|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So how hosed is Puerto Rico this morning? Well we aren't bombing them yet so incredibly hosed according to thread majority.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Do you see no possible situation under which US military intervention is justified? My post literally said the opposite. If you want to make the case for how bombing Syria will save lives and sprout Jeffersonian democracy from spent ordnance and child corpses, be my guest. But don't do this bullshit where you make up some theoretical good war by a theoretical USA in a theoretical universe and claim I'm opposing that too if I'm not riding a JDAM down to Damascus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Which country should be invaded next - Iran or Korea? Yeah, that's not really what I mean. Does landing in a country like Rwanda and creating a safe zone for civilians fleeing massacres count as an invasion, for example? Yes, the US has done lots of horrible poo poo under the guise of "liberation", but I'm not positing that every mission will be like Vietnam/Iraq because the US is terrible forever and ever and in all aspects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Which country should be invaded next - Iran or Korea? Puerto Rico.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Yeah, that's not really what I mean. Does landing in a country like Rwanda and creating a safe zone for civilians fleeing massacres count as an invasion, for example? Yes, the US has done lots of horrible poo poo under the guise of "liberation", but I'm not positing that every mission will be like Vietnam/Iraq because the US is terrible forever and ever and in all aspects. There really isn't any reason to desperately jump to the military's defense if all you want is a small armed force intended to fight catastrophes and internationally sanctioned crises. There is no danger of the US ever losing these capabilities, while there is a very real danger of Americans continuing their track record as hosed up world police.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Puerto Rico. I think we are just going to just make an example of Puerto Rico, maybe a few air strikes here and there. Also, the whole issue with the Rwanda example was there was a multi-national solution there that we refused to take, in Syria it would be a largely unilateral military action probably without UN approval. Also, in Rwanda, any reason mission would be small numbers of lightly armed peacekeepers protecting refugees not bombing Rwanada. Honestly, if the US wanted to send peacekeepers to be part of a UN mission to protect refugee camps in Rojava. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Like, "Did you know that soldiers can clear rubble after an earthquake  " is not an argument contributing to the debate about excessive and destructive use of military force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So how hosed is Puerto Rico this morning? More hosed than they were five years ago during the Golden Age of Puerto Rico. Also they're pretty hosed
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My post literally said the opposite. That's also not the argument I was making. Bombing a country doesn't produce anything, but it can stave off existential threats (see ISIS). Are there imperfect missions of intervention you would ever support? Ones that were undertaken primarily to counter the influence of another world power or support a local faction that wasn't great but wasn't as terrible as some of the others? All foreign policy is going to be a series of exchanges with people's lives in the balance. At which point can you say the risks or negative consequences are outweighed by the positive ones?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
You don't want to add an invasion of Syria to the list of our forever-wars? Well what about anarchist Catalonia, how could they defend themselves from Franco without war, hey got ya there, hippy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Do you see no possible situation under which US military intervention is justified? Not at all, especially considering US military intervention always leads to a humanitarian crisis and too often leads to violent repression if not out right genocide. Also, it's loving hilarious you think "countering foreign intervention" is an actual justification for war, almost 30 years after the Cold War ended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:That's also not the argument I was making. Bombing a country doesn't produce anything, but it can stave off existential threats (see ISIS). Are there imperfect missions of intervention you would ever support? Ones that were undertaken primarily to counter the influence of another world power or support a local faction that wasn't great but wasn't as terrible as some of the others? Holy poo poo, this is the most meaningless, weasely post ever. You are trying to convince VitalSigns to essentially say "I think armed conflicts are a thing that happen in the world, sometimes", and you think such a statement will be a glorious repudiation of his world view that will lead to him crawling on his knees to the military he had previously spurned? "We shouldn't drown people" "But can you imagine a situation wherein introducing an arbitrary quantity of water to the vicinity of a human person could produce a net benefit to the well being of said person"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Well we aren't bombing them yet so incredibly hosed according to thread majority. You joke but the U.S. had a bombing range on PR for a long rear end time. Protests against it were a big thing in the late 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Not at all, especially considering US military intervention always leads to a humanitarian crisis and too often leads to violent repression if not out right genocide. Yes, the US track record has been pretty poor. This isn't always a given, however. MizPiz posted:Also, it's loving hilarious you think "countering foreign intervention" is an actual justification for war, almost 30 years after the Cold War ended. What do you think Russia is doing in Syria, exactly? Russia in Ukraine? Turkey in Syria? Saudi Arabia in Syria? Iran in Syria? Hell... Israel in Syria?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Holy poo poo, this is the most meaningless, weasely post ever. You are trying to convince VitalSigns to essentially say "I think armed conflicts are a thing that happen in the world, sometimes", and you think such a statement will be a glorious repudiation of his world view that will lead to him crawling on his knees to the military he had previously spurned? No, it's the idea that perhaps all interventions (like all foreign policy, like all domestic policy, like all policy affecting any large group of people with diverse interests) are going to be flawed. What's the tolerance for when the benefits outweigh the risks? I mean, are you seriously going with "killing people is always bad" argument? In which case, you would be right, but the next question is... what happens when violence is already underway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:No, it's the idea that perhaps all interventions (like all foreign policy, like all domestic policy, like all policy affecting any large group of people with diverse interests) are going to be flawed. What's the tolerance for when the benefits outweigh the risks? I mean, are you seriously going with "killing people is always bad" argument? In which case, you would be right, but the next question is... what happens when violence is already underway? We have a mechanism It is called the UN
