World Affairs

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

No war is ever legitimate.  War is the utter failure of diplomacy, as I have said before.  War is a bastard child of exasperated men who will not be directly involved in the killing.  Anyone who beats the war drums should be sent to the front line when it starts.  Illegitimi non vivere.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well does that mean that the US involvement in WW1 and WW2 was 'illegitimate', aka illegal, something they should not have done? Are you saying the international community should have let North Korea overrun South Korea? And let Saddam keep Kuwait? Not intervene when the people in the Balkans started murdering each other? 

If the answer is no, then it follows that wars are sometimes legitimate. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.  The U.S. had no particular business in either part of the Great War other than enlightened self-interest.  They didn't win, by the way, they simply provided the men and materiel to make it possible for the allies to win in 1945.  Whether this was legitimate or not, they not having been attacked, is moot.  The Pacific War of 1941-1945 was for the Americans because in this one they were attacked.  In this case the illigitimi were in Tokyo. 

There was no Korean war.  It is a police action and it is still going on.

Canada's role in the Balkans was as peacekeepers not peace makers.  And the Americans Desert Storm thing was a response to the difficulties of an ally.  I wouldn't call this a war anymore than I would call the Rwanda genocide a war.  Terrorist actions do not make a war.  They make for police actions.

As for the American intervention in Viet Nam, which you seem to have conveniently overlooked, this was a bail out of an ally (France) in the face of an agreement the Brits had with Ho Chi Minh, and was totally wrong headed and most certainly illegitimate.  Should have let France stew in its own juice.

And if you want to get historical, take a look at the run up to the Treaty of Ghent (1817) when Tecumseh and the Huron Confederation who allied with the Brits got totally screwed out of their land and in fact a national entity.  There was no ensuing war, but it was clearly in terms of those days, a causus belli.  Instead the indigenous peoples on both sides of the border got screwed mightily from a great height at a difficult angle.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

11 hours ago, Mark_Kochan said:

I remember at school we played with Pokemon cards and tazos etc and tazos were banned from school because one bully had stolen some kids collection.

Said bully is probably now doing well for himself.

Your intentions are good, and there is much truth to be gleaned from your comments -- if they are studied with an open mind.

But the "bully" always does well for himself.  Only in the movies does the "bad-man" get the justice we think he so richly deserves.  Look at Putin and Assad -- they seem to be riding high -- at least for the moment.  I have enduring hope that they will receive an end other than that which they seek.

"Grown-up" discussion is always welcomed, and usually encouraged.  Occasional "flippant" remarks are sometimes used to "rebuff" or to "deflect" unsuitable directions taken in the conversation.  It is a juvenile device employed against people who do not want to be in a discussion -- they would rather seek some sort of argument.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Generally speaking bullying is a two way street.  The bully is good at picking out the shy and the weak, then dominating them.  This often extends to criminal acts which the victim is afraid to report.

If you see this going on, you should intervene if you can.  If not, it should be reported to the appropriate authority.  Most bullies wind up with a criminal record and it is usually all down hill from there.  Comparing some of the world's figures to these crumbs is giving them too much credit on both sides. 

Mr. Putin is a jumped up cop with the bit in his teeth.  One of these days, his "sycophants" will get sick of him and he will simply disappear.

Bashar Al Assad is his father's son.  Nothing specially different about him except he belongs to and supports a very strange Muslim sect.  His problems are from other Muslims who disagree with his stance, and he has simply reacted with the tools available to him.  The fly in this ointment is that the U.S. covert ops outfits chose to interfere where they should have minded their own business.  There has been altogether too much interference in the middle east by the American "intelligence" agencies that couldn't even think their way our of a wet paper bag.  These people are far too western indoctrinated to even begin to understand the nuances they are messing with.  They have forgotten or never knew that freedom cannot be forced on people.  Freedom for a people must come from within when they are ready, and certainly not from outside.

Some recently deposed Muslim leaders not only got the bit in their teeth but started doing evil to their own people.  In the case of Libya, the people eventually got rid of this dictator, but were unprepared with any kind of cohesive follow on.  Now they have a failed state.

