Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to give President Obama the power to launch

[aowen]

Please tell me what bombing campaign has been completely discriminate. Our missile are more precise than chemical weapons sure, but it only takes a quick look at how many civilians were killed in Iraq to know nothing is perfect. Remember when that train was hit by our missile? Human errors cause problems too, such as the CIA having civilian targets on their list, which we wound up blowing up. Oops, our intel was wrong.

The problem is that you are defending our past policies in the middle east, and no one, I mean no one, as much nice shit to say about it. Hindsight is 20/20, errors can be admitted, but to continue down the same path and justify the past is just being blind. You make false presumptions that if we leave there will be some huge power vacuum, because shit could get so much worse there as it is, or that our presence has improved anything. What little knowledge you fail at structuring into a cohesive and coherent argument. You frame the debate all wrong, set up situations where it's us or them, typical ignorant American who has never once thought outside the box. I can already tell you'd be a realist if you ever read any theory, probably the most criticized, austere, dumb, but prevalent perception of how to order world politics. Fail, fail, fail. I suggest you try your hand at something besides IR theory sir Daldolma.

[Daldolma]

What are you even talking about? We've barely discussed past policy at all. This discussion has been almost exclusively about current and future policy, with a brief aside into what got us here.

And where have I said anything even close to our presence improving the Middle East? On the contrary, I suggested we've intentionally stunted progress in the region in order to further our own interests. I've never said us leaving would make the Middle East worse, either. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me. I haven't said a word one way or the other about what the outcome would be for the Middle East if America left. All I've said is that America leaving would create a power vacuum -- which is fairly obvious. We're a massive power in the region. If we leave, other actors inherit or claim that power. Would it be better for the Middle East? Worse? Who knows? All I've said is that it would be worse for America because the Middle East is vital to its interests and losing power there means losing control over a vital interest.

And lol @ hating on realism. It's the most prevalent theory because it's the only theory that holds water. Hate it all you want, criticize its implications, but it's more or less the way the world works.

[Kagatob]

I'm still pro-Geneva convention. Why must such straightforward concepts be so difficult for people these days?

[aowen]

Actually, constructivism is closer to the way the world works, because it takes a more holistic approach that incorporates normative underpinnings, factors outside of nations (IE trade organizations, businesses, and other entities), allows for net gains rather than solely zero sum, and perhaps most importantly seeks to understand circumstances through a dialectic approach that acknowledges the mutual constitution of most situations rather than framing things within a binary approach. Realism is for retards who can't understand complex frameworks. It attempts to take dynamic and complicated situations and turn them into easy to understand black and white scenarios for the plebs to understand, and it is for anti-intellectual cocksuckers.

You have indeed brought up the past, albeit briefly, when discussing Egypt and foreign aid. Failing to reflect on the past is a grave error. The present is indicative of the past, and the past informs the present. Taking this into account, predictions of the future can be made. Consequently, our perceptions and framing of the past influence our understanding of the present. Not understanding that also makes you a retard.

While we have always had a moderate amount of meddling or 'influence' in the middle east, our increased presence there has not remedied anything, and has by all means worsened the situation. Therefore, by implication, your conclusion espousing a power vacuum is unfounded, as there is hardly anyone organized enough to seize control immediately anyways. Clusterfuck is closer to what those countries look like after a government collapses.

Again, the Middle East was at one time important to us, but we are increasingly drawing our oil from North and South America. Not only is energy independence a top priority, Brazil's new offshore oil supply, one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the world, will takeover as one of the biggest suppliers in the world, and is a country we have always had amicable relations with. Your boner for the middle east is overstated.

And I will quote myself from my first post: The problem with this notion [funding or bombing Syria], at this stage at least, is the failure to consider a) the consequences of support for rebel forces, b) whether it's actually reasonable to expect a short operation, c) whether constituents have the appetite for more war in this region, d) any kind of exit plan once the job, whatever that is, is done. I think the lack of intervention so far can be pinned down to the difficulties in adequately assessing these considerations. This is such a volatile situation that it's very difficult to be sure we won't just make the situation worse in the long-term, or at least end up being culpable in the total collapse of the state.

When I think of foreign policy, I don't only keep America's interests in mind, I keep the interests of people in general in mind.

You sir are stuck about 2 decades behind.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys are just arguing semitics now.

you clever son of a bitch

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, constructivism is closer to the way the world works, because it takes a more holistic approach that incorporates normative underpinnings, factors outside of nations (IE trade organizations, businesses, and other entities), allows for net gains rather than solely zero sum, and perhaps most importantly seeks to understand circumstances through a dialectic approach that acknowledges the mutual constitution of most situations rather than framing things within a binary approach. Realism is for retards who can't understand complex frameworks. It attempts to take dynamic and complicated situations and turn them into easy to understand black and white scenarios for the plebs to understand, and it is for anti-intellectual cocksuckers.

