tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post1877898825160247973..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Can Any Good Come From War?Stuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-52533409608188778472015-05-19T11:52:35.356-07:002015-05-19T11:52:35.356-07:00David Brooks opines about war and mistakes today. ...David Brooks opines about war and mistakes today. I couldn't find anything suggesting "pacifists cause wars" as Dennis suggests, in fact would seem to be proposing the opposite, proposing humility. <br /><br />So he's apparently against the NeoCon's world view that there's no situation that doesn't warrant a good military intervention and multigenerational occupation to make sure our will isn't undone.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/opinion/david-brooks-learning-from-mistakes.html<br />-----------<br />If the victory in the Cold War taught us to lean forward and be interventionist, the legacy of the 2003 Iraq decision should cause us to pull back from the excesses of that mentality, to have less faith in America’s ability to understand other places and effect change.<br /><br />Iraq teaches us to be suspicious of leaders who try to force revolutionary, transformational change. It teaches us to have respect for trimmers, leaders who pay minute attention to context, who try to lead gradual but constant change. It teaches us to honor those who respect the unfathomable complexity of history and who are humble in the face of consequences to their actions that they cannot fully predict or understand.<br />-----------<br /><br />Myself, I'm more content towards war if there are actual consequences to the citizens of the country doing the warring. So something like a "freedom tax" like Thomas Friedman suggested<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23friedman.html<br />------------<br />For the last 50 years, America (and Europe and Asia) have treated the Middle East as if it were just a collection of big gas stations: Saudi station, Iran station, Kuwait station, Bahrain station, Egypt station, Libya station, Iraq station, United Arab Emirates station, etc. Our message to the region has been very consistent: “Guys (it was only guys we spoke with), here’s the deal. Keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, don’t bother the Israelis too much and, as far as we’re concerned, you can do whatever you want out back. You can deprive your people of whatever civil rights you like. You can engage in however much corruption you like. You can preach whatever intolerance from your mosques that you like. You can print whatever conspiracy theories about us in your newspapers that you like. You can keep your women as illiterate as you like. You can create whatever vast welfare-state economies, without any innovative capacity, that you like. You can undereducate your youth as much as you like. Just keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, don’t hassle the Jews too much — and you can do whatever you want out back.”<br />---------------<br /><br />As long as the U.S. is a net importer of oil, we're helping to raise the demand and price for oil that makes dictators and tyrants rich.<br /><br />At some point the "petrodollar" currency and our "economic warfare" for global trade will disappear, but until then we have a financial advantage that we can use to leverage our own freedom from this unsustainable dependence.<br /><br />I have no idea if a modern economy can be run without fossil fuels, without debt-based fiat money that demands exponential growth to avoid collapse, but I'm sure someday our descendants will have to find out.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-36387305665593813862015-05-19T05:57:26.264-07:002015-05-19T05:57:26.264-07:00Simply put pacifists cause wars! Because we have ...Simply put pacifists cause wars! Because we have so many misguided people who keep bleating "Can't we all get along," We don't fight wars. We dither to the point that the wars only get bigger and grow out of all proportion to the cause.<br />The Israeli/Palestinian conflict would have been over a long time ago if we would have allowed a clear winner. People would have adjusted to the conditions of the conclusion of that conflict just as the Germans, Japanese, et al.<br />One only needs to look at the Obama administration and its handling of the ME. It has only exacerbated the violence and created a condition in which wars are expanding. To the point that we will be fighting one here that will consume many pacifists, and a significant number of the rest of us. Doesn't take too many nuclear weapon to annilate large numbers of people. <br />If one is going to fight a war then finish it as quickly as possible and then get the Hell out of the way.<br />I am always amused by the people who say that abhor war and then make war on anyone who may challenge their dogmas. <br />Can any good come from wars? Yes it tends to end them. Wars kill a number of people, but not in the numbers that are perpetuated by the people who make continuing conflict possible. I used to study war and its causes because I wanted to know why we seem not to be able to not be involved in them. In almost every case it was a significant number of people who dithered and tried to ignore reality that cased the other side to believe that they could win. It always causes the wars to escalate to the point of exponentially caused death rate.