Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
> Alan Statham wrote:
> I always wondered what you meant with this line in your signature:
"Fighting for peace is like stopping the raping of a virgin."
That's what a moral person should do, no? But you make it sound like it has something more to it (that it's useless or something)..>>
He means that they are both contradictions.
Fighting for peace is as much of a contradiction as stopping the rape of a virgin. Thus if you want peace, you have to do it through means other than fighting.
Because effectiveness corresponds with adaptability. Moral and ideological principles often contradict adaptability.
> ☠ARFeh☠ wrote:
> I wanna put something in this thread but I can't phrase it properly so I'll just mention Pierre Bourdieu and his work on "cultural capital" (plus social and economic capital should be mentioned).
All these work to supersede meritocracy.>>
The theory does not supercede meritocracy. It describes power inequality based on acquisitions of three kinds of capital, and different political and economic systems set the means of how such capital is obtained. In our democratic system, politicans can gain more capital by pleasing their constituents, lobbyists, sponsors, and their peers. The more capital they have through these means (which is not a judge of merit), the higher office they can hold as well as enjoy a higher income.
In a meritocracy, however, capital would be acquired by merit. Merit would give you more capital, and the higher your value the higher the office you could hold.
Yeah, the Republican voting base is committed to ideology not pragmatism. They would sooner vote for a committed Christian with a low IQ who stands by his principles under all circumstances, than they would someone who is a brilliant public executive and administrator but is willing to compromise his principles when the circumstances require it.
> Einstein wrote:
> I beg to differ. Their skills are in executive leadership, and that is the job of a President.>>
In business, not public administration. Some of their skills I'm sure cross over though, and added with their intelligence they could probably learn how to do it very fast.
Romney, however, would be president given the other Republican alternatives. Not sure if you like Romney though, but I do because I value merit.
> Einstein wrote:
> Ok so in this example Bill Gates should be President and Warren Buffet the vice president then?
According to this principle, Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's expertise are in entrepreneurship not public administration and foreign policy.
Meritocracy is the principle that people who merit political power, measured by their talents and accomplishments, should exercise it. This principle was practiced to some extent by the Romans and First French Empire, and to great effect. It enabled government to function optimally by delivering good service, and some of the best times in human history resulted when talented and accomplished people were in power. Even the Chinese instituted a system of scholar officials under various dynasties that initially allowed unprecedented social mobility and rewarded officials by merit (yes I know it collapsed it to inheritance, but that was because they didn't do it right).
However, liberals HATE meritocracy. Why is this? I don't get it. It's a very utilitarian principle to put in to effect.
> Alan Statham wrote:
> Your distaste for post modernism is silly though! I don't like religion, but I don't think all religious people should be exterminated.
Besides, post-modernism can be productive, look at Fairclough!>>
Pffft. It's still more so destructive.
> esa wrote:
> Yeah,and the post modernists.they are even more dangerous.
Yes, they are idiots. And I FEEL they should be exterminated. But my raging distaste for them has nothing to do with pragmatic politics.
Alan,
They seem to have been backed in a corner and forced to commit themselves to some moral and ideological principles, at the expense of pragmatic considerations.
Happens all the time with neo-cons.
Sometimes I wonder who is more dangerous. The ruthless, strategic-minded conservatives like me who are committed only to power and power principles, or the neo-cons.
> Einstein wrote:
> oh I heard the words of Appeasement.
You know, where Stalin was handed all of East Europe and if not for the US then there would have been no west Europe either, just the next extension of Stalins empire, which is on record as the SECOND LARGEST MURDERER IN HISTORY. HE KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THOSE NUMBERS.
Yeah I guess we should have tossed him all of Europe to appease him, how dare we do the Berlin Airlift, or threaten war if he tried to grab any nations! Appeasing ANY dictator is just going to make him reach for more. You kill them dead, and they stop reaching. You spank them hard, they stop reaching... you kill all their underlings and they stop reaching. Anything else is a disaster.>>
If you're referring to me, I never said anything about appeasement. I said balance of power. In Eastern Europe, we are seeing Bush acting aggressive, reducing Russian political influence, and disrupting the balance of power.
> TheYell wrote:
> >>Actually, the US is being a bully by extending its political presence at the expense of Russia. <<
<<Russia has no rights beyond its borders. None.>>
That is irrelevant. What matters in international politics is not rights, but power.
<< So what?>>
<<I keep saying, don't take anything. Bomb it! Blow it up! Render all Siberia one gawdawful forest fire!>>
<<I'll take them.>>
Wow Yell, you show your true colors. You aren't committed to power principles. You outright are committed to morals and ideology, so much that you are willing cause catastrophe.
Okay whatever Mr. Ideologue. I don't like the costs. I'm committed to power principles and pragmatism.
<<That depends. You know what they define as cooperation is going to cost us more and more and more.>>
Since when is free trade costly?
<<What is stupid is seeking a balance of power. It inevitably leads to somebody shoving too hard. Always.>>
And the alternative in your mind is... overt aggression... Spartan post-Peloponnesian style?
> Phoenix Mailer wrote:
> arms race is expensive but there is a reason for it - to keep control over resources one has to protect them. The question really is what is greater - the benefits of using the resources or the costs of protecting them ? It is like in IC protecting a planet with a huge fleet upkeeping which costs more then the planet can provide 
Cooperation, investment in technology, and free trade is cheaper. Since 2001, the US has doubled its military expenses, and it accounts for roughly half of world military spending.
