Stupid Letters to the Editor

[Axis Kast]

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.

Yours is a leap of lunacy, not logic. Did the United States enter the war to end the Holocaust in the first place? No. Should we have let Germany win the war and dominate the face of Western Europe anyway? No. If Germany had won, should we have done anything but prepared for a new war? No. But would it be predicated more on morals and less on a cost-benefit analysis suggesting we didn't want a powerful Germany and a powerful Germany only? No.

[RedImperator]

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.

What? Ignoring for a moment the fact that the Nazis couldn't have won WWII without altering so many historical variables at the start point that the end result would essentially be a fantasy, realpolitik would have dictated that we prepare for another war with them and turn our crushing economic advantage on them before they were able to integrate Europe's economy into theirs. Deliberately weakening yourself to "appease" a powerful enemy is the exact opposite of realpolitik--what the other side thinks about you doesn't matter, what they can do to you can. Moral or not (mostly not), that's the central guiding principle of international relations and always has been. The best you can hope for is one state or a coalition of states to become so powerful they can afford to act morally (a state I believe the United States is in at the present time, which I why I don't excuse actions like abandoning the Shiites in 1991).

[RedImperator]

that should be, "what they can do to you DOES". fucking lack of edit button.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way both of you evade the question. "But the Nazis couldn't win!" and "If they won, they'd still be weak and we'd still be strong, so we'd just hit 'em again until they lose!"

You're either missing the point, or deliberately evading it. If Nazi Germany won the war so convincingly that it is now an unstoppable hegemon, your reasoning leads to the conclusion that it would be a GOOD IDEA to start massacreing Jews as per their wishes. Mind does not. Try to evade all you like, but that's the fact.

[Edi]

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.

Claiming that you have the right to do something simply because you can do it makes your argument one from morality, especially when you stated right at the start that

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.

so: Concession accepted, you fucking moron.

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.

Were you born this stupid or did you have to practice? You started bitching about how some people whine about a zionist conspiracy and then state flat out that

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.

That makes the above quote your central argument, only you're obviously just too fucking stupid to recognize it. No wonder you and your chorus line (Cast-iron Skull) get shredded to pieces every time you bring this subject up. At least with RedImperator and Marina it is quite possible to have a meaningful conversation (sometimes liberally spiced with more or less "friendly" flames, as opposed to the hostile ones you're getting) over this, because they can actually back up their position while recognizing where it is weak (i.e. in the aspect of morality).

Edi

[Axis Kast]

I love the way both of you evade the question. "But the Nazis couldn't win!" and "If they won, they'd still be weak and we'd still be strong, so we'd just hit 'em again until they lose!"

Evade the question? No. Point out its utter lack of validity outside a fantastic context? Yes.

You're either missing the point, or deliberately evading it. If Nazi Germany won the war so convincingly that it is now an unstoppable hegemon, your reasoning leads to the conclusion that it would be a GOOD IDEA to start massacreing Jews as per their wishes. Mind does not. Try to evade all you like, but that's the fact.[

That’s not realpolitik; it’s an intentional distortion of foreign policy based on Mike Wong’s inane attempt to defame pragmatic government. You set out an absolutely ridiculous scenario and then create our argument on your own, arguing that realpolitik must dictate that the Holocaust would expand to global proportions. You’ve put words in our mouths. You’re arguing against yourself.

Realpolitik is a case-to-case beast. A pragmatic action from Germany’s point-of-view might have been inane from the American position. You’re looking to develop universal laws of government – claiming different nations would act the same way to a scenario in which some are clearly advantaged and others not. Impossible.

Technically, you’re bound to be at odds with the whole world. Why? Because none of the Allied Powers entered the Second World War merely to free Jews and other “undesirables” from Hitler’s death camps. How do we know this? Repression first began in 1933. War broke out over the invasion of Poland in ’39.

Claiming that you have the right to do something simply because you can do it makes your argument one from morality, especially when you stated right at the start that

He’s approaching the situation from the point of view of ability. When he says “right,” he means “the ability to act [without being preempted] and then possibly go largely unpunished.”

so: Concession accepted, you fucking moron.

His argument still stands: morality isn’t an actual force. Nations aren’t universally punished for immoral acts. It all depends on their ability to make themselves targets beyond retribution.

That makes the above quote your central argument, only you're obviously just too fucking stupid to recognize it. No wonder you and your chorus line (Cast-iron Skull) get shredded to pieces every time you bring this subject up. At least with RedImperator and Marina it is quite possible to have a meaningful conversation (sometimes liberally spiced with more or less "friendly" flames, as opposed to the hostile ones you're getting) over this, because they can actually back up their position while recognizing where it is weak (i.e. in the aspect of morality).

You haven’t approached my argument at all. Wong’s falling all over himself. But nice try to win the game without actually playing. You have a problem with my reasoning? Speak or bow out. You’ve won crap at this point.

And my argument is that we cannot govern by making utterly moral determinations. International relations is inherently amoral. That’s all. Wong’s the one who’s insisting I like to eat babies for breakfast and endorse the Nazi Holocaust.

[Edi]

Claiming that you have the right to do something simply because you can do it makes your argument one from morality, especially when you stated right at the start that

He’s approaching the situation from the point of view of ability. When he says “right,” he means “the ability to act [without being preempted] and then possibly go largely unpunished.”

That's not what that sentence means, and you know it quite well. You can start playing semantics games all you want, but it doesn't change that fact one bit. Nice attempt at trying to redefine the meaning of the word "right". Concession accepted, fuckwit.

so: Concession accepted, you fucking moron.

His argument still stands: morality isn’t an actual force. Nations aren’t universally punished for immoral acts. It all depends on their ability to make themselves targets beyond retribution.

Nice try, but he wasn't arguing that. He was arguing that it is right to do something just because you have the ability to do it, while simultaneously claiming his argument was not one from morality, that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of said actions, but his own words contradict him. Obviously you failed basic grammar in school. Sorry, but concession still accepted.

That makes the above quote your central argument, only you're obviously just too fucking stupid to recognize it. No wonder you and your chorus line (Cast-iron Skull) get shredded to pieces every time you bring this subject up. At least with RedImperator and Marina it is quite possible to have a meaningful conversation (sometimes liberally spiced with more or less "friendly" flames, as opposed to the hostile ones you're getting) over this, because they can actually back up their position while recognizing where it is weak (i.e. in the aspect of morality).

You haven’t approached my argument at all. Wong’s falling all over himself. But nice try to win the game without actually playing. You have a problem with my reasoning? Speak or bow out. You’ve won crap at this point.

I'm going to leave Mike to shred your pathetic attempt at sophistry to pieces. It'll be amusing to watch, anybody with a functioning synapse can see who's winning that one, and it isn't you, Kast.

And my argument is that we cannot govern by making utterly moral determinations. International relations is inherently amoral. That’s all. Wong’s the one who’s insisting I like to eat babies for breakfast and endorse the Nazi Holocaust.

Neither I, nor from what I could see, Mike, was disputing that argument (or at least with the stipulation that we cannot always govern that way, but we should be able to some of the time), but it was not the issue you were challenged on. You've agreed 100% with Iceberg's original argument, which was that capability to act makes those actions moral, and when posed a question regarding ethics from those premises, you're just avoiding and dancing around the issue and refusing to answer. Do you have reading comprehension problems. Once more: Concession accepted.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

That's not what that sentence means, and you know it quite well. You can start playing semantics games all you want, but it doesn't change that fact one bit. Nice attempt at trying to redefine the meaning of the word "right". Concession accepted, fuckwit.

The man clearly isn’t arguing that when the Chinese machine-gun babies it’s the “correct” thing to do – merely that they can do it without facing consequences.

Nice try, but he wasn't arguing that. He was arguing that it is right to do something just because you have the ability to do it, while simultaneously claiming his argument was not one from morality, that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of said actions, but his own words contradict him. Obviously you failed basic grammar in school. Sorry, but concession still accepted.

That’s why he posted the following argument, right?

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.

The man misused words, but his point is very clear:

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.

Technically, “right” is determined by law. But who makes laws? The strong. Who enforces laws? The powerful. Thus, something can be “right” without being moral. In this case, because he connects right with might, it is clear that in his opinion, “right” refers to “ability” rather than morality – which he attempts to make expressly clear.

I'm going to leave Mike to shred your pathetic attempt at sophistry to pieces. It'll be amusing to watch, anybody with a functioning synapse can see who's winning that one, and it isn't you, Kast.

Ah, so you can’t take me on. “I’m too good for you! I don’t have to fight you!” Nice cop-out.

Neither I, nor from what I could see, Mike, was disputing that argument (or at least with the stipulation that we cannot always govern that way, but we should be able to some of the time), but it was not the issue you were challenged on. You've agreed 100% with Iceberg's original argument, which was that capability to act makes those actions moral, and when posed a question regarding ethics from those premises, you're just avoiding and dancing around the issue and refusing to answer. Do you have reading comprehension problems. Once more: Concession accepted.

Mike certainly is. His argument is that realpolitik – ie, government from a cost-benefit analysis – is flawed.

And you’ve again misunderstood Iceberg’s argument – which, incidentally, I don’t agree with 100% having read over his initial statement top to bottom -, which is that something that is “right” need not be “moral.” As I’ve said before, my argument is thus: International relations are inherently immoral. To approach the situation with anything other than a cost-benefit analysis in mind invites disaster.

If you’re going to question my original statement of endorsement, it would be correct to say the following: I support Iceberg’s opinion as it was explained in posts subsequent to his first.

Wong’s question was a special scenario based on pre-arranged outcomes. It was created to produce the outcome he desired on all occasions. “But realpolitik would have meant we would have had – no matter what – to initiate an American Holocaust had Germany won! You’re a Nazi!” That’s his argument. Read it again. He doesn’t ask what would happen had Germany won. He tells us – and then implies its proper analysis of realpolitik.

[Vympel]

The man clearly isn’t arguing that when the Chinese machine-gun babies it’s the “correct” thing to do – merely that they can do it without facing consequences.

His original statement made abundantly clear what he thought was acceptable- anything the most powerful nation wants to do.

That’s why he posted the following argument, right?

Backpedalling.

Technically, “right” is determined by law.

No, it is not. What is legal is determined by law, not what is necessarily right.

Thus, something can be “right” without being moral.

Replace right with legal.

In this case, because he connects right with might, it is clear that in his opinion, “right” refers to “ability” rather than morality – which he attempts to make expressly clear.

Bullshit sophistry. His position was not some tautological crap about might=ability.

Ah, so you can’t take me on. “I’m too good for you! I don’t have to fight you!” Nice cop-out.

He's already engaged you. Some debaters like to leave the arguments between others on different points to the others.

And you’ve again misunderstood Iceberg’s argument – which, incidentally, I don’t agree with 100% having read over his initial statement top to bottom -, which is that something that is “right” need not be “moral.” As I’ve said before, my argument is thus: International relations are inherently immoral. To approach the situation with anything other than a cost-benefit analysis in mind invites disaster.

And as Mike points out, your total lack of ethics means that you would advocate kowtowing to the wishes of any hegemon, no matter how depraved, if the cost/benefit analysis worked out right.

If you’re going to question my original statement of endorsement, it would be correct to say the following: I support Iceberg’s opinion as it was explained in posts subsequent to his first.

Oooh look, double backpedalling.

Wong’s question was a special scenario based on pre-arranged outcomes. It was created to produce the outcome he desired on all occasions. “But realpolitik would have meant we would have had – no matter what – to initiate an American Holocaust had Germany won! You’re a Nazi!” That’s his argument. Read it again. He doesn’t ask what would happen had Germany won. He tells us – and then implies its proper analysis of realpolitik.

Funny how in an entire paragraph you talk a lot but say nothing at all. Stop evading the point. Your cowardly dancing around the issue by saying "the outcomes are pre-arranged" and "ooh, we don't know what would've happened if Germany had won" (hahahahahahah- yeah- right- maybe Nazi Germany would've held a Jewish amnesty and conducted a vast, 1940s version of Hair in Occupied Russia) does not save your point of view from the travesty that it is.

[Axis Kast]

His original statement made abundantly clear what he thought was acceptable- anything the most powerful nation wants to do.

And as I’ve said before, I agree only with subsequent statements. Not that I think he meant this from a moral point of view. More likely what he was trying to say was: “Nobody’s going to stop the largest player on the block. He sets the agenda – and displays what can thus be done by others.”

Backpedalling.

That so, Sherlock? Explain.

No, it is not. What is legal is determined by law, not what is necessarily right.

Now it’s semantics.

Do not laws define the “rights” available to every member of a given society?

You’re using “right” as “morality.” I’m using “right” as “allowance for action.”

Replace right with legal.

No difference.

Bullshit sophistry. His position was not some tautological crap about might=ability.

According to who? His detractors? Look to his second statement.

He's already engaged you. Some debaters like to leave the arguments between others on different points to the others.

He’s tried to uphold Wong’s argument without actually presenting any evidence of his own. Just like you.

And as Mike points out, your total lack of ethics means that you would advocate kowtowing to the wishes of any hegemon, no matter how depraved, if the cost/benefit analysis worked out right.

Now we’re talking about specific circumstances. Kowtowing to a hegemon in hopes of gaining temporary respite, economic benefits, or military support is completely different from making the determination that I must kill millions to please a given nation. But nice try to take fallacious reasoning to its wildest.

Sweden and Switzerland played the game of realpolitik. I don’t remember when either nation authorized the mass murder of their own Jewish populations because it fit into competent policy.

That said, would you ever advocate policy-making outside a cost-benefit analysis? Because that’s what real government is. A series of cost-benefit analysis, ever-evolving.

And stop with ad-hominem arguments right now. As Iceberg and others have pointed out, personal governance and international governance are utterly different. Competent administration can only occur on a cost-benefit scale.

Oooh look, double backpedalling.

Oh no! I misread Iceberg’s first statement! The world is ending!

Funny how in an entire paragraph you talk a lot but say nothing at all. Stop evading the point. Your cowardly dancing around the issue by saying "the outcomes are pre-arranged" and "ooh, we don't know what would've happened if Germany had won" (hahahahahahah- yeah- right- maybe Nazi Germany would've held a Jewish amnesty and conducted a vast, 1940s version of Hair in Occupied Russia) does not save your point of view from the travesty that it is.

Evading the point?! I’m not the one trying to focus on a specific, fantastic, impossible, unlikely scenario without a single shred of relation to actual, competent realpolitik.

Travesty? Would you govern only on a moral basis?

[Iceberg]

Axis is correct that in this case, "right" means that the hegemon sets the limits of acceptable action not only for itself, but for other nations. I doubt that in the excessively unlikely event that Germany had won the war on the Continent (actually, a virtually impossible event, against three nations which collectively held over 70% of the world's warfighting ability), they would have immediately demanded that the United States begin its own Holocaust. For one thing, the United States held the secret of the atomic bomb, while Germany's nuclear research was heading down a theoretical dead end.

The United States held a hegemonic position from early 1943 to the present day, because the massive and near-unassailable resource base of the North American continent bolstered us.

