U.S. Politics - Netanyahu and Boehner OTP

[Ramsay Gimp]

The argument can be made that ethnic cleansing when done "right" results in precisely that, which I assumed was the point you were trying for what with your separatist spiel?

Did a secessionist movement kill your family or something? You response to Nestor is completely off-the-wall here

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The political will to be a country?

I mean, if your whole point here is "the size of the US economy only matters because it's politically and economically coordinated " then then you are pinning US hegemony on the US being, you know, a coordinated political entity called a nation state.

I'm pinning it on the US being a coordinated nation state which directs its economic resources to support a military empire and global hegemony. If the EU can have a coordinated economic union of a massive economic area without commanding hegemonic power, then it is clearly not the case that even if the US were to refrain from directing its resources to support military empire it would still be the global hegemon that it is. It could be a huge economy and not a hegemon. The point is that economic power is patently not all it takes to establish hegemony, military power is obviously a crucial added factor. And thus the US would and could cease to be the global hegemon if it did away with its military empire.

[Shryke]

I'm pinning it on the US being a coordinated nation state which directs its economic resources to support a military empire and global hegemony. If the EU can have a coordinated economic union of a massive economic area without commanding hegemonic power, then it is clearly not the case that even if the US were to refrain from directing its resources to support military empire it would still be the global hegemon that it is. It could be a huge economy and not a hegemon. The point is that economic power is patently not all it takes to establish hegemony, military power is obviously a crucial added factor. And thus the US would and could cease to be the global hegemon if it did away with its military empire.

But the EU doesn't have the political or economic coordination. That's the whole point. That's what makes them different.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

But the EU doesn't have the political or economic coordination. That's the whole point. That's what makes them different.

The EU clearly does have economic coordination- a shared market with free movement across borders, a single currency, shared trade regulations and institutions with regulatory power.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ramsay

Nice logic here - use the proxies wars, invasions, and exploitations of the past to justify new proxy wars, invasions, and exploitations. Rinse and repeat until the entire region is smouldering. I'm sure Lockheed Martin agrees with your "moral and ethical" stance

I do think military intervention is a viable tool, and I will not rule it out, but I don't support proxy wars, invasions, and exploitations, as the words are commonly understood. The use of armed forces should be aimed to stabilize the region so that non-violent solutions can have a chance to develop (not imposed). It should also be part of the larger strategy, not the only strategy. The need is to rebuild the region, not to continue to suppress and exploit the region. I don't know why you'd attribute a desire to exploit to what I said other than perhaps you just didn't care enough to find out what I actually think.

Re: BearShin

It sounds nice and clean, on the abstract ideological level to say that we have a moral obligation to fix things, but it turns out we don't have a magic fixing wrench that solves thorny geopolitical issues so long as we have good intentions.

I tend to think the "we're all better off out" and the "we can make this right" arguments are two sides of the same exceptionalist coin. One thinks the US can have global hegemony on its own terms, the other thinks global hegemony can make the world a better place. I can't really say I'm impressed by either, in theory or practice.

I honestly don't think I am engaging in exceptionalism. I don't think this is a problem that only the U.S. can fix, nor that it is only fixable if the U.S. is involved. I don't think the U.S. has a magic wrench to make everything right. My thinking is that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help the situation get better, over the long run. I think the advocacy to completely withdraw from the region and wash our hands of it is both overly simplistic and ultimately self-serving. I see the this is multi-decaded investment in the region to shelter stable regions from destabilizing forces, and then slowly bring order to the region. It requires assistance in economic development and in human capital development, all done in the religious-cultural framework of Islam that is appropriate to the region. Without a stable society wherein people have a stake to maintain order, the region will keep falling into chaos. In the short run it will look identical to some forms of imperialism, for sure, but that's inevitable because fledgling states that have the potential to bring stability to the region DO need protection in order to stand a chance to succeed.

