The Importance of Democracy

[Vladimir]

"Then one would have to review all of the human history of conflict to find out how many times allies have been made of less then savory nations to defeat a worse threat"

Worse threat? Ha! The USSR was bound to collapse anyway,

and all that jazz..

I think the Oracle at Delphi has been reborn!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

/SIC

[ICantSpellDawg]

Silvio is back. The opposition has just conceded it's loss.

Now we just need to take back the Spanish majority and Europe is looking right on.

Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi, Tusk - One day we can all come together as the United States of the Atlantic. Or the Atlantic Union. Or the anti-China coalition.

[Vladimir]

Silvio is back. The opposition has just conceded it's loss.

Now we just need to take back the Spanish majority and Europe is looking right on.

Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi, Tusk - One day we can all come together as the United States of the Atlantic. Or the Atlantic Union. Or the anti-China coalition.

Let's do the anti-China thing. We have enough government programs to pay for.

[Guildenstern]

Silvio is back. The opposition has just conceded it's loss.

Unfortunately, Silvio's coming back means Mafia's coming back. Democracy in Italy has fallen down once again. My poor country chose the road to corruption and perdition.

[Redleg]

"Hindsight review is interesting to say the least. Having seen different writings of the time, there was not an understanding that the Soviet Union would collaspe in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Now I also see that you have attempted to spin the statement. So here it is again - how many times have nations banded together to destory a worse threat in history? Here is one prime examble - the United States allied with the Soviet Union to fight against Germany."

It seems to me that you are spinning the statement. As I said, "more to the point" aid to Afghan rebels continued after it became obvious that the USSR intended to withdraw and that it would ultimately either collapse or reform, and that if its ally in Afghanistan collapsed war there would simply continue but in a condition of a failed state (whose weapons would be up for grabs and its army working for the highest bidder) and anti-Western fundamentalism. This is not "hindsight review"; these were obvious facts at the time and the stated justification for the UN negotiations there. Continuing to pour fuel on the fire in Afghanistan to score cheap political points and help Pakistan install its annointed puppets there was at best grossly negligent and at worse extremely malevolent.

I am amused - avoiding answering the question is an answer indeed. I would like to see the evidence from the time that the USSR was going to collaspe in the immediate future. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references if it exists at all.

One could look at the peace accords which brought Israel and Egypt peace.

"You might want to check out when the United States became involved with Israel"

Right about the time that it began colonising the West Bank, and invaded Lebanon, which are the two major issues I referred to. Obviously there are other events which contributed. Contrary to what you are claiming, I explicitly disclaimed the notion that Israel is solely responsible for the situation or that the US is vicariously liable for what Israel does. However the fact is that it was within the power of both to stop the conflict developing to this point, both failed to. I don't see any need to go into other causal factors because they are not relevant to the discussion at hand. The point is that simply doing what is expedient today when it will perpetuate the problem in the long term, or create another problem, is just dumb.

Again you have not addressed the point, I find myself amused by your inability to actually answer the question. For there to be peace both sides have to want it. And we both know from the experience of peace in Israel that neither side really wants peace. Attempting to just point to Israel's fault and ignoring the fault of the other side is rather amusing to me.

"Now which government has tried several times to help the peace process in Israel?"

Sorry but the fact that US govt policy in relation to the matter is not even handed. It draws up roadmaps and such and sometimes makes some statements but the fact is that both its rhetoric and the way it uses its cheque book do not evince a genuine determination to achieve a solution to the matter. It was within the US govt's diplomatic power to pressure Israel not to do things such as settle in the West Bank (which as I said its own leader had rightly predicted would doom future peace efforts) and invade Lebanon- over a period of decades it not merely decided not to but materially supported these policies, even though any short term gain in security was clearly being paid for with the rise of movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Even over the period of the last few years, misconceived military operations and a general policy of collective punishment (which as I said the Israeli government itself admits it uses as a military-political weapon) have simply driven people into the arms of these extremists. I gave the example of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority security infrastructure- no matter what its involvement in attacking Israel was, the acknowledged fact was that the only way that the conflict was going to be resolved was through negotiations with Fatah. Now, at the very time that the US govt wants to play it off against Hamas, it can't because, amongst other things, its infrastructure has been bombed or bulldozed

Tsk Tsk - that wasn't the question. Which nation has tried several times to help the peace process? I don't know of many nations that have even tried.

One sided blame is where most fail when discussing Israel and Palenstine. Both sides have to want peace to work, and both sides are in the wrong. You can argue all you want that Israel is more wrong - but that does not negate the fact that the Palenstine groups that advocate violence and use violence are just as wrong. Israel exists, certain groups attack Israel, Israel attacks back, and the vicious cycle continues to repeat itself over and over. Until both parties want peace, the United States can only do one of two things - attempt to negotate peace with both sides or withdraw completely from dealing with anyone in the conflict. And I doubt very seriousily if the United States will completely withdraw its dealings with either side.

"That implies that a nation should deal with other nations based upon how that foreign policy matches there nation and benefits the nation as a whole."

Which, as I said, means that a democracy that does not give unreserved support to the US government is less use than a dictatorship that does. This is in spite of the fact that since World War Two the states which have clearly given the most support to the US and threatened it the least are fellow democracies, and vice versa and amongst other democracies also. As I said, Buchanan's views are pretty much based on short-term expediency.

Amazing since what I stated was in essence exactly what Buchanan's article stated, and that is not the interpation that I partake from his statement. It seems you are arguing from a purely negative viewpoint.

