The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

ds
I notice you chose to ignore Obama in this despite the fact that he's doing the exact same thing Bush is on MOST foreign policy issues.

ds
Please find me a better government on this planet, since ours is shitty.

ds
You don't by any chance go to a straight up liberal arts college in the Northeast or in California? I ask because I've heard this exact same line of reasoning that basically amounts to "we are bad everyone else is better than us".

Look, since we're grouping each other in with the crowds whose arguments we each seem to be echoing to the other person, I'm going to direct towards you a little more of this diatribe you may or may not deserve to hear. It is quite possible to criticize the actions undertaken by your country's government (present or not-really-that-distant past), or the opinions held and policies advocated by large swaths of its civilian population, or the inadequacies of some aspect of how it functions as a system with respect to completely unprecedented and sometimes maybe even unforeseeable changes in the socioeconomic/cultural/[whatever] landscape without despising the nation you live in itself. You already do it; you attack the elected leader you don't like because he's the figurehead for a very broad set of views you generally disagree with and does things you don't think are in the best interests of the country, you attack entire demographics and states because of whatever (they're naive, they're stupid, liberals, this generation sucks, etc.), and you have no problem looking back at the past and condemning what you see as stupid acts and policies and eras in American political and social history. Maybe you see that as picking apart problems in an otherwise sound legacy. I'm probably more of an idealist than you, and I guess you find that stupid. Oh well. But none of what I hope for is without precedent in the world, it just hasn't been practiced here on a global level in a long time, and we've had long enough to determine that the things getting in the way are not going to keep paying off appreciably enough to keep committing to them.

That said, I think India's government is getting pretty cool. You'd probably find the rest irrelevant, but yeah, I think there are lots of countries that worry about themselves and manage not to make loads of enemies and **** up someone's day on four continents at a time. They're probably not as badass, which I get is a draw, but I'm actually okay with that.

And I went to Emory.

ds
Would you have the same opinion if Bush was president now?

ds
Also, please point out to me people that we "touched", that were or are significantly better without the influence of the US. And PLEASE don't go back in time and scream "the Indians!"

Um, agree to disagree with qualifications and come back to this. From day one Obama has provided the governments of the rest of the world and the idea of reigning in American unilateralism with what amounts to, at the least, lip service.

Bush pretty much roared out of the gates with "you're either with us or against us."

So Bush's childish stance is somehow worse than Obama's cowering stance? Interesting view point.

I remember Obama being accused of "apologizing for America" like right after his election. I don't have to hate America to acknowledge that it's done wrong, and acted hypocritically, and actively destabilized half the world. You seem to think this is me unfairly - or at least naively - indicting the country. I expect it to be better because it can be much better, and because the stuff we've been doing - and sure, not just us - is bad for us long term. It's bad for us right now.

Ehhhh I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say no straw man. I don't think the US is any worse than any other superpower in history. But it should be a lot better, even if only because the rationalizations available to those guys are no longer novel, and it's embarrassing when they crop up again and again when we can look to what's come of their use in the past in terms of integrity as well as security/stability. I don't know, maybe you find the moral justifications behind imperialism (like with the Brits) and the classic white man's burden stuff appealing. I don't.

Look, since we're grouping each other in with the crowds whose arguments we each seem to be echoing to the other person, I'm going to direct towards you a little more of this diatribe you may or may not deserve to hear. It is quite possible to criticize the actions undertaken by your country's government (present or not-really-that-distant past), or the opinions held and policies advocated by large swaths of its civilian population, or the inadequacies of some aspect of how it functions as a system with respect to completely unprecedented and sometimes maybe even unforeseeable changes in the socioeconomic/cultural/[whatever] landscape without despising the nation you live in itself. You already do it; you attack the elected leader you don't like because he's the figurehead for a very broad set of views you generally disagree with and does things you don't think are in the best interests of the country

you attack entire demographics and states because of whatever (they're naive, they're stupid, liberals, this generation sucks, etc.)

and you have no problem looking back at the past and condemning what you see as stupid acts and policies and eras in American political and social history.

I'm probably more of an idealist than you, and I guess you find that stupid.

But none of what I hope for is without precedent in the world, it just hasn't been practiced here on a global level in a long time, and we've had long enough to determine that the things getting in the way are not going to keep paying off appreciably enough to keep committing to them.