Re: Nestor

Even if one were to acknowledge a theoretical obligation to militarily intervene in these countries as some kind of recompense for well, historical military intervention, it's a perfectly rational position to also believe that the United States has neither the understanding nor the political will to militarily intervene in a way that actually improves the lives for the people who live there. The end result is that we keep using the same hammer to smash the same places with increasingly terrible intended and unintended consequences. If you accept that we're working with a set of not ideal options, but simply trying to choose from the least terrible one, some form of considered non-intervention is at least worthy of consideration.

I agree that if we keep doing the same things over and over we will keep making things worse and worse. But of the two factors, where one is the lack of true understanding of the geopolitics of the region and the other is the lack of political will from Americans, one of them is something we can solve. The Bush war team obviously has a level of understanding of the region not much better than most of us posting here in this forum, so it should not be hard to put together a team with a better grasp at reality and which does not presmise their actions on a declared vision of military ocupation of these areas for resource security reasons. In other words, I don't think we lack the capacity to know the region better and to device a plan that is more realistic. Not perfect, but something that is closer to a sustainable solution.

The lack of political will is obviously an issue. I have no answer to that. I don't even think most Americans are aware of the depth and extent of U.S. foreign policy meddling of the region, so they would be far from sympathetic in trying to help repair the damage though multiple decades of investment. I think the only way that it can occur is through CIA ops that are clandestine and/or State Department actions that are smokescreened (like World Bank initiatives) as something else. That requires a strong (and correct!) vision from the WH and the ability to sustain the program over the years. Neither of which is likley.

So, what I am saying is that I agree that reality is not going to play out the way I would like to see. But that doesn't change the fact that I think it'd be the morally right choice to make.

That said, I think the idea that the U.S. will simply turn around and walk away completely is also highly unlikely. That means we are stuck with some level of intervention and some level of engagement - so why not aim for a better outcome than always going after the easy targets that are not sustainable?

Finally, I know that we (collective citizens) don't even know a fraction of what's all going on. So a lot of this is speculation at best. And I also want to point out that what might look like failures now might actually be the least damaging action plan over the long run. The road to a successful a stable region isn't going to be smooth or straight forward, right? So, patience is required, and that's easier to come by if one has some reasonable ground to believe that the U.S. government at least has a worthwhile end goal that it is working towards. Which means we're back to the point about whether our government is worthy of that confidence, or not.

[Altherion]

The EU clearly does have economic coordination- a shared market with free movement across borders, a single currency, shared trade regulations and institutions with regulatory power.

Colloquially, they've got half of it. The EU is a monetary union, but not a fiscal one. It's not at all obvious that this will work in the medium or long term.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Colloquially, they've got half of it. The EU is a monetary union, but not a fiscal one. It's not at all obvious that this will work in the medium or long term.

I won't stake out a position on whether the EU will work out in the medium or long term, but to the point about fiscal policy- there may not be a fiscal union but there is clearly top-down influence exerted on fiscal policy of member states.

[TrackerNeil]

That said, I think the idea that the U.S. will simply turn around and walk away completely is also highly unlikely. That means we are stuck with some level of intervention and some level of engagement - so why not aim for a better outcome than always going after the easy targets that are not sustainable?

The US isn't leaving as long as Israel exists and there's oil in them thar hills, so we can either involve ourselves foolishly (see 2001-2008), or we can involve ourselves more wisely. As TerraPrime said that will take time, education, money, etc., but I don't see the alternative.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Re: Ramsay

I do think military intervention is a viable tool, and I will not rule it out, but I don't support proxy wars, invasions, and exploitations, as the words are commonly understood. The use of armed forces should be aimed to stabilize the region so that non-violent solutions can have a chance to develop (not imposed). It should also be part of the larger strategy, not the only strategy. The need is to rebuild the region, not to continue to suppress and exploit the region. I don't know why you'd attribute a desire to exploit to what I said other than perhaps you just didn't care enough to find out what I actually think.

