IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Bill Whittle: Nature abhors a power vacuum.
[link|http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000066.html|Better us than anyone else].

Excerpt:

When all is said and done, discussions of power and morality seem to hinge around a single idea \ufffd or rather two conflicting ideas regarding the nature of power.

Those that would have us disarm, withdraw, apologize and retreat make the assumption that by removing American Power from the world, the planet will become a harmonious village of diversity and mutual respect. Remove American capitalism, and the world\ufffds people will trade solar cars for indigenous beads, our European moral betters will hand over their cash to the third world until all are perfectly equal, and everyone will live in a sustainable ecological paradise. Remove American cultural power and Britney will be replaced with Beethoven, and an exquisite and reasonably priced Pate de Foi Gras Existentialist Meal can be had at a corner drive in where the former McDonald\ufffds once stood.

This is utter nonsense. It has never been true for a single page of the history of the Damned Human Race. There has never \ufffd never \ufffd been a day in human history when some form of power has not flooded the world, or competed to do so; and those times when the power was most one-sided reveal themselves to be the times of greatest relative peace, stability, and advancement of that quaint notion known as civilization.

This is not merely a European construct. We see this iron rule in Inca and Aztec histories in South America, in Shaka\ufffds Zulu nation, in Chinese empires and Japanese Shogunates, Native American tribal relations, and wherever else we turn our eyes.

The idea that all would be well if only America would retreat from the world and stay at home is a pernicious and seductive one. It appeals not only to those that hunger after the freedom to do mischief in our absence as it does to our natural sense of isolationism. It has been the mantra of communists, totalitarians and elitists of every vile stripe for well over a hundred years. It is utterly and completely wrong. Political power has never been removed from the world \ufffd it has only been replaced. And so our choice \ufffd now pay attention you No Blood For Oil types \ufffd is not between power and no power. It is a choice only of what kind of power will fill that vacuum. Chinese? Russian? European? We have seen all of these before. The horrors they have inflicted, with far less absolute power than the US wields, do not leave me pining for those alternatives. Someone is going to be the world power, or tear the world apart fighting for it. And no matter how hard we may wish it, the winner will not be a Blindfolded Jury of Archangels.

That is an unpleasant realization. It does not bestow glory on the human animal. Mark Twain:

\ufffdI am the only man living who understands human nature; God has put me in charge of this Branch Office; when I retire there will be no one to take my place. I shall keep doing my duty, for when I get over to the other side, I shall use my influence to have the human race drowned again, and this time drowned good, no omissions, no Ark.\ufffd

We have some very hard decisions to make as a nation, and as a people \ufffd and we have to make them, now. There is no perfect power. There is only human power. History shows that the best we can hope for is that the most decent, least flawed power \ufffd the British, for example \ufffd will, despite their horrors and massacres, displace people who are far, far worse.

It\ufffds really that simple.

We have to face the fact that we are imperfect creatures; that as long as there remain brutal and savage dictatorships power is not something that can or should be put down or put away, because power dispersed among hundreds of millions of fundamentally decent people displaces and curtails the murders and genocides of those forces that would rush in to fill their place.

We must face the hard and bitter truth that good people can walk away from a fight, but when they do, bad people will have the field and we have seen the horrors they can inflict.

For there are indeed good people and bad people. We have been, on the whole, the best-behaved, most generous and benign power in the history of the world. But we have had our Ft. Pillows and our Wounded Knees, our Moro Craters and Dresdens and My Lais. We are not immune, no matter how deeply and fervently so many of us wish we were.

We are Twain\ufffds people: fallible, often greedy, prone to vanity and pride over our institutions and successes. We are all this and more. We have committed bloody acts and disgraced our flag and our honor, and written shameful pages in a history that cannot be erased.

Face it.

We have to. We have to do it, now, openly, honestly. We have to look our weakness and our sins full in the face, and accept them, and unlike past occupiers of this position, unlike, for example, the Japanese who still refuse to face their responsibilities in World War II, we must undergo \ufffd daily if necessary \ufffd the painful and humiliating airing of our worst excesses, and stare right in the face the reflection of our own flawed nature.