"I failed to see the quote that only nations that allow you to bomb others by using their airspace are of use in his article."

Like I said, the way that he assesses the "friendliness" or "hostility" of countries is focused very heavily on where they stand on bombing the enemies of the US.

I find this discussion rather amusing given the spin that you are doing concerning what he stated.

[Furious Mental]

"I am amused - avoiding answering the question is an answer indeed. I would like to see the evidence from the time that the USSR was going to collaspe in the immediate future. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references if it exists at all."

I said it was clearly going to collapse or reform; Gorbachev initiated his policies of perestroika and glasnost with a view of to achieving detente and preserving the state, either he was going to succeed or the country would simply fall apart. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references? How about those same reforms unleashing innumerable stories from the Soviet media and a flood of statistics revealing how dilapidated the country was? When those same statistics showed the economy going backwards in response to Gorbachev's changes, it was clear that the scales were tipping in favour of collapse, because the system was beyond repair.

The very fact that the USSR had decided to withdraw from Afghanistan at the same time made this even more obvious because the stated raison d'etre for intervening in the first place was to prevent society "going backwards" i.e. regressing from socialism. Anyone who understood anything about Soviet ideology and foreign policy knew to take this as reaffirming the implicit admission made in 1980 that there weren't going to be any more interventions to hold the Warsaw Pact together (and in fact the US govt knew how weak the USSR's hold on its Eastern European allies and its own military had become because it was buying weapons for the mujahideen from them, and was already cajoling Soviet republics themselves to break away). Once such an admission had been made, for other countries to continue pumping more weapons and money into inflaming conflict in Afghanistan was, as I said, at best grossly negligent, at worst extremely malevolent.

The reference is Nazi Germany is inapt. What you are doing is taking a discussion of why making policy purely on the basis of short-term expediency is bad, and trying to turn it into something about "destroying a worse threat". The two are different, do not try to conflate them. Not every alliance with an unsavoury country is to defeat a more unsavoury country, not every policy based on short-term expediency involves such an alliance. In any case I cannot think of worse example than WWII to bring up, as the rationale for fighting Nazism was based on its ideology in the same way that allying with post WWII democracies was based on their ideology, as it was recognised that common ideology generally meant common interests. To the extent that all the WWII Allies were not dedicated to unending military conquest, they had such a concurrence of ideologies and interests.

"Again you have not addressed the point, I find myself amused by your inability to actually answer the question. For there to be peace both sides have to want it. And we both know from the experience of peace in Israel that neither side really wants peace. Attempting to just point to Israel's fault and ignoring the fault of the other side is rather amusing to me."

Again you haven't read anything I write. I said there were "obviously" "other events which contributed" and "I explicitly disclaimed the notion that Israel is solely responsible for the situation". If you are not going to bother, why should I?

"Tsk Tsk - that wasn't the question. Which nation has tried several times to help the peace process? I don't know of many nations that have even tried."

Tsk tsk saying a few words and holding up a piece of paper isn't trying, it is a token gesture. The US govt potentially has immense bargaining power, but abstains from using it and unreservedly supports one side in everything it does, even where it obviously exacerbates the situation. That sort of brokering is not bona fide and more to the point it is obviously never going to produce results, because it hasn't produced any when done by any country since 1948 and indeed before.

"One sided blame is where most fail when discussing Israel and Palenstine."

See above regarding comprehension problems.

"Amazing since what I stated was in essence exactly what Buchanan's article stated, and that is not the interpation that I partake from his statement."

What I said is a logical and inevitable implication. If foreign policy is determined by short term "national interest" considerations without reference to the political system of the other country, then it necessarily follows that "a democracy that does not give unreserved support to the US government is less use than a dictatorship that does". That is the tenor of his article

"When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result."

"When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us."

"Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes."

"
I find this discussion rather amusing given the spin that you are doing concerning what he stated."

It is hardly spin. As I said, he focuses heavily on wartime alliances.

[Redleg]

"I am amused - avoiding answering the question is an answer indeed. I would like to see the evidence from the time that the USSR was going to collaspe in the immediate future. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references if it exists at all."

I said it was clearly going to collapse or reform; Gorbachev initiated his policies of perestroika and glasnost with a view of to achieving detente and preserving the state, either he was going to succeed or the country would simply fall apart. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references? How about those same reforms unleashing innumerable stories from the Soviet media and a flood of statistics revealing how dilapidated the country was? When those same statistics showed the economy going backwards in response to Gorbachev's changes, it was clear that the scales were tipping in favour of collapse, because the system was beyond repair.

The very fact that the USSR had decided to withdraw from Afghanistan at the same time made this even more obvious because the stated raison d'etre for intervening in the first place was to prevent society "going backwards" i.e. regressing from socialism. Anyone who understood anything about Soviet ideology and foreign policy knew to take this as reaffirming the implicit admission made in 1980 that there weren't going to be any more interventions to hold the Warsaw Pact together (and in fact the US govt knew how weak the USSR's hold on its Eastern European allies and its own military had become because it was buying weapons for the mujahideen from them, and was already cajoling Soviet republics themselves to break away). Once such an admission had been made, for other countries to continue pumping more weapons and money into inflaming conflict in Afghanistan was, as I said, at best grossly negligent, at worst extremely malevolent.

To bad for your arguement the USSR invasion of Afganstan happened before Gorbachev was in office. It seems you are neglecting a key piece of the time line. All those statistics came available after the invasion and the resulting support of the rebels in Afganstan. I find your arguement full of misinformation based upon the time line of the actual history, especially given that the USSR went into Afganstan in Dec 1979.