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Puerto Rico. Literally the right answer
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
There are a bunch of thinkpieces from 1900-1913 that say pretty much exactly this. They stopped after 1914, for some reason. Boon posted:An entrepreneur rarely has the resources, but that's a minor quibble at best. What an entrepreneur does have is an insight into an unmet need in the market, what you would consider 'what most people want'. If they did not there would not be a market and the venture would fail. Businesses fail all the time, though. There's plenty of entrepreneurs who either didn't actually identify an unmet need or couldn't manage to profitably address it. It's not good to ignore the high failure rate for businesses, especially now when a tech bubble is causing many of these failed companies to attract huge amounts of investment before finally going down in flames. For example, the infamous Juicero attracted a solid $120 million worth of venture capital from people who apparently thought a $700 machine with one-use juice packs was filling an unmet need. Pembroke Fuse posted:Do you see no possible situation under which US military intervention is justified? Those are all essentially excuses, though, because the main factor in whether the US military will respond to a genocide or not is whether intervention would suit US interests in general. We don't fire off these million-dollar missiles as charity, and we're perfectly fine with genocides as long as the government commiting them is somewhat stable and aligned with US foreign policy. Also, one of the things on your list is not like the others! It's pretty gross to lump "someone besides us forcibly intervening in small countries' foreign policy" in with genocide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Yeah, that's not really what I mean. Does landing in a country like Rwanda and creating a safe zone for civilians fleeing massacres count as an invasion, for example? Yes, the US has done lots of horrible poo poo under the guise of "liberation", but I'm not positing that every mission will be like Vietnam/Iraq because the US is terrible forever and ever and in all aspects. If the American government's pitch for Syria was that they want to create a safe zone for civilians to flee to while the conflict rages on I'd be all for it. Not only would that make it easier to believe they're not doing it for some ulterior motive, it would be far less likely to have them bombing innocent civilians in their homes or at weddings. Funnily enough that's never what they'e suggesting though. Like at some point, when going through all these conflicts the US should have done something in but didn't, so you can put them up against all the conflicts the US shouldn't have been in but was... maybe you will realise you're dealing with a fundamentally bad actor? Maybe the US is not a state that does conflict for the right reasons and only the most noble of intentions*. * Not to imply this is the rare case for a state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
I'm glad an arms manufacturer was able to get this thread to spin out of control over wanting a new Iraq war. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:We have a mechanism I was going to bring up the UN, but given that the security council is often composed of the belligerent parties, it's hard to see it ever actually doing anything but small out-of-way poo poo that no one cares about. I really wish I could support the UN more, because I do see it as a pathway to legitimate form of intervention and conflict resolution (they often do good work after the main conflict has ended)... but given the current structure, I don't think it can actually affect anything significant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:No, it's the idea that perhaps all interventions (like all foreign policy, like all domestic policy, like all policy affecting any large group of people with diverse interests) are going to be flawed. What's the tolerance for when the benefits outweigh the risks? I mean, are you seriously going with "killing people is always bad" argument? In which case, you would be right, but the next question is... what happens when violence is already underway? Sure I agree that if we imagined a situation where the benefits outweighed the risks then the benefits would outweigh the risks. If you want to make the case that bombing or invading Syria meets that standard go right ahead. Trying to get me to say "sometimes war is necessary" is not some magic spell that will cause my heart to shrink three sizes that day as I get up onstage to sing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran (bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!)"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Yes, the US track record has been pretty poor. This isn't always a given, however. The same thing we've been doing to Middle East ever since we made a deal with the Sauds to give them a kingdom in exchange for their oil and military support. For over a 100 years now, the US foreign policy has been to take a massive poo poo on the Treaty of Westphalia, you can't pretend we're the grand defenders of sovereignty after that. Anyone in this day and age who's arguing for intervention to stop foreign influence in another country is either an evil rear end in a top hat reaching for any reason to justify their vanity war or simply an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I was going to bring up the UN, but given that the security council is often composed of the belligerent parties, it's hard to see it ever actually doing anything but small out-of-way poo poo that no one cares about. I really wish I could support the UN more, because I do see it as a pathway to legitimate form of intervention and conflict resolution (they often do good work after the main conflict has ended)... but given the current structure, I don't think it can actually affect anything significant. When the superpowers are involved, it is better to err on the side of caution anyway... If we are going to play realists here, then going into war where other major powers are already involved, against their wishes, is unlikely to end