That said, I think India's government is getting pretty cool. You'd probably find the rest irrelevant, but yeah, I think there are lots of countries that worry about themselves and manage not to make loads of enemies and **** up someone's day on four continents at a time. They're probably not as badass, which I get is a draw, but I'm actually okay with that.

And I went to Emory.

I don't have to go back in time to scream "the Indians," but it's telling that you find that rather broad set of crimes so easy to sweep under the rug.

I'm not sure how fruitful an exercise this would be if you don't consider stuff like forced annexation or extraction of natural resources without commensurate reimbursement (and the manipulation of political forces and displacement of local peoples required to facilitate and formalize it) to be inherently bad things, especially with regard to intentions.

If you do, we can start with Chile, or Nicaragua, or any of several islands in the Caribbean later this week. [/B]

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly a boycott of sochi summit is going to accomplish.. Or banning from G8. Any ideas? Also LL in terms of recession, I can't really argue with the logic but I don't see a recession coming to that country anytime soon, what with the biggest natural gas reserves on the planet.

And you wanted even tougher sanctions?

[quote]And I went to Emory.

My condolences on your undergraduate debt. [/quote]
😆

This is great stuff

Holy shit!

So many people are gonna put this on their dicks!

ugghhh when the internet eats your posts...

Look, maybe I'm not being clear. I'm not interested in arguing left versus right, as I don't particularly care for the public representation of either. That's not what this is about. My dog in this fight is the pursuit of transparency and congruence with a single standard, globally, but first, here, because this is where I live and because our government - undisputed king of the hill - sets the bar for international diplomacy, and holds sway over the mood of the global community. It's so far set the bar pretty low. So what I don't appreciate are hypocrites operating under pretenses. I'm not necessarily accusing you of being one nor am I absolving myself of any possible fault in that regard, I wouldn't be too surprised to see I've tripped over my own rhetoric at one point or another. But I was curious to see what the board thought of Putin because I'm fascinated by (what I think is) the cognitive dissonance on display by people who think America should mind its own business and stay out of conflicts in other countries because they're a waste of our time and resources but support one hundred percent our right to intervene anywhere, at any time, through whatever means we feel appropriate, with no respect to the sovereignty of the nations whose own rights under international law we impugn upon, and still find it in themselves to react so vehemently when another nation acts with that same proud, enterprising spirit. Is it as simple as "it's okay for us, not them?" Is there asymmetric information at play here? It's tough enough to keep an ideologically opposed party receptive to your ideas (sharing gets hot, exhibit A) when you're operating on equal footing. And again, it's perfectly possible to objectively criticize aspects of how your country operates, if through an inherently subjective lens where you can only hope to find some common ground with others. I don't want to get into this partisan silliness again, but people across the political spectrum say all sorts of shit about their government when it's "the other guys" in power, perhaps because they're much more easily able to dissociate themselves from those policies and perspectives. Why is it unpatriotic self-hate or "Monday morning quarterbacking" when applied retroactively to eras we should all agree don't show America's best, fairest side, or to remnants of and throwbacks to those eras? How is wanting America to take action in line with the values it's supposed to aspire to less patriotic than allowing it to continue morally and politically isolating itself from the world?

I'm surprised to see that you took a course on American interventionism in "the third world" (presumably including South America) that left with you a good impression of what what we did there and why, but maybe that's just where our respective senses of ethics run into their disconnect. And I know India, half my family lives there. I used to make annual trips myself, spent a full year there for fourth grade. First experience with corporal punishment, you'd like it. I'm not surprised your buddy considers it a "shithole" and I'll keep my thoughts on that to myself, but I thought we were talking about examples of good foreign policy.

ds
My condolences on your undergraduate debt.

🙁

Also, big part of this for me is the distinction between preventative and preemptive war and the ramifications of employing the latter. I expect a rousing dissertation on this from The Winter Soldier.

Originally posted by Eminence

My dog in this fight is the pursuit of transparency and congruence with a single standard, globally, but first, here, because this is where I live and because our government - undisputed king of the hill - sets the bar for international diplomacy, and holds sway over the mood of the global community. It's so far set the bar pretty low.

So what I don't appreciate are hypocrites operating under pretenses. I'm not necessarily accusing you of being one nor am I absolving myself of any possible fault in that regard, I wouldn't be too surprised to see I've tripped over my own rhetoric at one point or another. But I was curious to see what the board thought of Putin because I'm fascinated by (what I think is) the cognitive dissonance on display by people who think America should mind its own business and stay out of conflicts in other countries because they're a waste of our time and resources but support one hundred percent our right to intervene anywhere, at any time, through whatever means we feel appropriate, with no respect to the sovereignty of the nations whose own rights under international law we impugn upon, and still find it in themselves to react so vehemently when another nation acts with that same proud, enterprising spirit.

