There's no middle ground. That's the point.

Post #120,755 by marlowe 10/10/03 9:31:37 AM Reply	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]
Post #120,821 by JayMehaffey 10/10/03 3:48:05 PM Reply	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
Post #120,906 by marlowe 10/11/03 9:37:37 AM Reply	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]
Post #120,918 by JayMehaffey 10/11/03 1:20:49 PM Reply	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
Post #121,037 by marlowe 10/13/03 9:18:11 AM Reply	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]
Post #121,067 by JayMehaffey 10/13/03 2:01:31 PM Reply	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
Post #120,832 by Ashton 10/10/03 5:38:59 PM Reply	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
Post #120,904 by marlowe 10/11/03 9:11:57 AM Reply	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]
Post #121,093 by GBert 10/13/03 5:10:47 PM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!