Pravda: American Decent Into Marxism

[PLC1]

List for me the factors you believe to have been responsible for the collapse of the soviet union.

Let's see...

• There was the years long military buildup, at the expense of domestic programs.
• There was the war in Afganistan.
• There was the drop in the price of oil, and the subsequent lack of foreign exchange.
• There was the increase in democratization, which led to open opposition to the regime in Moscow.
• And there was the balance of trade.

Do we have some lessons to learn from them? You bet.

• We can't continue to spend nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined spends on theirs.
• We need to get out of Afganistan just as soon as it is possible to do so, without leaving behind a civil war.
• We need to fix our balance of trade.
• A drop in the price of oil would actually be a good thing for us, and we don't have any real control over said price. What we need to do is work toward energy independence in as many ways as possible, leaving nothing off of the table because of misguided ideology.
• Since we're already far more democratic than the Soviet Union ever was, the central government had better be open and ready for reform. We couldn't rule with an iron fist if we wanted to, so the alternative is to make sure that the government is sensitive to the will of the people.

We are still committed to governing by consent of the governed, aren't we?

 

[The Scotsman]

You mean like..............

Nah... not really! I was thinking more along the lines of the international banking system and debt transfer.

 

[GenSeneca]

Let's see...

• There was the years long military buildup, at the expense of domestic programs.
• There was the war in Afganistan.
• There was the drop in the price of oil, and the subsequent lack of foreign exchange.
• There was the increase in democratization, which led to open opposition to the regime in Moscow.
• And there was the balance of trade.

Do we have some lessons to learn from them? You bet.

• We can't continue to spend nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined spends on theirs.
• We need to get out of Afganistan just as soon as it is possible to do so, without leaving behind a civil war.
• We need to fix our balance of trade.
• A drop in the price of oil would actually be a good thing for us, and we don't have any real control over said price. What we need to do is work toward energy independence in as many ways as possible, leaving nothing off of the table because of misguided ideology.
• Since we're already far more democratic than the Soviet Union ever was, the central government had better be open and ready for reform. We couldn't rule with an iron fist if we wanted to, so the alternative is to make sure that the government is sensitive to the will of the people.

We are expanding, both militarily and diplomatically, our role in Afghanistan... I guess we didn't learn our lesson from the Russians.

We have a trade imbalance that's getting worse because of our anti-business policies, for instance Cap N Trade will simply Tax N Cripple the consumers and drive business and manufacturing overseas. We must not have learned our lesson from the Russians.

We are spending, spending, spending... Obamacare another 3-4 trillion, and there are no signs that the spending spree will stop... Did we learn anything from the Russians?

We are not expanding in all directions for energy independence, we are being limited to just wind and solar, we are told that Nuclear (the best option) is off the table, we are looking to force the cost of gasoline to $4 a gallon through taxes to get Americans to buy Government Motors vehicles... We are pushing for a command economy, where government creates the demand and provides the supply... The Russians know all about command economies.

Our central government is ready and open to reform? Do you hear yourself telling fairy tails? His O'liness was supposed to be a big "reformer", who was gonna "shake things up" in Washington and stop "business as usual", but the corruption, waste and fraud all continue at new record levels.

We did learn lessons from the Russians but we seem to be ignoring those lessons.

We are still committed to governing by consent of the governed, aren't we?

That would be wonderful, where do I go and to whom do I talk to, in order to let them know they do not have my consent?

 

[The Scotsman]

We are expanding, both militarily and diplomatically, our role in Afghanistan... I guess we didn't learn our lesson from the Russians.

..........Amen to that!!!

Afghanistan..........the graveyard of empires!!!

 

[PLC1]

We are expanding, both militarily and diplomatically, our role in Afghanistan... I guess we didn't learn our lesson from the Russians.

We have a trade imbalance that's getting worse because of our anti-business policies, for instance Cap N Trade will simply Tax N Cripple the consumers and drive business and manufacturing overseas. We must not have learned our lesson from the Russians.