The reference is Nazi Germany is inapt. What you are doing is taking a discussion of why making policy purely on the basis of short-term expediency is bad, and trying to turn it into something about "destroying a worse threat". The two are different, do not try to conflate them. Not every alliance with an unsavoury country is to defeat a more unsavoury country, not every policy based on short-term expediency involves such an alliance. In any case I cannot think of worse example than WWII to bring up, as the rationale for fighting Nazism was based on its ideology in the same way that allying with post WWII democracies was based on their ideology, as it was recognised that common ideology generally meant common interests. To the extent that all the WWII Allies were not dedicated to unending military conquest, they had such a concurrence of ideologies and interests.

The alliance is indeed valid since I didnt reference Nazi Germany only the alliance of the United States and the USSR during WW2. Two completely different political idealogies that were at odds even then. But then again there are others that are available in history - many involving the Roman Empire, some involving even more recent historical conflicts - say like Desert Storm where Syria also was part of the collation of forces - that an Egypt. I find your arguement again full of rethoric but no real substance.

"Again you have not addressed the point, I find myself amused by your inability to actually answer the question. For there to be peace both sides have to want it. And we both know from the experience of peace in Israel that neither side really wants peace. Attempting to just point to Israel's fault and ignoring the fault of the other side is rather amusing to me."

Again you haven't read anything I write. I said there were "obviously" "other events which contributed" and "I explicitly disclaimed the notion that Israel is solely responsible for the situation". If you are not going to bother, why should I?

Why should I bother when your arguement is clearly focus on placing blame on one side while ignoring the other contributing factor. I discount opening statements that are directly contradicted by the arguement that follows. Now if there are obviously other events which have a direct contribution to the facts - it makes the your arguement even weaker that you focus on a side bit of the conflict. The direct contributing factors are the two warring fractions and their actions. I also see you don't critize the acts of the neighboring arab nations which also mistreat the Palenstine people and use them as scapegoats. Then there is your omission of which state funds Hezabolh and is also the most likely candidate for the foundation of the group based upon the idealogy mix.

"Tsk Tsk - that wasn't the question. Which nation has tried several times to help the peace process? I don't know of many nations that have even tried."

Tsk tsk saying a few words and holding up a piece of paper isn't trying, it is a token gesture. The US govt potentially has immense bargaining power, but abstains from using it and unreservedly supports one side in everything it does, even where it obviously exacerbates the situation. That sort of brokering is not bona fide and more to the point it is obviously never going to produce results, because it hasn't produced any when done by any country since 1948 and indeed before.

Incorrect - since the peace between Egypt and Israel was directly brokered by the United States. So when one side attempts to reach for peace, and the other side continues to attack - is it the fault of the third party attempting to broker peace or is it the fault of the two warring fractions?

"One sided blame is where most fail when discussing Israel and Palenstine."

See above regarding comprehension problems.

Tsk Tsk a personal arguement - comprehension is not the problem - your arguement is the problem - I discount statements that directly contradict what an individual says following that statement. Your arguement is focused on one aspect - your attempt to ignore or discount all other factors with just one statement, is somewhat evident in your rethoric. When dealing with conflicts you have to have all factors into the equation or the arguement falls flat. The failure of the peace process in the Middle-East between Israel and the Palenstine people is the two warring fractions - attempting to place onous on outside parties is a weak position because one must remove the two primary agents from the equation to make their arguement work.

If I tried to blame Iran for its foundation, funding, providing of material and yes even possible providing men for this terrorist group - I would be expect to be questioned and even corrected on the misconception of such a statement. And yes dear sir, there is even evidence that Iran is involved with Hezabollah - but that does not mean Iran is responsible for the continued violence done by that group against Israel. It only means Hezabollah is responsible for its own actions. Now I could argue that by proxity Iran is also doing the same thing with Hamas - but that would also be a reaching arguement - so I focus on the actual circumstances. The violence in Israel is a direct result of the two warring fractions - all others are just bit players in the violence.

"Amazing since what I stated was in essence exactly what Buchanan's article stated, and that is not the interpation that I partake from his statement."

What I said is a logical and inevitable implication. If foreign policy is determined by short term "national interest" considerations without reference to the political system of the other country, then it necessarily follows that "a democracy that does not give unreserved support to the US government is less use than a dictatorship that does". That is the tenor of his article

That is a far cry from your opening arguement. Does the article explicitly state that a country's worth as an ally is directly a result of its allowing the US to bomb? That discounts our alliance with England, Austriala, Canada, and a whole list of others.

"When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result."

"When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us."

"Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes."

"
I find this discussion rather amusing given the spin that you are doing concerning what he stated."

It is hardly spin. As I said, he focuses heavily on wartime alliances.

Oh since he focus on wartime alliances its about bombing, I find that an amazing leap. I see that he deals with how countries deal with each other - for instance use his McCain arguement - British and French unloading in Haiphong - are not Britian and France still allies with the United States - in France's case more toward the friendly status then any thing else. That alone defeats your arguement.

Trade agreements and foreign aid agreements also fall into the area in which is discussed in the article - now the exambles were not directly used, but one could also imply that area into the concept present.

NAFTA comes to mind concerning just that.

Have a nice day with your position of negative view point.

[Furious Mental]

"To bad for your arguement the USSR invasion of Afganstan happened before Gorbachev was in office. It seems you are neglecting a key piece of the time line. All those statistics came available after the invasion and the resulting support of the rebels in Afganstan. I find your arguement full of misinformation based upon the time line of the actual history, especially given that the USSR went into Afganstan in Dec 1979."

