Stupid Letters to the Editor

[Iceberg]

http://www.winona.edu/winonan/letters.htm

Arrgh. Goddammit, people. It's not like I really expect unbiased, honest opinions about the Middle East to be published by Muslims (considering that the Middle East's reserves of petroleum represent the last faded vestige of Muslim political power in a global environment increasingly dominated by Western power in general and Anglo-American power specifically), but Zionism (at least as a global political phenomenon) is a blatant lie, and nations ARE NOT bound to the same moral codes as individual people. Trying to condemn international political actions because they would be immoral on an interpersonal level is ignorant at best.

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

[phongn]

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

I sense many flames incoming

[MKSheppard]

I sense many flames incoming

Marina O'Leary Scale Morality detected!

Batten down the hatches, whoop whoop woop

AOOOGAH AAAOOOGAH!

(Klaxons wailing in the background)

[phongn]

I sense many flames incoming

Marina O'Leary Scale Morality detected!

Actually, I'm one of the realpoltik guys here, I just don't usually delve into an argument on SDnet

[MKSheppard]

Actually, I'm one of the realpoltik guys here, I just don't usually delve into an argument on SDnet

I was just commenting on your "incoming flames" comment, rather than
your realpolitiks beliefs, by adding my own incoming flames comment

[theski]

**Puts on Nomex gloves and suit, grabs marshmellows and waits for the fire****

[Coyote]

Rep Moran also failed to consider the role of Gentile Zionists such as George W. Bush , Donald Rumsfeld and the delicious Condeleeza Rice .

While the rest of the article was so much standard-issue pap, I found this quote to reveal a bit of a "Freudian Slip" of the writer's own... (color emphasis mine~~ Coyote)...

[Axis Kast]

I fully endorse the position of one Iceberg.

And the correct term is now "Kastian morality" - ie, none.

[Iceberg]

"Zionism" as defined by what Marina calls Islamofascists is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and like all conspiracy theories, it's intended to do nothing other than cover up the real reason for Islamic political-economic impotence: their utter inability to constructively organize at any level greater than the individual tribe.

[Durandal]

I fully endorse the position of one Iceberg.

Why am I not surprised?

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

Why just the international level? Because you just happen to live in the most powerful nation in the world and want to get your way internationally, but don't want to have to face the inevitable consequences of such a barbaric view of morality on the domestic front?

[Iceberg]

*

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

Why just the international level? Because you just happen to live in the most powerful nation in the world and want to get your way internationally, but don't want to have to face the inevitable consequences of such a barbaric view of morality on the domestic front?

Because that's how it is. Nations can get away with things that individual people cannot, in absence of a larger and more powerful nation to restrict them. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful nation effectively rules the world with the same level of right as a King of old ruled his kingdom.

Arbitrary rules based on the "greater good" can only be enforced when the greater population has more enforcement power than its most powerful member, which is how the rule of law can be successfully applied on the domestic level.

In practical terms, rules can only be and have only ever been enforced by threat of punishment. There is no nation which can currently enforce a more effective punishment upon the United States of America than the USA can enforce back, therefore there is no effective leash on American power save the morality of American citizens, at whose pleasure the government serves.

[Coyote]

To an extent I see what Iceberg is saying-- for example, the Death Penalty is legal in the US for people who have committed certain crimes. But if I were to see someone killing another person, and I 'sentenced the criminal to death' and gunned him down in the street with my Glock, I couldn't get away with that. The US gov't can, but only if certain laws and procedures are followed.

The gov't can also levy taxes in exchange for providing police and military forces, what would in the private sector be called a 'protections racket'. The gov't can grant the right to kill other people provided certain conditions are met-- wartime.

On the other hand, what Durandal is leading to, I think, has a point too-- nations cannot arbitrarily invade other countries without expecting some sort of backlash or sanctions from other countries; should the situation become severe enough other countries can be expected to punish the offending nation through multilateral military action (or by sending a mighty champion from amongst them to attack the offender while the smaller nations provide support).