We are spending, spending, spending... Obamacare another 3-4 trillion, and there are no signs that the spending spree will stop... Did we learn anything from the Russians?

We are not expanding in all directions for energy independence, we are being limited to just wind and solar, we are told that Nuclear (the best option) is off the table, we are looking to force the cost of gasoline to $4 a gallon through taxes to get Americans to buy Government Motors vehicles... We are pushing for a command economy, where government creates the demand and provides the supply... The Russians know all about command economies.

No, we didn't learn our lesson very well from observing the Soviet Union.

We didn't learn our lesson from reading about the fall of the Roman Empire, either.

We aren't even learning our lessons from the mistakes we have made ourselves in the past.

Perhaps we're just slow learners.

Our central government is ready and open to reform? Do you hear yourself telling fairy tails? His O'liness was supposed to be a big "reformer", who was gonna "shake things up" in Washington and stop "business as usual", but the corruption, waste and fraud all continue at new record levels.

No, no, look again: I said the central government had better be open and ready for reform. It's a lot like saying that they had better stick to the Constitution, had better balance their budget, had better do something about immigration reform, and had better start to dismantle the welfare state.

Not that any of the above is likely to happen any time soon.

That would be wonderful, where do I go and to whom do I talk to, in order to let them know they do not have my consent?

I believe that they are called your senators and representatives. They most likely have email addresses, and certainly have snail mail addresses.

 

[Andy]

Let's see...

• There was the years long military buildup, at the expense of domestic programs.
• There was the war in Afganistan.
• There was the drop in the price of oil, and the subsequent lack of foreign exchange.
• There was the increase in democratization, which led to open opposition to the regime in Moscow.
• And there was the balance of trade.

Do we have some lessons to learn from them? You bet.

• We can't continue to spend nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined spends on theirs.
• We need to get out of Afganistan just as soon as it is possible to do so, without leaving behind a civil war.
• We need to fix our balance of trade.
• A drop in the price of oil would actually be a good thing for us, and we don't have any real control over said price. What we need to do is work toward energy independence in as many ways as possible, leaving nothing off of the table because of misguided ideology.
• Since we're already far more democratic than the Soviet Union ever was, the central government had better be open and ready for reform. We couldn't rule with an iron fist if we wanted to, so the alternative is to make sure that the government is sensitive to the will of the people.

We are still committed to governing by consent of the governed, aren't we?

I'm a bit confused. The Soviet Union controlled nearly all aspects of the economy. In effect, nearly everything was a "domestic program". Further, China did not cut domestic programs, and that surely didn't help them out of their problems. I have seen little to no evidence that "domestic programs" have ever helped anything.

You would have to be the first to claim democratization was a bad idea. I doubt the Russia people would agree with your conclusions. Especially given the massive oppression they served "Mother Russia" under.

I've never understood the idea we have to fix the balance of trade. I have yet to see a country in which the balance of trade being fixed, has resulted in anything good. In fact, quite the opposite really. After all, wealth is created through trade. More trade is more wealth. Less trade is less wealth. Trade itself wouldn't exist unless it was beneficial to both parties... right?

If two people have a transaction, but it only benefited one person, the other wouldn't make that transaction again, now would they?

We simply need to get the government out of meddling in the energy markets, and the price will stabilize more. Simply removing taxes, and Ethanol requirements alone, will drop the price by more than a dollar a gallon. Boosting domestic production, by removing restrictions on it, will lower the price further, and insulate us from world market price swings more.

 

[PLC1]

I'm a bit confused. The Soviet Union controlled nearly all aspects of the economy. In effect, nearly everything was a "domestic program". Further, China did not cut domestic programs, and that surely didn't help them out of their problems. I have seen little to no evidence that "domestic programs" have ever helped anything.

On the other hand, there isn't much evidence that military spending does much to help the economy. The fact of the matter is that the US had the stronger economy, and so won the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet system through military one upsmanship.

Under "domestic programs", when it relates to the Soviet system, you have to list any industry that isn't military. We're not talking about the welfare state here.

