Edward Snowden

[Guest Derek L]

We arent shaking their foundations. We are doing exactly what they hoped we would do, and the only possible thing that can make the terrorists successful. Theyre whole plan is for us to spend ourselves into oblivion.

When was last time a middle eastern terrorist attacked North America? As to spending ourselves to oblivion, come off it, as BC has said numerous times, in terms of GDP, defence spending is at an all time low post-war.

Im not saying we should ignore it. We need to have common sense security measures. $500 dollar cockpit doors would have prevented 911. And we need to have intelligent foreign policy, that doent create terrorism and arm terrorists. And we should stop blowing the living shit out of thousands of people constantly as well, and propping up despots and dictators.

By all means, highlight a few of your pointers.......sounds an awful lot like you want us to react to them.....

[Guest Derek L]

No they arent.

Illegal simply means...

The constitution is a set of laws that legislators must follow when crafting other laws. If they make laws that violate the constitution those laws are illegal by the literal definition of the word.

So are counterattack roadside checks both illegal and unconstitutional?

[dre]

When was last time a middle eastern terrorist attacked North America? As to spending ourselves to oblivion, come off it, as BC has said numerous times, in terms of GDP, defence spending is at an all time low post-war.

By all means, highlight a few of your pointers.......sounds an awful lot like you want us to react to them.....

[Guest Derek L]

When was last time a middle eastern terrorist attacked North America? As to spending ourselves to oblivion, come off it, as BC has said numerous times, in terms of GDP, defence spending is at an all time low post-war.

By all means, highlight a few of your pointers.......sounds an awful lot like you want us to react to them.....

I don't follow.

[dre]

When was last time a middle eastern terrorist attacked North America? As to spending ourselves to oblivion, come off it, as BC has said numerous times, in terms of GDP, defence spending is at an all time low post-war.

By all means, highlight a few of your pointers.......sounds an awful lot like you want us to react to them.....

Why would you evaluate military spending as a percentage of GDP?

And thats just the tip of the ice berg. Most of the spending is in the form of commitments that are still to come. Like I said, 4-6 Trillion dollars is what the GWOT has cost the US. More (in todays dollars) than WW2. The difference of course WW2 had a defeatable enemy and it ended at some point. The war on terror is a permanent drain.

By all means, highlight a few of your pointers.......

I already did.

sounds an awful lot like you want us to react to them.....

No its the GWOT that is a reaction to them... The ultimate knee-jerk reaction.

The reaction to 911 was...

4-6 Trillion dollars spent on the war on terror making it by far the largest project in the history of the human race. Hundreds of thousands of people dead, including thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands more maimed.The creation of the largest new beurocracy in modern history... the 40 billion dollar per year DHS.The adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that has given the US a global reputation for torture.The errosion of due process and civil liberties.

Once, the United States paid for its wars by raising taxes and or selling war bonds, according to researchers at Brown University.

But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were paid for almost entirely by borrowing.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon has gotten $1.37 trillion for the most basic costs of running these two wars -- and that doesn't count the cost of veterans' care, interest payments, homeland security or war-related aid.

"This borrowing has raised the U.S. budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other macroeconomic effects, such as raising interest rates," said the Costs of War project at Brown. "The U.S. must also pay interest on the borrowed money. The interest paid on Pentagon spending alone, so far (from 2001 through FY 2011) is about $185.4 billion in constant dollars."

(The U.S. debt now stands at $16 trillion, just for sake of scale.)

Add up the indirect costs of the war on terrorism – which will continue for years after the wars end, such as veterans' care, interest payments, homeland security, etc. – and the bill jumps an additional $1.9 trillion to $2.7 trillion, the researchers said

That puts the war on terrorism total somewhere between $3.2 trillion and $4 trillion

COST IN LIVES?

• • More than 6,000 U.S. service members killed. More than 99,000 U.S. service members wounded in action or evacuated for injury or disease.About 137,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 552,000 veterans' disability claims filed.

