine... moot point.

I just don't see how you agree that mission X was failing, thus created the need for mission Y, which failed, but it was not X that failed.. it was Y. It all failed.

Doesn't matter, we both agreed that it was not moral, therefore the example is moot.

You have misread my post. I said the decision not to intervene in Darfur was pragmatic from the start.

I read it correctly... Explain how "the decision not to intervene in Darfur was" an advancement of US interests.

You did say in order to be "pragmatic" that it must advance US interests. Its clear that going in would NOT have advanced our interests, I agree, but it is not clear how "the decision not to intervene in Darfur" somehow equates to an advancement of US interests. At best, the decision to not intervene is neutral, it neither advanced nor caused a decline of US interests.

In many cases, those "outside alternatives" are what make a deal mutually agreeable. In many cases however, they are not needed.

I submit that they are never necessary... at least not when an agreement is actually in the best interest of both countries.

the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

Is that treaty in the best interest of both countries? Do you believe the absence of that treaty is the same thing as a declaration of war between the two countries? I'm sure there are countries we do not have peace treaties with who are considered to be on friendly terms with the US.

Obviously trading with the US is in many nations best interest. But in terms of non-trade agreements, that point is irrelevant.

The fact that trading with the US is in the best interest of all the other nations of the world is very relevant. I'm not suggesting that we refuse trade with other nations, only that we begin recognizing the economic benefits of trade with the US as all the "sweetener" we need.

It doesn't matter. Even if they are in it for their own personal interests, they are often going to want something to sweeten the pot.

It matters to the people forced to live under dictators propped up by the US, and it matters to people like me who reject the policy of using taxpayer money to prop up these foreign dictators.

So, in your opinion (since the US should not meddle), the US should have just stayed out of it, and Egypt and Israel would have pursued peace on their own? That is ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting we become an isolationist nation, only that we use diplomacy when dealing with other countries... And I do not consider throwing taxpayer money at other countries an acceptable form of diplomacy.

So..we prop up foreign dictators because of the instability created by the futures market?

You believe we need to prop up foreign dictators to bring stability to the ME, I disagree, I think it causes more instability and that policy is counterproductive in the long run.

I offered reform of the future markets as an alternative policy that would create stability where oil prices are concerned and do so at no cost to taxpayers.

Spend billions to prop up foreign dictators...
Spend nothing to reform futures markets...

I brought up oil because that seems to be the commodity people who support your policy are concerned about, they think we need to prop up foreign dictators in the ME to maintain a stable flow of oil, I know that's hogwash.

As for the futures market, it is nothing more than contracts between private individuals..the government needs to stay out of it.

So contracts between private individuals the US government should mind it's own business but contracts between foreign countries... The US should get all up in their business and throw taxpayer money around to make it happen.

The futures market is volatile, it causes the price of oil to fluctuate wildly and on a daily basis. Supply and demand where oil is concerned is incredibly stable and would not result in wild price fluctuations... Why do you prefer wild fluctuations in the price of oil to more stable oil prices?

...stem Chinese influence....project power into Asia.

The US military has become superfluous and it doesn't break wind without first running to the UN for approval.

The threats we face as a nation are from terrorism, cyber attacks, and the ideological spread of radical Islam, not some foreign military.

I would argue...being able to project power anywhere in the world...is far greater than the cost we bear.

I fail to see the benefits but the cost is clear.

It comes down to this in my mind: Are we better off as a superpower or not?

The days of superpowers have come and gone. The world is multipolar and the US needs to shift it's foreign policy strategy to deal with this reality. The strength of the US comes from our economic capability, not our military's ability to 'project strength' throughout the world.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

I read it correctly... Explain how "the decision not to intervene in Darfur was" an advancement of US interests.

You did say in order to be "pragmatic" that it must advance US interests. Its clear that going in would NOT have advanced our interests, I agree, but it is not clear how "the decision not to intervene in Darfur" somehow equates to an advancement of US interests. At best, the decision to not intervene is neutral, it neither advanced nor caused a decline of US interests.

Because it is a zero sum game.. you are either advancing American interests or you are not. It is not in our interest to get involved in Darfur because Darfur has nothing to offer us. Additionally, intervention would establish precedent in which the world will look even more to the US to get involved in Darfur like situations in which there is nothing to gain.

Therefore, to intervene would be detrimental to American interests.
To not intervene (or do nothing), would advance American interests by not establishing such a precedent and not wasting time/money/life by getting involved.

I submit that they are never necessary... at least not when an agreement is actually in the best interest of both countries.

You just cannot go to the negotiating table with nothing to offer outside of "work with us."

Is that treaty in the best interest of both countries? Do you believe the absence of that treaty is the same thing as a declaration of war between the two countries? I'm sure there are countries we do not have peace treaties with who are considered to be on friendly terms with the US.

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was not in the best interest of both nations in my opinion. It became so due to the "sweeteners" that we added.

As for your next question, I believe the Israeli-Egyptian situation was much like the North Korea-South Korea situation. In the absence of the peace treaty, a defacto state of war still existed and it played a huge role in tensions in the Middle East.