Iraq, on the other hand, was invaded by the Americans who deposed the government and set up a puppet show that couldn't endure.  This little performance gave birth to ISIL.  If they had just chased Saddam back across his border and let nature take its course, I think something bad would have happened to Saddam and his family from internal causes, but the result of the American interference was a lot of bad press for the Americans and looting of antiquities from Iraq.  I think in the end Iraq will become a client state of Iran.  Should they join together you would have most of the old state of Persia.  What happens to Arabic speakers in Iraq when the Farsi speakers of Iran get control will be interesting.

[LexusInfernus 908]

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.  The U.S. had no particular business in either part of the Great War other than enlightened self-interest.  They didn't win, by the way, they simply provided the men and materiel to make it possible for the allies to win in 1945.  Whether this was legitimate or not, they not having been attacked, is moot.  The Pacific War of 1941-1945 was for the Americans because in this one they were attacked.  In this case the illigitimi were in Tokyo. 

Indeed, they had no real interests in getting involved, yet they did. Were their actions illegitimate? That is not a moot point if the argument is that ALL wars are inherently illegitimate. 

And yes, Tokyo was the aggressor, but deciding to go to war with Tokyo was still a conscious decision by the US. They always had the option to take their losses and leave it at that. They also didn't have to fight Imperial Japan to an unconditional surrender, they could have simply kicked them off all their conquered territory and impose a blockade. Again, were America's actions illegitimate? And what about Germany? Sure, they declared war on the US, but they hadn't actually attacked the US at that point and they weren't really threatening US direct interests. The US didn't have to get involved, yet they CHOOSE to do so. Was that choice illegitimate? 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

There was no Korean war.  It is a police action and it is still going on.

Canada's role in the Balkans was as peacekeepers not peace makers.  And the Americans Desert Storm thing was a response to the difficulties of an ally.  I wouldn't call this a war anymore than I would call the Rwanda genocide a war.  Terrorist actions do not make a war.  They make for police actions.

Calling a war a police action doesn't change that it is a war. It was fought by armies, using military equipment and military tactics and had decisively military objectives in mind. Calling it a police action was just a trick to get the UN on their side, as the UN rules don't say much about police actions but they do say something about war. And I'm not interested in Canada's role in the Balkans, I'm talking about America's role there which was decisively more than just peace keeping. Mostly because at that point there was no peace to keep, everyone was at each others throats and it took Western military power to create a cease fire and from there work on peaceful coexistence. Still, it initially was a war, a civil war, not a terrorist action, in which the West, with America leading the West, decided to intervene. Was that decision legitimate, yes or no? 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

As for the American intervention in Viet Nam, which you seem to have conveniently overlooked, this was a bail out of an ally (France) in the face of an agreement the Brits had with Ho Chi Minh, and was totally wrong headed and most certainly illegitimate.  Should have let France stew in its own juice.

I didn't overlook it, my argument is not that all wars are somehow legitimate and Vietnam is a war that clearly wasn't legitimate. Asking whether it was or wasn't wouldn't have served my point. And the American intervention in Vietnam had nothing to do with bailing out the French. The French were 10 years gone by the point the military intervention really kicked off. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Bah!  Your point is simply to argue.  I am not going to waste any more time on it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Syria: Peace process may begin.

No doubt the U.S. backed faction will wind up on the terrorist list, and deservedly so.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Gentlemen --

It occurs to me that we are arguing over "much ado about nothing". 

Is it legitimate or illegitimate  to have trees in a forest?

As Clausewitz said -- to paraphrase -- "War is merely an extension of politics by other means".  When all the words have been spoken and little has resulted -- a nation will go to war for whatever interests they hold dear -- and for whatever reason.  The reasons are always "subjective" -- not objective. 

To make a long story short -- "War" is just one tree in a forest of many.  The forest will continue to exist -- legitimate or not.

The concept of legitimizing a given war is also highly subjective and will never appeal to all nations -- or even all people in a given nation.  If you are opposed to any form of conflict -- then all wars are illegitimate.  If you accept war as part of the human condition -- then you may choose to label them as "good" or "bad".  Again -- for whatever subjective reasons you choose.

I may agree and disagree with either of you gentlemen on various points of your discussion.  And -- as a combat Vet -- I have my own VERY highly subjective reasons.