Once again, you suffer from comprehension problems. As I said (and as I thought I had adequately clarified above), "MORE TO THE POINT" I.E WHAT REALLY SHOWS THE SHORTSIGHTEDNESS OF THE POLICY is that the mujahideen continued to be funded even after it became obvious in the mid 80's that the fate of the USSR's mission in Afghanistan and indeed the fate of the USSR was sealed.

"When dealing with conflicts you have to have all factors into the equation or the arguement falls flat."

The problem is with you and your tendency to ignore what is being said. I have made it clear all sides are to blame, but I didn't bring it up to have a discussion about apportioning responsibility. I brought up the foreign and defences policies of Israel and the US because they are a salutary example of @short sighted policy helping to perpetuate a crisis that is in the interests of no one, except their enemies. There is not and never was any need to bring up the culpability of other parties to the conflict.

"That is a far cry from your opening arguement. Does the article explicitly state that a country's worth as an ally is directly a result of its allowing the US to bomb?"

"Oh since he focus on wartime alliances its about bombing, I find that an amazing leap."

You are just being pedantic. I would have thought it was obvious I was referring to warfighting generally, which as I said is obviously what he pays the most attention when it comes to evaluating the "friendliness" or "hostility", as he puts it, of a country. In future I will make sure I don't use any metaphors, analogies, implications or any of the other stuff that even a trained monkey can understand, because evidently it just confuses you.

"The alliance is indeed valid since I didnt reference Nazi Germany only the alliance of the United States and the USSR during WW2. Two completely different political idealogies that were at odds even then."

More useless pedantry. The alliance between the US and USSR was to defeat Nazi Germany and the reason it was made was the threat which Nazi Germany posed, which, whether or not the Allies understood it at the time was a product of Nazi ideology itself. The inter-war period had demonstrated the liberalism and communism could co-exist, however fascism was not capable of co-existing with anyone. In fact if other countries had actually understood fascist ideology properly rather than just regarding it as a variation of good old European absolutism, the world might have made the appropriate response at an earlier juncture.

"But then again there are others that are available in history - many involving the Roman Empire, some involving even more recent historical conflicts - say like Desert Storm where Syria also was part of the collation of forces - that an Egypt. I find your arguement again full of rethoric but no real substance."

We'll just ignore the fact that if you take any given Western democracy since WWII you will always find that its most consistent and friendly relations have been with other Western democracies then, notwithstanding various disputes.

"Trade agreements and foreign aid agreements also fall into the area in which is discussed in the article - now the exambles were not directly used, but one could also imply that area into the concept present."

Now you are bringing up trade agreements? Whilst such agreements might be made between a wide variety of countries, the closest relationships, such as the EU and NAFTA, are between countries with similar ideologies, which is not surprising because such agreements depend on the countries having the same attitude to free trade and similar governmental structures. Even a system like the WTO, which has a great variety of members, would not be amenable to an autarky like North Korea, just as a system like Comecon couldn't have been superimposed over a group of market economies. Like I said, to act as though the ideology of another country is of no relevance to foreign policy, and that one can just make alliances with governments willy nilly based on who is most supportive of some (usually niche) policy today, without caring about what they might do tomorrow or whether they will even exist tomorrow, is just retarded. Cultural and ideological bonds (or lack thereof) absolutely have to be considered even if they are not determinative. And in the context of long-term relationships they are arguably the most important factor.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There is no need to be unpleasant. This is an interesting debate that has no need of comparisons to monkeys or unfavourable commentaries on a member's comprehension abilities. If one's opponent misses one's point, illuminate not belittle.

In short; less heat, more light.

Thank you kindly.

[Furious Mental]

Well pointing out the bleeding obvious a million times gets tiresome.

[Redleg]

"To bad for your arguement the USSR invasion of Afganstan happened before Gorbachev was in office. It seems you are neglecting a key piece of the time line. All those statistics came available after the invasion and the resulting support of the rebels in Afganstan. I find your arguement full of misinformation based upon the time line of the actual history, especially given that the USSR went into Afganstan in Dec 1979."

Once again, you suffer from comprehension problems. As I said (and as I thought I had adequately clarified above), "MORE TO THE POINT" I.E WHAT REALLY SHOWS THE SHORTSIGHTEDNESS OF THE POLICY is that the mujahideen continued to be funded even after it became obvious in the mid 80's that the fate of the USSR's mission in Afghanistan and indeed the fate of the USSR was sealed.

No comprehension problem at all - I find your arguement flawed. You continue to show the flaw in your arguement. Shortsightedness would be to withdraw funding before victory was complete.
In fact to make your examble valid here would to be point out the shortsightness of not having a plan for what to do in case of success. Once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afganstan the United States just vanished in many ways for the people of Afganstan, allowing them to sort out the chaos of their nation for themselves. So yes their was a shortsightness in the support of the Mujahideen but not the one that you envisioned. If your going to criticize something at least have a true idea on where the shortsightness really was.

"When dealing with conflicts you have to have all factors into the equation or the arguement falls flat."

The problem is with you and your tendency to ignore what is being said. I have made it clear all sides are to blame, but I didn't bring it up to have a discussion about apportioning responsibility. I brought up the foreign and defences policies of Israel and the US because they are a salutary example of @short sighted policy helping to perpetuate a crisis that is in the interests of no one, except their enemies. There is not and never was any need to bring up the culpability of other parties to the conflict.

