- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,739
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If Trump wins this stupid conspiracy theory is going to be around for years to come. Sigh.
Good grief... the Neo-Con criticisms of Trump's foreign policy are all so painfully stupid. One could be forgiven for thinking that people like Bill Krystal look back *fondly* upon the days of the Cold War. Can someone please explain to me why turning our geopolitical rivals into enemies by collectively branding them as an "axis of evil" is a better plan than trying to diplomatically resolve our differences with them? The former strategy sounds like a great way to cause World War III.
Well my oh my, I'm almost scared enough to vote for Shillary. Almost. Ok, not really.
Simpleχity;1066126385 said:Putin's Party?
The neo-conservative political analyst and commentator William Krystal bemoans Donald Trump steering the GOP closer to Vladimir Putin.
You don't "resolve your differences" with hyper aggressive, tolitarian states like China, Russia, or even, on a lesser note, Iran or North Korea(Iraq and Syria before they fell apart).
And adding to that, would you argue countries like North Korea aren't evil?
Well, that's exactly the sort of unwarranted mindset I'm objecting to... those states may have unsavory leaders, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of coming to some sort of mutually-beneficial diplomatic agreement.
No. Cooperating with a country for peace-making purposes doesn't indicate approval of its leaders' moral character.
Countries like that don't see the point of diplomacy. To them, "diplomacy"= "you give us what we want, period. End of story. We don't give anything up".
Is there something fundamentally different about these polities? Sure, they pursue their own interests. That's what states do. That's the prime premise of realism. Your unspoken assumption seems to be that their interests and our interests will never overlap in a complicated world. I don't see how that can be supported. So long as interests overlap, temporary, mutually beneficial accords can be reached. To preclude that possibility because of black-and-white thinking seems unwise.
Most of the time the interests don't overlap. That's the thing.
Countries like that don't see the point of diplomacy. To them, "diplomacy"= "you give us what we want, period. End of story. We don't give anything up".
Simpleχity;1066126385 said:Putin's Party?
The neo-conservative political analyst and commentator William Krystal bemoans Donald Trump steering the GOP closer to Vladimir Putin.
I'd disagree with that; they certainly have with China. They're starting to with Iran. And they do with Russia when it comes to Syria. Russia and China also squabble over natural gas pipelines in Central Asia from time to time, and there are benefits to reap by taking a side quietly in those conflicts. I just think that Americans in general have psychological issues with Russia due to decades of Cold War propaganda.
Lol no, their leaders aren't idiots. They're rational actors, and they recognize the military supremacy of the United States. Don't fall for the melodramatic posturing of our warhawk politicians. Painting those countries as bloodthirsty monsters hellbent on world domination may be useful for scaring voters to their side, but it's entirely counter-productive from a pragmatic standpoint.
China and the US' interests are sharply diverging in the South China Sea.
Iran is starting to mellow but they still aren't exactly trustworthy.
Putin's Russia is very aggressive.
The "propaganda" was basically true. It's hard to be much worse then the USSR.
China will probably soften their line on that soon. If not, it was a long time coming, as our projection of power into East Asia was never going to be a permanent thing. The South China Sea isn't exactly a huge diplomatic priority to us.
Good diplomacy is based on predictable interests, not trust.
It's irredentist. That's different.
If it were true, propaganda would have been unnecessary. The USSR was certainly opposed to us, and we had the clout for policies like containment. But they weren't an Evil Empire.
You don't "resolve your differences" with hyper aggressive, tolitarian states like China, Russia, or even, on a lesser note, Iran or North Korea(Iraq and Syria before they fell apart).
And adding to that, would you argue countries like North Korea aren't evil?
Yeah, they were an evil empire. The fact that you would say otherwise......
Hold on a second...what's your definition of "hyper aggressive"? Is "hyper aggressive" having vested interest in what happens right on the border of your country or is that just being pragmatic? I mean, it could be worse, there could be a country that has toppled multiple regimes half way around that world, destabilized a handful of other countries, and are droning so many countries that almost no one even knows who all is being hit.
... indicates that I am a realist.
Indicates you don't know what your talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?