But I do take particular exception to one gentleman -- on one point in particular.  I have occasionally dropped in to participate in these discussions and have commented on this point before.  But, apparently, I was too diplomatic.

I find it sufficiently annoying to prompt me to even mention this -- since it steps into the shadow area of being too personal -- and bordering on bad form.  And I will apologize to our Canadian neighbors if I offend -- for that is not my intention.

But I find it all too easy to sit in "the cheap seats" and take pot-shots at American policy.  Canada -- for most of it's history -- has been able to shift the blame, responsibility, guilt, and moral stigma of fighting wars onto the back of The British Empire.  Canada doesn't start wars -- but it fights them nonetheless.  Why don't we sit around and pick on Canada for enabling the British Empire to fight all those nasty little colonial wars?  Sitting at a computer and accusing America and the CIA of being the chief troublemakers in the world is a truly "low blow".  The simple fact is that we draw fire from nations Canada doesn't have the money to fight.

If America doesn't lead -- the rest of the world whines and cries about us not "stepping up".  Truth be known -- Obama wishes nothing more than to bring the boys home and be left in peace -- for which he is roundly castigated in the news.  When we DO lead -- the "cheap seaters" can't wait to tell us what we did wrong.  GIVE - ME - A - BREAK - !!

I say we elect Canada to lead the world and see what they can screw up.

In the meantime --

"PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL TOWARD MEN"

MERRY CHRISTMAS ! 

[LexusInfernus 908]

53 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

But I find it all too easy to sit in "the cheap seats" and take pot-shots at American policy.  Canada -- for most of it's history -- has been able to shift the blame, responsibility, guilt, and moral stigma of fighting wars onto the back of The British Empire.  Canada doesn't start wars -- but it fights them nonetheless.  Why don't we sit around and pick on Canada for enabling the British Empire to fight all those nasty little colonial wars?  Sitting at a computer and accusing America and the CIA of being the chief troublemakers in the world is a truly "low blow".  The simple fact is that we draw fire from nations Canada doesn't have the money to fight.

Well the problem with that argument is that Canada didn't enable the British empire to fight its little wars. If Canada didn't exist, those wars would still have occurred. At the same time, if America didn't exist, a number of those wars that are used to criticize US foreign policy wouldn't actually have happened. 

US foreign policy is not nor should it be considered above criticism on the basis that its a cheap thing to do. Indeed, the only reason it can even be considered cheap is because the US has made it so easy to do, their blunders are simply spectacular in scope and effect and they have had far reaching consequences, and sadly a lot of those consequences are primarily felt by non Americans.  

My advice, don't take it personally, its not meant to be a personal insult. And if you disagree, well you are more than welcome to defend US foreign policy. 

 

Also, a very Merry Christmas to you good sir. 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

8 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Well the problem with that argument is that Canada didn't enable the British empire to fight its little wars. If Canada didn't exist, those wars would still have occurred. At the same time, if America didn't exist, a number of those wars that are used to criticize US foreign policy wouldn't actually have happened. 

US foreign policy is not nor should it be considered above criticism on the basis that its a cheap thing to do. Indeed, the only reason it can even be considered cheap is because the US has made it so easy to do, their blunders are simply spectacular in scope and effect and they have had far reaching consequences, and sadly a lot of those consequences are primarily felt by non Americans.  

My advice, don't take it personally, its not meant to be a personal insult. And if you disagree, well you are more than welcome to defend US foreign policy. 

 

Also, a very Merry Christmas to you good sir. 

Canada actively supported The Empire in all its' efforts.  Not once did they refuse every possible support.

The point of the whole speech was that SOMEONE would have had to fight those wars -- because the wars would have occurred regardless.  If not the US -- then someone else.  It does not matter who.  The only war we were not "invited" to in the 20th and 21st Century was Bush 43's monumental disaster in Iraq.  If the world waited for us to start a war -- it would be a boring place, indeed.  I do agree, however, that we could have turned down a few of the invitations.

Finally -- if you guys don't like what we do.  Then you are welcome to continue doing what you usually do -- stay home and take care of business as usual -- but leave the cheap shots to people who actually have a stake in the game.

OR -- you guys can get together and ask us to stay home.  We've been trying to return to "isolationism" since Pearl Harbor (especially the Republicans -- they don't like paying out Foreign Aid).