Now while the policy might be wrong - its not short sighted as it concerns the United States since the policy has been from the very beginning of it by Nixon after/during the 1973 war is one of support of Israel. There are other short sighted factors that are even more significant then anything the United States is involved in concerning Israel.

"That is a far cry from your opening arguement. Does the article explicitly state that a country's worth as an ally is directly a result of its allowing the US to bomb?"

"Oh since he focus on wartime alliances its about bombing, I find that an amazing leap."

You are just being pedantic. I would have thought it was obvious I was referring to warfighting generally, which as I said is obviously what he pays the most attention when it comes to evaluating the "friendliness" or "hostility", as he puts it, of a country. In future I will make sure I don't use any metaphors, analogies, implications or any of the other stuff that even a trained monkey can understand, because evidently it just confuses you.

Ignoring parts of an arguement serves to focus others on what you wish to focus them on. Such attempts as the one you just made just serves to further my amusment, and in fact points to the biggest fundmental flaw of your arguement and even your position.

"The alliance is indeed valid since I didnt reference Nazi Germany only the alliance of the United States and the USSR during WW2. Two completely different political idealogies that were at odds even then."

More useless pedantry. The alliance between the US and USSR was to defeat Nazi Germany and the reason it was made was the threat which Nazi Germany posed, which, whether or not the Allies understood it at the time was a product of Nazi ideology itself. The inter-war period had demonstrated the liberalism and communism could co-exist, however fascism was not capable of co-existing with anyone. In fact if other countries had actually understood fascist ideology properly rather than just regarding it as a variation of good old European absolutism, the world might have made the appropriate response at an earlier juncture.

Which in essence means you just agreed with me and therefor Buchanan's point, concerning the factor to consider in relationships with other nations.

"But then again there are others that are available in history - many involving the Roman Empire, some involving even more recent historical conflicts - say like Desert Storm where Syria also was part of the collation of forces - that an Egypt. I find your arguement again full of rethoric but no real substance."

We'll just ignore the fact that if you take any given Western democracy since WWII you will always find that its most consistent and friendly relations have been with other Western democracies then, notwithstanding various disputes.

That wasn't the point of the article now was it? Nor was it the point of your rebuttal either. But then you seemly discount the friendly relationship the United States has had with several Eastern democracies - to include one that has budded into a pretty good democracy given its very chaotic and totalitarian (SP) start.

[quote]
"Trade agreements and foreign aid agreements also fall into the area in which is discussed in the article - now the exambles were not directly used, but one could also imply that area into the concept present."

Now you are bringing up trade agreements?
[quote]

Sure why not, they are part of foreign policy and how nations deal with each other. You focused on the wartime aspect of the article - completely missing the importance of trade and other foreign relationships to how nations work.

I could have mention earlier the trade, foreign relationship and even military relationship between Saudi Arabia - but its strange animal all in itself.

Whilst such agreements might be made between a wide variety of countries, the closest relationships, such as the EU and NAFTA, are between countries with similar ideologies, which is not surprising because such agreements depend on the countries having the same attitude to free trade and similar governmental structures. Even a system like the WTO, which has a great variety of members, would not be amenable to an autarky like North Korea, just as a system like Comecon couldn't have been superimposed over a group of market economies. Like I said, to act as though the ideology of another country is of no relevance to foreign policy, and that one can just make alliances with governments willy nilly based on who is most supportive of some (usually niche) policy today, without caring about what they might do tomorrow or whether they will even exist tomorrow, is just retarded.

Oh you are beginning to delve away from the bombing aspect of the article - which is exactly my point. To focus only on one aspect of the article defeats the overall importance of it. Now the United States trades with China because of several factors - this is in disregrad to the idealogy of both nations which is often in direct conflict. North and South Korea have active trading agreements while both nations are technically still at war.

Cultural and ideological bonds (or lack thereof) absolutely have to be considered even if they are not determinative. And in the context of long-term relationships they are arguably the most important factor.

Actually your getting close to what Buchanan meant in his last statement - lets compare the two.

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

You have taken idealogy from the determinive aspect to having ideology to be considered. What Buchanan is stating that one can not just use the internal politics (idealogy of the nation) as the sole determining factor in dealing with other nations, and you have just in essence agreed with him.

So while you have attempted to derail me by insults - it seems that you have finally acknowledged the jest of what the article actually states. So its not all that short sighted of a policy now is it?

Have a nice day.

[Redleg]

There is no need to be unpleasant. This is an interesting debate that has no need of comparisons to monkeys or unfavourable commentaries on a member's comprehension abilities. If one's opponent misses one's point, illuminate not belittle.

In short; less heat, more light.

Thank you kindly.

No problem with me Banquo's Ghost I have just been amusing myself with this arguement. A parable of you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink fits very well toward this discussion. I only had to make someone frustrated to actually get him to drink from the well of enlightenment. Normally happens when one focuses on the negative aspect of an article and doesn't see the whole picture.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here is one prime examble - the United States allied with the Soviet Union to fight against Germany.

If he's referring to that, I don't believe it for a moment. Nazi Germany was terrible - probably the most horrible years in unified German history. On the other hand, I would argue that Soviet Russia was a lot worse.

Anyhow, I hate to disturb you. Back to your debate.

[HoreTore]

If he's referring to that, I don't believe it for a moment. Nazi Germany was terrible - probably the most horrible years in unified German history. On the other hand, I would argue that Soviet Russia was a lot worse.

Anyhow, I hate to disturb you. Back to your debate.

Suddenly I'm very glad the US still has military bases in Germany...