Edited August 18, 2013 by dre

[dre]

I don't follow.

Im sorry. Accidentally hit submit.

[Guest Derek L]

Why would you evaluate military spending as a percentage of GDP?

Because it’s an indicator of a nation’s economic footprint over a given period of time.

And thats just the tip of the ice berg. Most of the spending is in the form of commitments that are still to come. Like I said, 4-6 Trillion dollars is what the GWOT has cost the US. More (in todays dollars) than WW2. The difference of course WW2 had a defeatable enemy and it ended at some point. The war on terror is a permanent drain.

And I'll revert back to GDP.....

I already did.

Not really...You just cast blanket assertions without offering alternatives.

No its the GWOT that is a reaction to them...

The reaction to 911 was...

And a decade later we in the West can still do the things we did prior to 9/11.….and the terrorists are living in caves and under the threat of being snuffed out by an invisible threat from above without prior warning…

As to your price tag......well, like I said above, by all means, spell out how you would do a more effective job cheaper......

Edited August 18, 2013 by Derek L

[dre]

Because it’s an indicator of a nation’s economic footprint over a given period of time.

Defense spending is supposed to address the potential threats you face. Those dont increase because your economy grows.

And like I said.. you are only looking at direct military expenditures.

Not really...You just cast blanket assertions without offering alternatives.

No I listed a number of specific things. But the most important thing to consider when fighting a geurilla movement is to not do what they are desperately trying to get you to do.

As to your price tag......well, like I said above, by all means, spell out how you would do a more effective job cheaper......

Well for starters my answer to a terrorist attack would not be to spend trillions exploding entire countries and then rebuilding them LOL.

And I wouldnt make the solution worse than the problem.

The reaction to 911 has killed more Americans than 911, and injured 100 thousand of them. Its also had a much greater economic cost to the US than the event it was a reaction to.

Basically... if a bee landed on your face... you would smash it full force with a rock. When I pointed out that you now needed 20 thousand dollars worth of dental work and facial reconstruction you would say "Should I have just ignored it?". And I would say, no... but maybe you shouldnt stand in the middle of the nest. Thats basically the perfect analogy for the GWOT.

Edited August 18, 2013 by dre

[bleeding heart]

"As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely disturbed by what appears to be an overbroad interpretation."

-Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

"I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. How could the phone records of so many Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation?"

-Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-secrecy-has-already-corroded-our-democracy-in-concrete-ways/278478/

If the guy that wrote the damned thing says that the Snowden leaks show that it's being used incorrectly and that the oversight requirements he wrote into the act are not being met, that to me appears to be a severe blow to the claim that it's all kosher.

-k

I dunno...once I know what Sensenbrunner's girlfriend does for a living, perhaps I'll be able to add some sensible opinion on the worthiness of his opinion....

[Guest Derek L]

Defense spending is supposed to address the potential threats you face. Those dont increase because your economy grows.

And like I said.. you are only looking at direct military expenditures.

Of course, but as mentioned by both Adam Smith & Milton Friedman, a nations military is a direct correlation between that of a nations economic clout….simply put, the larger and more complex ones economy becomes, the more resources required to defend it and it’s interests……..In the case of the Americans, post second world war, their economy boomed and so to did their peacetime military.

No I listed a number of specific things. But the most important thing to consider when fighting a geurilla movement is to not do what they are desperately trying to get you to do.

But their lays the difference……..Islamic extremists snuck into the proverbial front yard of the Americans and knocked over a couple of Garden Gnomes and keyed their car…..The American response: flatten their home, well making them adapt and severely curtail their way of life.

Where in my opinion the West went wrong to some degree, was in the occupation and rebuilding effort of both Afghanistan and Iraq, versus today’s much more intelligent response and reliance on special forces, drones and precision missile strikes……..The Americans, in the case of Iraq, should just have installed a senior Baathist General and let Saddam’s army fight the insurgency with the Americans in the background.