I usually ignore most of these comments, but people are beginning to sound like Dr. Who -- a CIA agent beneath every bed!!

I've said my piece -- now I'm done with it.

Merry Christmas, guys --

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 12/25/2015 at 5:18 AM, Dreadnought said:

Canada actively supported The Empire in all its' efforts.  Not once did they refuse every possible support.

The point of the whole speech was that SOMEONE would have had to fight those wars -- because the wars would have occurred regardless.  If not the US -- then someone else.  It does not matter who.  The only war we were not "invited" to in the 20th and 21st Century was Bush 43's monumental disaster in Iraq.  If the world waited for us to start a war -- it would be a boring place, indeed.  I do agree, however, that we could have turned down a few of the invitations.

Actually quite a few wars wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't been around. US foreign policy in a lot of cases created the factors that would lead towards a war. Vietnam, Middle America, the Cold War, etc. 

On 12/25/2015 at 5:18 AM, Dreadnought said:

Finally -- if you guys don't like what we do.  Then you are welcome to continue doing what you usually do -- stay home and take care of business as usual -- but leave the cheap shots to people who actually have a stake in the game.

OR -- you guys can get together and ask us to stay home.  We've been trying to return to "isolationism" since Pearl Harbor (especially the Republicans -- they don't like paying out Foreign Aid).

Yeah well thats the problem, US foreign policy affects much of the worlds population and as a result, the rest of the world has a stake in the game. 

And no, you haven't tried isolationism. What American's refer to as isolationism basically means 'don't get involved in European affairs'. It never meant 'don't get involved in anyone else's affairs'. As a result when the US was supposedly 'isolationist' it actually ran a colonial empire in the Philippines, it imposed economic and trade sanctions against Japan (the reason why Japan would eventually declare war on the US), and it messed around in what it considered its 'backyard' namely everything South of the American border. 

Besides, no one is arguing that the US should withdraw completely from the political stage, at worst people are arguing the US should be a lot more careful with its foreign policy as too often short term goals and needs create long term effects and problems which then affect a lot of people, often in a very negative way. Or to quote Spiderman: 'with great power comes great responsibility'. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

No point in arguing over what would or would not have happened if the United States didn't exist. It's a silly hypothetical because none of us know. It's hardly sufficient enough to build an argument on. There are hundreds if not thousands of possible outcomes.

Of course the Vietnam/US conflict wouldn't have happened if the US didn't exist. It also wouldn't have happened if Vietnam didn't exist. If apples didn't exist apple pie wouldn't exist. See the problem?

 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

10 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

No point in arguing over what would or would not have happened if the United States didn't exist. It's a silly hypothetical because none of us know. It's hardly sufficient enough to build an argument on. There are hundreds if not thousands of possible outcomes.

Of course the Vietnam/US conflict wouldn't have happened if the US didn't exist. It also wouldn't have happened if Vietnam didn't exist. If apples didn't exist apple pie wouldn't exist. See the problem?

 

Yo, MR --

Yes -- I understand the problem all too well.  I see it every day. 

And you are absolutely right -- it's absolutely not worth arguing over.

Ta, mate --

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

iran speaks out against violence in Islam

For all that Iran is not our favourite state, could it be that these people might become the central authority Islam so badly needs?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Why would Islam need a central authority? What would that solve? 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

More importantly, what would we call the Muslim Pope?

The Mupe?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Islam needs to decide what it is.  Agreeing a central doctrine would, perhaps, cut down the number of schisms and sects, or at least help to tame them.  For example, nominally Sunni Saudi Arabia is actually ruled by a tribe that clings to the Wahhabi sect.

As for what to call the head of the 'church', what's wrong with Khalif?

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Islam needs to decide what it is.  Agreeing a central doctrine would, perhaps, cut down the number of schisms and sects, or at least help to tame them.  For example, nominally Sunni Saudi Arabia is actually ruled by a tribe that clings to the Wahhabi sect.

No other religion needs it. And back when Christianity was still only divided between Eastern Orthodoxy and just 'vanilla' Christianity, the fact that vanilla Christianity had one church leader actually led to a massive schism and the birth of a bunch of new sects. 