But unlike our hand-wringing, self-loathing, paralyzed elites, we must do this not to become immobilized with shame and doubt, but rather to have the confidence and moral clarity needed to be able to act when action is essential, to act when all others are paralyzed by the shame of unexamined atrocities, to act when only action can save this world from the relentless drag of human entropy that cannot abide creativity, freedom, tolerance and success.

Because now, at this moment, this fulcrum point in history, we need American power more desperately and urgently than at any time in memory. And we cannot allow the past errors of a fundamentally decent, generous and kind people to prevent us from acting at this critical moment where inaction and paralysis could doom the world.

I say:

"Jingoism" is relative. It says we're better than the rest. And all things considered, damned if we aren't. Western civilization is better than non-Western. Anglophone civilization is better than the rest of the West. And the United States is the undisputed leader of Anglophone civilization. This all happens to be the truth. If it makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

A loyal opposition can harp on our failings all they like as far as I'm concerned, provided they face these two obvious facts: 1. all things considered, we're still way better, and 2. that gives us not only the right, but the responsibility, to take charge of this benighted planet before someone else does. Anyone who denies these is not loyal, he's merely opposition. And a liar to boot.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
"I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Define better
Define better.

In any case the argumen the article makes is simply wrong because the author tries to force a decision between two polar extremes, either isolationism or world conquest. There is a lot of ground inbetween.

Jay
New In that, the author agrees with our enemies.
Terrorism (or international pressure) will not stop until US has all the international involvement of Iceland.

On the other hand, Bush seem to drive to all national prestige of North Korea.

Middle ground seems to be a non-stable equilibrium.
--

OK, George W. is deceptive to be sure. Dissembling, too. And let's not forget deceitful. He is lacking veracity and frankness, and void of sooth, though seemingly sincere in his proclivity for pretense. But he did not lie.
[link|http://www.jointhebushwhackers.com/not_a_liar.cfm|Brian Wimer]
New There's no middle ground. That's the point.
If we don't run things, someone else will. That's the lesson of history. Did you even bother to read?
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
"I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Yes I did
But the point is that there is (almost) always a middle ground. Reality is binary only if you carefully phrase the question. In most cases saying A or the opposite of A must be true is incorrect, instead you must say that A or everything that is not A must be true.

Saying that we are not going to dominate the world is not the same as saying we are going to surrender it to somebody else. In fact, the odds are that trying to dominate the planet will simply accelerate the speed at which some other country dominates the planet. Dominating the planet is expensive and creates even more enemies then we already have. Eventually we will run out of money and odds are one or more of our enemies will get ahead of us.

Or to put it another way, if you want to claim that history teaches that one country will dominate the planet then you also have to accept that history teaches that dominating the planet will eventually destroy that country. From Rome to Briton, history shows that the effort involved in holding on to that domination was one of the key factors in their eventual failure.

A carefull policy of slective intervention when necissary and effective, but avoiding getting into too many fights and a willingness to abandon fights that can not be won. Combine that with a policy of working with allies to share the burden, both at the UN and by alliance. Done correctly we could balance the need to take care of the worlds problems with the need to avoid getting into fights we don't need to. That is the middle ground that would let us continue to progress without draining our resources.

Jay
New Selective intervention is a means, not an end.
If we select wisely, that simply means we prioritise our targets according to both urgency and strategic considerations. Which - guess what - is more or less what we're doing now. And if we keep intervening, that amounts to being the world's policeman. You can't police the world halfheartedly. It doesn't work. That's what led to 9/11.

Domination is as domination does. I can see you enjoy semantic games, but I'm more of a practical sort. So I'm calling it what is. A benign world government, securing peace, dignity and freedom for the individual of all the world, headquartered in Washington, DC.

Unless you'd prefer a "balance of power" between all this and its opposite: petty tribal wars, contempt for human rights, and brutal dictatorships. That is, the status quo ante in the sort of places in which we intevene. Moral equivalence is morally indefensible. It's the *real* simplisme. The ultimate non-thought.