[RedImperator]

Realpolitik is not so much a moral theory as the simple acknolwedgement of how the world actually works. Nation states are not people and are not guided by the principles that guide interpersonal relationships. Any morality in international relations centers around the effects a nation state's actions will have on individual citizens of another nation state (thus the concern for civilian lives in Iraq, which I think went beyond simple pragmatic concern for public opinion). Occasionally, a nation state will voluntarily restrain its behavior for moral reasons, but more often the appeance of moral behavior is yet another calculated political move, and when it's sincere, it often results in disaster for the state in question. On a practical level, the international system is anarchic and will remain until one nations achieves such power that it can impose its will on the rest of the world. Voluntarily uniting the planet in the absense of an outside threat is a pipe dream.

[Axis Kast]

Why just the international level? Because you just happen to live in the most powerful nation in the world and want to get your way internationally, but don't want to have to face the inevitable consequences of such a barbaric view of morality on the domestic front

You haven’t articulated any kind of argument.

My point is that international politics leaves no room for morals. Policy-makers do not take into account the moral consequences of their actions. That is fact. To suggest that we should suddenly become the only country to do so – that is, to make foreign policy based solely or primarily upon moral determinations – is folly.

On the other hand, what Durandal is leading to, I think, has a point too-- nations cannot arbitrarily invade other countries without expecting some sort of backlash or sanctions from other countries; should the situation become severe enough other countries can be expected to punish the offending nation through multilateral military action (or by sending a mighty champion from amongst them to attack the offender while the smaller nations provide support)

Durandal argues – to the best of my knowledge – that it is wrong to set foreign policy without first making moral determinations.

“Nations cannot arbitrarily invade other countries without expecting some sort of backlash or sanctions from other countries?” That’s an opinion, not a fact. Every situation carries consequences, but not all of them fit our concept of judicious result. Not all tyrants meet an untimely death. Not all dictators are subject to incrimination. To make policy without taking these realities into account is both ignorant and dangerous.

[Axis Kast]

Realpolitik is not so much a moral theory as the simple acknolwedgement of how the world actually works. Nation states are not people and are not guided by the principles that guide interpersonal relationships. Any morality in international relations centers around the effects a nation state's actions will have on individual citizens of another nation state (thus the concern for civilian lives in Iraq, which I think went beyond simple pragmatic concern for public opinion). Occasionally, a nation state will voluntarily restrain its behavior for moral reasons, but more often the appeance of moral behavior is yet another calculated political move, and when it's sincere, it often results in disaster for the state in question. On a practical level, the international system is anarchic and will remain until one nations achieves such power that it can impose its will on the rest of the world. Voluntarily uniting the planet in the absense of an outside threat is a pipe dream.

Well said. My position in a nutshell.

[Coyote]

Durandal argues – to the best of my knowledge – that it is wrong to set foreign policy without first making moral determinations.

“Nations cannot arbitrarily invade other countries without expecting some sort of backlash or sanctions from other countries?” That’s an opinion, not a fact. Every situation carries consequences, but not all of them fit our concept of judicious result.

How is that an opinion? Name one invasion of one country by another where no one cared, not even the invaded people? If Trashcanistan invades Buttholia, and one Buttholian fires back in resistance, that is backlash. If a single protester marches before the Trashcanistan embassy in New York, that is sanction. It does not have to be a huge display of power like the Kursk Offensive.

It is at what level of action by the offending nation causes more and more backlash? France, England and the US were able to tolerate the German invasions up until the attack on Poland, at which point they finally said that enough was enough. Before that, backlash and sanction meant little more than protests or diplomatic censures, etc.

Not all tyrants meet an untimely death. Not all dictators are subject to incrimination. To make policy without taking these realities into account is both ignorant and dangerous.

It is equally ignorant and dangerous to take drastic actions that are out of proportion to the offense committed. Remember before 9/11, when those silly internet petitions were circulating about how evil the Taliban was in their persecution of women? These petitions demanded that the US 'do something' about it. Like what? We had almost zero trade with them and no embassy, no leverage with them at all-- what the hell were we expected to 'do' about it? It wasn't exactly the kind of thing we could go to war over, but if the US gov't had decided to attack Afghanistan because of that petition, we'd've been stupid not to take into account the diplomatic backlash we would have recieved from that.

[Durandal]

Because that's how it is. Nations can get away with things that individual people cannot, in absence of a larger and more powerful nation to restrict them. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful nation effectively rules the world with the same level of right as a King of old ruled his kingdom.

I was unaware that the way things are is anything other than the way things are. Yes, this is how things in the world are, but it is a fallacious leap in logic to conclude that it is a morally desirable situation. Are you seriously going to argue that slavery was not an abomination because blacks didn't have the might to punish the US?