[Vympel]

And as I’ve said before, I agree only with subsequent statements. Not that I think he meant this from a moral point of view. More likely what he was trying to say was: “Nobody’s going to stop the largest player on the block. He sets the agenda – and displays what can thus be done by others.”

That so, Sherlock? Explain.

What a big surprise that our resident moron needs this explained to him:

"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."

Of course, he wasn't speaking about a moral point of view

Now it’s semantics.

We'd be spared the pain if you didn't attempt to redefine words to suit your latest backpedal.

Do not laws define the “rights” available to every member of a given society?

Possibly the lamest attempt at bait and switch ever, as we will soon see:

You’re using “right” as “morality.” I’m using “right” as “allowance for action.”

You idiot! You cannot use the word as you used it to talk about 'allowance for action'.

You said: "Technically, “right” is determined by law." If you had actually meant what you're trying to contend now, you would've said 'a right to do something'.

No difference.

Only in your diseased mind.

According to who? His detractors? Look to his second statement.

His second statement was nothing but backpedalling. His first statement was abundantly clear, and your ridiculous efforts to redefine the English language to not look like a dumbass holding an untenable position don't change that.

He’s tried to uphold Wong’s argument without actually presenting any evidence of his own. Just like you.

This where the 'retard' part of your title comes in, you pygmy. What 'evidence' should he present in a discussion of this nature, you fucking moron?

Now we’re talking about specific circumstances. Kowtowing to a hegemon in hopes of gaining temporary respite, economic benefits, or military support is completely different from making the determination that I must kill millions to please a given nation. But nice try to take fallacious reasoning to its wildest.

Please- that is what your position entails, exactly- sufficient might makes sufficient right, and we should all drop down and take it up the ass while smugly stating "thats the way things are". Because it is the US that is doing it, you're perfectly comfortable with that, but when someone substitutes another nation, you splutter and hand wave about the example that shows off your bankrupt ethics for what it is.

Sweden and Switzerland played the game of realpolitik. I don’t remember when either nation authorized the mass murder of their own Jewish populations because it fit into competent policy.

Irrelevant, because we are talking about a post-War, hyperpower Nazi Germany.

That said, would you ever advocate policy-making outside a cost-benefit analysis? Because that’s what real government is. A series of cost-benefit analysis, ever-evolving.

Blatant false dilemma. I'm sure in your next message you'll ask me to explain.

And stop with ad-hominem arguments right now.

Fuck off. Insults are not ad hominems by default.

As Iceberg and others have pointed out, personal governance and international governance are utterly different. Competent administration can only occur on a cost-benefit scale.

More false dilemmas. Explain why competent administration can ONLY occur on a cost-benefit scale.

And I'll reiterate Durandal's question:

"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?"

Why the double standard? Note that saying 'that's how it is' isn't an answer.

Oh no! I misread Iceberg’s first statement! The world is ending!

Yeah, just like you were 'misquoted' way back when. If you wanna make yourself less laughable, maybe you should read what someone posts before agreeing with it.

Evading the point?! I’m not the one trying to focus on a specific, fantastic, impossible, unlikely scenario without a single shred of relation to actual, competent realpolitik.

Why don't you explain how 'actual, competent realpolitik' would deal with a superpower Nazi Germany.

Travesty? Would you govern only on a moral basis?

And he finishes off with one more big fat false dilemma.

Axis is correct that in this case, "right" means that the hegemon sets the limits of acceptable action not only for itself, but for other nations. I doubt that in the excessively unlikely event that Germany had won the war on the Continent (actually, a virtually impossible event, against three nations which collectively held over 70% of the world's warfighting ability), they would have immediately demanded that the United States begin its own Holocaust. For one thing, the United States held the secret of the atomic bomb, while Germany's nuclear research was heading down a theoretical dead end.

Not the issue of whether it was possible, the issue is what 'realpolitik' would dictate in that situation. It's all well and good to wax poetic about the reality of international relations while your favorite country is the top dog, but replace the US with a nation considerably more unsavory and what do you get?

[Axis Kast]

Of course, he wasn't speaking about a moral point of view.

We’re talking about his second statement, Vympel. The one in which Iceberg was quoted as follows: “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.”

You idiot! You cannot use the word as you used it to talk about 'allowance for action'.

You said: "Technically, “right” is determined by law." If you had actually meant what you're trying to contend now, you would've said 'a right to do something'.

So now you’re in my head, telling me what I meant to say? Look at your accusations again. “If you’d meant what you claim you do, you’d have worded it how I wanted to hear it.” Idiot.

Please- that is what your position entails, exactly- sufficient might makes sufficient right, and we should all drop down and take it up the ass while smugly stating "thats the way things are". Because it is the US that is doing it, you're perfectly comfortable with that, but when someone substitutes another nation, you splutter and hand wave about the example that shows off your bankrupt ethics for what it is.

It’s not about “being okay” with it. It’s about recognizing foreign policy for what it is. It’s about acknowledging that policy isn’t made on a moral basis.

And nice try at putting words in my mouth. This is strictly a discussion on the general practice of realpolitik, not American applications specifically. I’m arguing that policy-making everywhere in the world is inherently amoral or immoral, not that anyone’s got a responsibility to bend over and “take it up the ass” from anyone else.

My “bankrupt ethics?” You want to float an argument on why or how foreign policy is or should be predicated on morals rather than cost-benefit analysis? Come on, I’d love to hear it.

Irrelevant, because we are talking about a post-War, hyperpower Nazi Germany.

So the behavior of nations in an immediate region where Germany was undeniable hegemon is now “irrelevant” because you don’t want to deal with the fact that Wong’s argument was fallacious? All right then. Concession accepted. Fuckwit.

Blatant false dilemma. I'm sure in your next message you'll ask me to explain.

So asking you to explain why foreign policy should be predicated only on moral determinations is a “false dilemma?” You mean moreso than suggesting that if Germany had spread across the face of Europe the United States would immediately relegate itself to a position of inferiority and kill all Jews just to keep Hitler smiling? Ha!

More false dilemmas. Explain why competent administration can ONLY occur on a cost-benefit scale.

And I'll reiterate Durandal's question:

"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?"

Why the double standard? Note that saying 'that's how it is' isn't an answer.

Wait, I’m supposed to justify a cost-benefit analysis but you refuse to explain how “moral government” will function? All right then. Looks like I win anyway.

First of all, the point of government is to seek the best solution to a given problem from the point of view of your own nation. That implies weighing each of one’s options and measuring the outcome of each situation. Sometimes, the solution will be morally palatable. At other points, the “warm and fuzzy” will have nothing to do with affairs of state. In order to ensure national survival, governments must sometimes trample the rights and well-being of other nation-states. An unfortunate byproduct of competent government from the point of view of the agitating party. Now it’s of course inherently unfair, but it’s also an acknowledgement that different regions or groups of people have different goals or viewpoints.

Why the double-standard? Because it’s the foundation of flexible policy worldwide. You call it hypocrisy. I call it good statesmanship. Approaching each problem with a new solution despite past precedent.

And it’s funny that you try to argue realpolitik is displayed only by the United States. Or hadn’t you heard that Russian arms showed up in Iraq?

Why don't you explain how 'actual, competent realpolitik' would deal with a superpower Nazi Germany.

You mean without immediately kowtowing and resorting to self-imposed Holocaust?

Try military buildup and subsequent invasion.

And he finishes off with one more big fat false dilemma.

Aw. The poor baby can’t justify his position? Concession accepted.

If my position is wrong, explain why yours is correct.

Not the issue of whether it was possible, the issue is what 'realpolitik' would dictate in that situation. It's all well and good to wax poetic about the reality of international relations while your favorite country is the top dog, but replace the US with a nation considerably more unsavory and what do you get?

You get something unwelcome. What would you have me do about it? In this case, no matter how much you wish to escape it, reality sets in: nobody cares what you think as long as you can’t hurt them.

[Iceberg]

As World War II amply demonstrated, Nazi Germany didn't have the ability to become anything more than a regional hegemon, and since its government (like Japan's, which suffered the same inability) was based on perpetual expansion, it was doomed to failure as soon as its actions brought it into conflict with greater powers - in this case, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not because of its evil policies, but because it could not contend with the military might of the nations it was forced to contend with.

[RedImperator]

You're either missing the point, or deliberately evading it. If Nazi Germany won the war so convincingly that it is now an unstoppable hegemon, your reasoning leads to the conclusion that it would be a GOOD IDEA to start massacreing Jews as per their wishes. Mind does not. Try to evade all you like, but that's the fact.

I said this in my previous post and I'll repeat it here: realpolitik would NOT dictate that the United States in this fantastically unlikely hypothetical situation kill its own Jews to appease Hitler--that would be weakening yourself by murdering productive citizens for no material gain, because realpolitik does not acknowledge gratitude or ideological sympathy in international relations. In simpler terms, the US would have made itself weaker and not prevented Hitler from attacking anyway, and the fundamental principle of realpolitik is "Never make yourself weaker". In the totally amoral calculus of realpolitik, killing the Jews just because Hitler would have liked it would have done nothing to benefit the United States. And if Germany was in a position to coerce us into doing so by military force, points of morality become moot (this is not, by the way, saying that individuals who would assist the Nazis in carrying out that policy, as happened in nearly every country they occupied, would be immune from moral considerations--realpolitik does NOT apply on the level of interpersonal relationships). A real world example of this situation is the brutal mistreatment of their own citizens by Eastern Bloc states--was it immoral for Poland to throw political dissenters in jail if they knew the Red Army would roll through Warsaw if they didn't? The individual Commuists and the government they comprised who profited at the expense of their fellow Pole were acting immorally--the abstract entity known as the state of Poland was acting essentially at gunpoint and can't be held responsible for it's actions. Oh, and getting back to WWII, I might add realpolitik would have prevented the entire fucking war had France realized it was in its own best interests to contest the German remilitarization of the Rhineland (as best I can tell, the political principle guiding the French government at the time was "raw cowardice").

Let's play a mind game here. Tossing out any semblence of realism or historical probablility, let's say Germany DID win the war and it did become a hegemon, powerful enough to invade and conquer the United States if it so chose. And let's say that Hitler issued an ultimatium: either the United States rounds up its Jews and kills them in concentration camps, or Germany will indeed invade and conquer the United States, killing millions of people in the process and ending up with the Jews in camps anyway. However, if we do as Hitler says, we have a 100% guarantee that Germany will not invade--say space aliens come down and promise they'll sink every Nazi troop transport that tries to cross the ocean if Hitler goes back on his word. At that point and that point only would realpolitik say that murdering American Jews would be a good idea--because it would save millions of non-Jewish lives and the Jews in this scenario are doomed no matter what happens. Unfortunately, most moral arguments would also say at that point the only moral choice is to kill the Jews, because they're going to die anyway and millions of additional lives are at stake (save for Kant, who would argue it's better for millions of non-Jews to die to save the Jews even if their efforts are futile from the beginning). If you want to argue from the Kantian perspective, that's your perogative, but Kant is utterly unsuitable for practical international politics no matter how attractive his ideas are.

In the meantime, you've tried to prove realpolitik...actually, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I never argued it was moral. If you're trying to prove realpolitik is amoral, fine, point conceeded. I've already added the condition that if a country is powerful enough to ignore practical concerns in favor of moral ones, it should do so--I'm not a Kissingerian absolutist (with less than a month before I recieve my degree in this shit, I think I'm qualifed to construct my own, rather raw theories in political science). If you're simply trying to prove that realpolitik would have dictated that the United States kill all its Jews if Hitler won the war, I've already demonstrated why that's untrue except in one extremely hypothetical situation where utilitarian morality would dictate the same thing. If you're trying to prove it's unsuitable as a guiding philosophy in international relations, cooking up absurdly horrible dilemmas that would never happen in real life doesn't help, because realpolitik (most of political science, in fact) deals entirely with practical politics, not abstractions. And I'll take the time here to point out that nobody here has yet come up with an alternative. The fact that practical politics often forces nations to chose from a menu of immoral choices to protect their own interests is an indictment of human nature, not the theory which attempts to describe it.

[Vympel]

We’re talking about his second statement, Vympel. The one in which Iceberg was quoted as follows: “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 that's called BACKPEDALLING. He went from an untenable position to a tautology.

So now you’re in my head, telling me what I meant to say? Look at your accusations again. “If you’d meant what you claim you do, you’d have worded it how I wanted to hear it.” Idiot.

I am not responsible for your dumbass statements- you don't have a fucking brain in your head if you think you can use the word 'right' in a sentence in that manner, idiot.

It’s not about “being okay” with it. It’s about recognizing foreign policy for what it is. It’s about acknowledging that policy isn’t made on a moral basis.

Bullshit. You've made it perfectly clear that you think there should be no place for morals in such decision making.

My “bankrupt ethics?” You want to float an argument on why or how foreign policy is or should be predicated on morals rather than cost-benefit analysis? Come on, I’d love to hear it.

FALSE DILEMMA, idiot. Why must it be one, or the other, you fucking moron?

So the behavior of nations in an immediate region where Germany was undeniable hegemon

While embroiled with a war with powers more powerful than it, you dumbass. Some undeniable hegemon. Germany was never an unchallenged superpower like the United States is. This situation didnt even exist in the Cold War, because the two superpowers plaed each other off.

In addition, you are operating from the premise that these two nations must've been acting on a purely amoral cost/benefit analysis (which you jerk off to)- I'd like to hear why you think this.

is now “irrelevant” because you don’t want to deal with the fact that Wong’s argument was fallacious? All right then. Concession accepted. Fuckwit.

Oh look, claiming victory now Doesn't this sound familiar ...

So asking you to explain why foreign policy should be predicated only on moral determinations is a “false dilemma?”

Yes. Why must it be one or the other, you fucking tool?

You mean moreso than suggesting that if Germany had spread across the face of Europe the United States would immediately relegate itself to a position of inferiority and kill all Jews just to keep Hitler smiling? Ha!

If Germany were to make such a demand, your precious realpolitik would dictate that's what you should do.

but you refuse to explain how “moral government” will function

Seeing as how it's a false dilemma that it must be one or the other, I see no reason to explain a position I do not take.

Looks like I win anyway

Yessss. Run along now, little retard.

First of all, the point of government is to seek the best solution to a given problem from the point of view of your own nation. That implies weighing each of one’s options and measuring the outcome of each situation. Sometimes, the solution will be morally palatable. At other points, the “warm and fuzzy” will have nothing to do with affairs of state.

HAHAHAHA. If I translate that from your bullshit dialect, all it comes out as is: government is cost/benefit analyis. Gee, thanks for rephrasing it, care to answer the question now, you dumbfuck?

In order to ensure national survival, governments must sometimes trample the rights and well-being of other nation-states. An unfortunate byproduct of competent government from the point of view of the agitating party. Now it’s of course inherently unfair, but it’s also an acknowledgement that different regions or groups of people have different goals or viewpoints.

Explain why this should not be the case on the personal level, dumbfuck.

Why the double-standard? Because it’s the foundation of flexible policy worldwide. You call it hypocrisy. I call it good statesmanship. Approaching each problem with a new solution despite past precedent.

Translation: why the double-standard? because that's how it is-in other words, a non-answer.

