[SammytheMc]

techsupp0rt, on Feb 24 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

Their role should be to serve the immediate interests of the people they govern. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I don't mean to pick out one sentence from what you wrote, but I believe that this is the crux of your argument. I strongly disagree with this point. Governments have to think generationally and globally. The conflict in Georgia may seem to be incredibly far away, but first, that seems like more of a beginning than an end, and second, it's a lot closer to The United States of America than it is to techsupp0rt, if that makes any sense. If government only thought in the short term, we wouldn't have a standing army, and any government that DID think in the long term would have long ago invaded us.

Another thing. If we let the UN take care of human rights abuses and making the world a better place, it would not happen, especially when you're talking about the abuses of powers on the security council. The UN writes a strongly worded letter and leaves it at that, because it is institutionally incapable of making moves that certain countries (with diametrically opposed goals) disagree with.

[hestermofet]

techsupp0rt, on Feb 24 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

Why? People standing by their allies for the sake of standing by their allies is what allowed a minor spat between Serbia and Austria to grow into a world war.

It's not standing by our allies for the sake of standing by our allies, it's standing by our allies so when we need them, they'll help us. States have interests, not friends.

Quote

So let the people in Eastern and Central Europe deal with it. Russia only has 140,000,000 people. The rest of Europe has well over 500,000,000. They shouldn't need any help standing up to Russia, if that's what they need to do.

The EU may have circa 300 million, but not everyone of those 300 million is going to take up arms to fight Russia. Russia has a far greater army than the rest of Europe combined. Also, The EU has no common defense policy, so you can't look at the population of the EU as a whole when it comes to defence, you have to look at individual armies in individual states.

Quote

Besides, how exactly is Russia "menacing" anybody? We've invaded more nations than they have over the past couple of decades.

There are more ways to be a bully than by simply taking territory.

Quote

So because we allowed ourselves to become dependent upon their resources, we get to exert control over their nation to ensure that they continue to trade resources with us? Russia isn't required to trade with us just because we "need" them to. It's our own fault for allowing ourselves to become dependent upon foreign resources, and punishing other nations because of that fact is just wrong. They didn't shove the oil and gas down our throats, we asked for it willingly and have no right to complain if one day they decide to cut the supply off.

I was addressing your point that the US government should only look out for things that directly affect its citizens. I would say that economic collapse from skyrocketing oil prices definitely counts as something that directly affects US citizens. It's nice to go into the land of make-believe and wish for a world where we aren't dependent on foreign oil, but that's not a world we live in today. We ARE dependent on foreign oil, and as a result, it's incumbent on the US government to ensure that oil flow continues if it truly is there to protect the interests of American citizens.

Quote

Their role should be to serve the immediate interests of the people they govern. Nothing more, and nothing less.

A strong European market for American goods and services is in the interests of the people the US government governs. Cheap oil is in the interests of the American people. We live in an increasingly interconnected world. Isolationism isn't an option.

[baafie_]

Xerxes, on Jul 30 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

How many of those countries in that category have a nuclear arsenal? There are a lot of problem governments in the world but the governance of G8 members is something else.

So what do you propose to do about the U.S. government?

[techs]

Quote

Governments have to think generationally and globally. The conflict in Georgia may seem to be incredibly far away, but first, that seems like more of a beginning than an end, and second, it's a lot closer to The United States of America than it is to techsupp0rt, if that makes any sense. If government only thought in the short term, we wouldn't have a standing army, and any government that DID think in the long term would have long ago invaded us.

I think there's a line to walk here. I'm not suggesting that the government should only think in the immediate term, but at the same time it doesn't seem any better to have the government so zealously protective of its long-term interests that it starts preemptively interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations any time there's a hypothetical threat extrapolated somewhere down the line. A threat needs to be credible before there is justification to act upon it, and I don't think Russia has posed any sort of credible threat to U.S. interests in recent times.

As an aside, I think it would be great if no nation on the planet had a standing army. The massive amount of money that would be saved could be put to a huge number of better uses.

Quote

Another thing. If we let the UN take care of human rights abuses and making the world a better place, it would not happen, especially when you're talking about the abuses of powers on the security council. The UN writes a strongly worded letter and leaves it at that, because it is institutionally incapable of making moves that certain countries (with diametrically opposed goals) disagree with.

I think that's a whole separate issue. The UN should be capable of acting effectively and fairly, and of showing some teeth when the situation calls for it.

