Fires of revolution sweep the Arab World

[BigRob]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

Then why did you argue against my statement?

In the Darfur example, we did not try, therefore could not fail, and this leads you to claim it as being a pragmatic decision.

The definition of pragmatism is supposed to be, "what works"... So in terms of pragmatism, is avoiding failure the same thing as achieving success?​

Clearly you believe that if US interests are not being set back, then they are being advanced. Therefore anything we do to avoid failure (set backs) is claimed to be pragmatic (advancement).

I guess I misunderstood your initial statement on the matter. I was under the impression that you were arguing that my stance meant we never had to admit failure, which I think is wrong.

Why not?

Because we would not be at the negotiating table unless we wanted to work with them.

The offers made it in the best interest of Egypts rulers, not the people of Egypt, hence my very valid claim that such policies are counterproductive in the long run.

I would argue that the deal brought about a stable situation (perhaps not a good long term solution), and in that stable situation it at least created an environment in which a long term solution could be pursued. If that long term solution failed, or was not pursued as much as it should have been, I don't think that makes the short term solution less important.

Why is this our problem?

Well, tensions in the Middle East are detrimental to certain interests I spelled out earlier.

I'm glad you stated it that way... If we automatically enter all negotiations offering taxpayer funded incentives, then it's viewed as automatic, not a "sweetener", thus defeating the purpose.

I would say we don't automatically enter into negotiations offering taxpayer funded incentives, but I do think we need to at least be prepared to offer some form of those depending on the scenario.

Does it matter to you when those same people riot and revolt, toppling dictators friendly to the US and replace them with less friendly, or outright hostile, governments?

Yes, it does matter when those people revolt, but I don't think a revolt 18 years after the fact makes supporting the dictator a failure, I think the failure was to find a long term solution during that 18 year period of stability.

Serious change is what we need.

I have little hope we will get it unfortunately.

Striving toward an agreement for mutual benefit. I do not see where using taxpayer money is a substitute for diplomacy, or where it serves to our mutual benefit. I think the US gets screwed because other nations so readily expect that the US will bend over backwards to throw money at other countries to get an agreement.

I agree that other nations expect that, and I also agree that many in the US who do the negotiating readily offer it for nothing in return. I don't think the solution is to end "incentives" to get agreements, I think the best solution is a radical change in our negotiating style.

Like our support for the authoritarian regime in Saudi Arabia? The same country that produced 18 of the 9/11 hijackers... I believe our actions are counterproductive in much of our FP.

Do you think a Democratically controlled Saudi Arabia would not have produced those hijackers? Many Democracies produce extremists.

We should decide whether America's long term interests are more important than short term interests spanning between election cycles.

I think we also need to accept, as I stated, that short term interests are vital to bringing about scenarios in which long term interests can best be pursued.

You're comparing onions to oil...

Yes, but more importantly I am comparing a commodities futures market to another commodities futures market.

We don't use taxpayer money to prop up foreign dictators in hopes of stabilizing world onion production... but we do with oil. Both supply and demand where oil is concerned has remained relatively steady compared to the wild fluctuations in the price of oil on futures markets. If I get a chance, I'll make some line graphs. The first with supply, second with demand, third oil prices based on the futures market and the fourth a compilation of the other three. That fourth graph would show two stable lines, supply and demand, with a eratic dragontoothed line for oil prices on the futures market zig-zagging back and forth across the lines of supply and demand.

I would be interested in seeing those graphs if you do get a chance. That said, I don't quite see how propping up a dictator radically changes how the futures market acts. The onion market is a good example I think that shows how the futures market was not to blame for wild price changes.

I never claimed we took all our marching orders from the UN, only that we run to them for permission before taking any action. In the "last large scale military action", did we go to the UN for authorization first or not?

I would say it is always good to act under the "authority" of a body like the UN. I would however argue that going to them for "permission" is more for show than anything else, or at best an effort to spread the cost of a mission around.

I can agree with that but I don't see ANY threats coming from traditional military forces. Is there some foreign military in a position to invade the US that I'm not aware of?

I don't think a military has to invade us to be a threat. I think the Chinese are making large strides in areas that are direct threats to the US. Anti-ship missiles and ASAT weapons, as well as non-nuclear (or nuclear) EMP can be devastating to our range of capabilities in the region, protecting vital trade routes, and communications.

Imagine for example if the Chinese were able to detonate an EMP in space. It would have a massive impact on our communications/satellites which would have a huge impact on the economy here.

The idea that our military protects economic interests is plausible but the idea that our military increases our economic capability is pretty far fetched.

I know you don't, but if people buy into the Keynesian economy theory, then military spending ought to inherently be good for the economy.

Outside of that however, protecting trade routes, having Americans based overseas (spreading our culture etc) I think does help our economic capability.