With that said, the effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq became a magnet for Islamic extremists and drew them in to a conflict with much more adventitious geography then America’s cities and towns…..And killed thousands and thousands of the little buggers.

Well for starters my answer to a terrorist attack would not be to spend trillions exploding entire countries and then rebuilding them LOL.

I agree with you on rebuilding them......Hearts and Minds is a Western liberal myth……..

And I wouldnt make the solution worse than the problem.

The reaction to 911 has killed more Americans than 911, and injured 100 thousand of them. Its also had a much greater economic cost to the US than the event it was a reaction to.

Basically... if a bee landed on your face... you would smash it full force with a rock. When I pointed out that you now needed 20 thousand dollars worth of dental work and facial reconstruction you would say "Should I have just ignored it?". And I would say, no... but maybe you shouldnt stand in the middle of the nest. Thats basically the perfect analogy for the GWOT.

In some respects I agree, but like I asked before, in your view, what would have been an reasonable response?

[sharkman]

I never let a bee land on my face. Sometimes in the summer wasps are buzzing around me and I slap them to the ground. This causes their sense of balance to be off and they buzz around on the ground trying to gain altitude until I step on them. That's about what you do with terrorists too, letting them land on your face is going to be expensive any way you look at it.

[Guest Derek L]

I never let a bee land on my face. Sometimes in the summer wasps are buzzing around me and I slap them to the ground. This causes their sense of balance to be off and they buzz around on the ground trying to gain altitude until I step on them. That's about what you do with terrorists too, letting them land on your face is going to be expensive any way you look at it.

Good analogy………It’s best to just destroy the nest, well ensuring one doesn’t let one take hold in your yard…

[bleeding heart]

No, the analogy doesn't work, because it's premised on self-serving myths.

It works, first of all, if we think of ourselves as more powerful wasps...rather than innately more moral and intelligent creatures being attacked by lesser ones of a different species.

Then we analogize further: that we wasps have routinely attacked or otherwise diminished other yards; sometimes out of genuine security concerns, sometimes out of less justifiable reasons. We have supported and buttressed very powerful and dangerous wasps, colluding in the victimization of wasp populations elsewhere, for profit and for other purposes; and then, some wasps with justifiable outrage but with rotten and perverse notions of how to correct injustice determine to attack us.

None of this means that we don't try to stop them from behaving this way...terrorism is murder, and we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves, and especially our innocent wasps and our larvae, from such behavior.

But the rational--some might even say conservative--approach is to stop behaving in ways that increases wasp attacks in the first place.

But for some reason I haven't fully parsed out--the inherent tribal weaknesses of nationalism might be part of it--the Commissar class of our wasp societies (weak-minded sycophants, without exception) consider this notion itself to be outrageous, to be "self-hatred" or "radical leftism." When actually it's merely sober self-reflection based on bedrock democratic principles of holding ourselves accountable, and on moral principles so elementary that we teach them to our five-year-olds.

Edited August 18, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

No, the analogy doesn't work, because it's premised on self-serving myths.

It works, first of all, if we think of ourselves as more powerful wasps...rather than innately more moral and intelligent creatures being attacked by lesser ones of a different species.

As I said a few pages back relating to this very observation, Western Society has been gradually compounding the “untruths” associated with the myth of equality………In this case “equality of culture”

Frankly, we are more moral and intelligent wasps……

Then we analogize further: that we wasps have routinely attacked or otherwise diminished other yards; sometimes out of genuine security concerns, sometimes out of less justifiable reasons. We have supported and buttressed very powerful and dangerous wasps, colluding in the victimization of wasp populations elsewhere, for profit and for other purposes; and then, some wasps with justifiable outrage but with rotten notions of how to correct injustice determine to attack us.

And I’ll return back to the myths associated with equality……..In this case, economic equality and the false characterizations cast upon two abject truths that are certain amongst all humans…..self interest and self preservation, or to use an negative connotation…….greed.