So, I agree that some countries can be fine in the absence of formal peace treaties, but I don't think this was one of those scenarios.

The fact that trading with the US is in the best interest of all the other nations of the world is very relevant. I'm not suggesting that we refuse trade with other nations, only that we begin recognizing the economic benefits of trade with the US as all the "sweetener" we need.

You are trying to have it both ways though. Unless we are fully prepared to refuse trade with other nations, then our "sweetener" will be viewed as automatic and will not be viewed as a "sweetener", thus defeating the purpose.

It matters to the people forced to live under dictators propped up by the US,

It probably does matter to them, but that is not my concern.

and it matters to people like me who reject the policy of using taxpayer money to prop up these foreign dictators.

Fair enough, but unless we have a serious change in the government and how foreign policy is conducted in the US, I don't see that changing.

I'm not suggesting we become an isolationist nation, only that we use diplomacy when dealing with other countries... And I do not consider throwing taxpayer money at other countries an acceptable form of diplomacy.

What is your definition of "diplomacy"?

You believe we need to prop up foreign dictators to bring stability to the ME, I disagree, I think it causes more instability and that policy is counterproductive in the long run.

I believe there are situations in which we need to support foreign dictators in the name of stability. That is a not a blanket endorsement of propping up dictators. I certainly won't disagree that it can create long-term problems, but it also helps with short-term solutions, which are very important.

I offered reform of the future markets as an alternative policy that would create stability where oil prices are concerned and do so at no cost to taxpayers.

Spend billions to prop up foreign dictators...
Spend nothing to reform futures markets...

I brought up oil because that seems to be the commodity people who support your policy are concerned about, they think we need to prop up foreign dictators in the ME to maintain a stable flow of oil, I know that's hogwash.

Your argument is total hogwash, and there is historical evidence to prove it.

For example:
In 1958, Congress officially banned all futures trading in the fresh onion market. Growers blamed "moneyed interests" at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for major price movements, which could sink so low that the sack would be worth more than the onions inside, then drive back up during other seasons or even month to month.

But even after the nefarious middlemen had been curbed, cash onion prices remained highly volatile. In a classic 1963 paper, Stanford economics professor Roger Gray examined the historical behavior of onion prices before and after the ban and showed how the futures market had actually served to stabilize prices.

To this day, fresh onion prices still cycle through extreme peaks and troughs. According to the USDA, the hundredweight price stood at $10.40 in October 2006 and climbed to $55.20 by April, as bad weather reduced crop yields. Then it crashed due to overproduction, falling to $4.22 by October 2007. In April of this year, it rebounded to $13.30.

Essentially, futures trading can't drive up spot prices because the value of futures contracts agreed to by sellers expecting prices to fall must equal the value of contracts agreed to by buyers expecting prices to rise. Again, it merely offers commodity producers and consumers the opportunity to lock in the future price of goods, helping to protect against the risks of future price movements.

So contracts between private individuals the US government should mind it's own business but contracts between foreign countries... The US should get all up in their business and throw taxpayer money around to make it happen.

Contracts like what? The Egyptian-Israeli peace? Yes, the United States should be involved in securing agreements like that.

The futures market is volatile, it causes the price of oil to fluctuate wildly and on a daily basis. Supply and demand where oil is concerned is incredibly stable and would not result in wild price fluctuations...

This argument has no merit in my opinion, as addressed above.

Why do you prefer wild fluctuations in the price of oil to more stable oil prices?

What a ridiculous question. I do prefer more stable prices, which is why I support the existence of a futures market. Regulating the futures market is a feel good regulation, nothing more.

That said, going on your argument here, if stable prices are the goal, why not just establish the price of gas (or whatever commodity) at $X and then proclaim it as great news because you have established a "stable price"?

The US military has become superfluous and it doesn't break wind without first running to the UN for approval.

Is that why our last large scale military action came against UN approval?

The threats we face as a nation are from terrorism, cyber attacks, and the ideological spread of radical Islam, not some foreign military.

Those are SOME of the threats we face. We would be unwise to view them as our sole threats.

The days of superpowers have come and gone. The world is multipolar and the US needs to shift it's foreign policy strategy to deal with this reality. The strength of the US comes from our economic capability, not our military's ability to 'project strength' throughout the world.

Our military is what protects and in many cases increases our economic capability.

 

[RoccoR]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

BigRob; GenSeneca; et al,

I would like to explore this point.

The days of superpowers have come and gone. The world is multipolar and the US needs to shift it's foreign policy strategy to deal with this reality. The strength of the US comes from our economic capability, not our military's ability to 'project strength' throughout the world.

Our military is what protects and in many cases increases our economic capability.

(COMMENT)

While I can see some hitory, in which the US has used its military hegemony to improve its economic might and protect foreign investiments, it has proven (in my opinion) to also be a double-edged sword.