Oh, and by the way: The Roman Empire and the British Empire both lasted an impressively long time, and traces of their influence remain to this day. If you're going to discuss history, do at least try to note the time scales involved.

They also both left the dominated parts of the world in better shape than they had been in to begin with. I should think that counts for something.

Also, to say that these empires destroyed their countries is quite a stretch. For all you know, they may have prolonged their lives.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
"I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New I would agree Marlow, if
Domination is as domination does. I can see you enjoy semantic games, but I'm more of a practical sort. So I'm calling it what is. A benign world government, securing peace, dignity and freedom for the individual of all the world, headquartered in Washington, DC.

I would agree Marlow, if I thought there was any chance of the above actually happening.

But history shows quite well that world dominating countries don't do it to spread the common good. That can be a side effect in some cases, but certainly not all. Look at the US's own history in South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments because the elected government wasn't pro-US or threatened US buisnesses. If the US is to dominate the world, we will do the same thing again.

Jay
New Shame. Look at US history in Germany, Japan, Panama...
France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Korea, Israel and yes, even the Philippines. (I'm sure I left some out, but you get the idea.) Then contrast to the sort of regimes you would prefer we leave alone. Like Saddam's for instance. Is there a neigboring people he didn't invade and either slaughter or try to slaughter?

And then see if you can muster the grace for an abject apology.

Or maybe you'll shame yourself further by using the old "but we did it for selfish motives" canard. If the US had been out for itself, there were far more obvious ways to go about it. Like occupying and looting all these countries instead of giving them democracy and a Marshall Plan. Beneficient is as beneficient does. The United States is the most selfless hegemon there has ever been, as even the most cursory comparative review will show, and the most detailed will verify.

Oh, and then look at the Chile case a bit more closely, and tell me if you've been fair even there. That regime was as democratic as Hitler's. He came into power by democratic means too, ya know.

Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame. You try to defend the worst scoundrels of the world by carping on the smallest errors of their betters. Is there an honest bone in your body?
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
Compromise is for suckers. Seeking a middle ground is what led to 9/11.
"I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New What?
Shame. Look at US history in Germany, Japan, Panama...
France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Korea, Israel and yes, even the Philippines. (I'm sure I left some out, but you get the idea.) Then contrast to the sort of regimes you would prefer we leave alone. Like Saddam's for instance. Is there a neigboring people he didn't invade and either slaughter or try to slaughter?

What? When did we invade France, Italy, Belgium, Holland or Israel? I imagine you are taking about the aftermath of WWII here. There is a huge difference between WWII and the sort of war of domination you are supporting, we where dragged into WWII against our wills.

Or maybe you'll shame yourself further by using the old "but we did it for selfish motives" canard. If the US had been out for itself, there were far more obvious ways to go about it. Like occupying and looting all these countries instead of giving them democracy and a Marshall Plan. Beneficient is as beneficient does. The United States is the most selfless hegemon there has ever been, as even the most cursory comparative review will show, and the most detailed will verify.

Neither country had much worth looting left. And both where needed to serve a much more important role, allies against Russia. The issue of why the reconstruction went so much better in those countries then what we are facing now is a whole different argument.

Oh, and then look at the Chile case a bit more closely, and tell me if you've been fair even there. That regime was as democratic as Hitler's. He came into power by democratic means too, ya know.

What did you have in mind? I have never seen anything against Allende that stood up to scrutiny.

And in any case, even you have to admit that Pinochet was far worse. Pinochet probably can't be 100% blaimed on the US, as the US probably didn't pick him. But the US had been encouraging the military to stage a coup for some time, and was more then willing to work with him afterwards.

Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame. You try to defend the worst scoundrels of the world by carping on the smallest errors of their betters. Is there an honest bone in your body?

You have to get the idea that I am defending people like Saddam out of your head. Your trying to polarize the sitatuion, either I support invasion or I support Saddam. The reality is that I support neither. Remeber Marlow, it's among the people you are supporting that you will find the people that helped Saddam.