For trade routes, you might argue that is just the military protecting economic interests, but in the absence of our military doing this, it would most likely get more expensive to ship goods etc and hurt the economy as a whole.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

Because we would not be at the negotiating table unless we wanted to work with them.

Then the same should be true of anyone sitting across the table from us.

If that long term solution failed, or was not pursued as much as it should have been, I don't think that makes the short term solution less important.

Having our foreign policy shift with election cycles pretty well eliminates the possibility of serious long term strategy formulation and implementation. With 4-8 year chunks, we tend to get stuck with short and medium term "solutions" which often shift after elections. Every president talks about a generic concept of a long term goal regarding this or that foreign policy objective but the paths taken to reach the destination shift greatly with each administration. I doubt you would disagree with that.

Point is, there never has been "a" long term solution but several "long term" solutions which are all predicated on the continuation of one foreign policy. It simply isn't realistic to believe we can actually pursue "a" long term foreign policy. We need to shift the governments role in foreign policy to mitigate problems associated with having foreign policy shift every 4-8 years and the best way to do this is by limiting the role of government to one of non-intervention where the rights of US citizens are not directly being threatened.

I would say we don't automatically enter into negotiations offering taxpayer funded incentives, but ... I agree that other nations expect that, and I also agree that many in the US who do the negotiating readily offer it for nothing in return. I don't think the solution is to end "incentives" to get agreements, I think the best solution is a radical change in our negotiating style.

Ending the policy of going into negotiations bearing taxpayer funded gifts is a pretty radical change. And remember what happens if you give a child a cookie... he'll want a glass of milk too.

Do you think a Democratically controlled Saudi Arabia would not have produced those hijackers? Many Democracies produce extremists.

I believe America's role in helping to prop up oppressive foreign governments does play a role in the people of those countries harboring ill-will against the US. Do you disagree?

Yes, but more importantly I am comparing a commodities futures market to another commodities futures market.

You are comparing a commodity that has drastic fluctuations in supply and demand against a commodity who's supply and demand are incredibly stable.

I would be interested in seeing those graphs if you do get a chance. That said, I don't quite see how propping up a dictator radically changes how the futures market acts.

I'll try to find the time but such a project is time consuming so bear with me. As for propping up dictators... The futures market is based on speculation, hopefully you do not disagree on that fact. Having Pro-US regimes in the ME is comforting to the speculators. When there are problems, such as the Egyptian revolt, the speculators freak out and the price of oil climes. This price hike is NOT due to an actual change in supply and demand but purely speculation on what might happen sometime in the future.

I would say it is always good to act under the "authority" of a body like the UN. I would however argue that going to them for "permission" is more for show than anything else, or at best an effort to spread the cost of a mission around.

I didn't agree with going into Iraq but I did agree with going into Afghanistan. I didn't agree with nation building in Afghanistan and still don't. The role of our military should be a killing machine, role in, wipe them out, and leave. If another group hostile to the US takes power and attacks US citizens, we repeat the process. Any involvement with the UN or other nations should be a simple notification, "Hey, these people attacked us, we're going to go kill them, anyone is welcome to join us and if you're so inclined, you can go about the process of nation building since we have zero interest in doing that."

I don't think a military has to invade us to be a threat. I think the Chinese are making large strides in areas that are direct threats to the US. Anti-ship missiles and ASAT weapons, as well as non-nuclear (or nuclear) EMP can be devastating to our range of capabilities in the region, protecting vital trade routes, and communications.

Doesn't the US have such capabilities? It seems we do, therefore it stands to reason that other nations would see us as a potential threat. Perhaps if we were to stop flexing our military muscle and bragging about our ability to "project strength", it would go a long way to easing tensions and building an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.

I know you don't, but if people buy into the Keynesian economy theory, then military spending ought to inherently be good for the economy.

We both know that governemnt spending does not add to the growth of real GDP.

For trade routes, you might argue that is just the military protecting economic interests, but in the absence of our military doing this, it would most likely get more expensive to ship goods etc and hurt the economy as a whole.

Piracy is the only threat to shipping and trade routes that I'm currently aware of, I don't know of any foreign country, or foreign military, engaging in piracy. So to some extent I can agree with the US protecting US ships at sea but only until they reach the end of international waters, so as not to cross into foreign territority. Foreign ships should be protected by their respective governments in the same way and for the same reason. It is not the job of the US Navy to protect all the ships on the ocean.

As for foreign military bases across the globe, I think they are superfluous and should be drastically reduced. We have foreign embassies to promote and educate about our culture, that is not a job for the US military.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World

Then the same should be true of anyone sitting across the table from us.

Maybe. It depends on the situation.