I frankly don’t care if those wasps needs are met or not, but if they interfere with our own nests needs…..

None of this means that we don't try to stop them from behaving this way...terrorism is murder, and we have a right and a duty to protect ourselves, and especially our innocent wasps and our larvae, from such behavior.

So the question is not in the need to defend ourselves, but how best to go about it……..I’d prefer any conflict taking place in their nest as opposed to ours….

But the rational--some might even say conservative--approach is to stop behaving in ways that increases wasp attacks in the first place.

To the determent of our nest? So we won’t only be fighting those other wasps, but also amongst ourselves once conditions worsen with our home nest?

But for some reason I haven't fully parsed out--the inherent tribal weaknesses of nationalism might be part of it--the Commissar class of our wasp societies (weak-minded sycophants, without exception) consider this notion itself to be outrageous, to be "self-hatred" or "radical leftism." When actually it's merely sober self-reflection based on bedrock democratic principles of holding ourselves accountable, and on moral principles so elementary that we teach them to our five-year-olds.

I beg to differ on the thoughts of sobriety…..It’s one of naivety to think that everyone is nice in this world……As the ole idiom goes, those that beat their swords into ploughshares, end up ploughing for those that didn’t……It’s the reality with the human psyche and coupled with the myth associated with equality, the two major flaws associated with collectivism……..

[bleeding heart]

As I said a few pages back relating to this very observation, Western Society has been gradually compounding the “untruths” associated with the myth of equality………In this case “equality of culture”

Since you're using quotation marks, you no doubt can find where any such thing was stated...or implied?

Frankly, we are more moral and intelligent wasps……

Well, that's not so clear--to quote an old joke: "who's this 'we,' kemosabe"?--but at any rate, it's a different conversation. The analogy which you unaccountably deemed "good" was premised on the idea that we are not wasps.

And I’ll return back to the myths associated with equality

You mean returning to the theme that you believe undergirded my argument, even though it was not relevant to it.

……..In this case, economic equality and the false characterizations cast upon two abject truths that are certain amongst all humans…..self interest and self preservation, or to use an negative connotation…….greed.

Those are not the human emotional body entire. But it's a moot point anyway, as you assume an automatic conflation between "self interest" and "self-preservation." They're not always the same animal.

Further, the main thrust of my post--as is perfectly clear--is that the policies of exploitation which you support (while extolling "morality," in an astonishing moment of lack of relfection) are not plainly in the interests of "self-preservation."

I frankly don’t care if those wasps needs are met or not, but if they interfere with our own nests needs…..

So what exactly would you not have done to others that might profit you? This is not a rhetorical question, nor a general one, so I humbly ask you for a concrete response.

So the question is not in the need to defend ourselves, but how best to go about it……..I’d prefer any conflict taking place in their nest as opposed to ours….

I already responded directly to this: again, it was one of the chief points I made. I'm not sure why you bypass it, only to re-summon the question itself.

To the determent of our nest? So we won’t only be fighting those other wasps, but also amongst ourselves once conditions worsen with our home nest?

So your argument--explicitly--is that Western nations (and presumably only Western nations, as the sole "moral" agents) are justified in all the violence of our foreign policies? That your theory is broadly applicable across all cases?

That's preposterous.

I beg to differ on the thoughts of sobriety…..It’s one of naivety to think that everyone is nice in this world……

It sure is. So it's a good thing I don't think that way, isn't it?

But what I called "sober" was the idea of holding ourselves accountable for our actions....normally an uncontroversial truism for a person of conservative or libertarian leanings...but one which, tellingly, evokes such strange responses as yours in this case.

…It’s the reality with the human psyche and coupled with the myth associated with equality, the two major flaws associated with collectivism……..

Few things are more crudely and corruptingly Collectivist than the nationalist view of violent foreign policy...a view which I presume is part of your "moral" perspective."

What was I saying about Commissars again.......Oh yeah....