Concession Accepted, you are clearly incapable of justifying why such amoral cost/benefit analyses shouldn't operate on the personal/domestic level.

And it’s funny that you try to argue realpolitik is displayed only by the United States. Or hadn’t you heard that Russian arms showed up in Iraq?

It's a good thing I'm not a Russian jingoist then, idiot. Nice strawman though.

(btw, modern Russian arms didn't show up in Iraq)

You mean without immediately kowtowing and resorting to self-imposed Holocaust?

Try military buildup and subsequent invasion.

Why would that be the case? Germany won the war. It is now a hyperpower. 'Realpolitik' wouldn't dictate that at all.

Aw. The poor baby can’t justify his position? Concession accepted.

"Travesty? Would you govern only on a moral basis?"

Is not my position. You wax poetic about the necessity to 'ensure national survival' by trampling on other people, yet it's fucking obvious to all that nation's are quite willing to cynically play up threats to their 'national' survival if it will get them some gain. For example-the war in Iraq. Unless you'd like to argue that Iraq threatened the existence of the US?

If my position is wrong, explain why yours is correct.

My position is that nations should not cynically play up ludicrous 'threats' as an excuse to promote their national interests to the detriment of populations of other nations.

You get something unwelcome. What would you have me do about it?

Thought you said we should attack them?

[Axis Kast]

And that's called BACKPEDALLING. He went from an untenable position to a tautology.

Around which the heart of this argument now revolves.

am not responsible for your dumbass statements- you don't have a fucking brain in your head if you think you can use the word 'right' in a sentence in that manner, idiot.

So I’m stupid because I don’t accommodate the English language in the exact manner of one, Vympel? Nice try. You know perfectly well what I meant. You can only hide behind the shield of semantics for so long.

Bullshit. You've made it perfectly clear that you think there should be no place for morals in such decision making.

I’ll say it again – for your benefit: “Policy isn’t made on a moral basis.” You’re damn fucking right. I don’t believe one should accommodate policy-making on the basis of anything but a cost-benefit analysis. If you disagree, you’ll have to explain the merits of “moral policy” – something you’ve yet to do.

FALSE DILEMMA, idiot. Why must it be one, or the other, you fucking moron?

Because primarily moral determinations and objective cost-benefit analysis (inherently amoral and at times immoral) are utterly different forms of decision-making. While a cost-benefit analysis can carry moral connotations or accommodate a moral outcome, it is not predicated on having to do so at all times. To put it more bluntly, any time a cost-benefit analysis produces moral results, it’s a fortunate coincidence.

While embroiled with a war with powers more powerful than it, you dumbass. Some undeniable hegemon. Germany was never an unchallenged superpower like the United States is. This situation didnt even exist in the Cold War, because the two superpowers plaed each other off.

You honestly believe that had Sweden failed to tow the line and offer up strategic resources around 1940 that Germany would not have considered invasion? You’re going to try to argue with me that Sweden and Switzerland didn’t play realpolitik during the Second World War?

Yes. Why must it be one or the other, you fucking tool?

I took care of that above. Moral decision-making leaves one dangerously susceptible to the pragmatic governor. The “morally correct” path is not at all times the most expedient, lucrative, or self-empowering. Only the cost-benefit analysis is useful in all situations and at all times.

If Germany were to make such a demand, your precious realpolitik would dictate that's what you should do.

That would imply that if the United States denied the order, Germany could force it upon them. That was never specifically a basis of Wong’ s argument. He cut off at the point of: “Germany in control of Europe.”

Seeing as how it's a false dilemma that it must be one or the other, I see no reason to explain a position I do not take.

Than stop dancing and explain the issue you do take – or I win, hands down.

HAHAHAHA. If I translate that from your bullshit dialect, all it comes out as is: government is cost/benefit analyis. Gee, thanks for rephrasing it, care to answer the question now, you dumbfuck?

That’s correct. Government is cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis is the only form of policy-making that can always accommodate all objectives without exclusion.

Explain why this should not be the case on the personal level, dumbfuck.

So now you’re trying to make it a personal argument – do I believe that if morals don’t exist on administrative levels, does that mean I believe we should be immoral in our personal lives? This has nothing to do with the argument at hand. We’re dealing with government. If you can’t hack it, say so. Don’t change the subject.

Translation: why the double-standard? because that's how it is-in other words, a non-answer.

No. Because it’s the only form of government that can potentially meet all objectives laid out. Moral policymaking intimates that you’ll have only moral goals – but that’s a false assumption. The cost-benefit analysis functions no matter what the ultimate objective.

As for hypocrisy, the point is clear. Past precedent should never rule. A nation should analyze every situation independently.

Concession Accepted, you are clearly incapable of justifying why such amoral cost/benefit analyses shouldn't operate on the personal/domestic level.

Now you’ve successfully changed the argument. You couldn’t deny the cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of governmental policy-making and so you’re going to switch to the ad-hominem argument by trying to argue I’m a moral pygmy.

It's a good thing I'm not a Russian jingoist then, idiot. Nice strawman though.

Again, you skirt the argument. You’ve been relating the cost-benefit analysis only to the United States this far and intimating that my argument is predicated on being able to win in every given situation. That’s not the case. The cost-benefit analysis works equally as well for the smallest of nations. If that analysis indicates that attempting to bring other countries into line on a “moral basis” through international organizations happens to be the most attractive form of security, then so be it. Just because one choses or upholds the moral route doesn’t mean they don’t have other guiding objectives in mind.

Why would that be the case? Germany won the war. It is now a hyperpower. 'Realpolitik' wouldn't dictate that at all.

A Germany that wins in Europe wouldn’t be a hyperpower without years of consolidation. Especially considering that most of the Continent is scarred.

And now who’s the one creating false dilemmas? I believe RedImperator explained it best.

Is not my position. You wax poetic about the necessity to 'ensure national survival' by trampling on other people, yet it's fucking obvious to all that nation's are quite willing to cynically play up threats to their 'national' survival if it will get them some gain. For example-the war in Iraq. Unless you'd like to argue that Iraq threatened the existence of the US?

You’ve defined no position, Vympel. For all I know, you agree that foreign policy is inherently amoral and have entered this discussion merely to try and paint me as morally corrupt. In fact, that’s the most likely reality.

I believe that Iraq threatened the existence of the United States, yes. But then I’m suggesting that my overall objective is to ensure my own survival, not necessarily “punish” Iraq from a moral viewpoint.

My position is that nations should not cynically play up ludicrous 'threats' as an excuse to promote their national interests to the detriment of populations of other nations.

That’s a position on a specific topic. Technically, you’re providing tacit approval for nations to go to war when their security is threatened – an action they will take regardless of your particular opinion on the topic.

The question is whether you apply to the cost-benefit analysis or not. Do you believe that foreign policy should be made on a moral or amoral basis?

Thought you said we should attack them?

You’re trying to claim that a cost-benefit analysis wouldn’t be as attractive to me if I wasn’t a citizen of a nation as-yet unchallenged. But I’m telling you that in that case, I’d have different options on the cost-benefit scale. Refer to my earlier discussion of advocacy for moral government being insincere.

[Vympel]

Around which the heart of this argument now revolves.

No, the argument is clearly whether international decision making should be entirely amoral.

So I’m stupid because I don’t accommodate the English language in the exact manner of one, Vympel? Nice try. You know perfectly well what I meant. You can only hide behind the shield of semantics for so long.

Yes, because when someone says "right is determined by law", they obviously are talking about 'a right'.

I’ll say it again – for your benefit: “Policy isn’t made on a moral basis.” You’re damn fucking right. I don’t believe one should accommodate policy-making on the basis of anything but a cost-benefit analysis. If you disagree, you’ll have to explain the merits of “moral policy” – something you’ve yet to do.

You're insufferable. I've already stated that I don't think it should be one or the other, so for the last time, shove that false dilemma up your ass. You would advocate anything in the international arena as long as the benefit was higher than the cost. That's disgusting.

Because primarily moral determinations and objective cost-benefit analysis (inherently amoral and at times immoral) are utterly different forms of decision-making.

While a cost-benefit analysis can carry moral connotations or accommodate a moral outcome, it is not predicated on having to do so at all times. To put it more bluntly, any time a cost-benefit analysis produces moral results, it’s a fortunate coincidence.

So you deny that someone can make a decision with a balanced view in mind? Patently ludicrous position to take. Explain, for example, Germany's recent human rights provisions in it's arms sales laws, which have frustrated Turkey's attempts to get spares for it's German arms. Where's the realpolitik behind that one?

You honestly believe that had Sweden failed to tow the line and offer up strategic resources around 1940 that Germany would not have considered invasion?

Evidence? Are you going to contend that Switzerland was in mortal danger from Nazi invasion if it didn't make massive raw material transfers to Germany and shield German private firms from Allied confiscation? Sweden's disgusting lengthening of the war was a good thing?

You’re going to try to argue with me that Sweden and Switzerland didn’t play realpolitik during the Second World War?

I'm asking whether they should have done so. I'm sure the descendants of slaughtered Jews would have a few questions for Switzerland, for example.

You originally tried to hold up Sweden and Switzerland as an example for why the kowtowing to Nazi Germany that Mike brought up was false- when both nations supported Nazi Germany and in the case of Sweden arguably kept the war going with vital raw material supplies. Good one.

I took care of that above. Moral decision-making leaves one dangerously susceptible to the pragmatic governor.

Explain.

The “morally correct” path is not at all times the most expedient
lucrative, or self-empowering.

Whatever happened to national survival? This why you have no fucking ethics- as long as it's expedient, lucrative, and self-empowering, it's fine by you

Only the cost-benefit analysis is useful in all situations and at all times.

Yes, useful because it can be oh so 'lucrative' and 'expedient'. You actually hold up Switzerland as some sort of paragon of realpolitik virtue- you don't think there was some room for some goddamn morality in taking the spoils of slaughtered millions for your nation's personal gain? Welcome to the reality of your bankrupt position.

That would imply that if the United States denied the order, Germany could force it upon them. That was never specifically a basis of Wong’ s argument. He cut off at the point of: “Germany in control of Europe.”

Who cares what he cut off at the point of? Superpower, unquestionably most powerful, Nazi Germany.

Than stop dancing and explain the issue you do take – or I win, hands down.

It helps if you read the entire messag before you start proclaiming things.

That’s correct. Government is cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis is the only form of policy-making that can always accommodate all objectives without exclusion.

You've already held up expedience and profit as objectives that moral consideration should be held subject to. Not that it isn't already obvious to everyone here that you have no ethics whatsoever, but your position clearly holds up Switzerland's actions in WW2 as acceptable. You make me ill.

So now you’re trying to make it a personal argument

No, Durandal asked the question on the first page of the thread, and you never answered.

– do I believe that if morals don’t exist on administrative levels, does that mean I believe we should be immoral in our personal lives? This has nothing to do with the argument at hand. We’re dealing with government. If you can’t hack it, say so. Don’t change the subject.

Bullfuck. It is a legitimate question that goes to the heart of your position. You have no reason why it should apply in one, but not the other, save what you won't admit: you're not willing to deal with the consequences of your position of what international governance should be like if it happened to you on the domestic level.

No. Because it’s the only form of government that can potentially meet all objectives laid out. Moral policymaking intimates that you’ll have only moral goals – but that’s a false assumption. The cost-benefit analysis functions no matter what the ultimate objective.

Keep persisting in the false dilemma that it's some sort of ridiculous either/or situation. Most people would agree that in order to defend oneself from mortal danger it is ok to do something that is considered unethical. There is no reason why such principles couldn't apply to relations between nations.

As for hypocrisy, the point is clear. Past precedent should never rule. A nation should analyze every situation independently.

Yes, if past precedent ruled, we would have the outrageous situation of a concept of justice and fairness in international relations, this would be at the cost of expedience and what is lucrative, so it is clearly unacceptable. However, the erstwhile realpolitik advocate refuses to contemplate the consequences of this on a personal level, because it would actually be of detriment to him- clearly unacceptable.

Now you’ve successfully changed the argument.

It's not a change in the argument whatsoever. It goes to the heart of your position, and shows you up for the coward you are- smugly declaring the benefits of your amoral crap until confronted about what would happen if it was inflicted on you personally.

You couldn’t deny the cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of governmental policy-making

Really? I guess you think advocating Switzerland's actions during WW2 in profiting off the victims of Nazi Germany in true realpolitik fashion shows up the strenght of your position that morals should have NO place in decision making.

and so you’re going to switch to the ad-hominem argument by trying to argue I’m a moral pygmy.

A moral pygmy is precisely what you are. You're a coward who will sit and scratch his ass at others receiving the amoral end of the stick but refuses to apply it to himself.

Again, you skirt the argument. You’ve been relating the cost-benefit analysis only to the United States this far and intimating that my argument is predicated on being able to win in every given situation. That’s not the case. The cost-benefit analysis works equally as well for the smallest of nations. If that analysis indicates that attempting to bring other countries into line on a “moral basis” through international organizations happens to be the most attractive form of security, then so be it. Just because one choses or upholds the moral route doesn’t mean they don’t have other guiding objectives in mind.

Completely amoral decision making is unacceptable no matter which government does it. I'm not skirting anything. The fact that you won't answer the undesireable consequences to others but will dodge the issue if it becomes one of your personal welfare shows this amply.

A Germany that wins in Europe wouldn’t be a hyperpower without years of consolidation. Especially considering that most of the Continent is scarred.

Keep on dancing. "But it couldn't happen!" is not an argument. It has.

And now who’s the one creating false dilemmas? I believe RedImperator explained it best.

What false dilemma? You're being asked to plug in your bullshit amoral system into a disgusting situation, and are just spluttering about how it couldn't happen.

You’ve defined no position, Vympel. For all I know, you agree that foreign policy is inherently amoral and have entered this discussion merely to try and paint me as morally corrupt. In fact, that’s the most likely reality.

It's not hard to paint you as a moral corrupt. My position has been stated, and your continued attempts to make it as an either/or are a failure. You have rejected the place of moral considerations in decision making because it isn't 'expedient', 'lucrative' and 'self-empowering'. Those are your words. I don't think those are valid objectives to which morality should be thrown to the winds, and your position leads to disgusting episodes in history such as Switzerland's WW2 shenanigans.

The question is not foreing policy is amoral. The question is whether it should be.

I believe that Iraq threatened the existence of the United States, yes. But then I’m suggesting that my overall objective is to ensure my own survival, not necessarily “punish” Iraq from a moral viewpoint.

*loony van rolls up*

take him away, boys.

That’s a position on a specific topic. Technically, you’re providing tacit approval for nations to go to war when their security is threatened – an action they will take regardless of your particular opinion on the topic.

When nations security is TRULY threatened by another, and all other avenues are exhausted, that is when a nation is justified in going to war, even though it is still unethical (there are no good wars).

The question is whether you apply to the cost-benefit analysis or not. Do you believe that foreign policy should be made on a moral or amoral basis?

A moral basis with dips into unethical behavior when it becomes absolutely necessary to protect the nation. What is lucrative and expedient does not enter into it.