Is it as simple as "it's okay for us, not them?" Is there asymmetric information at play here? It's tough enough to keep an ideologically opposed party receptive to your ideas (sharing gets hot, exhibit A) when you're operating on equal footing. And again, it's perfectly possible to objectively criticize aspects of how your country operates, if through an inherently subjective lens where you can only hope to find some common ground with others. I don't want to get into this partisan silliness again, but people across the political spectrum say all sorts of shit about their government when it's "the other guys" in power, perhaps because they're much more easily able to dissociate themselves from those policies and perspectives. Why is it unpatriotic self-hate or "Monday morning quarterbacking" when applied retroactively to eras we should all agree don't show America's best, fairest side, or to remnants of and throwbacks to those eras? How is wanting America to take action in line with the values it's supposed to aspire to less patriotic than allowing it to continue morally and politically isolating itself from the world?

I'm surprised to see that you took a course on American interventionism in "the third world" (presumably including South America) that left with you a good impression of what what we did there and why, but maybe that's just where our respective senses of ethics run into their disconnect. And I know India, half my family lives there. I used to make annual trips myself, spent a full year there for fourth grade. First experience with corporal punishment, you'd like it. I'm not surprised your buddy considers it a "shithole" and I'll keep my thoughts on that to myself, but I thought we were talking about examples of good foreign policy.

And as far as the course I took, it was the most interesting course I've ever taken. It did not leave me with a good impression but it made me understand why there was intervention and that there IS necessity for it and it definitely pisses me off when the uneducated (not you) equate intervention with Imperialism automatically.

Plus it helps that the teacher was a former CIA operative, although all information taught was declassified.

Now that I'm thinking more and more about it, I'm not able to reconcile the discrepancies between opinions stateside and abroad, as well as relativism vs. universality as discussed above. In terms of the latter, how is it that the liberals/democrats support big government and policing of our country, but want none of that abroad? How is it that Republicans/conservatives support small government and a free market economy, but want the US to act as the world's police? Fascinating stuff.

As far as relativism vs. universality, I'm stumped.

God, I can't believe they told the families of MH370 via a ****ing text message.

my mom was on that

Seriously? If so shit, I am so sorry for your loss. That must be awful to find out like that.

ds
It's funny because you lean on the side of relativism and I lean on the side of universality, yet I'm the one saying that it's not realistic to achieve and maintain the "standard" you're speaking about, while you're saying it is and that's what you want. Kinda ironic I guess?

Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

ds
See, we disagree here. I'm an interventionist and it appears you're an isolationist. I believe the world needs a police, and we're it (ironic since I want a small government within our own borders).

Again, I like single standards. I'm of the opinion that if we're going to keep ourselves involved in world affairs we should do it on the best terms possible with as much of the world as possible. And I do firmly believe we should be involved with the rest of the world. My parents are immigrants and maybe that's part of it, but when pertinent I've always naturally thought of issues in their global context instead of just as problems for Americans. I stand one hundred percent behind maintaining an international presence, but I would like to see a change in its nature because what everybody else thinks of us is important; even if you don't think it matters on a personal level ('murica, etc.) there are repercussions to being hated, especially when those feelings are actually sometimes warranted. As the most powerful nation ever and the one poised on any given day to shape the trajectory of civilization, our leadership more than anyone or anything else has to be morally accountable at least to itself. If that requires to some degree conceding mistakes or uncomfortably righting wrongs, then so be it.

Back at home, I'd like a less scatterbrained presumption all around of what our role and standing internationally should be. Single standards.

ds
Monday morning quarterback is ignorance in every aspect. We pick apart America's failings during the Vietnam War, 40+ years later. What matters in these events is the information that was present [b]at the time.[/b]

ds
Another thing I think we disagree on is it appears you believe any intervention is for the sole purpose of imperialism, when that's not always the case.

ds
Well first, my buddy is from India so he has that right. But while he considers it a shithole, he sees so much progress over the years since he's been here (12 years or so). So it might be a shithole, but it's a shithole with superpower potential.