Edited August 18, 2013 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

So are counterattack roadside checks both illegal and unconstitutional?

Yes they can be. Violating the 4th amendment, unreasonable stops, searches and seizures. Can only be stopped if suspected of a crime. Otherwise, you are free to go on your way. People who have excersized these rights have been able to push back on the security apparatus and have been able to freely go on their way.

Knowing the law and your rights is part of the whole thing. Those who do not know their rights, or do not value them will get caught up in this security madness quite easily.

'Can we search your car?' , Not without a warrant!

Counterattack roadside checks? What are you trying to describe here?

We have also seen recently in NYC where the highly controversial Stop and Frisk program has been deemed in violation of NY State constitutional law. This program made criminals out of completely innocent people and was rife with racial profiling.

Maybe it's a matter of appointing the right judges to the supreme court in order to hold up things like the constitution. The constitution is to protect you from the government. It's no wonder they want to marginalize it as much they can. Hence articles like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA are in place.

When Kucinich was asked why he voted down the PATRIOT ACT, it was because he read it.

From 2011 where he talks about the violations and abuse that has taken place with these acts.

[Guest Derek L]

Since you're using quotation marks, you no doubt can find where any such thing was stated...or implied?

It works, first of all, if we think of ourselves as more powerful wasps...rather than innately more moral and intelligent creatures being attacked by lesser ones of a different species.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning & stance………Are we in agreement that we (as in the West) are more intelligent and moral?

Well, that's not so clear--to quote an old joke: "who's this 'we,' kemosabe"?--but at any rate, it's a different conversation. The analogy which you unaccountably deemed "good" was premised on the idea that we are not wasps.

Using that analogy that we are both wasps, it’s predicated on our two cultures being the same no?

You mean returning to the theme that you believe undergirded my argument, even though it was not relevant to it.

Waiting for clarification on what your argument actually is……

Those are not the human emotional body entire. But it's a moot point anyway, as you assume an automatic conflation between "self interest" and "self-preservation." They're not always the same animal.

I never stated they were the same, but two separate traits that complement each other.

Further, the main thrust of my post--as is perfectly clear--is that the policies of exploitation which you support (while extolling "morality," in an astonishing moment of lack of relfection) are not plainly in the interests of "self-preservation."

That depends on your moral stance…….Morally our “way of life” is of paramount importance……

So what exactly would you not have done to others that might profit you? This is not a rhetorical question, nor a general one, so I humbly ask you for a concrete response.

I’m not sure I understand your question, but if I’m correct in my interruption, you are asking what I do if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot?

I already responded directly to this: again, it was one of the chief points I made. I'm not sure why you bypass it, only to re-summon the question itself.

Your fulmination was we have a right to protect ourselves….Of that I agree, but I think the disconnect is on the means of implementing that belief.

So your argument--explicitly--is that Western nations (and presumably only Western nations, as the sole "moral" agents) are justified in all the violence of our foreign policies? That your theory is broadly applicable across all cases?

To an extent......Might makes right, History is written by the victors and When goods can’t cross borders, armies will etc, etc

It sure is. So it's a good thing I don't think that way, isn't it?

But what I called "sober" was the idea of holding ourselves accountable for our actions....normally an uncontroversial truism for a person of conservative or libertarian leanings...but one which, tellingly, evokes such strange responses as yours in this case.

Perhaps said truism had best be only applied among “equals” if one doesn’t desire said response…….In that if one applies our values ingrained within our culture, to that of an entirely differing culture, one can’t have a reasonable expectation of equal result…..hence the myth of equality among cultures.

Few things are more crudely and corruptingly Collectivist than the nationalist view of violent foreign policy...a view which I presume is part of your "moral" perspective."

What was I saying about Commissars again.......Oh yeah....

It’s not a view of a certain policy, but the nature of mankind.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes they can be. Violating the 4th amendment, unreasonable stops, searches and seizures. Can only be stopped if suspected of a crime. Otherwise, you are free to go on your way. People who have excersized these rights have been able to push back on the security apparatus and have been able to freely go on their way.