[Furious Mental]

"No comprehension problem at all - I find your arguement flawed. You continue to show the flaw in your arguement. Shortsightedness would be to withdraw funding before victory was complete.
In fact to make your examble valid here would to be point out the shortsightness of not having a plan for what to do in case of success. Once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afganstan the United States just vanished in many ways for the people of Afganstan, allowing them to sort out the chaos of their nation for themselves. So yes their was a shortsightness in the support of the Mujahideen but not the one that you envisioned. If your going to criticize something at least have a true idea on where the shortsightness really was."

You were referring to 1979 when I made it quite clear the major mistake I was referring to was made in the mid 1980's. I consider that a comprehension problem.

" Shortsightedness would be to withdraw funding before victory was complete."

Victory was complete in 1986 when the USSR decided to withdraw from Afghanistan. It was even more obviously complete in subsequent years when Red Army forces began to draw down. Nevertheless money and weapons continued to be pumped into the country to bring about its complete collapse. To say there was shortsightedness in not having a plan for "success" suggests you don't understand the policy. The US government knew who it was funding and that they came from culture of warlordism (precisely why they were so useful) that doesn't understand modern governance and could not create a viable state in place of the DRA, and took a conscious decision to put all the funding through the Pakistani ISI, knowing that it would result in the country being ripped apart by Pakistan's power games. The shortsightedness was in thinking the country would just quietly disintegrate with no wider consequences.

"Now while the policy might be wrong - its not short sighted as it concerns the United States since the policy has been from the very beginning of it by Nixon after/during the 1973 war is one of support of Israel. There are other short sighted factors that are even more significant then anything the United States is involved in concerning Israel."

It is short-sighted, because it has consistently emphasised short-term military advantages in an ongoing or potential conflict rather than making serious efforts to end the conflict or remove the eventuality altoghether. Funnily enough this is something Pat Buchanan does understand. But as I said, focusing on short-term expediency tends to produce such disasters in the first place, and of course it took the First Intifada to make Buchanan realise what Ben Gurion understood in 1967.

"Which in essence means you just agreed with me and therefor Buchanan's point, concerning the factor to consider in relationships with other nations."

No. Buchanan's article favours realist international policy in which decisions are taken purely by reference to very narrow "national interest" criteria supposedly divorced from any sort of ideological bias, ignoring the fact that ideology is inherently important in determining the actions of countries and will ensure that some countries are always friendly and some will inevitably become enemies. Nazi Germany was a country that would inevitably become an enemy but someone such as Buchanan, living in the 1930's, would simply have regarded Hitler as no different to all the monarchs and generals that managed to co-exist relatively peacefully. And indeed such people did make that mistake.

"That wasn't the point of the article now was it? Nor was it the point of your rebuttal either. But then you seemly discount the friendly relationship the United States has had with several Eastern democracies - to include one that has budded into a pretty good democracy given its very chaotic and totalitarian (SP) start."

Now it is getting really ridiculous. I never even mentioned Eastern Europe, but that's ok you can just ascribe opinons to me.

"Sure why not, they are part of foreign policy and how nations deal with each other. You focused on the wartime aspect of the article - completely missing the importance of trade and other foreign relationships to how nations work.

I could have mention earlier the trade, foreign relationship and even military relationship between Saudi Arabia - but its strange animal all in itself."

I said Buchanan's article is heavily focused on warfighting, which is absolutely correct. That figures because it's when they are fighting wars that states get desperate enough to make the sort of expedient throwaway alliances which Buchanan advocates.

The reason I find it ridiculous for you to bring up trade agreements is that doesn't benefit your argument at all, for the reasons I pointed out.

Saudi Arabia? With friends like those, you don't need enemies. Its internal ideology is one of the root causes of jihadism.

"To focus only on one aspect of the article defeats the overall importance of it."

I didn't choose to focus on it. Buchanan did.

"What Buchanan is stating that one can not just use the internal politics (idealogy of the nation) as the sole determining factor in dealing with other nations, and you have just in essence agreed with him."

No, I said it is not determinative but it is very important, Buchanan essentially discounts it completely.

"So its not all that short sighted of a policy now is it?"

Yes it is, as I have repeatedly explained. Buchanan's argument is fairly clear- take help from anyone that will give it. By definition policies formulated with reference only to today's circumstances are short-term policies and will not last long.

The longest-lasting alliances are almost always between countries with shared values, the most enduring rivalries are almost always between ideological enemies. Buchanan puts very little stock in this, in fact I would say he considers it to be immaterial.

[Redleg]

"That wasn't the point of the article now was it? Nor was it the point of your rebuttal either. But then you seemly discount the friendly relationship the United States has had with several Eastern democracies - to include one that has budded into a pretty good democracy given its very chaotic and totalitarian (SP) start."

Now it is getting really ridiculous. I never even mentioned Eastern Europe, but that's ok you can just ascribe opinons to me.

Was not talking about eastern europe - and neither was Buchanan speaking of just europe. And neither have you. In fact Buchanan mentioned one Eastern democracy that has helped the United States in the past. Now when it was sending help it wasn't a very good democracy but it has since become a pretty stable one.

"Sure why not, they are part of foreign policy and how nations deal with each other. You focused on the wartime aspect of the article - completely missing the importance of trade and other foreign relationships to how nations work.

I could have mention earlier the trade, foreign relationship and even military relationship between Saudi Arabia - but its strange animal all in itself."