You’re trying to claim that a cost-benefit analysis wouldn’t be as attractive to me if I wasn’t a citizen of a nation as-yet unchallenged. But I’m telling you that in that case, I’d have different options on the cost-benefit scale. Refer to my earlier discussion of advocacy for moral government being insincere.

So you admit that you are entirely self-absorbed and are only concerned with your own welfare. Good.

[Axis Kast]

No, the argument is clearly whether international decision making should be entirely amoral.

And thus the argument revolves around Iceberg’s secondary statements – which intimate that nations do not govern morally.

Yes, because when someone says "right is determined by law", they obviously are talking about 'a right'.

When they explain that “right” means, “right to action?” Yes.

You're insufferable. I've already stated that I don't think it should be one or the other, so for the last time, shove that false dilemma up your ass. You would advocate anything in the international arena as long as the benefit was higher than the cost. That's disgusting.

So you’re telling me that you advocate what kind of government? One that makes moralistic determinations in some circumstances but plays geopolitical hardball on others? That’s essentially self-defeating.

Disgusting? Perhaps. Realistic? Yes. All nations break domestic law in order to ensure their objectives. No country is not guilty of legal – and therefore moral - transgressions.

So you deny that someone can make a decision with a balanced view in mind? Patently ludicrous position to take. Explain, for example, Germany's recent human rights provisions in it's arms sales laws, which have frustrated Turkey's attempts to get spares for it's German arms. Where's the realpolitik behind that one?

That “balanced view” obviously served certain German politicans whose desires to harness the support of moralistic constituencies led them to enact “moral” legislation. Cost-benefit decisions inherently amoral.

Evidence? Are you going to contend that Switzerland was in mortal danger from Nazi invasion if it didn't make massive raw material transfers to Germany and shield German private firms from Allied confiscation? Sweden's disgusting lengthening of the war was a good thing?

Sweden was a major source of iron ore for the German war machine. Had Sweden restricted the flow of that material, Hitler would have been compelled to authorize an invasion, yes. And it’s not about whether or not the Swedes are guilty of extending the war. It’s whether or not the Swedes made certain determinations in order to continue exercising nominal national autonomy.

Had Switzerland not accommodated Nazi Germany, it would have been left utterly isolated. Not to mention that politicans in Switzerland doubtless looked at a situation they could not control and made the determination that they might as well profit by it. Repugnant? Thoroughly. Opportunistic? Absolutely. Morally “correct?” Never. Likely to happen again in the future, albeit elsewhere? Almost certainly. I guarantee you that most people, if in the position of the Swiss government, would have concluded such deals with the Nazis. It’s part of the, “If I don’t profit, somebody else will,” string of logic. “If the Jews will die anyway, why not let Nazi Germany bank here? Denying them could only heighten tensions and place Swiss freedoms on the line; accepting their demands would naturally envigor our economy.” You might not be too proud of that, but it was the most probable outcome anyway.

I'm asking whether they should have done so. I'm sure the descendants of slaughtered Jews would have a few questions for Switzerland, for example.

You originally tried to hold up Sweden and Switzerland as an example for why the kowtowing to Nazi Germany that Mike brought up was false- when both nations supported Nazi Germany and in the case of Sweden arguably kept the war going with vital raw material supplies. Good one.

I’m a descendent of those slaughtered Jews. Do I “like” what happened? By no means. Can I understand why it happened? Yes. In a similar situation, do I think it might happen again? One hundred percent.

No. I held up examples of nations that kowtowed to Nazi Germany but didn’t enact Holocausts of their own. That discredits Mike’s theory, for in relation to both Sweden and Switzerland, Hitler’s Reich was arguably akin to the sort of inescapable hegemon he envisions.

Explain.

Moral determination does not allow for self-profit under all circumstances. A moral government would technically be bound to prohibit illegal activities formerly linked to the state (ie, certain forms of espionage, political assassinations, and some kinds of political or financial intimidation). These would naturally degrade national security. A similar nation that made only cost-benefit determinations – and thus took an amoral path – would technically be in a more flexible – and thus more commanding – position.

Whatever happened to national survival? This why you have no fucking ethics- as long as it's expedient, lucrative, and self-empowering, it's fine by you.

National survival is obviously covered under “self-empowerment.”

Yes, useful because it can be oh so 'lucrative' and 'expedient'. You actually hold up Switzerland as some sort of paragon of realpolitik virtue- you don't think there was some room for some goddamn morality in taking the spoils of slaughtered millions for your nation's personal gain? Welcome to the reality of your bankrupt position.

I hold them up as an example of having bucked a hegemon.

Just became my position is amoral doesn’t mean it is wrong. You’ve yet to articulate an argument in favor of any alternate form of government. It’s beginning to seem as if you entered this discussion merely to attempt an ad-hominem debate.

Who cares what he cut off at the point of? Superpower, unquestionably most powerful, Nazi Germany.

Then the examples of Sweden and Switzerland c. 1941 are fully vindicated. Each nation was under the influence of a hegemon but avoided prosecuting a holocaust. See RedImperator’s statements for more.

You've already held up expedience and profit as objectives that moral consideration should be held subject to. Not that it isn't already obvious to everyone here that you have no ethics whatsoever, but your position clearly holds up Switzerland's actions in WW2 as acceptable. You make me ill.

Moral consideration on the geopolitical level.

Define “acceptable?” If you’re questioning whether I might follow Switerland’s line during the Second World War? Probably. I have a strong confidence that just about everyone here would do the same.

Bullfuck. It is a legitimate question that goes to the heart of your position. You have no reason why it should apply in one, but not the other, save what you won't admit: you're not willing to deal with the consequences of your position of what international governance should be like if it happened to you on the domestic level.

It has happened to me on the “domestic level.” The United States became a target of Russia, Syria, and others because it entered Iraq. If France and Germany weren’t playing amoral shell games, then what were they doing?

You are attempting to argue that realpolitik is applicable only to the hegemon. That is a false supposition. What does my appreciation of competent policy-making have to do with the status of my individual nation? Are you attempting to insinuate that I’d argue in favor of moral decision-making for the sake of moral decision-making if I lived elsewhere? That’s untrue.

It's not a change in the argument whatsoever. It goes to the heart of your position, and shows you up for the coward you are- smugly declaring the benefits of your amoral crap until confronted about what would happen if it was inflicted on you personally.

The coward I am? Now you’re attempting to go for the ad-hominem argument. You cannot put forth a decent challenge to the cost-benefit analysis as a form of competent government and are thus attempting to discredit my argument on the basis of accused moral bankruptcy from a personal point of view. Concession accepted.

Keep persisting in the false dilemma that it's some sort of ridiculous either/or situation. Most people would agree that in order to defend oneself from mortal danger it is ok to do something that is considered unethical. There is no reason why such principles couldn't apply to relations between nations.

Just as you keep persisting that Nazi Germany’s conquest of the European continent would have inexplicably led the United States to cower and fear and try to appease Hitler with a new Holocaust? Idiot.

What principles? Are you attempting to now make the argument that amoral action is only attractive to you from the point of view of self-defense?

Yes, if past precedent ruled, we would have the outrageous situation of a concept of justice and fairness in international relations, this would be at the cost of expedience and what is lucrative, so it is clearly unacceptable. However, the erstwhile realpolitik advocate refuses to contemplate the consequences of this on a personal level, because it would actually be of detriment to him- clearly unacceptable.

Justice and fairness? No. Merely because one nation sets an example doesn’t mean others will follow. Do you honestly believe that if the United States made more “moral” political decisions that Russia, China, France, or Germany would cease their own private machinations against us?

Again, you’re striving for the ad-hominem argument. Your argument is unclear. Are you attempting to tell me I would support moral government for the sake of moral government if I lived elsewhere?

It's not a change in the argument whatsoever. It goes to the heart of your position, and shows you up for the coward you are- smugly declaring the benefits of your amoral crap until confronted about what would happen if it was inflicted on you personally.

This is a debate on the most effective form of government, now over whether or not I’m a morally sound individual on a personal level. Again, you’ve yet to define an argument proving why the cost-benefit analysis is wrong.

Really? I guess you think advocating Switzerland's actions during WW2 in profiting off the victims of Nazi Germany in true realpolitik fashion shows up the strenght of your position that morals should have NO place in decision making.

Morals don’t have any place in decision making outside their use as manipulators. If you’ll swallow bullshit about “moral government,” I might be able to make you abandon certain activities I believe are harmful to my position. If you’re part of my constituency, I might adopt moral legislation – but only for the sake of votes, not necessarily in the spirit of the morals themselves.

A moral pygmy is precisely what you are. You're a coward who will sit and scratch his ass at others receiving the amoral end of the stick but refuses to apply it to himself.

There’s a difference between not liking it and acknowledging that it exists as a benefit to some. Now you’re trying to argue that a certain form of government is less effective because I wouldn’t like it unless I were the hegemon – but what does the personal preference of one individual have to do with competent government?

Completely amoral decision making is unacceptable no matter which government does it. I'm not skirting anything. The fact that you won't answer the undesireable consequences to others but will dodge the issue if it becomes one of your personal welfare shows this amply.

Ah! Finally, we’re getting somewhere. Unacceptable from what point of view? Unacceptable from your own moral perspective or unacceptable because it doesn’t deliver benefits to the practitioner?

Keep on dancing. "But it couldn't happen!" is not an argument. It has.

Germany has conquered Europe? Really?

What false dilemma? You're being asked to plug in your bullshit amoral system into a disgusting situation, and are just spluttering about how it couldn't happen.

I’ve already suggested a line of action – preparation for military confrontation. See RedImperator’s response.

It's not hard to paint you as a moral corrupt. My position has been stated, and your continued attempts to make it as an either/or are a failure. You have rejected the place of moral considerations in decision making because it isn't 'expedient', 'lucrative' and 'self-empowering'. Those are your words. I don't think those are valid objectives to which morality should be thrown to the winds, and your position leads to disgusting episodes in history such as Switzerland's WW2 shenanigans.

The question is not foreing policy is amoral. The question is whether it should be.

Now you’re crossing the line between reality and philosophy. The question was actually what form of government works best. The cost-benefit analysis, of course.

You believe government should govern on a moral basis. But how do you propose to enforce that moral basis everywhere? How will you make moral government universal? Assuming other governments persist on a cost-benefit analysis, wouldn’t your moral government be at a marked disadvantage – with one hand tied behind its proverbial “back?”

Whether or not foreign policy should be moral is different from whether it ever will be moral. Your question is in reality: “Would you prefer that foreign policy were moral?” Of course. But such an outcome is impossible to achieve. Therefore, moving back to the factual, the cost-benefit analysis is the best – but obviously least-just – system of government – no matter where your nation stands.

When nations security is TRULY threatened by another, and all other avenues are exhausted, that is when a nation is justified in going to war, even though it is still unethical (there are no good wars).

I disagree. I favor a wide range of illegal activity during peacetime. War is repugnant, but sometimes worthwhile. That’s not to say any of this is morally sound – but then again, it doesn’t have to be.

A moral basis with dips into unethical behavior when it becomes absolutely necessary to protect the nation. What is lucrative and expedient does not enter into it.

Technically, it is always absolutely necessary to protect the nation. Are you suggesting that if you were the American President or Australian Prime Minister that you would immediately end all under-the-table activity sanctioned by the previous government simply because you wish to effect a moral “righting”?

So you admit that you are entirely self-absorbed and are only concerned with your own welfare. Good.

For the most part? Absolutely. Everybody is. It’s just a matter of admission. I sometimes consider other people – but generally only when I’m in an enviable position myself. It’s a matter of psychology. Human nature, if you will.

[Vympel]

And thus the argument revolves around Iceberg’s secondary statements – which intimate that nations do not govern morally.

We are arguing about whether they should, not whether they do.

So you’re telling me that you advocate what kind of government? One that makes moralistic determinations in some circumstances but plays geopolitical hardball on others? That’s essentially self-defeating.

How is that self defeating? The only time to play geopolitical hardball is when national survival is at stake, IMO. I am not concerned with trampling on others out of expedience and profit.

Disgusting? Perhaps. Realistic? Yes. All nations break domestic law in order to ensure their objectives. No country is not guilty of legal – and therefore moral - transgressions.

And you think this is a good thing? Of course it's disgusting!

That “balanced view” obviously served certain German politicans whose desires to harness the support of moralistic constituencies led them to enact “moral” legislation. Cost-benefit decisions inherently amoral.

So what? A balanced view, is a balanced view, and laws designed to curb arms sales of all things, giving no benefit to the nation refusing to sell the arms, certainly doesn't plug in well to amoral cost/benefit analyses. It's possible.

Sweden was a major source of iron ore for the German war machine. Had Sweden restricted the flow of that material, Hitler would have been compelled to authorize an invasion, yes. And it’s not about whether or not the Swedes are guilty of extending the war. It’s whether or not the Swedes made certain determinations in order to continue exercising nominal national autonomy.

They did extend the war. You know who shortened the war? Greece. Germany asked for access and Greece said, quite simply, no, even though they had no chance of victory since their ally Yugoslavia caved in. Greece was subsequently occupied, but the important thing is they fought against an aggressor nation and delayed the invasion of the USSR, wheras Sweden kowtowed and extended the war with its raw material supplies. I certainly don't find Sweden's determinations justifiable whatsoever- they were much safer than little Greece.

Had Switzerland not accommodated Nazi Germany, it would have been left utterly isolated.

Perfect excuse for taking the spoils of slaughtered millions.

Not to mention that politicans in Switzerland doubtless looked at a situation they could not control and made the determination that they might as well profit by it. Repugnant? Thoroughly. Opportunistic? Absolutely. Morally “correct?” Never. Likely to happen again in the future, albeit elsewhere? Almost certainly. I guarantee you that most people, if in the position of the Swiss government, would have concluded such deals with the Nazis. It’s part of the, “If I don’t profit, somebody else will,” string of logic. “If the Jews will die anyway, why not let Nazi Germany bank here? Denying them could only heighten tensions and place Swiss freedoms on the line; accepting their demands would naturally envigor our economy.” You might not be too proud of that, but it was the most probable outcome anyway.

So what's your argument, exactly? You don't think Switzerland should've done the right thing instead of caving for profit by saying "the Jews are gonna die anyway?"

I’m a descendent of those slaughtered Jews. Do I “like” what happened? By no means. Can I understand why it happened? Yes. In a similar situation, do I think it might happen again? One hundred percent.

And yet you still prefer that decisions be made on a completely amoral basis.

No. I held up examples of nations that kowtowed to Nazi Germany but didn’t enact Holocausts of their own. That discredits Mike’s theory, for in relation to both Sweden and Switzerland, Hitler’s Reich was arguably akin to the sort of inescapable hegemon he envisions.

Hardly- Switzerland for example has long been considered not worth invading, and Sweden was geopolitically placed so it could be at least contested by the Allied powers.

Moral determination does not allow for self-profit under all circumstances.

Good. Some circumstances should not be profited by.

A moral government would technically be bound to prohibit illegal activities formerly linked to the state (ie, certain forms of espionage, political assassinations, and some kinds of political or financial intimidation). These would naturally degrade national security. A similar nation that made only cost-benefit determinations – and thus took an amoral path – would technically be in a more flexible – and thus more commanding – position.

