Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
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).
Why not?
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.
Why is this our problem?
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.
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?
Serious change is what we need.
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.
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.
We should decide whether America's long term interests are more important than short term interests spanning between election cycles.
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.
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.
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?
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?
The idea that our military protects economic interests is plausible but the idea that our military increases our economic capability is pretty far fetched.