You would have to be the first to claim democratization was a bad idea. I doubt the Russia people would agree with your conclusions. Especially given the massive oppression they served "Mother Russia" under.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it helped to bring down the Soviet Union. It's only a bad thing if you mourn the end of the Soviets.

I've never understood the idea we have to fix the balance of trade. I have yet to see a country in which the balance of trade being fixed, has resulted in anything good. In fact, quite the opposite really. After all, wealth is created through trade. More trade is more wealth. Less trade is less wealth. Trade itself wouldn't exist unless it was beneficial to both parties... right?

You can only afford to spend more than you make for so long, and then there are bills to pay. We buy from foreign nations, we sell to foreign nations. When we buy more than we sell, it devalues our currency, just as it did the Soviet's currency.

If two people have a transaction, but it only benefited one person, the other wouldn't make that transaction again, now would they?

We simply need to get the government out of meddling in the energy markets, and the price will stabilize more. Simply removing taxes, and Ethanol requirements alone, will drop the price by more than a dollar a gallon. Boosting domestic production, by removing restrictions on it, will lower the price further, and insulate us from world market price swings more.

Which government? Ours, that of Saudi Arabia, or where? Energy markets are global.
You can read more about the demise of the Soviet Union here.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe that they are called your senators and representatives. They most likely have email addresses, and certainly have snail mail addresses.

I got this as a response:

"Dear Constituent,

LOLZ, Consent? We don't need no stinkin consent! STFU you pissant peon and pay more in taxes! Get ready for big brother to crush you into a pulp so that you may experience his compassion as he nurses your broken body and spirit back to health in service of his ever expanding welfare state.

Any further complaints can be sent to, PissandMoan@FakeEmail.com, or you can use the 24 hour hotline, 1-800-EAT-SHAT-N-DIE

Sincerely,
Senator (D)ouche Bag"

Of course it was phrased slightly different but thats what was written between the lines...

Aside from that... You said we were not heading toward bankruptcy like the soviets... yet you agree that all the lessons we should have learned from the soviets, and from Rome, and from ourselves, have yet to manifest themselves in policy that reflects our having learned the lessons... you suggest we're slow learners and there is no sign that the steps necessary to keep from going the way of the soviets will be made any time soon... If you were trying to prove wrong the theory that we are going the way of the soviets, you appear to have supported the theory with everything you've said on the topic.

Andy, you're very correct... There is no such thing as a trade imbalance. If there were such a thing - to name just one example that shows how ridiculous the claim of trade imbalance truly is - every single American would have a trade imbalance with their local grocery store.

 

[PLC1]

I got this as a response:

"Dear Constituent,

LOLZ, Consent? We don't need no stinkin consent! STFU you pissant peon and pay more in taxes! Get ready for big brother to crush you into a pulp so that you may experience his compassion as he nurses your broken body and spirit back to health in service of his ever expanding welfare state.

Any further complaints can be sent to, PissandMoan@FakeEmail.com, or you can use the 24 hour hotline, 1-800-EAT-SHAT-N-DIE

Sincerely,
Senator (D)ouche Bag"

Of course it was phrased slightly different but thats what was written between the lines...

Aside from that... You said we were not heading toward bankruptcy like the soviets... yet you agree that all the lessons we should have learned from the soviets, and from Rome, and from ourselves, have yet to manifest themselves in policy that reflects our having learned the lessons... you suggest we're slow learners and there is no sign that the steps necessary to keep from going the way of the soviets will be made any time soon... If you were trying to prove wrong the theory that we are going the way of the soviets, you appear to have supported the theory with everything you've said on the topic.

Andy, you're very correct... There is no such thing as a trade imbalance. If there were such a thing - to name just one example that shows how ridiculous the claim of trade imbalance truly is - every single American would have a trade imbalance with their local grocery store.

It seems your representatives are pretty up front about their attitudes.

The next step, of course, is the ballot box.

Maybe we can start a "no more incumbents" policy among voters.

As for the US going the way of the Soviet Union, the article in your tabloid indicated that we were socializing everything in the US, and therefore going the way of the Soviet Union. There are a number of reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed, one of which was an unfavorable balance of trade. The US is not addressing that, nor any of the other causes that I listed.