That's all well and good, but when has it happened in practice? Do you think America's interventions in the past were meant to cause chaos and blowback, just for the lulz? Of course not - those interventions were also trying to "fix" things, often with humanitarian justifications. Yet they nearly always lead to disasters instead. You're saying we should just ignore history and keep fucking the place up, so that we don't have to actually witness the results of our actions.

ISIS and its atrocities should have been a lesson to America about the results of sticking our dick where it doesn't belong. Watching the bloodshed unfold would have forced us to come to terms with how unwise and immoral the invasion of Iraq was. Instead we're charging in guns blazing yet again, so that we can still pose as Iraq's noble saviors rather than admit that we are the root of the problem

I honestly don't think I am engaging in exceptionalism. I don't think this is a problem that only the U.S. can fix, nor that it is only fixable if the U.S. is involved. I don't think the U.S. has a magic wrench to make everything right. My thinking is that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help the situation get better, over the long run.

It may not be exceptionalism, but you are definitely championing a new White Man's Burden.

But fine - send all the humanitarian aid and disaster relief you want. Build refugee camps. Broker peace deals. But don't pretend military intervention/occupation are ever some kind of humanitarian or altruistic solution. Bombs don't become "humanitarian" just because you slap that label on them.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I'm pretty sure Ramsay is the one suggesting observing past actions, the response from that and adjusting what the west does in the future not ignoring the past? It may ignore any obligation that has been incurred, but if it's being done on the basis of "we will only make things worse" I think its reasonable. It's generally my stance as well, although ISIS are evil enough to push that.

Thanks :cheers:

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ramsay

Do you think America's interventions in the past were meant to cause chaos and blowback, just for the lulz? Of course not - those interventions were also trying to "fix" things, often with humanitarian justifications. Yet they nearly always lead to disasters instead.

You thought our past actions were mostly based on humanitarian reasons, dating back to the late 70s involving with Afghanistan? Really?

The past actions led to disastrous results now because they were done not to stabilize the region, but to actively destabilize it because we didn't like (1) the Soviets having a strong influence in the area and ( 2 ) we didn't like the anti-U.S. regimes taking over. I'd think that even for you, that would not qualify as "humanitarian," no?

You're saying we should just ignore history and keep fucking the place up, so that we don't have to actually witness the results of our actions.

Actually, what I said was the opposite - to take our lessons from history and stop intervening in the region for our own immediate benefits.

It may not be exceptionalism, but you are definitely championing a new White Man's Burden.

No, I am championing taking responsibility of our own past foolishness. But way to co-opt an concept inappropriately.

But fine - send all the humanitarian aid and disaster relief you want. Build refugee camps. Broker peace deals. But don't pretend military intervention/occupation are ever some kind of humanitarian or altruistic solution. Bombs don't become "humanitarian" just because you slap that label on them.

How will you protect your humanitarian aid workers if not with military?

And military action doesn't always have to mean an aggressive one where you go out to the wilderness and bomb people and things. Although, if that's needed, then yes we can do that, too.

[lokisnow]

For the first time in a while, Kennedy has decided to side with the liberals in a voting/redistricting case. I don't know the implications or effects it'll have, but SCOTUS found that Alabama packed African-American voters into too few districts to limit their representation in the state legislature.

ETA: Or rather, they rejected a lower court ruling that the redistricting was fine and told the court to try again; they didn't issue a ruling themselves. Still, its something.

While this is great news, I do kind of like Thomas' separate dissent: "This is nothing more than a fight over the 'best' racial quota." It's funny, because that is sort of the point. the old CRA standard of majority minority districts is certainly a racial quota, but it is meant to fight the nakedly racist effort to dilute the vote of minorities by spreading them out.