<br />I hate wars as much as anyone, but I recognize that those who think that they can negotiate a lasting peace have NEVER done so. <br />Just look around at the conditions in this country, here we are not alone. We make enemies of anyone who disagrees with us in the slightest. We have wars on boys, women, poverty, democrats, republicans, et al and in many cases we do as much as possible to destroy, and in many cases with the Left, wish them dead, the "others." There is no one more violent than a person who claims to be non violent. The same is true with those who preach tolerance. We are so into war that we declare war on words and will not tolerate words that might challenge our opinions. We will protest and do damage, even in our own neighborhoods, and destroy, maim and kill with little thought. Baltimore, NYC, Ferguson,et al.<br />Until we produce a better class of human beings we will be at war because we seem not to be able to help ourselves. We are the barbarians despite the facade we present of being above it. We are WAR. Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962996070458991675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-32995862759961101822015-05-19T05:37:25.273-07:002015-05-19T05:37:25.273-07:00In the past, the aristocratic class led, fought, a...In the past, the aristocratic class led, fought, and died in war. <br /><br />Brits lost lots of men of higher class in WWI. <br /><br />Today, the ruling class doesn't serve in the military. Their children don't serve. But they make the decisions in which men from the lower classes get killed. <br /><br />priss rulesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-87697976629077006892015-05-19T03:16:51.460-07:002015-05-19T03:16:51.460-07:00Thanks, JK. I think he was saying what Reagan was ...Thanks, JK. I think he was saying what Reagan was saying... a strong military accompanied by a small government that did not try to run the economy. I don't see any real contradiction there.<br /><br />I mostly liked the last episode of Mad Men, Nick. I think it's enormously difficult to wrap up an iconic show and mostly they did a very good job.<br /><br />That much said, the therapy retreat was, hopefully, a caricature... I found the who exercise to be utterly pathetic. For what it's worth, a lot of the dialogue seemed stilted to me.Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-73206771225590762322015-05-18T18:26:40.075-07:002015-05-18T18:26:40.075-07:00re: By definition, pacifists prefer decadence, sel...re: By definition, pacifists prefer decadence, self-satisfaction and following their bliss. They declare that they gain their true identity by belonging to the human species, not to a tiny group like a nation.<br /><br />Stuart, your contempt towards the lowly pacifists is curious. I've wondered what it means, given true pacifists are a rare breed, almost irrelevant.<br /><br />But maybe I solved this puzzle and I see the true targets of your ire should be the libertarians, those in favor of "self-satisfaction and following their bliss" who see government being irrelevant to their success, best being small enough to drowned in a bathtub, if only everyone was allowed to do anything they liked. <br /><br />Once you value money above all other things, it seems like you're a master of your own destiny.<br /><br />In contrast Ian Morris might just be arguing in favor of authoritarian central government, maintaining the peace by having absolute authority to limit individual freedoms for the sake of the empire. If you're a citizen, you give your fealty in exchange for safety, and if you're not a legally recognized citizen, you have no protection at all except to stay out of sight.<br /><br />And unlike a "balance of power" which is unstable, Ian Morris calls for the U.S. as benevolant superpower that maintains order in the world.<br /><br />So if you're a citizen of the U.S. you gain your benefits in exchange for fealty, and if you're a citizen of a lesser nation, you have no protection except to stay out of the way and hope a drone doesn't sight a "bad guy" too close to your home.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-2981140579037705532015-05-18T15:26:12.410-07:002015-05-18T15:26:12.410-07:00Professor Morris is hopefully only feigning ignora...Professor Morris is hopefully only feigning ignorance about the size of government to promote his own political agenda. Perhaps he should compare the size of the British government at the peak of their empire. It was a very small government but a world empire, at a time of much slower communication and coordination. <br /><br />In any case, small government does not preclude a strong army. An army which is facing outward and not a tool for government to interfere with its citizens. <br /><br />Small government does not imply no government. Not to mention, in the traditions of the Anglosphere, it means the decisions most impacting the lives of the citizens are taken as close to the citizens as possible. JK Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-9281538795405521732015-05-18T15:22:35.097-07:002015-05-18T15:22:35.097-07:00re: When a populace is mobilized for war, everyone...re: When a populace is mobilized for war, everyone soon knows which side he is on. Everyone knows his place, his duties, his responsibilities. Of course, during a war, everyone knows the game that is being played.<br /><br />So what you're saying here we need a perceived external threat such as "war on terror" which can never be won, and never be lost, but guarantees citizens perpetually anxious, and thus willing to submit to all government authority in exchange for their short term safety?