Quote

I was addressing your point that the US government should only look out for things that directly affect its citizens. I would say that economic collapse from skyrocketing oil prices definitely counts as something that directly affects US citizens.

Fair enough, I guess the subtext I should have included was "look out for things that directly affect its citizens, so long as its doing so without unjustly interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations". We created our own dependence on oil, and as such there's no just way to assert that the impact of skyrocketing oil prices makes it okay to be trying to manipulate the affairs of Russia, or anyone else for that matter.

Quote

It's nice to go into the land of make-believe and wish for a world where we aren't dependent on foreign oil, but that's not a world we live in today. We ARE dependent on foreign oil, and as a result, it's incumbent on the US government to ensure that oil flow continues if it truly is there to protect the interests of American citizens.

That I very much disagree with. We made our own mess, and we have no justification for punishing anyone except ourselves for it. If the dependency on foreign resources is such a liability, then that dependency should end. And if it needs to be a painful transition, then so be it. Otherwise we're just offloading our misery onto other parts of the world, in what is at best a temporary solution. It's our mess, and we should be the ones who have to suffer through the consequences. Not the rest of the world.

This post has been edited by techsupp0rt: 02 March 2009 - 06:32 AM

[hestermofet]

techsupp0rt, on Mar 2 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

I think there's a line to walk here. I'm not suggesting that the government should only think in the immediate term, but at the same time it doesn't seem any better to have the government so zealously protective of its long-term interests that it starts preemptively interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations any time there's a hypothetical threat extrapolated somewhere down the line.

Sovereignty is a pretty fluid concept. I don't think sovereignty trumps all. There are instances where state sovereignty should be infringed on, two examples being Nazi Germany and Rwanda. For example, the US had the capability to jam government-sponsored hate radio (incitement to violence) during the lead up to the Rwandan genocide, but chose not to because of concerns about free speech. I think this was the wrong decision. We live in an interconnected world, we can't hide behind state sovereignty

Quote

I think that's a whole separate issue. The UN should be capable of acting effectively and fairly, and of showing some teeth when the situation calls for it.

You seem to be of two minds; you want stronger protections for state sovereignty, but you also want a stronger UN. A stronger UN will necessarily infringe upon state sovereignty. A stronger UN is also not a realistic option, due to the veto powers of the P5.

Quote

That I very much disagree with. We made our own mess, and we have no justification for punishing anyone except ourselves for it. If the dependency on foreign resources is such a liability, then that dependency should end. And if it needs to be a painful transition, then so be it.

There's no alternative to oil for industrial uses, such as plastics and lubrication. I don't think it's fair to say dependence on foreign oil is a self-created problem of the West, therefore, the West has to bear the costs. Energy is critical to a thriving capitalist economy. Fossil fuels happen to be the cheapest source of energy, and capitalism is always about reducing costs. Unless we see a drastic restructuring of our economy away from capitalism, our foreign policy will always be based around exploitation of cheap labour and resources from abroad. It's called comparative advantage. Developed states have a comparative advantage with respect to technology and expertise, developing states on production.

[techs]

Quote

You seem to be of two minds; you want stronger protections for state sovereignty, but you also want a stronger UN. A stronger UN will necessarily infringe upon state sovereignty.

Well, I want stronger protections for state sovereignty from their peers. The problem when one nation asserts its dominance over another is that it's basically a unilateral decision on behalf of the aggressor nation. There's nothing in place to help ensure that the aggressor nation is acting for legitimate reasons, or exercising proper restraint in its actions. It's kind of akin to giving everyone a gun and telling them "if you see anyone doing anything wrong, you can use your gun to stop them and there will be no consequences" without giving them any definition, guidelines or procedure for determining what counts as being "wrong". And then you could give one person a better gun than everyone else, and advanced body armor that renders other people's weapons nearly useless, and see how long they manage to last before they start using their position to take advantage of others for their own benefit.

The difference with something like the UN is that it isn't a peer to any one nation. It's a collection of peers, and that lends more legitimacy to its decisions. While it's far from foolproof, it does provide a degree of protection against a single nation that happens to be more powerful than any other nation deciding to unilaterally take advantage of its position. At the very least, its opinions and actions don't represent the views of only a single nation, but rather a majority agreement of all participating nations.

Quote

A stronger UN is also not a realistic option, due to the veto powers of the P5.

Yeah, they should really get to fixing that. Each member nation should have an equal stake in the decision making process.

This post has been edited by techsupp0rt: 03 March 2009 - 07:16 AM