Knowing the law and your rights is part of the whole thing. Those who do not know their rights, or do not value them will get caught up in this security madness quite easily.

'Can we search your car?' , Not without a warrant!

Counterattack roadside checks? What are you trying to describe here?

We have also seen recently in NYC where the highly controversial Stop and Frisk program has been deemed in violation of NY State constitutional law. This program made criminals out of completely innocent people and was rife with racial profiling.

Maybe it's a matter of appointing the right judges to the supreme court in order to hold up things like the constitution. The constitution is to protect you from the government. It's no wonder they want to marginalize it as much they can. Hence articles like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA are in place.

When Kucinich was asked why he voted down the PATRIOT ACT, it was because he read it.

From 2011 where he talks about the violations and abuse that has taken place with these acts.

Drunk Driving......

[sharkman]

No, the analogy doesn't work, because it's premised on self-serving myths.

If you want to let a wasp land on your face, then you get what you get. Don't expect sympathy from your friends or family either, they'll just tell you not to do that again.

[bleeding heart]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning & stance………Are we in agreement that we (as in the West) are more intelligent and moral?

There's no easy answer. I would without hesitation deem our society as ordered in a more moral and intelligent way overall. But that doesn't begin to touch on a lot of issues. For example, we explicitly aid and have aided regimes in their oppression, in their draconian laws, in the mistreatment of citizens. That's not to say that all would be roses without our interference; only that it's a bit rich to talk about our moral superiority, when we collude in the degradation of countries...and then point to that selfsame degradation as proof of their inferiority.

Using that analogy that we are both wasps, it’s predicated on our two cultures being the same no?

Well, I was extrapolating from a weak analogy, so obviously mine is going to be imperfect as well.

My point in this regard is that I was suggesting nothing about "liberal equality," mythological or otherwise.

Waiting for clarification on what your argument actually is……

Simply put: we f*** people over; we are responsible every time we f*** people over; and there can be consequences, for them and for us.

I never stated they were the same, but two separate traits that complement each other.

They're also complemented by compassion, by empathy and sympathy, and by the basic scientific understanding that we are social animals. By definition. Self-preservation is enhanced by such "collectivism" (as it's misnamed), not undermined by it. We can't even talk about the human species without accepting these integral parts of our nature, our very genetic make-up.

That depends on your moral stance…….Morally our “way of life” is of paramount importance……

Such a declarative statement needs an expansive set of qualifiers to make it meaningful. Exactly what you mean by way of life, and exactly how our behavior is even for our own good, is paramount. We in the West, for example, have largely determined that gangsters are not to be condoned for their behavior--which is all about "Self-interest" and "greed"...done at the expense of others for the sake of one's "way of life."

I'm not suggesting anything more radical than that we should not behave as gangsters.

I’m not sure I understand your question, but if I’m correct in my interruption, you are asking what I do if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot?

No, I'm firmly on the subject of the initial shoe and foot; I'm asking what you would consider improper behavior...even though it profit you, or (more accurately) your country (or the allies you most admire, which is very nearly the same question). Are there limits?

(I ask the supporters of torture policies the same question, that of proposed limits...and why said limits...but therein ends the discussion in every instance, unfortunately.)

Your fulmination was we have a right to protect ourselves….Of that I agree, but I think the disconnect is on the means of implementing that belief.

Yes, I think you're right.

To an extent......Might makes right, History is written by the victors and When goods can’t cross borders, armies will etc, etc

Well, such beliefs are at bottom little more than frailties and weaknesses. If they're for oneself personally, they're explicitly sociopathic; if for the vague notion of one's "nation," it's just the reflexes of the sycophant.

Perhaps said truism had best be only applied among “equals” if one doesn’t desire said response…….In that if one applies our values ingrained within our culture, to that of an entirely differing culture, one can’t have a reasonable expectation of equal result…..hence the myth of equality among cultures.