Some of those we could well do without- assassination for example. As for some forms of espionage and intimidation, there's nothing inherently immoral about them, certainly not to the extent that you are willing to kill/assist in the oppression of others worldwide because it suits your own nation.

National survival is obviously covered under “self-empowerment.”

Except you tacked on convenience and profit as well.

I hold them up as an example of having bucked a hegemon.

They bucked a hegemon? They took it up the ass!

Just became my position is amoral doesn’t mean it is wrong. You’ve yet to articulate an argument in favor of any alternate form of government.

Yes, I have.

Then the examples of Sweden and Switzerland c. 1941 are fully vindicated. Each nation was under the influence of a hegemon but avoided prosecuting a holocaust. See RedImperator’s statements for more.

Varying degrees of influence in a time when the hegemon was at war with the allied powers.

Moral consideration on the geopolitical level.

Define “acceptable?” If you’re questioning whether I might follow Switerland’s line during the Second World War? Probably. I have a strong confidence that just about everyone here would do the same.

You think everyone would take the blood spoils of millions because they're gonna die anyway? Great.

It has happened to me on the “domestic level.” The United States became a target of Russia, Syria, and others because it entered Iraq.

Those Syrian occupaiton forces must've really inconvenienced you

If France and Germany weren’t playing amoral shell games, then what were they doing?

Whether they were or were not is irrelevant. The question is whether entirely amoral cost/benefit analyses should apply on the domestic level. For an extreme example, it would benefit society more than it would cost if you simply killed all invalids and mentally disabled people.

You are attempting to argue that realpolitik is applicable only to the hegemon. That is a false supposition. What does my appreciation of competent policy-making have to do with the status of my individual nation?

Because you are happy to see others trampled on, as long as you are not being trampled on.

Are you attempting to insinuate that I’d argue in favor of moral decision-making for the sake of moral decision-making if I lived elsewhere? That’s untrue.

Oh really? So if you lived in Iran and watched as the United States deposed your democratically elected leader and installed a military dictator for the crime of nationalizing strangulating oil interests, you'd still be arguing for amoral cost benefit analyses?

The coward I am? Now you’re attempting to go for the ad-hominem argument. You cannot put forth a decent challenge to the cost-benefit analysis as a form of competent government and are thus attempting to discredit my argument on the basis of accused moral bankruptcy from a personal point of view. Concession accepted.

Yessss Darkstar. You can't get it through your thick skull that morality is a key concept in this debate. Calling you what you are in addition to arguing is not an ad hominem, it's merely icing on the cake. Your position is that government decision making should be amoral, and when I point out the consequences, you just smugly sit there and say "thats the way it is", as if that's some sort of justification? You're fucked in the head!

Just as you keep persisting that Nazi Germany’s conquest of the European continent would have inexplicably led the United States to cower and fear and try to appease Hitler with a new Holocaust? Idiot.

How is it a false dilemma, you stupid fucking moron? You're being asked to plug your lovely little system into a situation, and you won't, because you don't like what comes out.

What principles? Are you attempting to now make the argument that amoral action is only attractive to you from the point of view of self-defense?

Absolutely- and when I say self defense I mean you're about to be attacked and you've exhausted all alternatives. Unlike you, I do not think convenience and profit are something we should sacrifice morality for.

Justice and fairness? No. Merely because one nation sets an example doesn’t mean others will follow. Do you honestly believe that if the United States made more “moral” political decisions that Russia, China, France, or Germany would cease their own private machinations against us?

No, but unlike you, I am not satisfied with the way things are, and am saying how they should be. You think amoral decision making is desireable for all. It is not, and all citizens should strive against it.

Again, you’re striving for the ad-hominem argument. Your argument is unclear. Are you attempting to tell me I would support moral government for the sake of moral government if I lived elsewhere?

Of course you would. In Iran, for example.

This is a debate on the most effective form of government

Yes, you've already defined effective. Internationally you think your government should be allowed to do whatever it wants out of convenience and profit, but domestically you won't have any of that, because you would be taken advantage of.

now over whether or not I’m a morally sound individual on a personal level. Again, you’ve yet to define an argument proving why the cost-benefit analysis is wrong.

It's wrong because it results in the situation where a nation should engage in any action as long as the cost/benefit analysis work out favorably, resulting in immoral situations such as overthrowing of governments that you won't like and oppressing their people. Idiot.

Morals don’t have any place in decision making outside their use as manipulators. If you’ll swallow bullshit about “moral government,” I might be able to make you abandon certain activities I believe are harmful to my position. If you’re part of my constituency, I might adopt moral legislation – but only for the sake of votes, not necessarily in the spirit of the morals themselves.

You're not articulating any sort of argument. "The way things are" is nothing more than the way things are. This is an argument about whether morals should be part of it, and the answer is a resounding yes, if you give a shit about anyone other than yourself.

There’s a difference between not liking it and acknowledging that it exists as a benefit to some.

You do like it. You've already argued that it's the ideal form of decision making.

Now you’re trying to argue that a certain form of government is less effective because I wouldn’t like it unless I were the hegemon

Strawman. I'm arguing it's fucking immoral and undesireable. But yes, the only reason you support it is because you're part of the hegemon and haven't had another nation's will imposed on you out of self-interest.

Ah! Finally, we’re getting somewhere. Unacceptable from what point of view? Unacceptable from your own moral perspective or unacceptable because it doesn’t deliver benefits to the practitioner?

Morally unacceptable. You know, the principles we live by?

Germany has conquered Europe? Really?

Ugh ....

I’ve already suggested a line of action – preparation for military confrontation. See RedImperator’s response.

Sorry, the cost benefit analysis doesn't work. Germany is the world hegemon. The US will be defeated. I'm afraid you'll have to kowtow. Actually, you're engaging in a little bit of moralizing by sayign that America should be prepared for military confrontation. Who's to say you'll get much more benefit out of kowtowing to Germany instead of attacking her? Switzerland and Sweden certainly did.

Now you’re crossing the line between reality and philosophy. The question was actually what form of government works best. The cost-benefit analysis, of course.

No, it does not work best. Your only considerations are expedience and profit, not moral considerations, which are fucking real considerations that should be applied- amply demonstrated by your refusal to apply pure expedience and profit to the domestic level.

You believe government should govern on a moral basis. But how do you propose to enforce that moral basis everywhere? How will you make moral government universal? Assuming other governments persist on a cost-benefit analysis, wouldn’t your moral government be at a marked disadvantage – with one hand tied behind its proverbial “back?”

If I actually cared about my nation being a superpower that straddles the world and feeds off it, I might give a shit. I expect my government to act morally, and vote that way. I do not care what other nations do.

Whether or not foreign policy should be moral is different from whether it ever will be moral. Your question is in reality: “Would you prefer that foreign policy were moral?” Of course.

Well I sure as fuck didn't get that impression.

But such an outcome is impossible to achieve.

I disagree. It's simply a matter of national will.

Therefore, moving back to the factual, the cost-benefit analysis is the best – but obviously least-just – system of government – no matter where your nation stands.

It does depend on where your nation stands, and what it's objectives are. Dominating objectives will lead to dominating foreign policy.

I disagree. I favor a wide range of illegal activity during peacetime. War is repugnant, but sometimes worthwhile. That’s not to say any of this is morally sound – but then again, it doesn’t have to be.

Organized murder doesn't have to be?

Technically, it is always absolutely necessary to protect the nation. Are you suggesting that if you were the American President or Australian Prime Minister that you would immediately end all under-the-table activity sanctioned by the previous government simply because you wish to effect a moral “righting”?

It depends on the behavior that's protecting the nation, and what 'protecting the nation' really entails. Any double-talker could define repugnant actions as 'protecting the nation'.

For the most part? Absolutely. Everybody is. It’s just a matter of admission. I sometimes consider other people – but generally only when I’m in an enviable position myself. It’s a matter of psychology. Human nature, if you will.

I'd say it's a matter of your deficienies rather than human nature. That people exist who are inherently charitable and self-less obviously shows up the human nature claim to be false.

[Axis Kast]

We are arguing about whether they should, not whether they do.

Whether they should and whether they do are each linked to Iceberg’s secondary statements.

ow is that self defeating? The only time to play geopolitical hardball is when national survival is at stake, IMO. I am not concerned with trampling on others out of expedience and profit.

Define “geopolitical hardball.”

Every established nation commits egregious acts against neighbors, allies, and competitors on a daily basis. Are you suggesting that responsible government is that which engages in no questionable activities during peacetime (on any basis)?

The problem with your argument is that it fails to take into the account the reality that other less scrupulous policy-makers will take advantage of the your country whether or not you attempt to reciprocate. That said, better to do your own fair share of meddling, no?

And you think this is a good thing? Of course it's disgusting!

Given the state of the global community at present day, it’s the correct course of action. Is it morally proper? Absolutely not. But would I advocate such illegal action as a matter of course even were the world a fully moral place? Yes. I make no attempts to hide the fact that I’m out for personal gain.

So what? A balanced view, is a balanced view, and laws designed to curb arms sales of all things, giving no benefit to the nation refusing to sell the arms, certainly doesn't plug in well to amoral cost/benefit analyses. It's possible.

Incorrect. A group of German politicans got together, weighed all sides of the argument, and after a cost-benefit analysis, decided that the economic results of weapons sales to Turkey did not necessarily outweigh the political capital they’d gain from appeasing global moralists. They didn’t enact such laws for the sake of morality itself, but in fact for the sake of expediency. Amoral policy-making at its best.

They did extend the war. You know who shortened the war? Greece. Germany asked for access and Greece said, quite simply, no, even though they had no chance of victory since their ally Yugoslavia caved in. Greece was subsequently occupied, but the important thing is they fought against an aggressor nation and delayed the invasion of the USSR, wheras Sweden kowtowed and extended the war with its raw material supplies. I certainly don't find Sweden's determinations justifiable whatsoever- they were much safer than little Greece.

A Swedish politician of the era would explain to you that given the state of the continent, it was the prudent choice to support Germany’s war machine. Not only did it maintain Sweden’s official independence, but it also allowed that country to profit during a time when most of its neighbors faced severe economic hardship. Whether or not you believe Sweden should be commended, its policy-makers sought to reach the most attractive conclusions possible for the benefit of each citizen.

Greece also considered holding out a legitimate option, whether or not you wish to elevate them as a supreme moral example. After their show against the Italians, many Greek leaders believed they could at least blunt Hitler’s attempts at total occupation with the help of British expeditionary forces. Remember that Metaxis was a dictator; he’d be out of power – and was – once the country fell anyway.

Perfect excuse for taking the spoils of slaughtered millions.

From a cost-benefit perspective? Yes. Keep in mind that Swiss politicans weren’t sworn to advocate on behalf of any nation but their own. You’re rendering an obvious opinion: “Switzerland had a moral obligation to the whole world to ‘take it up the ass’ because it would have been the least reprehensible thing to do.” But wait a minute – didn’t you only several paragraphs above argue that a cost-benefit analysis was justified if national survival were at stake? Concession accepted.

So what's your argument, exactly? You don't think Switzerland should've done the right thing instead of caving for profit by saying "the Jews are gonna die anyway?"

I think Switzerland’s position was justifiable, even if not from the moral perspective.

And yet you still prefer that decisions be made on a completely amoral basis.

Now you’re moving onto personal grounds.

Do I like Switzerland’s decision? Of course not.

Do I think it was justifiable? Yes.

Do I think Switzerland could have made a “better choice?” No.

Would I have made t he same choices in their position? Yes.

Do I believe one should govern by anything other than an amoral cost-benefit analysis in today’s world? No.

If all others nations governed solely on moral principle, would I still advocate the amoral cost-benefit analysis as the most prudent form of government in my own nation? Yes. Why? Because the chief goal of government is national improvement. I have no qualms about stepping on the toes of others for personal gain. It’s human nature. Would I like them to do the same to me? Of course not. But that brings us back into the loop. Can we ever escape our own nature? No. Do I believe moral government is actually possible on a universal basis? No. Where does that leave us? With the certainty that most nations (probably all, from Andorra to Azerbaijan) will always act in their own best interests, leaving others that fail to do the same by the wayside. Unacceptable, moral or not.

Hardly- Switzerland for example has long been considered not worth invading, and Sweden was geopolitically placed so it could be at least contested by the Allied powers.

In 1942? They’d have faced invasion on up to three fronts – with minimal and halting British support, if at all.

Germany might not have invaded, but it certainly would have left Switzerland occupied. You’re also not taking into account the fact that people were being slaughtered anyway and that had their wealth not ended up in Switzerland, it would have naturally gone elsewhere. Why pass up the chance for profit? Immoral? For the umpteenth time, positively. The best course of action? In my opinion.

Good. Some circumstances should not be profited by.

Opinion. And one unlikely to gain any sympathy or legitimacy (in actual practice, at least) with a majority of politicans worldwide.

Some of those we could well do without- assassination for example. As for some forms of espionage and intimidation, there's nothing inherently immoral about them, certainly not to the extent that you are willing to kill/assist in the oppression of others worldwide because it suits your own nation.

Assassination is a valid form of national defense. Whether or not we have enacted laws disapproving of such methods, targeted murder on behalf of nation-states does occur on a grand scale worldwide. We’d be foolish to opt out of the practitioner’s pool in that case. Others wouldn’t make the same allowances for our own leaders.

There’s nothing inherently immoral to torture or breach of confidence? So now we’re picking and choosing, eh? I sense futility in the air.

Certain organizations (across the state to the non-state spectrum) are inherently dangerous when not divided and therefore temporarily conquered – or at least frozen. Immoral? Again, yes. The best course of action in a world where their goals are just as reprehensible as ours? Indeed.

Except you tacked on convenience and profit as well.

Exactly. Those tie in with national survival. The most wealthy or strong are inherently the most able to fight for their safety and influence or deter competitors.

They bucked a hegemon? They took it up the ass!

But not in the least damaging sense.

Yes, I have.

No. You’ve made the statement that you believe the only time amoral activity is justified is in terms of national defense – with allowances for perennial intelligence activities and “intimidation.” You’ve yet to explain why such a policy is any more worthwhile than the cost-benefit analysis.

Varying degrees of influence in a time when the hegemon was at war with the allied powers.

But when the hegemon was no less capable of launching a tertiary invasion against Sweden and utterly sidelining Switzerland (potentially into complete economic containment).

You think everyone would take the blood spoils of millions because they're gonna die anyway? Great.

A vast majority of human beings, yes.

Those Syrian occupaiton forces must've really inconvenienced you.

I’m not exactly fond of their arming Iraqi irregulars in contravention of sanctions, no.

Whether they were or were not is irrelevant. The question is whether entirely amoral cost/benefit analyses should apply on the domestic level. For an extreme example, it would benefit society more than it would cost if you simply killed all invalids and mentally disabled people.

No, it wouldn’t. The psychological toll on those committing the actual murders would be too severe. Not to mention that the vast majority of the disabled remain active contributors to our society – most after very minimal and relatively unintensive care. Never mind that the cost-benefit analysis on the domestic level asks, “What makes my constituents happy?” or, “What would make me most happy?” The answer isn’t ever going to be mass murder. Moral behavior is attractive on the domestic level because it promotes stability and comfort. Thus a cost-benefit analysis in domestic terms would accommodate moral law.

