Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
I guess I misunderstood your initial statement on the matter. I was under the impression that you were arguing that my stance meant we never had to admit failure, which I think is wrong.
Because we would not be at the negotiating table unless we wanted to work with them.
I would argue that the deal brought about a stable situation (perhaps not a good long term solution), and in that stable situation it at least created an environment in which a long term solution could be pursued. If that long term solution failed, or was not pursued as much as it should have been, I don't think that makes the short term solution less important.
Well, tensions in the Middle East are detrimental to certain interests I spelled out earlier.
I would say we don't automatically enter into negotiations offering taxpayer funded incentives, but I do think we need to at least be prepared to offer some form of those depending on the scenario.
Yes, it does matter when those people revolt, but I don't think a revolt 18 years after the fact makes supporting the dictator a failure, I think the failure was to find a long term solution during that 18 year period of stability.
I have little hope we will get it unfortunately.
I agree that other nations expect that, and I also agree that many in the US who do the negotiating readily offer it for nothing in return. I don't think the solution is to end "incentives" to get agreements, I think the best solution is a radical change in our negotiating style.
Do you think a Democratically controlled Saudi Arabia would not have produced those hijackers? Many Democracies produce extremists.
I think we also need to accept, as I stated, that short term interests are vital to bringing about scenarios in which long term interests can best be pursued.
Yes, but more importantly I am comparing a commodities futures market to another commodities futures market.
I would be interested in seeing those graphs if you do get a chance. That said, I don't quite see how propping up a dictator radically changes how the futures market acts. The onion market is a good example I think that shows how the futures market was not to blame for wild price changes.
I would say it is always good to act under the "authority" of a body like the UN. I would however argue that going to them for "permission" is more for show than anything else, or at best an effort to spread the cost of a mission around.
I don't think a military has to invade us to be a threat. I think the Chinese are making large strides in areas that are direct threats to the US. Anti-ship missiles and ASAT weapons, as well as non-nuclear (or nuclear) EMP can be devastating to our range of capabilities in the region, protecting vital trade routes, and communications.
Imagine for example if the Chinese were able to detonate an EMP in space. It would have a massive impact on our communications/satellites which would have a huge impact on the economy here.
I know you don't, but if people buy into the Keynesian economy theory, then military spending ought to inherently be good for the economy.
Outside of that however, protecting trade routes, having Americans based overseas (spreading our culture etc) I think does help our economic capability.
For trade routes, you might argue that is just the military protecting economic interests, but in the absence of our military doing this, it would most likely get more expensive to ship goods etc and hurt the economy as a whole.