The disagreements over our own culture (from within) are vast and, at times, quite fundamental, so I don't buy your Manichean view on this. Further to the point, get two Palestinians, or two Iranians, or two Chinese or two Canadians together....and the chasm can be immense indeed.

We're talking about ideas here--important ones, to be sure--but I think you're overstating the agreement within cultures, and also the disagreement between them.

For one example, the "moral and intelligent" cultures that comprise NATO chose actively not to work with their supposed ideological compatriots in Afghanistan: the liberal secularists, the feminists, the humanists, the democratically-minded activists. They chose instead to work with the Taliban's equal-but-combative ideological cousins (the "Northern Alliance" sounds better than ""Theocratic Warlords," does it not?). Now sure, there are reasons (for everything, in fact, give or take)...but the point remains about "morality," if not as obviously "intelligence." That is, we are in many ways opposed to those who share our ideals, and allied with those who do not.

Now, if your answer to this is about some notion of doing evil for the Greater Good...I think we're going to have to get into a very specific and case-by-case discussion. Because I don't for a second buy into your "always justifiable" view of Western behavior. Heck, the sheer mathematics makes that idea vanishingly unlikely...given, as you say, human nature.

It’s not a view of a certain policy, but the nature of mankind.

Now you're edging dangerously close into that "cultural equality" theme which elsewhere has you rather exercised.

Edited August 18, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

If you want to let a wasp land on your face, then you get what you get. Don't expect sympathy from your friends or family either, they'll just tell you not to do that again.

And if you run around pissing on wasp's nests, and then get morally sanctimonious when you get stung, you will be met with howls of amused derision.

[Guest Derek L]

There's no easy answer. I would without hesitation deem our society as ordered in a more moral and intelligent way overall. But that doesn't begin to touch on a lot of issues. For example, we explicitly aid and have aided regimes in their oppression, in their draconian laws, in the mistreatment of citizens. That's not to say that all would be roses without our interference; only that it's a bit rich to talk about our moral superiority, when we collude in the degradation of countries...and then point to that selfsame degradation as proof of their inferiority.

But our involvement in despotic regions is correlated with furthering our own interests…….Contrasted with those nations that share similar values as us and our ability for peaceful interaction……

Simply put: we f*** people over; we are responsible every time we f*** people over; and there can be consequences, for them and for us.

Fair enough, but then that becomes a weighted judgement between risks and benefits.

They're also complemented by compassion, by empathy and sympathy, and by the basic scientific understanding that we are social animals. By definition. Self-preservation is enhanced by such "collectivism" (as it's misnamed), not undermined by it. We can't even talk about the human species without accepting these integral parts of our nature, our very genetic make-up.

I beg to differ......Living under the overpass, Hobo Joe’s contribution to a “collective society” is nil…….And one can take that even farther, Comrade Street Sweeper has less a contribution to make then Comrade Doctor….so on and so forth…

Interdependence is a skewed bottom-up approach that breeds complacency, fore one can’t deny the obvious truth that all humans are not equal in their ability……Some are smarter, healthier, more attractive, better workers etc

Such a declarative statement needs an expansive set of qualifiers to make it meaningful. Exactly what you mean by way of life, and exactly how our behavior is even for our own good, is paramount. We in the West, for example, have largely determined that gangsters are not to be condoned for their behavior--which is all about "Self-interest" and "greed"...done at the expense of others for the sake of one's "way of life."

I'm not suggesting anything more radical than that we should not behave as gangsters.

Well like I said above, one key qualifier is determining if one party in any given transaction shares the same ability for intelligent thought as the other……..Simply put, If you and I sat around a poker table with a monkey, are we to expect the monkey to play by the rules and not fling it’s poop?

No, I'm firmly on the subject of the initial shoe and foot; I'm asking what you would consider improper behavior...even though it profit you, or (more accurately) your country (or the allies you most admire, which is very nearly the same question). Are there limits?

