My solution for the current world crisis

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-09 03:04am

Coyote wrote:Aw, man...

Someone is trying to help, but ends up looking trollish while trashing some of the headway I'd hoped to make elsewhere.

Can't win for losing...

I didn't think you were being trollish.

It's just that all this cyncial inequity in the world pisses me right off.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-09 03:11am

Vympel wrote:*sigh*. Coyote- I've said it many times- I can think up any outlandish scenario and talk about how terrible it is- the question is- why would it happen? The threat must not only be possible, it must be probable.

My Iraq-Israel exchange was purposefully an extreme exampel of a world where the West (US specifically but theoretically anyone) took a total hands-off policy. I'm saying that we would not be able to pick & choose which battles we ignored and which ones we took up the cause of.

I'm not trying to portray a "realistic" scenario-- you've gotten too used to dealing with jingoists!

No, the world I'd prefer is where the nations of this Earth respect the principles on which the UN was founded, instead of just using it as a tool, while cynically employing the 'humanitarian' argument whenever it suits them, but picking and choosing who gets this 'humanitarian' benefit. Kurds in Turkey? Fuck them. Kurds in Iraq? Oh, those poor people. It's despicable.

Stop making sense! There's not enough Rolaids! But you're correct, it is hypocritical to get frothy about the Iraqi Kurds while ignoring the Turkish ones. I never understood what the Turks wanted by keeping the Kurds in their borders and under their boot. Give 'em a homeland that also serves as a buffer state with Iraq and receive gratitude.

But the law of Carrying it to its Logical Conclusions-- this has ramifications for the Tibetans, the Chechens, and the Palestinians, which I can sympathize with and probably many Europeans as well... but will they feel so magnanimous when it is time for the Basques or the Northern Irish?

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-03-09 03:12am

Coyete,

Vympel is exactly right, morality should not be selective. It's actually easier not to be involved at all. As callous as it sounds, let's say Saddam VXes Tel Aviv, and Sharon makes Baghdad glow in the dark... SO WHAT.

I don't see people caring much about Rawanda back then, and Samolia is still a mess, I don't see the UN or the US lining up to save that place? The point I'm making is, it's only worth an effort for the US if there are significant American involvement economically. In Iraq, there isn't much American interest. There are American interests in Israel, but in the grand scheme of things, that interest does not amount to all that much.

In fact, if you come right down to it, using morality as a guide means the US will be perpetually hated by somebody and it can't focus on the most important thing around, it's citizens. When its citizens killed, the US has to respond. But that's pretty much the only case. Otherwise, it would be better to consider things in terms of resources, profits and expenditures, the rest of the world is smart enough to see that, the U.S. should as well.

You should note that this will apply to NK as well, because if the US was uninvolved, then NK would resolve the situation itself... whether it comes to war or not, it wouldn't make all that much difference to the U.S. except for the economic interests. But since some of the major competitors to America are located in Asia and they'll be hurt even worse, it's actually an advantage for the US if the place goes to hell in a hand basket.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-09 03:15am

Vympel wrote:I didn't think you were being trollish.

Thanks. I try to be reasonable, civil, although I have my moments. But this time I was reading the post of... others. **coughcoughcpttychocoughcough**
(Looks around, fetches more drinks)
I see Australia is doing very well in Cricket thse days.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-09 03:22am

My Iraq-Israel exchange was purposefully an extreme exampel of a world where the West (US specifically but theoretically anyone) took a total hands-off policy. I'm saying that we would not be able to pick & choose which battles we ignored and which ones we took up the cause of.

I'm not trying to portray a "realistic" scenario-- you've gotten too used to dealing with jingoists!

Ah, alright- I knew you were too reasonable for that.

Stop making sense! There's not enough Rolaids! But you're correct, it is hypocritical to get frothy about the Iraqi Kurds while ignoring the Turkish ones. I never understood what the Turks wanted by keeping the Kurds in their borders and under their boot. Give 'em a homeland that also serves as a buffer state with Iraq and receive gratitude.

It's all about the territory. Hell, even old stodgy Greeks moan about getting Constantinople back!

But the law of Carrying it to its Logical Conclusions-- this has ramifications for the Tibetans, the Chechens, and the Palestinians, which I can sympathize with and probably many Europeans as well... but will they feel so magnanimous when it is time for the Basques or the Northern Irish?

Exactly- a lot of problems the nations have for this is how far to take it. They don't wanna see their groups with grievances used as an excuse against them, to be sure.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-09 03:24am

0.1 wrote:In fact, if you come right down to it, using morality as a guide means the US will be perpetually hated by somebody and it can't focus on the most important thing around, it's citizens.

Very true. I mean in reality, no one (or nation) will be universally loved by everybody. It's impossible. That is why we can tell a lot about ourselves not just by who our friends are but by our enemies. If Nazis, for example, hate me or my country, then I'll not lose any sleep over that-- in fact, I'll consider it a mark of success; I must be doing something right if I'm pissing off Nazis.

Unfortuantely, it is not always so clear-cut. I've made numerous arguments lately in which I feel that the war with Iraq is a necessary evil, and can even see it as a moral obligation. Some will see my logic as flawed, for sure. But I also try not to tie my logic to any black/white fallacies or exclusive moralities. Freedom for Kurds really should be the first domino of tyranny to fall and the tragedy is that it took this long.

I'm also on record as being for Palestinian freedom in the WB and GS; I cannot call for freedom for one and ignore the other. We'll have to take a closer look at the Chiapas rebels in Mexico, the Chechens, and so on. Some people will want independence; others just want a better deal.