But what I appreciate is that they don't just roll over and flatten Pakistan. It's probably what most countries would have done, and I find the restraint very admirable.

ds
Now that I'm thinking more and more about it, I'm not able to reconcile the discrepancies between opinions stateside and abroad, as well as relativism vs. universality as discussed above. In terms of the latter, how is it that the liberals/democrats support big government and policing of our country, but want none of that abroad? How is it that Republicans/conservatives support small government and a free market economy, but want the US to act as the world's police? Fascinating stuff.

Relevant: I know a lot of kids who consider themselves social liberals and fiscal conservatives, which I think is bullshit. They're good for all the mainstream liberal causes - gay marriage, pro-choice on abortion, eco-friendliness, some of them acknowledge quiet class/race oppression, etc. - but don't like spending taxpayer money. When you address issues like the so-called entitlement programs they start wavering, but support them. It's a very literal reading of "fiscal conservatism." Nobody wants to spend money unnecessarily, it's the matter of what's worth spending on (and how much) that divides us, which I really think is a function of both asymmetric information and shitty activist politicians.

Originally posted by Intrepid37
my mom was on that

I'm skeptical. Not to be a dick, but it's really easy to troll like this online.

People are generally a mish-mash of contradictions, I find.

don't believe people just happen to have inherent rights because as I understand it, that's not how nature works.

To me, probably to any secularist who's given it some thought, these are human constructs, at face value none more intrinsically "right" than any other. We create them, we as societies agree to abide by them: prosper, profit. I think a lot of them come naturally to us as intelligent but highly emotional social animals, and some of them have to be learned, or discovered through the unlearning of a preconceived notion in the face of new information. Their value is derived from their merits to society, many of which are empirically verifiable. Maybe this is corny, but I think this is a pretty good distillation of how I feel:

Quibbles particular to one culture or another proliferate rapidly as you focus the lens a bit, and I don't necessarily believe in enforcing an opinion on those one way or another. I definitely don't like doing so on the basis of an edict endemic to one little region with no substantial authoritative merit anywhere else.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Ha. Noooo. To the contrary, I've been curious as to why folks who do publicly advocate isolationism (in the vein of your proud modern libertarian) will so often turn around and readily advocate some sort of aggressive expansion of our military presence here or there. Really, the only time I see an isolationist objecting to our intervention in another country's affairs is when we're sending them money - the facet of humanitarian aid most readily dismissed as bullshit, funnily enough - instead of sticking soldiers on their territory.

Again, I like single standards. I'm of the opinion that if we're going to keep ourselves involved in world affairs we should do it on the best terms possible with as much of the world as possible. And I do firmly believe we should be involved with the rest of the world. My parents are immigrants and maybe that's part of it, but when pertinent I've always naturally thought of issues in their global context instead of just as problems for Americans.

I stand one hundred percent behind maintaining an international presence, but I would like to see a change in its nature because what everybody else thinks of us is important; even if you don't think it matters on a personal level ('murica, etc.) there are repercussions to being hated, especially when those feelings are actually sometimes warranted.

Sure. But what about when it becomes clear that the information that was present at the time isn't the information that was presented to the public? I'm not proposing that the commander-in-chief run with an open source war machine, but governments have repeatedly made propaganda a tool to subvert the will of the populace and advance an agenda, and I don't like that. It's been the hallmark of the most dangerous totalitarian and authoritarian regimes throughout the 20th century, it shouldn't be happening here.

Not always. I think we've dealt with legitimate national security concerns and a couple of humanitarian crises. Without getting into too much detail, with respect to direct military action I stand behind our work in both WWII and early on in Afghanistan, possibly a couple others (Somalia, Libya). But those were also all cooperative efforts on some level. I'm hard-pressed to think of an aggressive unilateral move that doesn't strike me as imperialist, or at least one soundly justified by the presented rationalization (often about national security) and thus probably not blatant self-interest.

Relevant: I know a lot of kids who consider themselves social liberals and fiscal conservatives, which I think is bullshit. They're good for all the mainstream liberal causes - gay marriage, pro-choice on abortion, eco-friendliness, some of them acknowledge quiet class/race oppression, etc. - but don't like spending taxpayer money. When you address issues like the so-called entitlement programs they start wavering, but support them. It's a very literal reading of "fiscal conservatism." Nobody wants to spend money unnecessarily, it's the matter of what's worth spending on (and how much) that divides us, which I really think is a function of both asymmetric information and shitty activist politicians.

I'm glad Faunus is posting more. This makes us all happy.

nah i lied

Originally posted by Intrepid37
nah i lied

Knew it.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Knew it.

Nailed it.