We are not addressing the causes of the demise of the Roman Empire, either, to wit:

• Trying to impose a pax Romana on the rest of the world by force of arms (world policeman)
• Losing control of its borders
• Trying to keep the populace happy with bread and circuses (welfare state)
• Spending more than they took in in taxes, and minting money to make up the difference.
• Widespread political corruption.

Maybe the next world superpower will learn from history, but I doubt it.

 

[GenSeneca]

As for the US going the way of the Soviet Union, the article in your tabloid indicated that we were socializing everything in the US, and therefore going the way of the Soviet Union. There are a number of reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed, one of which was an unfavorable balance of trade. The US is not addressing that, nor any of the other causes that I listed.

Once again you seem to agree that we do find ourselves in many of the same circumstances that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and you also agree that we are not addressing those problems... yet you disagree that to put the two together by saying we are going the way of the Soviet Union is just tabloid trash talk...

Trying to impose a pax Romana on the rest of the world by force of arms

All laws, domestic and international, are enforced by the use of arms. This is a world ruled by force. He that turns his swords into plowshares, will be plowing the fields for those who still have swords.

 

[PLC1]

Once again you seem to agree that we do find ourselves in many of the same circumstances that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and you also agree that we are not addressing those problems... yet you disagree that to put the two together by saying we are going the way of the Soviet Union is just tabloid trash talk...

Because your tabloid author is oversimplifying the situation.

He writes:

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

So, again we're "descending into Marxism?" I just don't see that happening, despite the growth of the federal government. We still are not "Marxist" by any stretch of the imagination.

You asked what brought down the soviet Union, and I responded:

* There was the years long military buildup, at the expense of domestic programs.
* There was the war in Afganistan.
* There was the drop in the price of oil, and the subsequent lack of foreign exchange.
* There was the increase in democratization, which led to open opposition to the regime in Moscow.
* And there was the balance of trade.

None of which as anything to do with Marxism.

All laws, domestic and international, are enforced by the use of arms. This is a world ruled by force. He that turns his swords into plowshares, will be plowing the fields for those who still have swords.

True enough, but why should we take on the task of enforcing those laws? We can't police the rest of the world, no matter how hard we may try, or how many Neocons we have advocating that we do so. We need to have a military that matches the need to defend ourselves, then stick to that end.

 

[GenSeneca]

So, again we're "descending into Marxism?" I just don't see that happening, despite the growth of the federal government. We still are not "Marxist" by any stretch of the imagination.

I see your point and disagree, but only because I know you have a narrow view of what qualifies as being Marxist. Perhaps my view of Marxism is too broad but "in no stretch of the imagination" are we moving toward Capitalism... so any "descent" is the wrong direction.

I also disagree that none of what you listed had anything to do with Marxism... Had they not had an over centralized super-secretive government and operated on a command economy, they would not have had many of those problems and a freer market system would have softened the impact of the unavoidable things listed.

True enough, but why should we take on the task of enforcing those laws? We can't police the rest of the world, no matter how hard we may try, or how many Neocons we have advocating that we do so. We need to have a military that matches the need to defend ourselves, then stick to that end.

So you don't think we should defend any other nations but ourselves?

Its none of our business if Iran goes nuclear and takes out Isreal as promised?

We shouldn't enforce international law that protects our trade routes in a global economy?

We should expect nations to police themselves on Nuclear Non-Proliferation?

We should abandon our treaty obligations that we have set with allies?

We should rely on the UN to enforce the rule of international law?

I'm not trying to be a jerk in asking those question, I'm genuinely curious as to your positions on those various foreign policy concerns.

 

[PLC1]

I see your point and disagree, but only because I know you have a narrow view of what qualifies as being Marxist. Perhaps my view of Marxism is too broad but "in no stretch of the imagination" are we moving toward Capitalism... so any "descent" is the wrong direction.