I said Buchanan's article is heavily focused on warfighting, which is absolutely correct. That figures because it's when they are fighting wars that states get desperate enough to make the sort of expedient throwaway alliances which Buchanan advocates.

The reason I find it ridiculous for you to bring up trade agreements is that doesn't benefit your argument at all, for the reasons I pointed out.

Actually trade fits into my arguement very well - attempting to discount it doesn't fit into your arguement very well. Now while Buchanan did indeed focus on warfighting the article itself was not soley on warfighting but how nations interact with each other. Trade is indeed an interaction between nations. Buchanan's article was not just about warfighting - but how nations deal with each other.

Saudi Arabia? With friends like those, you don't need enemies. Its internal ideology is one of the root causes of jihadism.

you got the jest of my point. Its not a short-sighted policy with Saudia Arabia at all - and Saudia Arabia matches Buchanan's point in his article.

"What Buchanan is stating that one can not just use the internal politics (idealogy of the nation) as the sole determining factor in dealing with other nations, and you have just in essence agreed with him."

No, I said it is not determinative but it is very important, Buchanan essentially discounts it completely.

Buchanan doesn't mention it - he mentions only that one should not use internal policies (idealogy) as the reason for dealing with other nations. Everything else is reading into the article for points one would want to get out of the article. Doesn't necessarily make the reading wrong but neither does it make it right.

"So its not all that short sighted of a policy now is it?"

Yes it is, as I have repeatedly explained. Buchanan's argument is fairly clear- take help from anyone that will give it. By definition policies formulated with reference only to today's circumstances are short-term policies and will not last long.

The longest-lasting alliances are almost always between countries with shared values, the most enduring rivalries are almost always between ideological enemies. Buchanan puts very little stock in this, in fact I would say he considers it to be immaterial.

Buchanan's arguement was not on short term circumstances - that is the take that you wish to have of it. It speaks of not using idealogy as the sole purpose of dealing with other nations, he uses exambles that one can take for short-sighted positions but that would be a conclusion of the reader not necessarily the author.

Now I never said I agree or disagree with his position only that I do not agree with your particlur take on what he wrote.

Now I like to play the insult game with the rest of them - so before talking about reading comprehension problems you might want to check out your own before attempting to insult others concerning what you percieve thiers to be. Rather interesting and amusing that the insult was first given by one that suffers from that problem himself. To give you a clue I provided a color coded statement to demonstrate just one of those errors. So as the saying goes the pot calling the Kettle black.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Suddenly I'm very glad the US still has military bases in Germany...

By your talk, I wish they had a few more in Norway. Why does saying I think the Soviets are worse suddenly make me a Nazi?

Get your act together.

[Redleg]

By your talk, I wish they had a few more in Norway. Why does saying I think the Soviets are worse suddenly make me a Nazi?

Get your act together.

It doesn't make you a Nazi at all. Now what is historical is that there was a several group/individuals in the United States prior to our entry into WW2 that were actually wanting Germany to defeat the USSR because of just that belief that Soviet Russia was worse then Nazi Germany. But even most of them were convinced that Nazi Germany had to be defeated also.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It doesn't make you a Nazi at all. Now what is historical is that there was a several group/individuals in the United States prior to our entry into WW2 that were actually wanting Germany to defeat the USSR because of just that belief that Soviet Russia was worse then Nazi Germany. But even most of them were convinced that Nazi Germany had to be defeated also.

I'd agree that both of them had to be defeated. Whether the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany was the greater threat/greater threat to human rights can be debated for an infinite amount of time.

I'd say that Nazi Germany was the greater threat to the world order at the time, and the Soviet Union (under Stalin) the greater threat to human rights. That's an opinion, and we could debate that forever, which is why I stated that I was simply making a personal observation.

[Furious Mental]

"Actually trade fits into my arguement very well - attempting to discount it doesn't fit into your arguement very well. Now while Buchanan did indeed focus on warfighting the article itself was not soley on warfighting but how nations interact with each other. Trade is indeed an interaction between nations. Buchanan's article was not just about warfighting - but how nations deal with each other."

I don't consider that trade agreements fit well with Buchanan's argument at all. Attempts to broker trade agreements without reference to internal politics is futile because the agreement will inevitably effect alot of different interests and they will try to influence the process. One of the reasons why WTO negotiation rounds move at such a snail's pace is that there is no point in making a deal that might be rejected by the legislatures of the US, (to a lesser extent) Germany, Japan, etc after their next elections.

As I said, there are some multilateral trade agreements that cover a wide variety of nations but even something as wide as the WTO is not amenable to some countries, and the closer the trade agreement is the closer the countries have to be in ideological terms, both because they won't want a trade agreement if they have widely diverging views about international trade and because it simply won't work if the constitutional structure of their government is not similar. For instance, a system for the regulation of subsidies and countervailing duties just doesn't work if a country has no administrative law system, which alot of countries don't because their state ideology does not contemplate putting any sort of fetters on the discretion of bureaucrats. Also, the success of trade agreements is contingent on the members having an amiable relationship over a period of decades; it takes years to negotiate, pass, and implement a trade agreement and isn't worth embarking on if it is only expected to last a few years.

"Buchanan's arguement was not on short term circumstances - that is the take that you wish to have of it. It speaks of not using idealogy as the sole purpose of dealing with other nations, he uses exambles that one can take for short-sighted positions but that would be a conclusion of the reader not necessarily the author."