Because you are happy to see others trampled on, as long as you are not being trampled on.

I’m the target of amoral shell-games. When my country faces opposition on the global stage, reverberations naturally reach me.

You seem to believe that only the United States makes cost-benefit analysis. That’s not the case. Every government worldwide governs (on an international basis) with the amoral cost-benefit analysis.

Oh really? So if you lived in Iran and watched as the United States deposed your democratically elected leader and installed a military dictator for the crime of nationalizing strangulating oil interests, you'd still be arguing for amoral cost benefit analyses?

Absolutely. I’d want my government to attempt any and all forms of retribution.

You misanalyze the steps most countries like Iran take in that position. They often appeal to the UN for intervention on a moral basis. But that’s more because they anticipate that US movements will be curbed and their personal welfare better provided for – not because they truly advocate moral behavior at all times. It’s still a cost-benefit affair. Of course I want you to act morally. It’s best for me.

Yessss Darkstar. You can't get it through your thick skull that morality is a key concept in this debate. Calling you what you are in addition to arguing is not an ad hominem, it's merely icing on the cake. Your position is that government decision making should be amoral, and when I point out the consequences, you just smugly sit there and say "thats the way it is", as if that's some sort of justification? You're fucked in the head!

How is pointing out that anything other than the cost-benefit analysis outside an ideal world is inherently dangerous and disadvantageous a false or worthless statement?

How is it a false dilemma, you stupid fucking moron? You're being asked to plug your lovely little system into a situation, and you won't, because you don't like what comes out.

That situation doesn’t exist nor could have. Not to mention that I’ve fully explained my point of view.

And need I remind you that despite my asking, you’ve still yet to explain why the moral analysis of international affairs is any more useful than the cost-benefit analysis.

Absolutely- and when I say self defense I mean you're about to be attacked and you've exhausted all alternatives. Unlike you, I do not think convenience and profit are something we should sacrifice morality for.

You’ve just acknowledged that amoral actions are fully justified in self-defense.

But amoral activity targeting the United States occurs daily on a global level. That implies that we need to meet par. You’ve just torpedoed your own boat.

No, but unlike you, I am not satisfied with the way things are, and am saying how they should be. You think amoral decision making is desireable for all. It is not, and all citizens should strive against it.

But that’s not going to happen. Not to mention that I’d still advocate for the cost-benefit analysis in terms of international policy-making even if the world were moral. I make no qualms about the fact that I’m in it for self-gain. In fact, most would probably agree with me.

Of course you would. In Iran, for example.

No. I would support moral government (in the global sense) because it would prohibit or limit actions by my enemies. I would support moral government (in the domestic sense) because it’s most comforting. But even in the later situation, my government is still coming the conclusion that it’s better to keep me happy – or to keep most of my countrymen happy – than not.

Yes, you've already defined effective. Internationally you think your government should be allowed to do whatever it wants out of convenience and profit, but domestically you won't have any of that, because you would be taken advantage of.

International politics and domestic politics are two different beasts – although the cost-benefit analysis of domestic affairs is actually fairly benign. It always revolves around making accommodating a given population – which is really the point of government in the first place.

You're not articulating any sort of argument. "The way things are" is nothing more than the way things are. This is an argument about whether morals should be part of it, and the answer is a resounding yes, if you give a shit about anyone other than yourself.

A part of what? You need to define what you’re talking about. International policy-making? And morals for the sake of morality or for the sake of achieving other objectives? If you’re asking whether international policy-making should accommodate morals solely for the sake of morality, the answer is in fact a resounding no.

You do like it. You've already argued that it's the ideal form of decision making.

I don’t like it when it’s directed against me, no. That doesn’t mean it’s not the best option. Sometimes, one must chose the least of the poisons.

Strawman. I'm arguing it's fucking immoral and undesireable. But yes, the only reason you support it is because you're part of the hegemon and haven't had another nation's will imposed on you out of self-interest.

Immoral? Yes. Undesirable? No.

I’ve had nations attempt to impose their will on my own country.

You’re also ignoring the fact that if I were subject to another’s will that I’d want to play the same kind of hardball. People in trouble don’t swing to morality for the sake of morality, they do so because it’s a form of protection.

Morally unacceptable. You know, the principles we live by?

Morally unacceptable does not imply fully unacceptable – or even not worthwhile.

Sorry, the cost benefit analysis doesn't work. Germany is the world hegemon. The US will be defeated. I'm afraid you'll have to kowtow. Actually, you're engaging in a little bit of moralizing by sayign that America should be prepared for military confrontation. Who's to say you'll get much more benefit out of kowtowing to Germany instead of attacking her? Switzerland and Sweden certainly did.

So let’s get the facts straight.

Germany can defeat the United States no matter what form of policy Washington chooses.

If it does not choose to eliminate all Jews voluntarily, it will be subject to invasion that can only result in absolute defeat.

In that case, a self-imposed Holocaust would be the only option, yes. Red Imperator intimated as much.

Switzerland and Sweden certainly gained rather than lost as a result of their kowtowing.

If the ultimate objectives are national self-determination and ultimate self-empowerment, defeating Germany militarily – or setting the foundation to prepare to do so largely unmolested – is the best option.

No, it does not work best. Your only considerations are expedience and profit, not moral considerations, which are fucking real considerations that should be applied- amply demonstrated by your refusal to apply pure expedience and profit to the domestic level.

You’re making absolutes out of “pure expedience and profit.” Did it ever occur to you that psychological factors exist within the realm of expedience and that such problems cut directly into profit?

Moral considerations are real, but not necessarily for the sake of morality itself.

If I actually cared about my nation being a superpower that straddles the world and feeds off it, I might give a shit. I expect my government to act morally, and vote that way. I do not care what other nations do.

That’s nice. You’ve just avoided the questions of how to enforce or encourage univseral morality. Concessions accepted. Nice dance.

You’ve also just stated that you’d let your national security degrade in order to follow the moral path for the sake of morality, no?

Well I sure as fuck didn't get that impression.

Actually … I’d prefer that others’ foreign policy was moral. I would prefer that mine weren’t. That’s a more accurate statement.

I disagree. It's simply a matter of national will.

No. It’s a matter of reforming human nature and providing enforcement to suppress it.

It does depend on where your nation stands, and what it's objectives are. Dominating objectives will lead to dominating foreign policy.

But even you desire moral government for the sake of comfort, not because it’s inherently moral.

Organized murder doesn't have to be?

If it’s war? No. Wars never have to be moral.

It depends on the behavior that's protecting the nation, and what 'protecting the nation' really entails. Any double-talker could define repugnant actions as 'protecting the nation'.

If others are enacting repugnant behavior against you, what then?

I'd say it's a matter of your deficienies rather than human nature. That people exist who are inherently charitable and self-less obviously shows up the human nature claim to be false.

But how many people? And for what cause? Most people – the huge majority if not all people – desire moral behavior on a global level because they believe it most comforting. That’s prosecution of self-interest, not the desire of moral behavior for the sake of moral behavior, which is your argument.

[Vympel]

Define “geopolitical hardball.”

The thing that you advocate for absolutely everything a nation does.

Every established nation commits egregious acts against neighbors, allies, and competitors on a daily basis. Are you suggesting that responsible government is that which engages in no questionable activities during peacetime (on any basis)?

Yes. Nation states have a moral obligation to act responsibly and not trample on others for the sake of expedience and profit.

The problem with your argument is that it fails to take into the account the reality that other less scrupulous policy-makers will take advantage of the your country whether or not you attempt to reciprocate.

Define 'take advantage of'.

That said, better to do your own fair share of meddling, no?

Why?

Given the state of the global community at present day, it’s the correct course of action. Is it morally proper? Absolutely not. But would I advocate such illegal action as a matter of course even were the world a fully moral place? Yes. I make no attempts to hide the fact that I’m out for personal gain.

Charming.

Incorrect. A group of German politicans got together, weighed all sides of the argument, and after a cost-benefit analysis, decided that the economic results of weapons sales to Turkey did not necessarily outweigh the political capital they’d gain from appeasing global moralists. They didn’t enact such laws for the sake of morality itself, but in fact for the sake of expediency. Amoral policy-making at its best.

Stating your position as fact through your own bankrupt 'personal gain is paramount' reasoning is not an argument. Have you got any proof that this was the case?

A Swedish politician of the era would explain to you that given the state of the continent, it was the prudent choice to support Germany’s war machine.

Proof?

Not only did it maintain Sweden’s official independence

Proof?

but it also allowed that country to profit during a time when most of its neighbors faced severe economic hardship.

While propping up an agressor regime and keeping it in a war.

Whether or not you believe Sweden should be commended, its policy-makers sought to reach the most attractive conclusions possible for the benefit of each citizen.

Unlike you, I do not believe that that was a price worth paying for profit.

Greece also considered holding out a legitimate option, whether or not you wish to elevate them as a supreme moral example. After their show against the Italians, many Greek leaders believed they could at least blunt Hitler’s attempts at total occupation with the help of British expeditionary forces. Remember that Metaxis was a dictator; he’d be out of power – and was – once the country fell anyway.

You're going to argue that the Greeks thought they could profit more by holding out against Germany instead of just letting them pass through?

From a cost-benefit perspective? Yes.

And hence, why your position is fucked up.

Keep in mind that Swiss politicans weren’t sworn to advocate on behalf of any nation but their own. You’re rendering an obvious opinion: “Switzerland had a moral obligation to the whole world to ‘take it up the ass’ because it would have been the least reprehensible thing to do.”

Erm, what? Switzerland didn't need to accomodate Germany in any way whatsoever.

But wait a minute – didn’t you only several paragraphs above argue that a cost-benefit analysis was justified if national survival were at stake? Concession accepted.

Switzerland's national survival was in no way threatened by Germany. Wake up.

I think Switzerland’s position was justifiable, even if not from the moral perspective.

And you wonder why people say you have no morals.

Now you’re moving onto personal grounds.

Bullshit. You've been dancing about from one side to the other this entire time. First you say you're for personal gain, then you change your position and say you'd prefer morality, then you're back again.

Do I like Switzerland’s decision? Of course not.

Oh? If you lived in Switzerland, by your system, you'd be happy because you got some personal gain out of it. Your words.

Do I think it was justifiable? Yes.

Taking the spoils of slaughtered millions from a genocidal nationstate when you are not threatened in any way is justifiable?

Do I think Switzerland could have made a “better choice?” No.

Yes, it could have. It could've flipped Germany a big V.

Would I have made t he same choices in their position? Yes.

Wonderful ...

Do I believe one should govern by anything other than an amoral cost-benefit analysis in today’s world? No.

And it's people like you who are precisely the problem. You've already made your position perfectly clear: gain for you or your nation is all that matters. This is why I call you a moral bankrupt. Without morality, you can justify the most repugnant behavior.

If all others nations governed solely on moral principle, would I still advocate the amoral cost-benefit analysis as the most prudent form of government in my own nation? Yes. Why? Because the chief goal of government is national improvement. I have no qualms about stepping on the toes of others for personal gain. It’s human nature. Would I like them to do the same to me? Of course not. But that brings us back into the loop. Can we ever escape our own nature? No. Do I believe moral government is actually possible on a universal basis? No. Where does that leave us? With the certainty that most nations (probably all, from Andorra to Azerbaijan) will always act in their own best interests, leaving others that fail to do the same by the wayside. Unacceptable, moral or not.

Please. Your flaws as a human being do not make up the entirety of human nature. Get off your high horse.

In 1942? They’d have faced invasion on up to three fronts – with minimal and halting British support, if at all.

In 1942 Germany had jack shit available forces to prosecute any such invasion. It was committed in France, North Africa, and the Soviet Union especially.

Germany might not have invaded, but it certainly would have left Switzerland occupied.

Swtizerland occupied? You must be joking.

You’re also not taking into account the fact that people were being slaughtered anyway and that had their wealth not ended up in Switzerland, it would have naturally gone elsewhere. Why pass up the chance for profit? Immoral? For the umpteenth time, positively. The best course of action? In my opinion.

The difference between you and I is that I don't believe some things are worth profiting by.

Opinion. And one unlikely to gain any sympathy or legitimacy (in actual practice, at least) with a majority of politicans worldwide.

What has the moral bankruptcy of a few pygmies got to do with it?

Assassination is a valid form of national defense. Whether or not we have enacted laws disapproving of such methods, targeted murder on behalf of nation-states does occur on a grand scale worldwide. We’d be foolish to opt out of the practitioner’s pool in that case. Others wouldn’t make the same allowances for our own leaders.

Got any proof?

There’s nothing inherently immoral to torture or breach of confidence? So now we’re picking and choosing, eh? I sense futility in the air.

When did I say I condoned torture, you fucking idiot? Care to point to the word 'torture' in your original statement? What a big surprise, it's not there. I sense idiocy in the air.

Certain organizations (across the state to the non-state spectrum) are inherently dangerous when not divided and therefore temporarily conquered – or at least frozen. Immoral? Again, yes. The best course of action in a world where their goals are just as reprehensible as ours? Indeed.

What are you talking about?

Exactly. Those tie in with national survival. The most wealthy or strong are inherently the most able to fight for their safety and influence or deter competitors.

As I suspected, you are entirely obsessed with nations striving to be superpowers so they can grow ever stronger and impose their will on yet more nations and feed off resources like gluttonous pigs. It has nothing to do with national survival.

But not in the least damaging sense.

I debunked your damaging sense nonsense. Germany did not have the forces to prosecute any new invasions after June 1941, not to mention that before that they would be strictly prohibited by Hitler- all eyes were on the USSR.

No. You’ve made the statement that you believe the only time amoral activity is justified is in terms of national defense – with allowances for perennial intelligence activities and “intimidation.” You’ve yet to explain why such a policy is any more worthwhile than the cost-benefit analysis.

Because it does not result in morally repugnant actions for the purposes of profit and expedience. The difference between you and I is that you don't care about moral repugnance.

But when the hegemon was no less capable of launching a tertiary invasion against Sweden and utterly sidelining Switzerland (potentially into complete economic containment).

Wrong. See above.

A vast majority of human beings, yes.

Good to know ...

I’m not exactly fond of their arming Iraqi irregulars in contravention of sanctions, no.

Iraqi irregulars didn't need, nor get, arming from Syria, or Russia.

No, it wouldn’t. The psychological toll on those committing the actual murders would be too severe.

Oh really? Did the SS have a problem with that? What about the Tutsis and Hutus?

Not to mention that the vast majority of the disabled remain active contributors to our society – most after very minimal and relatively unintensive care.

Oh? Mentally disabled people? Invalids, people in comas, etc?

Never mind that the cost-benefit analysis on the domestic level asks, “What makes my constituents happy?” or, “What would make me most happy?” The answer isn’t ever going to be mass murder.

Funny, that was precisely Nazi Germany's answer. Concession Accepted.

Moral behavior is attractive on the domestic level because it promotes stability and comfort. Thus a cost-benefit analysis in domestic terms would accommodate moral law.

So you're sayign that moral behavior on an international level wouldn't promote stability and comfort?