But I also see that the exercise of larger scale military operations, can drain an economy as well as help it. While we build in Iraq ($700B) and Afghanistan ($300B+), we have allowed our domestic in infrastructure to crumble. Now, in order to maitain the military effort, with no return on investment (ROI) expected, our economy will not be able to sustain a military force structure it had in the beginning (a decade ago).

2009 Grades

• Aviation D
• Bridges C
• Dams D
• Drinking Water D-
• Energy D+
• Hazardous Waste D
• Inland Waterways D-
• Levees D-
• Public Parks & Recreation C-
• Rail C-
• Roads D-
• School D
• Solid Waste C+
• Transit D
• Wastewater D-
  Sources (Multiple):
  • http://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm
  • http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/us-infrastructure-report-card-d/
  • http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Additionally, our military force (conventional) is completely compromised. Everyone has now seen what our weapons our actually capable of, what our depletion rate is, our logistics planning profile, and military decision making processes; in essence, our total C4ISR and how we conduct operations. There are no surprises.

There is very little funding left to continue the struggles we've engaged in now, without going further into debt, and there is no funding left to replenish our combat losses (exhaustion) and rebuild our ignored infrastucture.

(QUESTION)

Having said that, I would be interested hearing how the military can help us now, in a grave time of economic need?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

Because it is a zero sum game.. you are either advancing American interests or you are not.

Then why did you argue against my statement?

In the Darfur example, we did not try, therefore could not fail, and this leads you to claim it as being a pragmatic decision.

The definition of pragmatism is supposed to be, "what works"... So in terms of pragmatism, is avoiding failure the same thing as achieving success?​

Clearly you believe that if US interests are not being set back, then they are being advanced. Therefore anything we do to avoid failure (set backs) is claimed to be pragmatic (advancement).

You just cannot go to the negotiating table with nothing to offer outside of "work with us."

Why not?

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was not in the best interest of both nations in my opinion. It became so due to the "sweeteners" that we added.

The offers made it in the best interest of Egypts rulers, not the people of Egypt, hence my very valid claim that such policies are counterproductive in the long run.

As for your next question, I believe the Israeli-Egyptian situation was much like the North Korea-South Korea situation. In the absence of the peace treaty, a defacto state of war still existed and it played a huge role in tensions in the Middle East.

Why is this our problem?

You are trying to have it both ways though. Unless we are fully prepared to refuse trade with other nations, then our "sweetener" will be viewed as automatic and will not be viewed as a "sweetener", thus defeating the purpose.

I'm glad you stated it that way... If we automatically enter all negotiations offering taxpayer funded incentives, then it's viewed as automatic, not a "sweetener", thus defeating the purpose.

It probably does matter to them, but that is not my concern.

Does it matter to you when those same people riot and revolt, toppling dictators friendly to the US and replace them with less friendly, or outright hostile, governments?

Fair enough, but unless we have a serious change in the government and how foreign policy is conducted in the US, I don't see that changing.

Serious change is what we need.

What is your definition of "diplomacy"?

Striving toward an agreement for mutual benefit. I do not see where using taxpayer money is a substitute for diplomacy, or where it serves to our mutual benefit. I think the US gets screwed because other nations so readily expect that the US will bend over backwards to throw money at other countries to get an agreement.

I believe there are situations in which we need to support foreign dictators in the name of stability.

Like our support for the authoritarian regime in Saudi Arabia? The same country that produced 18 of the 9/11 hijackers... I believe our actions are counterproductive in much of our FP.

I certainly won't disagree that it can create long-term problems, but it also helps with short-term solutions, which are very important.

We should decide whether America's long term interests are more important than short term interests spanning between election cycles.

Your argument is total hogwash, and there is historical evidence to prove it.

You're comparing onions to oil...

We don't use taxpayer money to prop up foreign dictators in hopes of stabilizing world onion production... but we do with oil. Both supply and demand where oil is concerned has remained relatively steady compared to the wild fluctuations in the price of oil on futures markets. If I get a chance, I'll make some line graphs. The first with supply, second with demand, third oil prices based on the futures market and the fourth a compilation of the other three. That fourth graph would show two stable lines, supply and demand, with a eratic dragontoothed line for oil prices on the futures market zig-zagging back and forth across the lines of supply and demand.

That said, going on your argument here, if stable prices are the goal, why not just establish the price of gas (or whatever commodity) at $X and then proclaim it as great news because you have established a "stable price"?

The goal is having prices set by supply and demand. Whether you set prices by arbitrarily picking numbers or speculation over what might happen sometime in the future is completely divorced from actual supply and demand.

Is that why our last large scale military action came against UN approval?

I never claimed we took all our marching orders from the UN, only that we run to them for permission before taking any action. In the "last large scale military action", did we go to the UN for authorization first or not?

Those are SOME of the threats we face. We would be unwise to view them as our sole threats.

I can agree with that but I don't see ANY threats coming from traditional military forces. Is there some foreign military in a position to invade the US that I'm not aware of?

Our military is what protects and in many cases increases our economic capability.

The idea that our military protects economic interests is plausible but the idea that our military increases our economic capability is pretty far fetched.