<br /><br />Or does it mean we need to go shopping to keep the economy going? Because "The American way of life is not negotiable" and "They hate our freedoms."<br /><br />We really need to define our civic duties more clearly. <br /><br />Here's a start, but "shop til you drop" got missed from this list.<br /><br />https://quizlet.com/21594590/civic-duties-and-responsibilities-flash-cards/<br />Civic Duty:<br />* Paying taxes <br />* Attending school <br />* Serving on jury duty <br />* Signing up for the Select Service when you turn 18 if you are a male <br />* Serving as a witness in court<br />* Serving in military if called on by the draft <br /><br />Civic responsibilities:<br />* Voting in elections <br />* Going the speed limit <br />* Participating in government campaigns <br />* Promoting the general welfare of your community and its citizens<br />* Holding government office <br />* Signing up for the military <br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-40021124027856398972015-05-18T15:14:42.855-07:002015-05-18T15:14:42.855-07:00Any thoughts on the Mad Men finale? I know you use...Any thoughts on the Mad Men finale? I know you used to comment on it, so I thought I'd ask.Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-2417243759288877982015-05-18T12:47:15.346-07:002015-05-18T12:47:15.346-07:00I see the Washington Post article was from a year ...I see the Washington Post article was from a year ago. I also found a related video promoting his book he published at the time. I've not watched to the video yet.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebRpquKFSEw Ian Morris "War! What Is It Good For?" Published on May 1, 2014<br /><br />And book:<br />http://www.politics-prose.com/book/9780374286002<br />War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots (Hardcover) Publication Date: April 15th, 2014<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/War-What-Good-Conflict-Civilization/dp/0374286000/ref=sr_1_1<br /><br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-47143127733574053882015-05-18T10:31:04.965-07:002015-05-18T10:31:04.965-07:00The question seems ill-posed. You might ask "...The question seems ill-posed. You might ask "Can any good come from conflict?" and have a chance for clarity. <br /><br />For instance, I really loved the board game RISK over chess as a teen, although I started with chess when I was younger. But I discovered chess was more oppressive because in order to win someone else has to lose. <br /><br />But what makes RISK interesting is its only really fun with 3 or more players, and then diplomacy becomes essential, and "good character" becomes essential. If you make a treaty with someone, you honor it, and in doing so, you demonstrate your good faith.<br /><br />And the strategy of RISK comes down to "balance of power" more than "world conquest", so if any single player starts looking too powerful, you have an incentive to identify allies to work together to threaten the more powerful player from rising large enough to threaten everyone else.<br /><br />RISK rules does encourage aggression, first by having the dice odds in favor of the attacker, and secondly if you defeat an opponent you get his cards (resources), and can instantly increase your power after a big battle and continue with new armies against your next target.<br /><br />But again, because of this advantage, and the balance of power of 3-way conflicts, anyone who "looks" aggressive can be easily scapegoated as the aggressor, and the other two see their common enemy, and work together to weaken him until he's no longer a threat.<br /><br />And so when I play RISK as an adult now, against teens, I find its an excellent chance to demonstrate how to negoticate treaties, and how to act honorably, and being the humble sort of dictator that I am, I've never been interested in world domination, but rather just finding a semi-rational way to divide up the spoils of the entire world, so the goal is to identify and eliminate the aggressors, and then declare "world peace" for those who can handle sharing.<br /><br />So games at least are good in that way, and its helpful to remember that politics is also a form of warfare that uses words and rhetoric rather than guns, at least if you live in a civilized country, and at some level politics is "brute power" to win conflicts at any costs, but its also tit-for-tat warfare too, where if you can't permanently eliminate the competition, you'd better find a way not dishonor your rivals too mercilessly, or you'll have to fight for everything in every little conflict, until violence DOES seem like a superior way to get things done.<br /><br />I can wonder things, like whether Lincoln should have declared war against the South, and I confess I don't see it as right. Lincoln, for whatever his virtues, wanted UNITY at any cost, while it was possible for the country to divide at a much lower cost, and each half could be free to express its own vices and virtues and let the future determine the consequences.<br /><br />So if War means "I'm always right and I'll impose my will on anyone else because I can." then I am a bully, and I should hope someone stands up to me and teaches me some humility.<br /><br />Anyway, whether any good can come, War is always a failure of diplomacy, and the people who fail are usually NOT those who are killed, unless they fail very badly.<br /><br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.com