(I ask the supporters of torture policies the same question, that of proposed limits...and why said limits...but therein ends the discussion in every instance, unfortunately.)

There certainly should be fungible limits, bit each and every case should be determined on it’s merits and the possible negative side effects……For a more concrete response, I’d require a more concrete hypothetical example.

Well, such beliefs are at bottom little more than frailties and weaknesses. If they're for oneself personally, they're explicitly sociopathic; if for the vague notion of one's "nation," it's just the reflexes of the sycophant.

How so? I mean if both our families were marooned on a deserted Island with only enough resources to sustain one family, can you fault the families looking after their own interests? Now further compound the problem by replacing one family with a family group of Neanderthals.

The disagreements over our own culture (from within) are vast and, at times, quite fundamental, so I don't buy your Manichean view on this. Further to the point, get two Palestinians, or two Iranians, or two Chinese or two Canadians together....and the chasm can be immense indeed.

We're talking about ideas here--important ones, to be sure--but I think you're overstating the agreement within cultures, and also the disagreement between them.

For one example, the "moral and intelligent" cultures that comprise NATO chose actively not to work with their supposed ideological compatriots in Afghanistan: the liberal secularists, the feminists, the humanists, the democratically-minded activists. They chose instead to work with the Taliban's equal-but-combative ideological cousins (the "Northern Alliance" sounds better than ""Theocratic Warlords," does it not?). Now sure, there are reasons (for everything, in fact, give or take)...but the point remains about "morality," if not as obviously "intelligence." That is, we are in many ways opposed to those who share our ideals, and allied with those who do not.

I think you’re muddying the waters to an extent……Initially yes, we chose to work with tribal warlords under the age old guise of an “enemy of my enemy is a friend”……I think that to be a pragmatic approach to accomplish a clear set of goals……..as it did historically

Where failure ensued was the premise of “nation building” and attempting to bring a backwards people kicking and screaming into the 21st century by instilling our culture and set of beliefs…..

Now, if your answer to this is about some notion of doing evil for the Greater Good...I think we're going to have to get into a very specific and case-by-case discussion. Because I don't for a second buy into your "always justifiable" view of Western behavior. Heck, the sheer mathematics makes that idea vanishingly unlikely...given, as you say, human nature.

If by greater good you mean the greater good of our interests, why yes, I do think it so.

Now you're edging dangerously close into that "cultural equality" theme which elsewhere has you rather exercised.

How so?

Edited August 18, 2013 by Derek L

[sharkman]

And if you run around pissing on wasp's nests, and then get morally sanctimonious when you get stung, you will be met with howls of amused derision.

Running around pissing on wasp nests? Surely your view of things is not that skewed?

[dre]

Running around pissing on wasp nests? Surely your view of things is not that skewed?

Nothing skewed about that. Its really no different than what our own intelligence agencies have been telling us.

[sharkman]

One can describe America's middle east activities in any number of ways, but that's not the issue. What causes the terrorist attacks is their hatred of what the West stands for. We don't force our women to cover up and give them the odd back hand for talking out of turn. In fact they are equals here, and that is a grievous sin to them. As is our acceptance of gays and protecting them by law rather than hunting them down by law. Of course our equal treatment of Jews really pisses them off too, Jews should have their houses and businesses and churches burned to the ground, but we instead treat them as if they are people. All disgusting sins that are bringing down the whole world and must be removed. We have pornography and have sex out of wedlock, we don't cut off the hands of thieves, when a women accuses of rape the courts actually believe her! The West is the Great Satan and must be attacked whenever possible.

If one believes these are people that would leave the West alone if only we'd quit meddling in their lands, you are guilty of assuming that Muslim terrorists have your mindset or think like you do. Do you think an uncovered woman is a disgusting sin or that Jews are worse than monkeys? These are not reasonable people, they believe the Great Satan must fall.

Edited August 19, 2013 by sharkman