I’m the target of amoral shell-games. When my country faces opposition on the global stage, reverberations naturally reach me.

Do you want to get into a which came first argument?

You seem to believe that only the United States makes cost-benefit analysis.

Strawman. I never said that.

That’s not the case. Every government worldwide governs (on an international basis) with the amoral cost-benefit analysis.

Who cares if they really do, or don't? We're arguing which system is preferable.

Absolutely. I’d want my government to attempt any and all forms of retribution.

Too bad, because your government is the US-installed Shah now.

You misanalyze the steps most countries like Iran take in that position. They often appeal to the UN for intervention on a moral basis. But that’s more because they anticipate that US movements will be curbed and their personal welfare better provided for – not because they truly advocate moral behavior at all times. It’s still a cost-benefit affair. Of course I want you to act morally. It’s best for me.

I think at this point in the debate your quality as a human being is on display for all. You need not rant any more, I think we all get where you stand.

How is pointing out that anything other than the cost-benefit analysis outside an ideal world is inherently dangerous and disadvantageous a false or worthless statement?

You define 'inherently dangerous' and 'disadvantageous' not in terms of true danger to a nation's survival, but merely inconvenience and losing profit.

That situation doesn’t exist nor could have. Not to mention that I’ve fully explained my point of view.

Yes, and it's exactly what everyone suspected.

And need I remind you that despite my asking, you’ve still yet to explain why the moral analysis of international affairs is any more useful than the cost-benefit analysis.

I have- the thread is on the board and can be read by all. My system does not result in the oppression/deaths of others for my national or personal profit, and just because you're too much of an immoral corrupt to see why that's a more useful system than your own, doesn't mean it's not an explanation.

You’ve just acknowledged that amoral actions are fully justified in self-defense.

Yes, self-defense of the nation in the face of true, imminent danger, not use of force and oppression whenever it's convenient. Unlike you.

But amoral activity targeting the United States occurs daily on a global level. That implies that we need to meet par. You just torpedoed your own boat.

Except that you don't seem to factor in *why* the US is targeted in such a fashion- a crucial part of the equation. Or are you just one of those morons who thinks that the US is targeted (as opposed to say, Finland) because "they just hate freedom?".

But that’s not going to happen.

Because of people just like you.

Not to mention that I’d still advocate for the cost-benefit analysis in terms of international policy-making even if the world were moral.

Keep digging.

I make no qualms about the fact that I’m in it for self-gain. In fact, most would probably agree with me.

Think so, do you?

No. I would support moral government (in the global sense) because it would prohibit or limit actions by my enemies. I would support moral government (in the domestic sense) because it’s most comforting. But even in the later situation, my government is still coming the conclusion that it’s better to keep me happy – or to keep most of my countrymen happy – than not.

You've made it quite clear that you don't care one fucking whit for the billions of other people on this planet. The funny thing is you think most other people would agree with you and happily egg on atrocities committed against others if they were better off.

International politics and domestic politics are two different beasts although the cost-benefit analysis of domestic affairs is actually fairly benign. It always revolves around making accommodating a given population – which is really the point of government in the first place.

You're not fooling anyone. You've already shouted your total lack of ethics from the rooftops- not only is there no legimitate reason why international relations cannot be conducted and regulated in the same way as relations between citizens, the only reason you try and draw a difference between the two is the principle you've already paid homage to: I won't be better off.

A part of what? You need to define what you’re talking about. International policy-making?

Yes.

And morals for the sake of morality or for the sake of achieving other objectives? If you’re asking whether international policy-making should accommodate morals solely for the sake of morality, the answer is in fact a resounding no.

Because you don't think morality is worthwhile. I think seeking the best for all people, regardless of what nation they're in, is worthwhile. That you don't see that makes you a moral bankrupt. This isn't part of the argument, just stating a fact.

I don’t like it when it’s directed against me, no. That doesn’t mean it’s not the best option. Sometimes, one must chose the least of the poisons.

Nice backpedal.

Immoral? Yes. Undesirable? No.

Yes, because imposing suffering and trampling on others is so desireable

I’ve had nations attempt to impose their will on my own country.

Big fucking shit! This is some sort of justification? Who said one can't resist that? The question is what manner you resist it, and it's certianly not fucking carte blanche to go do that all over the world- in Iran, for one example.

You’re also ignoring the fact that if I were subject to another’s will that I’d want to play the same kind of hardball. People in trouble don’t swing to morality for the sake of morality, they do so because it’s a form of protection.

No, YOU do so. Your total lack of ethics does not apply to the human race as a whole.

Morally unacceptable does not imply fully unacceptable – or even not worthwhile.

By now I'm quite aware of your lack of ethics, you really don't need to continue.

So let’s get the facts straight.

Germany can defeat the United States no matter what form of policy Washington chooses.

If it does not choose to eliminate all Jews voluntarily, it will be subject to invasion that can only result in absolute defeat.

In that case, a self-imposed Holocaust would be the only option, yes. Red Imperator intimated as much.

So that's what realpolitik would dictate. Now, do you seriously think that if this situation were the case those in positions of power would seriously apply a purely amoral form of decision making to that?

You’re making absolutes out of “pure expedience and profit.” Did it ever occur to you that psychological factors exist within the realm of expedience and that such problems cut directly into profit?

And this has what to do with anything?

Moral considerations are real, but not necessarily for the sake of morality itself.

They are valuable in and of themselves because of the values they promote. Stop playing bullshit word games. When someone discusses the benefits of a moral system, they are ALWAYS talking about the consequences they result in.

That’s nice. You’ve just avoided the questions of how to enforce or encourage univseral morality. Concessions accepted. Nice dance.

No, you asked how I would enforce a moral basis everywhere, and I made it clear that I

1: didn't care what other nations did
2: was not interested in your presumptions of 'disadvantage'.

You’ve also just stated that you’d let your national security degrade in order to follow the moral path for the sake of morality, no?

No, I've already stated that national survival is where one can justifiably act unethically towards others. As for 'degrading of national security', that's ill defined nonsense. There is a huge difference in passing up a profit by supporting an unsavory regime and letting yourself be attacked.

Actually … I’d prefer that others’ foreign policy was moral. I would prefer that mine weren’t. That’s a more accurate statement.

Good to know ...

No. It’s a matter of reforming human nature and providing enforcement to suppress it.

Oh? This coming from someone who won't apply such analyses to the domestic, personal level (you know, where human nature operates?) but will cry "human nature" at the international level as an excuse to be a moral bankrupt with no principles save personal gain? Concession Accepted.

But even you desire moral government for the sake of comfort, not because it’s inherently moral.

Moral government is inherently desirable for all people, on all levels of relationships. As for bullshit semantics about the sake of comfort and the sake of morality in government will not result in the oppression and general taking advantage of others. That is why it is desireable. How hard is that to understand?

If it’s war? No. Wars never have to be moral.

Wars are inherently immoral. But they must be justifiable in the sense that there is no other alternative, as in self-defense.

If others are enacting repugnant behavior against you, what then?

What kind of 'repugnant' behavior are we talking about?

But how many people? And for what cause? Most people – the huge majority if not all people – desire moral behavior on a global level because they believe it most comforting. That’s prosecution of self-interest, not the desire of moral behavior for the sake of moral behavior, which is your argument.

What are you on about? Systems of morality are based on premises, basic ones like: life/pleasure=good, death/suffering=bad. That is why morals are valuable. What's so hard to understand about this? You argument is that your life/pleasure is desireable, but that of others is not your conern. That's why you're a moral corrupt.

[Iceberg]

OK, at this point I'd like to point out that Vympel and Axis have both taken what was a very poorly-worded opening post and twisted it into something that I wasn't even intending to say. They're both talking out of their asses.

Great Powers tend to redefine "moral" in ways that are convenient to them at the moment. That's a fact of life when dealing with them. Countries that are not Great Powers don't get to do that. They have to work with what they have, inside of a geopolitical framework designed - surprise surprise - to grant maximum advantage to the major hegemonic powers.

That's what I really wanted to say, mmmkay? I didn't want to make any actual moral judgments. Just commenting on a fact of real international politics. OK? OK???

If you think that's backpedaling, I don't give a fuck. Because it's 1:15 in the goddamn morning, and I haven't slept in a good 18 hours.

Bed.[/quote]

[Axis Kast]

The thing that you advocate for absolutely everything a nation does.

So you argue that he only time to use the cost-benefit analysis is during periods of national crisis when continuity of the state is on the line?

Would you like to justify that in relation to the fact that every government worldwide sanctions illegal or immoral acts on a daily basis against neighbors and opponents?

Yes. Nation states have a moral obligation to act responsibly and not trample on others for the sake of expedience and profit.

A moral responsibility to whom? To what? Enforced in what way? Never mind that this “responsible government” you speak of is an idealistic notion only and could never be incorporated into actual society on a functional – let alone successful - basis.

Define 'take advantage of'.

Initiate illegal acts of espionage, sabotage, etc.

Why?

To ensure that the enemy deals with the same problems on the homefront as they are attempting to inflict upon you and yours.

Charming.

A truly effective counterpoint.

Stating your position as fact through your own bankrupt 'personal gain is paramount' reasoning is not an argument. Have you got any proof that this was the case?

Do you honestly believe that the politicans banned potentially lucrative weapons sales to Turkey during a period of economic recession merely for the sake of “warm, fuzzy” fair play?

Proof?

How else do you believe they’d justify it? “We kept ourselves free” was always the argument they made in response to accusations that they’d empowered Adolf Hitler.

Proof?

Sweden wasn’t occupied, now was it?

While propping up an agressor regime and keeping it in a war.

Justifiable under the circumstances. It’s one of your national survival quandaries. You yourself advocated just such behavior under just such duress.

Unlike you, I do not believe that that was a price worth paying for profit.

Then you made a false argument that you’d support the cost-benefit analysis and amoral decision-making in time when national survival has been brought into question. Backpedaling.

You personally might have been willing to trade freedom – and the lives of those in your own country – for the knowledge that you didn’t empower Hitler. I daresay most others would beg to disagree.

You're going to argue that the Greeks thought they could profit more by holding out against Germany instead of just letting them pass through?

“Pass through?” Where were the Germans going to “pass” to?!

I made an error before in suggesting that Metaxis had a choice. Even though the whole affair of Greek defense was politicized (his being a dictator and all), he had no choice. Metaxis was at first holding out only against the Italians – who had invaded on the pretext of Mare Nostrum manifest destiny. By the time Hitler joined the war on behalf of his beleaguered Italian ally – whom the Greeks were forced to resist for the maintenance of national sovereignty -, there was only the choice of occupation ahead. The cost-benefit analysis (in favor of continued self-determination) therefore pointed to continued war rather than surrender.

And hence, why your position is fucked up.

Not any more than that of a man who argues morality for morality’s sake even while other nations follow the cost-benefit perspective at all times and take illegal measures against you.

Erm, what? Switzerland didn't need to accomodate Germany in any way whatsoever.

Backpedaling? You just pointed out that they were in a position to “take it up the ass.” Keep in mind that had they spurned Hitler, Switzerland would only have earned his ire. The Germans were major clients of Oerlikon and provided the demand that kept many Swiss industries functioning. Incurring the personal ire of Adolf Hitler – often so integral to his decision-making – was therefore unwise. Not to mention that if the millions of Jews were going to die regardless, their money might as well be stored in Switzerland so long as Germany seemed to be on the up-and-up. Again, to whom did the Swiss have a moral obligation?

Switzerland's national survival was in no way threatened by Germany. Wake up.

Perhaps not in terms of occupation, but certain in terms of quality of existence and freedom of trade and communication.

And you wonder why people say you have no morals.

Oh, I’m so wounded.

Bullshit. You've been dancing about from one side to the other this entire time. First you say you're for personal gain, then you change your position and say you'd prefer morality, then you're back again.

I’d prefer to be treated morally. But I admit that my motivations are always in terms of personal gain.

Oh? If you lived in Switzerland, by your system, you'd be happy because you got some personal gain out of it. Your words.

Not my words. Happy? No. Aware that I’d placed myself in the best position possible? Yes.

Taking the spoils of slaughtered millions from a genocidal nationstate when you are not threatened in any way is justifiable?

See above. I deal with the possible repercussions of spurning Hitler.

Justifiable, yes – although obviously not on a moral basis.

Yes, it could have. It could've flipped Germany a big V.

And invited Hitler’s wrath? Perhaps a few bombing runs on Geneva or Bern? Infiltration by the German intelligence services? Potential political assassination? An end to all trade? Total diplomatic isolation? You see to forget that Switzerland was literally landlocked by the Axis Powers.

And it's people like you who are precisely the problem. You've already made your position perfectly clear: gain for you or your nation is all that matters. This is why I call you a moral bankrupt. Without morality, you can justify the most repugnant behavior.

Great. I’m glad we’ve got that squared away.

“The problem?” Perhaps to those attempting to blithely create some kind of idealistic non-entity based on fantastic – and ultimately false - notions of human nature.

Please. Your flaws as a human being do not make up the entirety of human nature. Get off your high horse.

Just look at history. Why is it you can quote so many immoral examples? Why is it that the rest of the world has generally followed the cost-benefit system since the dawn of time?

In 1942 Germany had jack shit available forces to prosecute any such invasion. It was committed in France, North Africa, and the Soviet Union especially.

For Sweden? Finland could have spared at least a few home brigades. There were ten divisions stationed in Norway for the duration of the war – several of them regarded as superfluous. Germany had total dominion over the Baltic Sea; a few submarines and some minor escorts could have spelled the doom of the entire Swedish Royal Navy. Around eight divisions from mainland Germany would have been all that was necessary – when combined with up to five or six additional German and one Finn divisions – to conquer and occupy the whole of Sweden. Especially after several weeks of bombing by a handful of squadrons. Germany was at its zenith in 1942. Now it would have meant trouble elsewhere, yes, but the Reich couldn’t very well get along without the ores of that particular part of Scandinavia. Rather vital to the war effort and all that jazz. This nation supported up to one half Germany’s iron ore consumption during wartime.

We’re talking 403,000 men in 1940 – along with 79 AA guns and no tanks. By 1942, they’d have had a hundred or so additional guns and about two hundred tanks at best – all of the light Landsverk design. Against a battle-hardened Whermacht? Even the Swedes’ military reputation wouldn’t be able to save them from an ultimate defeat.

Switzerland occupied? You must be joking.

I meant isolated.

The difference between you and I is that I don't believe some things are worth profiting by.

No shit, Sherlock?

What has the moral bankruptcy of a few pygmies got to do with it?

You mean the ones that dictate the political affairs of the globe?

Got any proof?

Proof of what? Assassinations? Kissinger and Chilean diplomats. Saddam Hussein and George Bush. The Palestinians and Israel’s Minister of Tourism.

When did I say I condoned torture, you fucking idiot? Care to point to the word 'torture' in your original statement? What a big surprise, it's not there. I sense idiocy in the air.

“Intimidation.” What are you going to do, make faces at a captured spy?

What are you talking about?

You asked me to justify the theory of “divide and conquer” – ie, “Why do you advocate going about oppressing people at will?”