You have indeed brought up the past, albeit briefly, when discussing Egypt and foreign aid. Failing to reflect on the past is a grave error. The present is indicative of the past, and the past informs the present. Taking this into account, predictions of the future can be made. Consequently, our perceptions and framing of the past influence our understanding of the present. Not understanding that also makes you a retard.

While we have always had a moderate amount of meddling or 'influence' in the middle east, our increased presence there has not remedied anything, and has by all means worsened the situation. Therefore, by implication, your conclusion espousing a power vacuum is unfounded, as there is hardly anyone organized enough to seize control immediately anyways. Clusterfuck is closer to what those countries look like after a government collapses.

Again, the Middle East was at one time important to us, but we are increasingly drawing our oil from North and South America. Not only is energy independence a top priority, Brazil's new offshore oil supply, one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the world, will takeover as one of the biggest suppliers in the world, and is a country we have always had amicable relations with. Your boner for the middle east is overstated.

And I will quote myself from my first post: The problem with this notion [funding or bombing Syria], at this stage at least, is the failure to consider a) the consequences of support for rebel forces, b) whether it's actually reasonable to expect a short operation, c) whether constituents have the appetite for more war in this region, d) any kind of exit plan once the job, whatever that is, is done. I think the lack of intervention so far can be pinned down to the difficulties in adequately assessing these considerations. This is such a volatile situation that it's very difficult to be sure we won't just make the situation worse in the long-term, or at least end up being culpable in the total collapse of the state.

When I think of foreign policy, I don't only keep America's interests in mind, I keep the interests of people in general in mind.

You sir are stuck about 2 decades behind.

Jesus, there's so much wrong with the above. I don't think you even understand constructivism, let alone realism. Although props for being maybe the first person in history to call Thucydides an anti-intellectual.

Instead of going point by point which is going to lead to another 500 word essay, I'm going to break this down pretty quickly. Look at the bolded print.

In a nutshell, that's the issue here. Apparently you think policy informed by national self-interest is a thing of the past. As you say that, the US is continuing to pump money into Israel's military, continuing to support an oppressive Saudi Arabian regime, continuing to buy Egypt's cooperation, continuing to prop up our preferred governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and debating whether or not to intervene in a Syrian civil war to aid a rebellion comprised mostly of Islamist jihadists with the stated goal of a nation based on sharia law. Does that sound like we're looking out for Middle Eastern people in general? The US is running the realist playbook. You can hate it: that's fine. I've never once discussed the morality of it. Is it right? Is it wrong? Does it matter? Those are the facts on the ground.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

[aowen]

Thucydides? You're not decades behind, you're fucking centuries behind. First you need to read the actual relevant classical realists such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Locke. Then continue to their contemporary critics such as Hagel, Rousseau, Marx, etc. Then you need to update yourself because that's all just foundational work and actually read shit that matters. Current realists that might have a smidge of salience are Morgenthau, Mearsheimer, Waltz, Brezezinski, Kissinger, Kennan, and more. Then read people that actually know what their fucking talking about like Habermas, Frost, Foucault, and watch them fucking decimate realists.

You argument is stupid, because you just listed a bunch of facts without any kind of point to them, except that maybe US foreign policy is realist, which is true. It is also true that American FP in the middle east is a sad sack of shit. Perhaps if they had contemplated the morality of their actions, different decisions would have been made. Maybe if ol' GW read a book without pictures he would have known that sometimes taking others interests into consideration is important. Biggest problem with realism=defining what's in your rational self-interest, which it purports to always be a questions with an answer. Wrong, that doesn't even fucking mean anything, and it's the worst type of morality, aka selfishness.

That last statement you made there, the weak suffer what they must. I guess slavery would have gone over great with you, which is why you don't give a shit about 5 million malnourished people living in camps because of Israel. You're a dolt. Thucydides, lmao, fucking retard, you know nothing jon snow.

[Obsidus]

Finally this shit wipe of a thread got interesting!

[aowen]

How does it make sense to evaluate an international situation if you're going to completely ignore the red cross, UN, WTO, OECD, World Bank, IMF, and every single corporation. Because if you know your realism, those are all out the window in their analysis. You can't argue that that is not fucking retarded, seeing as they use them for developing countries all the fucking time.

You can't even grasp the inside of a nation without companies. Oh wait, I forgot, realists don't believe in analysing the endogenous factors, they don't see how maybe the composition of a country might influence its foreign policy.

Realism certainly has its uses, but is dwarfed and under the umbrella of far more comprehensive theories, namely social constructivism. Without looking at how things are legitimized and institutionalized, you cannot comprehend any given situation.

You so clearly epitomize the thinking limited to the confines of realism it's fucking making me want to type with my forehead. You'd be laughed out of a fucking IR circle.

[Estolcles]

The only Hobbes I read is the one where he teams up with Calvin.