I also disagree that none of what you listed had anything to do with Marxism... Had they not had an over centralized super-secretive government and operated on a command economy, they would not have had many of those problems and a freer market system would have softened the impact of the unavoidable things listed.

Let's see: Here is what I listed:

There was the years long military buildup, at the expense of domestic programs.

We also have built up our military, as a part of the cold war. Was that Marxist? Why is it that the conservative voices, the ones who decry "Marxism" the most, are in favor of the military build up? No, I don't think that is Marxist.

There was the war in Afganistan.

No, that isn't Marxist by any definition I can think of.

There was the drop in the price of oil, and the subsequent lack of foreign exchange.

That is pure market forces, the opposite of Marxism.

There was the increase in democratization, which led to open opposition to the regime in Moscow.

The increase in democratization is again the opposite of Marxism.

And there was the balance of trade.

Which has to do with market forces, and nothing at all to do with Marxism.

So no, I don't think any of the factors I listed have anything to do with Marxism at all. Of course, the Marxist philosophy of the Soviet Union didn't help improve their economy, either.

So you don't think we should defend any other nations but ourselves?

Its none of our business if Iran goes nuclear and takes out Isreal as promised?

We need to work with the rest of the world to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We should not take it on ourselves to bomb their nuclear facilities.

The chances that Iran will "go nuclear" to the degree that they could take out Israel are so remote as to be unthinkable at this point anyway.

We shouldn't enforce international law that protects our trade routes in a global economy?

Trade routes affect the world at large. It is not up to the US to go it alone in protecting trade routes, no.

We should expect nations to police themselves on Nuclear Non-Proliferation?

How can we unilaterally police that? Are we to bomb other nations' nuclear facilities?

We should abandon our treaty obligations that we have set with allies?

Of course not. If we have a treaty, we should honor it, just as we would expect our ally to honor it.

We should rely on the UN to enforce the rule of international law?

Now, that is a tough one.

It should be the role of the UN, but of course, expecting them to enforce the rule of law is unrealistic at this point.

Expecting us to unilaterally enforce the rule of law is equally unrealistic, IMO. We are not the world's policeman, nor can we be expected to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world.

I'm not trying to be a jerk in asking those question, I'm genuinely curious as to your positions on those various foreign policy concerns.

Yes, I appreciate your discussion style. You and I probably agree on more issues than not, but it is refreshing to discuss complex issues with someone who doesn't simply hoot, leap in the air, and declare themselves the winner in some unjudged debate.

 

[Andy]

On the other hand, there isn't much evidence that military spending does much to help the economy. The fact of the matter is that the US had the stronger economy, and so won the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet system through military one upsmanship.

Under "domestic programs", when it relates to the Soviet system, you have to list any industry that isn't military. We're not talking about the welfare state here.

I wouldn't say that really... Numerous popular American products have come out of military spending. For example, the Chemical DEET, which is universally the best insect repellent on the market, and used in dozens of products, was actually developed and used exclusively by the US Army.

Further, development of specific military hardware has directly resulted in other civilian products, notably the Hummer and the Jeep. Even the military hardware itself is sold internationally like the Bradley, which is sold to U.N., NATO, Israeli and Egypt and a few other locations.

But all this aside, military spending isn't for the purpose of economic stimulation, rather it's just a noticeable side effect. The purpose is for defense of the nation.

You may ask, well why didn't military spending stimulate the economy in the Soviet Union? You already know the answer if you think about it. Those businesses and companies had no ability do anything beyond what the central planners at the Kremlin told them to. There wasn't any capitalist incentive to create new products, or build consumer goods based on military investments, and thus no economic stimulation. Nor would they have been allowed to profit from it, if they had. So why bother?

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it helped to bring down the Soviet Union. It's only a bad thing if you mourn the end of the Soviets.

Oh I gotcha. Democratization was antithetical to the social structure, rather than it being somehow anti-economic.

You can only afford to spend more than you make for so long, and then there are bills to pay. We buy from foreign nations, we sell to foreign nations. When we buy more than we sell, it devalues our currency, just as it did the Soviet's currency.