As I suspected, you are entirely obsessed with nations striving to be superpowers so they can grow ever stronger and impose their will on yet more nations and feed off resources like gluttonous pigs. It has nothing to do with national survival.

National survival doesn’t imply the bare minimum as you’re attempting to argue. Practitioners of realpolitik acknowledge that the ultimate goal is profit for the foundation of the strongest possible state.

I debunked your damaging sense nonsense. Germany did not have the forces to prosecute any new invasions after June 1941, not to mention that before that they would be strictly prohibited by Hitler- all eyes were on the USSR.

If one half the country’s iron ore suddenly stopped being shipped out of Sweden? Do you actually know what in the fuck you’re talking about?

Because it does not result in morally repugnant actions for the purposes of profit and expedience. The difference between you and I is that you don't care about moral repugnance.

And you obviously don’t care about profit, expediency, or more than the bare minimum of national survival.

Now let me get this straight. Your whole theory of good government is based on the notion that politicans should seek moral policy for the sake of moral policy?

Wrong. See above.

Germany was capable of invading Sweden. You cannot escape that fact. Hitler would have put off the invasion of the Soviet Union for Sweden – as he did for Greece – if only because Germany couldn’t have gotten along without that ore.

Iraqi irregulars didn't need, nor get, arming from Syria, or Russia.

So you’re going to deny that he night-vision goggles and crew-served anti-tank missiles weren’t unearthed? Or that American troops didn’t come under fire from Syrian volunteers and Syrian arms in Iraq?

Oh really? Did the SS have a problem with that? What about the Tutsis and Hutus?

Red herring. We’re talking about a passably objective cost-benefit analysis, not biased, murderous hatred. You are also implying that the Hutu, Tutsi, and German populations didn’t undergo massive trauma as a result of the mass murders – and that all of the killing would go unnoticed in this day and age in the United States of America.

Oh? Mentally disabled people? Invalids, people in comas, etc?

The vast majority of the “disabled” having difficulty with motor skills, minor psychophysical difficulties, or lack a limb.

Funny, that was precisely Nazi Germany's answer. Concession Accepted.

What kind of fucking idiot are you?

The German people didn’t unanimously decide, “Let’s kill Jews.” It was more like Adolf Hitler’s deciding, “Let’s kill Jews.”

So you're sayign that moral behavior on an international level wouldn't promote stability and comfort?

In an idealistic world, yes. In the real world? No. There’s absolutely no change of a moral society throughout the globe in which all human beings eschew their own nature – including violence and greed.

Do you want to get into a which came first argument?

The first human beings were in clear competition. The first time one triumphed over the other, the cycle began.

Strawman. I never said that.

You continue to insist that the only people who hail the cost-benefit analysis are those in positions of power.

Who cares if they really do, or don't? We're arguing which system is preferable.

The cost-benefit analysis. In both the real and your imaginary, idealistic world of fantasy.

And what the fuck do you mean, “Who cares?” if they govern amorally? It certainly makes a difference if you’re claiming we should follow moral pretexts but leave others to their own devices.

Too bad, because your government is the US-installed Shah now.

Then I’d want an organization representative of my value system or former government to commit acts of violence against that incoming government. Amoral. Immoral.

I think at this point in the debate your quality as a human being is on display for all. You need not rant any more, I think we all get where you stand.

Ad hominem. This is also a crux of my argument you’ve failed to adequately defend against. Concession accepted.

You define 'inherently dangerous' and 'disadvantageous' not in terms of true danger to a nation's survival, but merely inconvenience and losing profit.

All of which tie in to a nation’s capability to ensure survival.

Yes, and it's exactly what everyone suspected.

What the fuck are you talking about?!

I have- the thread is on the board and can be read by all. My system does not result in the oppression/deaths of others for my national or personal profit, and just because you're too much of an immoral corrupt to see why that's a more useful system than your own, doesn't mean it's not an explanation.

More useful? No. More moral? Yes.

Your best – or is it worst? – defense so far has been: “Because it’s the right thing to do.” But then again, you’ve ignored the fact hat his all exists in a fantasy land because government is already performed on the cost-benefit level.

Yes, self-defense of the nation in the face of true, imminent danger, not use of force and oppression whenever it's convenient. Unlike you.

But didn’t you just condemn the Swedes for not rolling over? And the Greeks? You don’t condone any kind of immoral – or even amoral – act whatsoever. Backpedaling like crazy, eh?

Except that you don't seem to factor in *why* the US is targeted in such a fashion- a crucial part of the equation. Or are you just one of those morons who thinks that the US is targeted (as opposed to say, Finland) because "they just hate freedom?".

The United States is targeted because it is the most powerful nation and because it participates in what is essentially the international rape of the Middle East as a region.

But you imply that if we became a moral paragon we’d suddenly shed all enemies. That’s the craziest of naive assumptions I’ve ever read in my life. You also seem to believe that amoral activity focuses solely where the US is involved. Did it ever occur to you that it occurs everywhere in the world on a daily basis?

Because of people just like you.

Aw. Did reality cut in on your unrealistic little pipe dream? So sorry!

Think so, do you?

Absolutely.

You've made it quite clear that you don't care one fucking whit for the billions of other people on this planet. The funny thing is you think most other people would agree with you and happily egg on atrocities committed against others if they were better off.

You don’t understand. It’s not about liking what goes on sentimentally. It’s about accepting and acknowledging it. I care for the billions of people on this planet – but only after I care for myself. Ironic perhaps, but the cost-benefit analysis dictates I should make concessions for others because it will reduce the growth of tension and waylay the onset of anarchic factors.

You're not fooling anyone. You've already shouted your total lack of ethics from the rooftops- not only is there no legimitate reason why international relations cannot be conducted and regulated in the same way as relations between citizens, the only reason you try and draw a difference between the two is the principle you've already paid homage to: I won't be better off.

“No legitimate reason” other than human nature? Other than the fact that if we “went moral,” the rest of the world would still remain committed to pragmatic government?

You're not articulating any sort of argument. "The way things are" is nothing more than the way things are. This is an argument about whether morals should be part of it, and the answer is a resounding yes, if you give a shit about anyone other than yourself.

Morals should be a part of policy-making – but only as tools. But I think, in the manner that you asked, you mean morals for morals’ sake – in which case, I’d give a resounding no.

Because you don't think morality is worthwhile. I think seeking the best for all people, regardless of what nation they're in, is worthwhile. That you don't see that makes you a moral bankrupt. This isn't part of the argument, just stating a fact.

Exactly. Morality is almost never worthwhile – unless, of course, it brings a return of something I desire. But then again, that implies it’s practiced for something other than its own sake.

I’m arguing reality here. No government has ever chosen to seek an entirely moral means of policy-making. They’d have been utterly taken advantage of on every level possible by competitors.

Nice backpedal.

Just because something is ideal doesn’t mean I have to enjoy it. You’ve been putting that out there all along.

es, because imposing suffering and trampling on others is so desireable.

From the realpolitician’s point of view? In certain cases, yes.

Big fucking shit! This is some sort of justification? Who said one can't resist that? The question is what manner you resist it, and it's certianly not fucking carte blanche to go do that all over the world- in Iran, for one example.

It’s plenty of justification to avoid opening myself to new attacks by abandoning objective policy-making and instead moving to a morality-based doctrine.

No, YOU do so. Your total lack of ethics does not apply to the human race as a whole.

I seriously doubt that. Morality is a tool. People want moral government because it’s attractive and comforting. It’s a desire. They don’t want it merely because it’s moral per se. Not because it’s good. Not because it’s right. Because it’s gratifying.

If my “total lack of ethics” doesn’t apply, why don’t we have moral government for the sake of moral government? Why is all government cost-benefit?

By now I'm quite aware of your lack of ethics, you really don't need to continue.

You’re dodging the fact that amoral decision-making is a valid practice. You’ve yet to refute its worth.

So that's what realpolitik would dictate. Now, do you seriously think that if this situation were the case those in positions of power would seriously apply a purely amoral form of decision making to that?

Of course not. They might try to moderate the end result via appeasement. But assuming this scenario is a finality and that the cost-benefit analysis didn’t inherently result in military resistance (because it ends at national survival), then it won’t matter. Look at all of the German satellites in eastern Europe during the Second World War. In the end, the finality of this scenario demands an amoral – or immoral – solution on the part of the victim. You’re ignoring the fact that the cost-benefit analysis can reach a moral outcome – though not necessarily for its own sake. You’ve cooked up a false scenario and made inherent false assumptions about the value of amoral decision-making. In this case, both amoral decision-making and the most moral decision-making would have similar outcomes: the Holocaust option. Amoral decision-making would argue (assuming there hadn’t been military resistance) that he Holocaust was necessary because of the good of the many. So would morality. You also forget that in the cost-benefit analysis, there aren’t lines between Jews and others per se – merely between one group of citizenry and another. The goal is still to try and preserve their lives if at all possible.

And this has what to do with anything?

You’re not taking into account that the cost-benefit analysis is self-moderating.

They are valuable in and of themselves.

Only from your point of view.

No, you asked how I would enforce a moral basis everywhere, and I made it clear that I

1: didn't care what other nations did
2: was not interested in your presumptions of 'disadvantage'.

That implies that you advocate this form of government without having considered all realistic eventualities. It is therefore not optimal because it fails to take into account each of the possible contingencies. Concession accepted. Your argument fails.

No, I've already stated that national survival is where one can justifiably act unethically towards others. As for 'degrading of national security', that's ill defined nonsense. There is a huge difference in passing up a profit by supporting an unsavory regime and letting yourself be attacked.

So not in the case of Greece or in Sweden? They’d have to roll over for the sake of retrospective morality?

Some would make a different argument. If I don’t go for profit, somebody else naturally will. I lose strength proportionately as they gain. My lead – and therefore my ability to perpetuate personal safety – is at risk.

Oh? This coming from someone who won't apply such analyses to the domestic, personal level (you know, where human nature operates?) but will cry "human nature" at the international level as an excuse to be a moral bankrupt with no principles save personal gain? Concession Accepted.

I have applied it to the domestic level. The point is to cater to one’s own society.

International and interpersonal relationships are inherently different. To attempt and argue general parallels on the weak basis that human begins are involved in both circumstances is laughable. How else do you justify this position? If human beings are good because they fear consequences – and that’s the case for most -, how do we oblige every nation to be “good” without an international police force able to enforce moral behavior beyond question at all times?

Moral government is inherently desirable for all people, on all levels of relationships. As for bullshit semantics about the sake of comfort and the sake of morality in government will not result in the oppression and general taking advantage of others. That is why it is desireable. How hard is that to understand?

But I don’t care about people elsewhere as long as I’m in an enviable position. Neither do most others.

Wars are inherently immoral. But they must be justifiable in the sense that there is no other alternative, as in self-defense.

As I said, war is usually immoral – or, at best, amoral. I disagree with the “no alternative” notion.

What kind of 'repugnant' behavior are we talking about?

Sabotage. Espionage. Assassination. Potentially financial harm.

What are you on about? Systems of morality are based on premises, basic ones like: life/pleasure=good, death/suffering=bad. That is why morals are valuable. What's so hard to understand about this? You argument is that your life/pleasure is desireable, but that of others is not your conern. That's why you're a moral corrupt.

But most people care about morals simply because life/pleasure is good. They rarely care whether or not they have any responsibility to others beyond those for whom they immediately care – and even then, those relationships are part of a cycle of self-gratification.

You’re attempting to create an entirely new planet in which moral behavior is prized by all above all else. Impossible. Hell, your proposal for good government doesn’t even take into account the fact that it leaves room for others to take the supreme advantage.

[Vympel]

I don't think I'll bother posting the latest rebuttal to this tedious debate, seeing as how it's ballooned to 4,400 words, and I was getting tired of thinking up new ways to express my disdain for your bankrupt world view. Let's reduce it to the bare points, mostly centered around your lack of concern for others and what that means for your argument.

- You see everything through the prism of your own lack of ethics and lack of conern for others, which to you necessarily refutes the value of a system of government where harm is minimized and well being promoted for all rather than some. The source of your many inane 'concession accepted' pronouncements.

- You entirely coopt the realpolitican's obsession about being the 'supreme state' as a legimitate objective, and thus hold up the threat of this not being achieved by acting morally and responsibly with concern for others as some sort of refutation of the worth of the system.

- You engage in a falsehood where not engaging in morally repgunant actions for profit and expedience places one at risk of 'attack' by one's 'enemies', ignoring the fact that

a: one can defend his interests against the actions of his 'enemies' (if you can call them that) without engaging in the same behavior

and

b: that other nations might do something to you is certainly not carte blanche to commit similar acts all over the globe against all others

- You play some ridiculous word game where because a moral system is adhered to because it results in maximum good and minimm harm for all involved, rather than for 'moral's sake' (whatever that means- leaving aside your projection of your own non-existent ethics onto all), this somehow refutes the value of the system.

- Make an appeal to tradition (that's how it is!) to defend the system. Luckily, appeal to tradition is the name of a logical fallacy.

- Make an appeal to human nature to defend the system. Patently ludicrous, considering that human nature resulted in the construction of moral systems that regulate our everyday lives on the personal level. Your empty protestations of 'laughability' aside, you did not present any meaningful rebuttal.

- Claimed that the cost/benefit analysis was 'self moderating'. I'm sure the populations of Chile and Iran would disagree.

Now, moving away from generality:

What kind of fucking idiot are you?

The German people didn’t unanimously decide, “Let’s kill Jews.” It was more like Adolf Hitler’s deciding, “Let’s kill Jews.”

*deep breath*

What kind of revisionist fucking moron are you, you dumbass?

The Germans of the Third Reich were fucking happily anti-semitic, and were all too willing to see the Jews tossed out onto the proverbial street in everyway imaginable, treated like non-citizens, and tossed into camps. They *knew* what was going on in terms of genocide, and turned a blind eye.

For a more in-depth disussion, specifically, read "Hitler's Willing Executioner's: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, but really, that anyone could know anything about WW2 and pretend that ordinary Germans didn't bare responsibilty for what was perpeatrated is the height of infamy.

As to invalids: Germany engaged in terminating the lives of invalids, mentally disabled etc who had 'no prospect' for meaningful life (meaningful meaning, of course, service to the state). That was certainly cost/benefit analysis, and furthermore, I haven't seen much evidence of 'psychological scars' on the psyches of those who perpetrated those crimes.

and

So you’re going to deny that he night-vision goggles and crew-served anti-tank missiles weren’t unearthed? Or that American troops didn’t come under fire from Syrian volunteers and Syrian arms in Iraq?

I was unware unsubstantiated accusations like new Russian ATGMs and NVGs had turned into facts.

oh, and Sweden:

If Germany had gone off on a military adventure in Sweden, with the nonexistent divisions you merely pulled out of your ass when Germany is committed body and soul in the USSR, North Africa, and in the Atlantic (the Finland division claim was especially ludicrous), it would've meant even quicker defeat than happened historically. What's more, Sweden, like Greece, had a very real chance of recieving Allied aid in support.

That is all. For now. Of course, if you want me to keep up this point for point mega post crap, I may indulge you, but I'm getting quite sick of it.