Jay
New Balance of Power. History.
Your 'history' is so appalling that, obv never have you even heard! of the concept, balance of power
(among nations == a plural, inherently). And it shows - in all your achingly simplistic Right/Wrong black/white fulminations.

The inevitable ad-hominem assassinations of the many who oppose such a shallow and transparent mindset, and which accompany each grammar school level OneTrueSolution - these simply confirm the nature of 'the source'.


Pshaw.
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler
A. Einstein
New Balance of power. Didn't that lead to World War I?
All those treaties arising from a fetishization of the notion of balance of power, helped turn a Serbian assassination into a global conflagration. And now the transnational progressivists want to sacrifice our world on that same altar. I'd rather try a theory that hasn't been refuted by history, if you don't mind.

Simplistic fulminations yerself. You give me self-superior blather about balance, and flame me for suggesting that maybe we should choose our centroid with some care.

Oh, and by the way: Western style democracy is the closest thing to balance this world has ever seen. There is no such thing as a balance between balance and imbalance.

You're full of bullshit, Ash. Bullshit buttressed by a studied incoherence. No wonder your sentence structure is so awful. It reflects the state of your thought processes all too well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
"I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Balance of power -- CONTEXT DAMNIT!
Balance of power was supposed to apply to the continental powers, not to Great Britain. Great Britain always knew that to preserve its hegemony, it must prevent the Continent from uniting. To prevent the Continent from uniting, it was England's strategy to manipulate the European situation so as to always keep opposing blocs in balance there, using the other bloc to attack by land whichever bloc might threaten England by sea, and supporting the weaker of the sides in a land war when necessary. When strong opposing forces are kept in delicate balance, relatively tiny effort is needed to effect control; this leverage effect multiplies a power's influence on a situation far beyond its forces in the field. In the same way, a perfectly balanced telescope weighing tons can be
easily and precisely moved at will by the astronomer's bare hand.

We did the same in the recent Gulf War between Iran and Iraq. Balance of Power was why we left a declawed but otherwise intact Saddam in charge locally in 1991.

World War I was caused by a breakdown in the balance of power -- England's "problem of Europe" then being how to make Germany strong enough to protect itself and France from Russia, yet keep it too weak to threaten Belgium.

In the post-cold-war era, we have decided we are strong enough not to be concerned with efficient use of power. The very extravagance of the resources we expend for very small or even negative gain is itself a form of "shock and awe" that, we feel, so thoroughly convinces our opponents of our reckless self-confidence, that they race to bow and accept our superiority lest we include them in the scope of our largesse.

Giovanni
I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing
New So you love America.
So what?


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New M-tactics

When one gets blasted out of the sky on the issue of leaders lying to their own people, or "where are the WMD so vigorously argued about" or "what was the stated justification for the invasion - WMD or Ridding world of Saddam", M switches to diatribes on power politics & or as a supernationalist on nationalistic issues.

Standard tactic for the past two years has been when this person gets questioned on stands taken that are decidedly shaky, wraps self in the US flag & then accuses others of defiling it because they are having a go at him.

D

New 'D'-for-Demagoguery___as Rush, My Gramma, etc. etc.
     Bill Whittle: Nature abhors a power vacuum. - (marlowe) - (14)
         Define better - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
             In that, the author agrees with our enemies. - (Arkadiy)
             There's no middle ground. That's the point. - (marlowe) - (8)
                 Yes I did - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                     Selective intervention is a means, not an end. - (marlowe) - (3)
                         I would agree Marlow, if - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
                             Shame. Look at US history in Germany, Japan, Panama... - (marlowe) - (1)
                                 What? - (JayMehaffey)
                 Balance of Power. History. - (Ashton) - (2)
                     Balance of power. Didn't that lead to World War I? - (marlowe) - (1)
                         Balance of power -- CONTEXT DAMNIT! - (GBert)
         So you love America. - (pwhysall) - (2)
             M-tactics - (dmarker) - (1)
                 'D'-for-Demagoguery___as Rush, My Gramma, etc. etc. -NT - (Ashton)

Splor.
259 ms