Having our foreign policy shift with election cycles pretty well eliminates the possibility of serious long term strategy formulation and implementation. With 4-8 year chunks, we tend to get stuck with short and medium term "solutions" which often shift after elections. Every president talks about a generic concept of a long term goal regarding this or that foreign policy objective but the paths taken to reach the destination shift greatly with each administration. I doubt you would disagree with that.

Point is, there never has been "a" long term solution but several "long term" solutions which are all predicated on the continuation of one foreign policy. It simply isn't realistic to believe we can actually pursue "a" long term foreign policy. We need to shift the governments role in foreign policy to mitigate problems associated with having foreign policy shift every 4-8 years and the best way to do this is by limiting the role of government to one of non-intervention where the rights of US citizens are not directly being threatened.

We may find the best route is to just to view the long term as a series of short terms.

Ending the policy of going into negotiations bearing taxpayer funded gifts is a pretty radical change. And remember what happens if you give a child a cookie... he'll want a glass of milk too.

Giving something away in a negotiation is not a bad thing, as long as you get something back. I still think we need to have the ability to offer incentives in negotiations for them to really be successful.

I believe America's role in helping to prop up oppressive foreign governments does play a role in the people of those countries harboring ill-will against the US. Do you disagree?

I can agree it plays some role, but I don't think ending the practice will end animosity towards America in all sectors.

You are comparing a commodity that has drastic fluctuations in supply and demand against a commodity who's supply and demand are incredibly stable.


I'll try to find the time but such a project is time consuming so bear with me. As for propping up dictators... The futures market is based on speculation, hopefully you do not disagree on that fact. Having Pro-US regimes in the ME is comforting to the speculators. When there are problems, such as the Egyptian revolt, the speculators freak out and the price of oil climes. This price hike is NOT due to an actual change in supply and demand but purely speculation on what might happen sometime in the future.

Consider the following:
If speculators raise the price of oil above the level that balances supply with demand, then there will be a glut of oil on the market that must be hoarded for future sale..right?

That has not really been the case (it is more so recently) from an overall viewpoint of the futures market. Therefore, unless the amount of oil being hoarded increases dramatically, then the demand is meeting the supply, regardless of speculators...and unless we are seeing huge amounts of excess oil monthly, then the price is pretty close to where it ought to be.

If oil prices are going to be $200 per barrel next year because of growing demand and stagnant supply, then current prices need to rise in order to spur more production and encourage conservation. So long as their forecasts of rising prices are accurate, investors who push up current prices are performing a valuable service. They ensure that the price hikes are more gradual than would otherwise be the case.

Additionally, we have to factor in the value of the US dollar here. As the dollar falls in value, it will inherently increase the price of oil, regardless of supply and demand.

I didn't agree with going into Iraq but I did agree with going into Afghanistan. I didn't agree with nation building in Afghanistan and still don't. The role of our military should be a killing machine, role in, wipe them out, and leave. If another group hostile to the US takes power and attacks US citizens, we repeat the process. Any involvement with the UN or other nations should be a simple notification, "Hey, these people attacked us, we're going to go kill them, anyone is welcome to join us and if you're so inclined, you can go about the process of nation building since we have zero interest in doing that."

Ultimately that is all we did at the UN, however I do think it was wise to go there and at least attempt to build world support for the operation. If we don't get it, that does not mean we should not act.

Doesn't the US have such capabilities? It seems we do, therefore it stands to reason that other nations would see us as a potential threat. Perhaps if we were to stop flexing our military muscle and bragging about our ability to "project strength", it would go a long way to easing tensions and building an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.

We obviously have nuclear capabilities, but in terms of ship killers and ASAT weapons it is more a mixed bag. The question for me though is not do we have them, it is can we defend against them? Currently, I would argue that we cannot adequately defend against such threats.

As for your point of if we toned it down a bit it might ease tensions, short of unilateral disarmament, I don't see that happening.

We both know that governemnt spending does not add to the growth of real GDP.

Agreed.

Piracy is the only threat to shipping and trade routes that I'm currently aware of, I don't know of any foreign country, or foreign military, engaging in piracy. So to some extent I can agree with the US protecting US ships at sea but only until they reach the end of international waters, so as not to cross into foreign territority. Foreign ships should be protected by their respective governments in the same way and for the same reason. It is not the job of the US Navy to protect all the ships on the ocean.

It cannot just be US ships, in many cases foreign flagged vessels are still carrying American cargo. It is also important to protect vital shipping lanes because foreign powers do possess the capability to effectively shut them down, which would have a huge impact on the world economy.

As for foreign military bases across the globe, I think they are superfluous and should be drastically reduced. We have foreign embassies to promote and educate about our culture, that is not a job for the US military.

An embassy does not have the same impact as a base and troop presence.