Basically, getting 1.6 billion people to agree to conform to one single religious doctrine is never going to happen and a waste of time and effort. \

And again, why is this necessary? Is having several interpretations of Islam bad? Does it create a major problem?  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think you've answered your own question.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Mr. Erdogan, the game is already lost.

The Kurds will get their way.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Not new but worsening:

40mil empty apts in China

 

If China doesn't effectively use Eminent Domain and loopholes for 1 Child per Family, this should crash stock markets, raise interest on debt, and eliminate the Capitalist economy

Dow Jones plunges 1079 points

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Another "great leap forward" in China and the world economy will be truly shot.  This kind of thing is called a Pyrrhic victory.  Letting the Chinese into the western markets is causing corrections that may well be an object lesson of the first order, similar to 1929. 

Ah, yes!  100 years ago.  Who pays attention to history?  Eh?

To make things worse, there are all those "on-line day traders" who flee at the first sign of a problem.  Computer-controlled buying and selling should be discontinued.  Too many novices who think they know how to behave in a bear market, but really haven't the foggiest.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Stock markets don't work well when the "senior partner" is the government.  Too much "state" manipulation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A solid truth.  Since governments are totally non-productive and therefore produce nothing of value, they have no business in trade at all.  The job of government is to provide services paid for by the people they govern.  This is funded by taxes, not productive endeavour.

John Maynard Keynes and his disciple, Galbraith, got it wrong, but sold it because they made it sound plausible.  However, value is only produced by production, and therefore the government (the people) cannot be the payer of last resort in a crash.  Nothing, especially not a government, nor a bank, nor a large manufacturer is exempt from going bankrupt, especially when poor management is in the act. 

Chasing the bottom line is a primary example of poor management.  It leads to employee harvesting and the babies are often thrown out with the bath water.  A company is only as good as its people and the executive are usually all at their ultimate Peter Principle level (incompetence).

[Ocram's Razr 964]

China's construction spree is ingenious and possibly insidious if you think about it. This is the Communist party's stimulus package where money moves from one pocket to another of the government without the free market interfering. However, instead of that money going through banks (the USA monetizes debt), or going to corporations (the USA tries to stimulate the economy by funding underdogs and push-pullers, leveling the playing field while making lobbyists (and their employers) rich), the money goes towards building infrastructure projects that can theoretically increase long-term productivity (Ghost Metropoli) and increase efficiency & Quality of Life (townification instead of inefficient suburbanization). They can set themselves up for success through internal specialization (including tertiary (commerce) & quaternary (R&D) in addition to primary (farms & mines) & secondary (processing/refining & manufacture) and trade while scaring investors and Shrugging competitors off the Atlas.

 

China buys up sovereign debt and limits trade of its currency (the Renminbi can only be used by Chinese citizens & nationals), which helps make it look better in the global (capitalist) economy while protecting itself from bubbles inherent to irrational traders in free markets.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

You got it, dude !!

They are a lot more dangerous than they seem on the surface. 

Their economy can be largely self-fueling while they manipulate the debt levels and market levels to retard progress of foreign competitors.  But it requires the Chinese government to make frequent "resets" when a "bubble" becomes too large -- making it very hard to hide from the rest of the economic world.

In their favor is the fact that no one seems to be worried about their economic juggernaut!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A man's home is his castle in the U.K.

An interesting bit of law from Westminster.  In defending against a home invasion or burglary, the householder is allowed to use "disproportionate force" against intruders.  Brits are normally unarmed, but think of what this would mean in the U.S.

[LexusInfernus 908]

14 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

A man's home is his castle in the U.K.

An interesting bit of law from Westminster.  In defending against a home invasion or burglary, the householder is allowed to use "disproportionate force" against intruders.  Brits are normally unarmed, but think of what this would mean in the U.S.

Meh, its still up to the jury to decide what constitutes disproportionate force and whether it was justified, if the homeowner goes to trial over what happened to the burglar. Which is not the case here, since the prosecution decided against prosecuting the guy that tackled and restrained the guy burgling his house. 

What I think is curious is that someone tried to argue that the law was incompatible with the European Human Rights laws. I'm not sure, but I don't think human rights law covers self defense. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A lot of utter garbage has come out of the European Parliament in the guise of "rights".  In any case, human rights must never include any kind of approval for criminal behaviour.