well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:I'm glad an arms manufacturer was able to get this thread to spin out of control over wanting a new Iraq war. Who's the arms manufacturer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:What do you think Russia is doing in Syria, exactly? Russia in Ukraine? Turkey in Syria? Saudi Arabia in Syria? Iran in Syria? Hell... Israel in Syria? And it turns out that all the military posturing in the world is absolutely useless in helping with these offenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure I agree that if we imagined a situation where the benefits outweighed the risks then the benefits would outweigh the risks. If you want to make the case that bombing or invading Syria meets that standard go right ahead. I'm not in support of bombing Iran. I just think that making arguments about whether the benefits would outweigh the risks is pretty much the only thing we can do with regard to foreign policy. It's not a gotcha, it's just the idea that nothing is ever going to be as clear or moral as we'd like it to be. Everything is terrible, but some things can be slightly less terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Who's the arms manufacturer? Volkerball literally makes bombs and arms in a machine shop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I was going to bring up the UN, but given that the security council is often composed of the belligerent parties, it's hard to see it ever actually doing anything but small out-of-way poo poo that no one cares about. I really wish I could support the UN more, because I do see it as a pathway to legitimate form of intervention and conflict resolution (they often do good work after the main conflict has ended)... but given the current structure, I don't think it can actually affect anything significant. The solution is to give the UNGA the powers of the UNSC, and dissolve that cold war relic, but lol that's never going to happen. Eventually it's just going to have to go the way of the League of Nations. As it is, the current infrastructure of the UN is such that if Hitler was on the UNSC, the UN would never condemn or advocate any action regarding the Holocaust, and would just wring its hands about both sides for years on end. To argue that countries should only act within the confines of UNSC rulings when it comes to humanitarian issues is about as moral as arguing African Americans should have only acted within the confines of the Jim Crow laws when it came to racial injustice. Just a weak appeal to The Law, when the law in this case is broken as gently caress. And keep in mind, this works both ways. It's how Israel has managed to largely escape international condemnation to this point. Go talk to Palestinians about what they think of the UN as the arbiter of human rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I'm not in support of bombing Iran. I just think that making arguments about whether the benefits would outweigh the risks is pretty much the only thing we can do with regard to foreign policy. It's not a gotcha, it's just the idea that nothing is ever going to be as clear or moral as we'd like it to be. Everything is terrible, but some things can be slightly less terrible. That's not really a point that needs to be made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I'm not in support of bombing Iran. I just think that making arguments about whether the benefits would outweigh the risks is pretty much the only thing we can do with regard to foreign policy. It's not a gotcha, it's just the idea that nothing is ever going to be as clear or moral as we'd like it to be. Everything is terrible, but some things can be slightly less terrible. Well go right ahead and make that argument my man. If all you're saying is "well war might be justified somewhere sometime" then that doesn't contradict anything I've said and I don't know why you're arguing with me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Volkerball literally makes bombs and arms in a machine shop. We don't make any sort of explosives actually, but it's true. The blood from New Zealands imperial adventures henceforth is on my hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:We don't make any sort of explosives actually, but it's true. The blood from New Zealands imperial adventures henceforth is on my hands. Yeah. Vb doesn't want to kill people because he loves death. Every war is a business venture. He is a capitalist not a neocon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Comparing the UNSC to Jim Crow is certainly a new one. Anyway, the primary responsibility of the UNSC and the reason it was created in the first place was to stop a third world war. It succeeded in this endeavor...so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Yeah. Vb doesn't want to kill people because he loves death. Every war is a business venture. He is a capitalist not a neocon. Much like how every McDonald's worker has a secret agenda to spread propaganda to undermine all other fast food companies. It's just a job. One I'm going to be quitting this summer, inshallah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Much like how every McDonald's worker has a secret agenda to spread propaganda to undermine all other fast food companies. It's just a job. One I'm going to be quitting this summer, inshallah. Finally getting that mercenary position? Edit: actual stuff https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/912746870073675776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Even if we lived in some just world where the US does military interventions out of pure humanitarian concerns as opposed to naked imperialism, it's obvious that the US miltary-political leadership isn't competent enough to pull off any kind of successful nationbuilding, so the very premises of the neocon argument are false.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
'Humanitarian' intervention by the USA, a country that's currently supporting starvation and massacres in Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Like, "Did you know that soldiers can clear rubble after an earthquake Lol what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Yeah, that is precisely the issue, the US is as much of a cynical power as the other ones, and unilateral military action by it should be held to the same cynicism. No one is talking about a US intervention against the Saudis...hell no one is talking about restricting even arms sales or logistical support. At very least if the action was conducted under a UN mandate then there would be some international oversight over what was happening. However, the US (like any other power) usually refuses to let itself be "burdened" by such a mandate since it would have to not step on the toes of the other powers. In the end, all of our "poo poo" stinks and if anything the preferable outcome is gridlock. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 15:04
|
|