--and yes it is affirmative action of a sort to have majority minority districts but that's okay because we know from informed understanding of the region, culture and history that these districts do not exist in a vaccuum and dilution leads to zero representation--

The new wrinkle is that the racists decided to incorporate these processes and pursue a new goal: dilution leading to minimal representation rather than zero representation. It's perfectly possible to use the concept of majority minority districts and minimize their number by taking it to the extreme of 100% minority districts. So rather than two majority minority districts you get one minority district. Extrapolate out to larger sizes and it is easy to see that going to the extreme in the other direction, of packing district also dilutes representation, but does leave a minimal level of representation rather than the old standard of no representation.

And that's still not okay. It's amazing the court conservatives don't understand that racism can cut from many directions and is not a singular direction.

So Thomas is right that this is arguing over the best racial quota, and it does suck that we are forced to use racial quotas at all. But until the supreme court strikes down gerrymandering and insists that lines be drawn by an independent board, not by legislators we still need to try to find the best racial quota. And since we live with the reality of gerrymandering we unfortunately have to continue living in the world of racial quotas.

Also: compact urban districts that are "pretty" are in no way acceptable if they dilute the urban vote as outlined above re the minority vote. Rural/suburban votes should not be granted disproportionate power just because there is geographically more area covered by a given district, they already have the senate granting them absurd/catastrophic levels of disproportionate power, no need for the same to happen in the house.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Re: Ramsay

You thought our past actions were mostly based on humanitarian reasons, dating back to the late 70s involving with Afghanistan? Really?

The past actions led to disastrous results now because they were done not to stabilize the region, but to actively destabilize it because we didn't like (1) the Soviets having a strong influence in the area and ( 2 ) we didn't like the anti-U.S. regimes taking over. I'd think that even for you, that would not qualify as "humanitarian," no?

Where did I say "most"? I said our past interventions were "often" given humanitarian justifications, especially recently - Libya is an example, as is Syria (where we helped arm Sunni jihadists in order to supposedly "protect" Syrians from Assad), and even Iraq (though WMDs were obviously a much bigger reason given for intervening). We were helping Afghans resist the imperial aggression of the USSR, remember? Hell, even the European imperialism of old was supposed to bring "progress and civilization" to the natives.

Of course in almost all these cases the real reasons for intervening were probably very different, but my point is that Americans need to stop taking the bait whenever some politician starts hand-wringing about our "responsibility to protect" some persecuted people halfway across the globe

Actually, what I said was the opposite - to take our lessons from history and stop intervening in the region for our own immediate benefits.

So we should intervene when it isn't in our benefit? Sounds like mindless warmongering so that we can feel good about ourselves

No, I am championing taking responsibility of our own past foolishness.

By engaging in more foolishness.

And military action doesn't always have to mean an aggressive one where you go out to the wilderness and bomb people and things. Although, if that's needed, then yes we can do that, too.

Of course. I have no problem with killing people who pose a threat to us (though my standard for that is very high). But the military is not here to make the world a better place, and is not a tool of humanitarianism

[Shryke]

The EU clearly does have economic coordination- a shared market with free movement across borders, a single currency, shared trade regulations and institutions with regulatory power.

The EU has some level of economic coordination, but not on near the level of the US or what it needs to act as a coordinated economy like the US. They don't even have a fiscal union and that's a HUGE HUGE deal for economic coordination.

The EU simply lacks the political and economic unity to act in the way the US does. That's why the US dollar is the world reserve currency.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The EU has some level of economic coordination, but not on near the level of the US or what it needs to act as a coordinated economy like the US. They don't even have a fiscal union and that's a HUGE HUGE deal for economic coordination.

The EU simply lacks the political and economic unity to act in the way the US does. That's why the US dollar is the world reserve currency.

The EU economically integrated to an extent in many ways comparable to the US (one market, one currency, free movement, shared regulation) and the Euro is a major reserve currency.

There surely are differences, as you're pointing out, but that's what I'm getting at. If you go back you'll see I raised the question about the EU in response to a comment which said the US could not cease to be global hegemony, even without its military empire, unless it also returned to a subsistence economy. It's the differences between the EU and US that make the point that an advanced economic union like the EU can exist without global hegemony following necessarily. Pointing out why the EU can't act the way the US does doesn't conflict with this point, it highlights the point that enormous economic power (which the EU surely has) is not sufficient for hegemony, military power (which the EU does not have, for reasons that have been pointed out) is necessary as well.