Arbitrary rules based on the "greater good" can only be enforced when the greater population has more enforcement power than its most powerful member, which is how the rule of law can be successfully applied on the domestic level.

So, if the United States decided to arbitrarily invade Australia and nuke the population, it'd be okay because Australia can't fight back?

In practical terms, rules can only be and have only ever been enforced by threat of punishment. There is no nation which can currently enforce a more effective punishment upon the United States of America than the USA can enforce back, therefore there is no effective leash on American power save the morality of American citizens, at whose pleasure the government serves.

You're mistakenly equating the way things are with the way they should be according to a moral standpoint.

[Iceberg]

Because that's how it is. Nations can get away with things that individual people cannot, in absence of a larger and more powerful nation to restrict them. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful nation effectively rules the world with the same level of right as a King of old ruled his kingdom.

I was unaware that the way things are is anything other than the way things are. Yes, this is how things in the world are, but it is a fallacious leap in logic to conclude that it is a morally desirable situation. Are you seriously going to argue that slavery was not an abomination because blacks didn't have the might to punish the US?

I'm not arguing that it's right - I'm arguing that they can do it. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

"Can get away with" is an entirely different category than "is moral."

Arbitrary rules based on the "greater good" can only be enforced when the greater population has more enforcement power than its most powerful member, which is how the rule of law can be successfully applied on the domestic level.

So, if the United States decided to arbitrarily invade Australia and nuke the population, it'd be okay because Australia can't fight back?

Agan, I'm talking about enforceability, you're talking about morality. Punishments against the United States in this absurd scenario would be impossible because they would be unenforceable, but that wouldn't make your absurdity right.

In practical terms, rules can only be and have only ever been enforced by threat of punishment. There is no nation which can currently enforce a more effective punishment upon the United States of America than the USA can enforce back, therefore there is no effective leash on American power save the morality of American citizens, at whose pleasure the government serves.

You're mistakenly equating the way things are with the way they should be according to a moral standpoint.

You're mistakenly assuming that I'm arguing from morality. I'm arguing from the way things ARE. The US has the right to enforce its decisions unilaterally because it has the might to do so.

And this is a complete distraction from the real point of this thread, which is that middle easterners should stop bitching about a nonexistent conspiracy aimed at keeping them down and take a good hard look at themselves and realize that their religion and culture do a far more effective job at that than any external conspiracy ever could.

[Durandal]

I'm not arguing that it's right - I'm arguing that they can do it. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

"Can get away with" is an entirely different category than "is moral."

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

Agan, I'm talking about enforceability, you're talking about morality. Punishments against the United States in this absurd scenario would be impossible because they would be unenforceable, but that wouldn't make your absurdity right.

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

You're mistakenly assuming that I'm arguing from morality. I'm arguing from the way things ARE. The US has the right to enforce its decisions unilaterally because it has the might to do so.

Morality on the international level is defined by the most powerful nation. PERIOD. What the hegemon says is acceptable is acceptable, and what the hegemon says is unacceptable is not acceptable.

Done backpedaling yet?

[Axis Kast]

It is equally ignorant and dangerous to take drastic actions that are out of proportion to the offense committed. Remember before 9/11, when those silly internet petitions were circulating about how evil the Taliban was in their persecution of women? These petitions demanded that the US 'do something' about it. Like what? We had almost zero trade with them and no embassy, no leverage with them at all-- what the hell were we expected to 'do' about it? It wasn't exactly the kind of thing we could go to war over, but if the US gov't had decided to attack Afghanistan because of that petition, we'd've been stupid not to take into account the diplomatic backlash we would have recieved from that.

How is this in any way different from the position I’ve outlined and endorsed?

How is that an opinion? Name one invasion of one country by another where no one cared, not even the invaded people? If Trashcanistan invades Buttholia, and one Buttholian fires back in resistance, that is backlash. If a single protester marches before the Trashcanistan embassy in New York, that is sanction. It does not have to be a huge display of power like the Kursk Offensive.

It is at what level of action by the offending nation causes more and more backlash? France, England and the US were able to tolerate the German invasions up until the attack on Poland, at which point they finally said that enough was enough. Before that, backlash and sanction meant little more than protests or diplomatic censures, etc.