I'm not sure how you tie over spending with trade. If I buy a Sony TV set on credit card, the problem isn't with international trade, but with me buying something I don't have the money for.

Similarly, international trade has nothing to do with national debt either. If the US government had say, cut two bailouts and a stimulus package, we would be $10 Trillion dollars less in debt, regardless of international trade.

Another thing that bugs me about this is that people flip flop on trade faster than Obama after his teleprompter breaks. For example, in Africa people routinely claim we are plundering them by buying commodities from there. Yet people claim China is plundering us for buying commodities from there.

In both Africa and China, we are buying from them. Yet supposedly Africa is losing, and China is winning.

Further, claims that trade deficit is oh so horrible, seem to ignore the fact that we've had a trade deficit since 1975. So in the last 34 years roughly, we've had this "end of the world" trade deficit, and yet nothing bad has happened. Further, our best years economically, have also had the highest trade deficits. 1987 was in the middle of the Reagan tax cut boom, and our trade deficit was the highest it had ever been. 1997 was just before the dot.com bust, and our trade deficit was high.

Yet in 1974, after the recession caused by price controls, our trade was a surplus. We had a trade surplus all during the great depression as well.

And all of this is very logical when you consider why trade deficits exist. It's really simple. When people have money, they buy things. When people are buying things, there's a market for foreign goods. The reason people are not buying imported goods, is because they can't afford it. So during an economic boom, you get a trade deficit. During a depression, you get a surplus.

Here's the bottom line. Trade has nothing to do with debt. Trade is inherently a positive thing for everyone involved, or they wouldn't do it.

Which government? Ours, that of Saudi Arabia, or where? Energy markets are global.
You can read more about the demise of the Soviet Union here.

Our government obviously. We can't control any other government, only our own. If they deregulated our energy markets, prices would stabilize and drop.

I read the article. Interestingly, there is no citation for the claim about trade. It says they tried to increase trade, that Carter blocked trade, that it as legalized in 1988, but there is no citations for the idea a trade deficit killed the Soviets. Further, the Foreign Trade and Soviet Union article, says that international trade was only 4% of the entire Soviet economy. Call me a skeptic, but I doubt that 4% of the economy wiped out the entire nation. I might contest the statement. Depends on if I can get any other information to dispute the article with.

 

[GenSeneca]

We also have built up our military, as a part of the cold war. Was that Marxist?

What you said was that they built up the military "at the cost of domestic programs". Adding that conclusion makes all the difference in the premise of your statement. What I don't think you have given proper weight to is that they couldn't pay for any of it... just as we cannot pay for any of it. Whether they spent $1 billion on new tanks or $1 billion on new housing projects is irrelevent when they have to put the spending on credit or finance it through the printing of money.

Why is it that the conservative voices, the ones who decry "Marxism" the most, are in favor of the military build up?

Because there is no correlation there. I don't know of any conservatives who think military build up for the sake of having greater numbers is a useful national security strategy. Conservatives are the ones pushing for investments in next generation weapons technology, APC's that can withstand IED's and mines, Anti-Missile technology and satelite surveilance, just to name a few. We place quality above quantity, this is why the US armed forces can take on a numericaly superior force and come out with barely a scratch. And as far as fighting terrorism (or whatever you want to call it), $1 billion in military technology helps us far more in that mission than $1 billion in building our numbers of weapons and material.

There was the war in Afganistan. No, that isn't Marxist by any definition I can think of.

The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples money. The soviet union was only able to perpetuate its existence through expansionist policies, by using the satelite nations they took over to help pull a cart that was always getting heavier. Wars of expansion are not Marxist in principle, but they are a pragmatic result of the Marxist ideology being put into practice.

That is pure market forces, the opposite of Marxism.

Again, I think most of your conclusion are erroneous because you are denying the correlative nature of cause and effect. No, the price of oil on the world market is not Marxist, but the inability to deal with the fluctuations of market prices in economic downturns is a direct result of the centralized planning that takes place in a Marxist command economy. Private interests innovate and adapt so they can continue to make (gasp!) a profit from their product or service. The Marxist economy just eats the losses in government subsidies and waits on their hands for the market to return.