> ☠ARFeh☠ wrote:
> Sorry to drag the Iraq War into this, but if the US is so amazing and could allegedly devastate a superpower, why can't it subdue a bunch of religious lunatics with AK47s and RPGs?
Because one goal is to minimize civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. This reduces a lot of our military advantages. We still have the advantage, but less of one. It also limits our options with respect to taking down enemy units.
> EmperorHez wrote:
> the missile shield will just lead to another nuclear arms race- this time with ICBMs designed to evade being shot down, more cruise missiles, more subs, more bombers etc etc
My point exactly.
George II is like Wilhelm II.
Actually, the US is being a bully by extending its political presence at the expense of Russia. Yes we can destroy their military rather easily, but a war with Russia would come at a nuclear gamble and cause oil prices to rise. If we took their oil wells, well then that would extend our forces even more and be a political disaster.
Yell: Not a gamble like actually invading Russia. Back them against the wall, and they may retaliate knowing they're screwed anyway.
The US can't afford to alienate the entire world without severe economic consequences.
A far cheaper solution is to stop being aggressive with Russia, let them keep their political influence in Eastern Europe, and cooperate with the emerging economic powers in the world.
Disrupting the balance of power Wilhelm II style lacks any strategic intelligence whatsoever. It's STUPID.
Well even if he is right, it is the expansion of US/NATO power at the expense of Russia. And if what he says is true, that it expands US nuclear primacy, it is also disrupting the balance of power Wilhelm II style.
I do not stand for disrupting a balance of power. That's what sparked WW1.
> Phoenix Mailer wrote:
> ICBMs are most vulnerable at the first stage of the launch so putting missile shield close to launching points makes it very effective
Yeah but Russia is four times the size of the US
Not really. The Missile shield is really not that effective. It's about the US extending its presence at the expense of Russia.
Because it frustrates Russia's desire to extend it's power by making its peripheral countries more dependent on the EU and US.
It's kind of like China messing around in our peripheral zone (South America) by buying the land around the Panama Canal, drilling oil off shore by Cuba, and building relationships with South American countries opposed to the US.
The world is becoming more multilateral, where the US is becoming a major power but not the only power. Our government is trying to extend its peripheral dependencies at the expense of Russia, and this kind of competition is dangerous for the future. We need to stop with that missile shield and leave Russia's peripheral zones alone. And someone has to be man enough to tell China to get the F out of South America.
By being aggressive with the other emerging powers, we may be writing the script of our destruction.
> TheYell wrote:
> Please, they can't reach us with their army and we don't need a million men to put Russia back in the poorhouse.
As for the nukes, let them use them. We launch ours as soon as we see them coming. So nothing to worry about.>>
1. That's a big gamble Yell, especially considering how it could be a MAD scenario. If you push Putin in a corner and he knows he's doomed, it's quite probable he'll launch em nukes in retaliation.
2. Europe will not like that you are raising the cost of oil.
3. Our forces are really spread thin.
Putin has more options because:
1. He controls much of Europe's access to oil.
2. The US forces do not have force potential because they are entangled in two countries.
3. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The fact is is that Russia is in a position where challenging it would be costly. If Europe challenged it, their oil prices would skyrocket. If the US decided to challenge it, well they are entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan and then there's the fact of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Russia is now a great oil producing country, and oil prices could rise if its economy were damaged. And that is also why the Europeans want nothing to do with anything real done against Russia.
Paul,
The thing is is that Putin has the strategic advantage. He has many options, while the west has very few. He has the west pretty much pacified.
> Alan Statham wrote:
> "The EU needs another Bismarck."
Someone who leads us into war wich only realisation was a moral victory against a weakened France? Somehow, I don't see how that applies to this current situation.
Bismarck's realpolitik would fail miserably nowadays. It's horribly outdated and originates from days where every country was able to fulfill it's own needs, and every country was thus far more independent than we are nowadays..
I don't know how you see it, but in case of an actual conflict against Russia, we're pretty much screwed. You might have noticed thi that having no oil or gas, usually leaves quite a strain on a military operation. 
We'd be cut off, our reserves would be able to get our armies going for a few weeks at most. The US wouldn't be able to supply us enough, and the oil they do supply would be extremely expensive (you can't claim that your brotherhood would stretch that far).
>>
Realpolitik is about commitment to power principles, and considering the practical reality the country faces when making decisions on domestic and foreign policy. It is an empirical and goal orientated way to practice politics, and whatever is done is adapted to the practical circumstances faced by the leaders making those decisions. What a politician practicing realpolitik would do is very different from what Metternich or Bismarck would do, because the circumstances they face is different from theirs.
Realpolitik is:
adaptable
empirical
not committed to moral principles, but power principles
goal orientated
Realpolitik is not warmongering as you seem to imply. War is only practiced when it is useful for reaching larger strategic goals, not when it is going to be costly and accomplish nothing. Bismarck, for example, waged war on France to pacify them and unite the Germans. But he also tried to use diplomacy and avoid an arms race to minimize the risk of war, and the noob Wilhelm II was the ideologue behind WW1. It would be more fair to compare realpolitik with the practical policies generally implemented in the Roman Republic before Caesar.
And it is because of European commitment to moral principle and short-term economic gain that Putin outmaneuvered you and has you by the balls. Moreover, since the US is entangled in two countries, Putin has a lot of freedom to do as he pleases on the international scene. Putin is perhaps one of the few national leaders who is committed to realpolitik, and only realpolitik leader of a major power, and he so brilliantly outmaneuvers everyone and gets what he wants.
Who knows. Karl Rove has yet to be outwitted.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.