It is not simply one of a variety of interpretations open on the words, it is one that follows necessarily. Buchanan says a country should take help from whoever is presently friendly or hostile, which is something that could change overnight. The way he puts the emphasis on warfighting and discounts internal politics also evinces an approach that would have made sense in the era of Clausewitz but is hopelessly outdated now. If one thinks that the only thing that is important in fighting Al Qaeda is to kill as many of them as possible, one could well back an unpopular dictator like Musharraf for being "tough". But if one thinks about how the problem will pan out more than a week in advance one must conclude that that isn't going to produce a satisfactory outcome because Musharraf has been fighting a civil war for years and has achieved nothing except to plunge the US into even deeper unpopularity. If one dared to commit a cardinal sin and consider internal politics as well one would realise that Musharraf probably won't even be there next year and anyone who keeps relying on him will be caught on the wrong side of history.

"Now I like to play the insult game with the rest of them - so before talking about reading comprehension problems you might want to check out your own before attempting to insult others concerning what you percieve thiers to be. Rather interesting and amusing that the insult was first given by one that suffers from that problem himself. To give you a clue I provided a color coded statement to demonstrate just one of those errors. So as the saying goes the pot calling the Kettle black."

It's not an insult. If I have to repeat myself over and over again I'll call it as I see it.

[Redleg]

"Actually trade fits into my arguement very well - attempting to discount it doesn't fit into your arguement very well. Now while Buchanan did indeed focus on warfighting the article itself was not soley on warfighting but how nations interact with each other. Trade is indeed an interaction between nations. Buchanan's article was not just about warfighting - but how nations deal with each other."

I don't consider that trade agreements fit well with Buchanan's argument at all. Attempts to broker trade agreements without reference to internal politics is futile because the agreement will inevitably effect alot of different interests and they will try to influence the process. One of the reasons why WTO negotiation rounds move at such a snail's pace is that there is no point in making a deal that might be rejected by the legislatures of the US, (to a lesser extent) Germany, Japan, etc after their next elections.

As I said, there are some multilateral trade agreements that cover a wide variety of nations but even something as wide as the WTO is not amenable to some countries, and the closer the trade agreement is the closer the countries have to be in ideological terms, both because they won't want a trade agreement if they have widely diverging views about international trade and because it simply won't work if the constitutional structure of their government is not similar. For instance, a system for the regulation of subsidies and countervailing duties just doesn't work if a country has no administrative law system, which alot of countries don't because their state ideology does not contemplate putting any sort of fetters on the discretion of bureaucrats. Also, the success of trade agreements is contingent on the members having an amiable relationship over a period of decades; it takes years to negotiate, pass, and implement a trade agreement and isn't worth embarking on if it is only expected to last a few years.

Buchanan doesn't mention trade but neither does he discount it in his arguement. What Buchanan is talking about is how nations deal with each othr. Buchanan was argueing that idealogical basis for dealing with other nations is not the answer. The article fits into a more areas then just warfighting, even if warfighting is the percieved focus. If your going to read into an article you must look for other things then just what you wish to see.

"Buchanan's arguement was not on short term circumstances - that is the take that you wish to have of it. It speaks of not using idealogy as the sole purpose of dealing with other nations, he uses exambles that one can take for short-sighted positions but that would be a conclusion of the reader not necessarily the author."

It is not simply one of a variety of interpretations open on the words, it is one that follows necessarily. Buchanan says a country should take help from whoever is presently friendly or hostile, which is something that could change overnight. The way he puts the emphasis on warfighting and discounts internal politics also evinces an approach that would have made sense in the era of Clausewitz but is hopelessly outdated now. If one thinks that the only thing that is important in fighting Al Qaeda is to kill as many of them as possible, one could well back an unpopular dictator like Musharraf for being "tough". But if one thinks about how the problem will pan out more than a week in advance one must conclude that that isn't going to produce a satisfactory outcome because Musharraf has been fighting a civil war for years and has achieved nothing except to plunge the US into even deeper unpopularity. If one dared to commit a cardinal sin and consider internal politics as well one would realise that Musharraf probably won't even be there next year and anyone who keeps relying on him will be caught on the wrong side of history.

One that follows necessarily - is not necessarily the only correct answer. Many of your statements come from how you view the article. For instance you got stuck on Western Democracies - something Buchanan mentioned but did not just stick with. And Buchanan does not say a country should take help from whoever is presently friendly or hostile - I believe he considers one should take help from those whose's foriegn policy best matches there own. If a nation is hostile alreadly thier foriegn policy is alreadly at odds. Now Musharraf also had to lossen some of his hold because of his desire to have US aid which has allowed his opposition into power. So while the United States has lost popularity - does that mean it is not meeting its goal of spreading democracy? Now would that make dealing with Musharraf short-sighted because the United States was solely looking at defeating Al Qaeda, or could there be more to the United States policy then meets your eye?

"Now I like to play the insult game with the rest of them - so before talking about reading comprehension problems you might want to check out your own before attempting to insult others concerning what you percieve thiers to be. Rather interesting and amusing that the insult was first given by one that suffers from that problem himself. To give you a clue I provided a color coded statement to demonstrate just one of those errors. So as the saying goes the pot calling the Kettle black."

It's not an insult. If I have to repeat myself over and over again I'll call it as I see it.

But then I guess you didnt realize I was playing your for the fool with my arguement, I rather enjoyed it since the goal was to get you to make several personal attacks not to prove any major point concerning the article. So before you attempt to insult people you might start to realize when people are testing the waters to see how you will react.

Oh its been enjoyable but it seems your just as blind as any other fool who believes they are right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is just flat wrong.

Now its the weekend and I have better things to do then fool around with a narrow mind.