I’m referring to backlash and sanctions of a significant magnitude. Naturally, every action invites consequences and reaction. My point was that not every invasion earns the offender a coal raking before the United Nations or universal trade embargo. That is, to imply a bad situation must or is always punished is folly.

was unaware that the way things are is anything other than the way things are. Yes, this is how things in the world are, but it is a fallacious leap in logic to conclude that it is a morally desirable situation. Are you seriously going to argue that slavery was not an abomination because blacks didn't have the might to punish the US?

That’s just it. We’re not making moral value judgements in the political sense. We acknowledge that bad things happen in the international community every day. We merely advocate policy not rooted in “the moral response.”

Iceberg and I have suggested that no political decision should be based solely or primarily on moral determinations. We’re arguing that “right” and “wrong” don’t exist in the international community. Nations don’t do this or that thing because it’s “right” or “wrong,” they do it because they can. To begin looking at it inside anything other than a cost-benefit analysis becomes dangerous.

[Darth Wong]

Realpolitik is not so much a moral theory as the simple acknolwedgement of how the world actually works.

If the Nazis won WW2, "Realpolitik" would have indicated to us that the best course of action would be to start our own Jewish-extermination Holocausts in order to maintain good relations with the world hegemon. Realpolitik is a word people use because "total lack of ethics" doesn't sound as good.

[Gil Hamilton]

If the Nazis won WW2, "Realpolitik" would have indicated to us that the best course of action would be to start our own Jewish-extermination Holocausts in order to maintain good relations with the world hegemon. Realpolitik is a word people use because "total lack of ethics" doesn't sound as good.

You know, I was going to say precisely the same thing. You beat me to the punch.

If people don't think that "realpolitik" is inherently immoral, take actions commited in the name of realpolitik and apply it on any other magnitude than the international level. You'll find that many such actions boil down to things that that morally reprehensible. After all, theft, murder, armed robbery, torture and a myriad of other crimes that would earn people a very very long prison sentence are positive nation building tools according to realpolitik.

[Gil Hamilton]

Here is a case-in-point that demolishes the idea that power creates morality.

China. The Chinese government has a horrible track record when it comes to human rights and is pretty damn oppressive of it's people. You need only look at some of the things they've done in Tibet to demonstrate this. But the rub is that no other nation can stop them. They've got nuclear weapons and they've got a massive army. Basically, there is no country on the planet today that could force China to stop them from their actions against their own people. Not without nuclear war and that sort of defeats the purpose in a war to stop the Chinese government from oppressing their people. This is largely why most governments turn a blind eye to all the human rights violations of China, while rant and rave when it happens in a country that cannot defend itself.

Now, according to the "might makes right" people, China has the power and authority over it's own people do do what ever the hell they want, and no country on the planet can really stop them. Therefore, going by the "might makes right" people, any action China takes is inherently a moral one, since they've got the most might in the area. Just because they torture and murder people for dissenting against their government doesn't matter, they are the boss, so any torture and murder that takes place is moral.

Clearly, this demonstrates that might cannot make morality, as China's human rights violations are clearly immoral, yet they've got all the might.

[Axis Kast]

You’re walking dangerous ground, Mike. What kind of alternatives do we have from the cost-benefit analysis? In a world where taking advantage of one’s neighbors is the ultimate objective, why subject ourselves to moralistic determination and universal justice? Ethnics are all well and good on a personal level, but affairs of state function on an entirely different plane. Interpersonal relationships and international relationships are inherently different.

Now nobody’s suggesting that China is correct to kill its people – merely that we can’t jump to war for the sake of wanting to uphold humanitarian principles. A “touchy, feely” motivation is both misguided and dangerous – especially because you’re merely a product of Western society and in taking action would be imposing a specific, personal viewpoint on the situation anyway – without clear goals or objectives beyond the very general notion of “delivering the oppressed.”

[Darth Wong]

You’re walking dangerous ground, Mike. What kind of alternatives do we have from the cost-benefit analysis? In a world where taking advantage of one’s neighbors is the ultimate objective, why subject ourselves to moralistic determination and universal justice? Ethnics are all well and good on a personal level, but affairs of state function on an entirely different plane. Interpersonal relationships and international relationships are inherently different.

So you agree that if Nazi Germany had won the war, you should go ahead and start imprisoning and butchering Jews in order to appease the world hegemon's demands? That was the example I cited, and your world-view seems to support that conclusion.