Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
You mean unless such an action is deemed to advance US interests, correct?
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.
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.
The UN is the one who has cited the humanitarian mission a success and the political/military mission a failure.
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.
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.
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.
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?
When is it not in a countries best interest to have the US as a trade partner?
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.
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.
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.
Here's a thought, how about they pay us incentives to enter into agreements?
I disagree that we have the most to lose but we certainly bear the largest financial burden.