[jarl the climber]

Where did I say "most"? I said our past interventions were "often" given humanitarian justifications, especially recently - Libya is an example, as is Syria (where we helped arm Sunni jihadists in order to supposedly "protect" Syrians from Assad), and even Iraq (though WMDs were obviously a much bigger reason given for intervening). We were helping Afghans resist the imperial aggression of the USSR, remember? Hell, even the European imperialism of old was supposed to bring "progress and civilization" to the natives.

Of course in almost all these cases the real reasons for intervening were probably very different, but my point is that Americans need to stop taking the bait whenever some politician starts hand-wringing about our "responsibility to protect" some persecuted people halfway across the globe

So we should intervene when it isn't in our benefit? Sounds like mindless warmongering so that we can feel good about ourselves

By engaging in more foolishness.

Of course. I have no problem with killing people who pose a threat to us (though my standard for that is very high). But the military is not here to make the world a better place, and is not a tool of humanitarianism

I have to agree with you to an extent. You can drop bombs on someone or help them rebuild but you can't really be doing both at least not vey well. I cringe everytime I hear leadership state they are bombing this place or the other but tehy are trying to minimize civilian casulaties. If you don't want to kill civilians then don't bomb.

[Galactus]

I have to agree with you to an extent. You can drop bombs on someone or help them rebuild but you can't really be doing both at least not vey well. I cringe everytime I hear leadership state they are bombing this place or the other but tehy are trying to minimize civilian casulaties. If you don't want to kill civilians then don't bomb.

It worked pretty well for Germany and Japan. (where both the bombs and the rebuilding were on massively larger scales than Iraq)

[jarl the climber]

It worked pretty well for Germany and Japan. (where both the bombs and the rebuilding were on massively larger scales than Iraq)

Military action was long over before the rebuilding of Japen and Germany really went into overdrive. One good example of the problems is the Afghan road system. Western donors have spent billions on this. Since there is an ongoing conflict and IED's are a staple these roads have been gutted. My point being is that it doesn't make much sense to build civilian infrastructure when there is still an ongoing war.

[NoneofYourBiz]

Army charges Bo "served with honor and distinction" Bergdahl with desertion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/25/bowe-bergdahl-once-missing-u-s-soldier-charged-with-desertion/?hpid=z1

[Horza]

Did a secessionist movement kill your family or something?

You realise there are a lot of people who could answer that question in the affirmative.

I honestly don't think I am engaging in exceptionalism. I don't think this is a problem that only the U.S. can fix, nor that it is only fixable if the U.S. is involved. I don't think the U.S. has a magic wrench to make everything right. My thinking is that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help the situation get better, over the long run. I think the advocacy to completely withdraw from the region and wash our hands of it is both overly simplistic and ultimately self-serving. I see the this is multi-decaded investment in the region to shelter stable regions from destabilizing forces, and then slowly bring order to the region. It requires assistance in economic development and in human capital development, all done in the religious-cultural framework of Islam that is appropriate to the region. Without a stable society wherein people have a stake to maintain order, the region will keep falling into chaos. In the short run it will look identical to some forms of imperialism, for sure, but that's inevitable because fledgling states that have the potential to bring stability to the region DO need protection in order to stand a chance to succeed.

Here's the problem though: when has the US (or any other nation, really) managed such a long-term, intensive commitment a) well and B) in a disinterested, culturally-appropriate manner? Don't say Germany and Japan, because those were two highly developed countries with stable political cultures (among many other differences), and there was a driving Cold War imperative to get them running. You're willing to acknowledge that this grand investment program is going to look a lot like imperialism, but what grounds are there for thinking that it'd be able to disprove those critics, much less bear sufficient fruit to keep Congress quiet?