The increase in democratization is again the opposite of Marxism.

Then you need to read more Marx... Marx saw a pure democracy as the epitome of Socialism. The elimination of the "state" and localized democratic rule was his idea of Utopian Socialism.

[trade imbalance] Which has to do with market forces, and nothing at all to do with Marxism.

Trade imbalances had nothing at all to do with their downfall.

So no, I don't think any of the factors I listed have anything to do with Marxism at all.

If you look through the works of Marx for where he called for such factors to be implemented as policy, you of course will not find them. The factors you listed were a pragmatic result of following the Marxist ideology. They had created so many problems by following the things you'd recognize as Marxist policy, they were "forced" to adopt pragmatic measures, such as wars of expansion, in order to prevent their country from failing. Once the Pragmatic means no longer worked, they collapsed and were forced to abandon the ideology.

Of course, the Marxist philosophy of the Soviet Union didn't help improve their economy, either.

Marxism crippled their ability to overcome, or resulted in the adoption of, the factors which led to their collapse.

We need to work with the rest of the world to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We should not take it on ourselves to bomb their nuclear facilities.

I didn't say we should take it upon ourselves to bomb their facilities. However, removing the threat of force in the enforcement of laws results in lawlessness.

By "work with the rest of the world", you mean we should just accept that there is nothing to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons because there are no nations, including our own, willing to use force in order to stop them?

The chances that Iran will "go nuclear" to the degree that they could take out Israel are so remote as to be unthinkable at this point anyway.

So in your opinion, Iranian nukes are no threat to Israel or the rest of the world?

Once Iran gets the bomb (since nobody has the balls to stop them) whats to stop them from proliferating the technology to other countries? ...We (the international community) already established by virtue of letting them obtain nukes that we (the international community) will do nothing to stop them from proliferating the technology.

Trade routes affect the world at large. It is not up to the US to go it alone in protecting trade routes, no.

Who says we go at it alone now? We need, at the very least, a massive Navy to protect sea lanes and shipping routes across the globe, we certainly cannot rely on our allies to perform such missions.

[on nuclear non-proliferation] How can we unilaterally police that? Are we to bomb other nations' nuclear facilities?

So we shouldn't enforce the non proliferation policy through force... We should just let nuclear bomb technology go to any nation in the world and its none of our business? I guess that means the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is just another non-binding resolution that states follow based on the honor system and are free to ignore without fearing the use of force.

Of course not. If we have a treaty, we should honor it, just as we would expect our ally to honor it.

Its our treaties and international obligations to global security that make us the "policeman" of the world. If you no longer want us to play the role of policeman, then we must abandon some of our treaties.

It should be the role of the UN, but of course, expecting them to enforce the rule of law is unrealistic at this point.

So the UN won't enforce the law and you don't think we should enforce the law either... so what is the point of having the internationa laws if nations don't have to follow them?

Expecting us to unilaterally enforce the rule of law is equally unrealistic, IMO. We are not the world's policeman, nor can we be expected to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world.

1. We don't enforce any laws unilaterally, period. To some, not having a "consensus" of world opinoin equals unilateral action but thats just political hyperbole. Besides, just because a position is popular does not mean that its correct and vice versa.
2. We are the worlds policeman because we have both the will and ability to enforce laws on a global level. Whether or not we have the moral standing to do so is a whole different topic.
3. In theory, I agree we should not be the worlds policeman. The Welfare State Euroweenies use the peace and freedom that our nations military secured, and continues to provide, in order to live without the threat of military force, and they use that security to bash Americans as being crude barbarians for our use of force. I would like to see us stop protecting many nations of the world and leave them to defend themselves from the tyrants, dictators and military weapons they denigrate us for opposing with the threat of force.

Yes, I appreciate your discussion style. You and I probably agree on more issues than not, but it is refreshing to discuss complex issues with someone who doesn't simply hoot, leap in the air, and declare themselves the winner in some unjudged debate.

I can't imagine ANYONE here behaving in such a fashion..