How do you spell i.nterventionist? L-O-S-E-R

[Jimmy Higgins]

Saddam Hussein was going to die one of these days anyway. If your country's social problems are painted over by a brutal dictator, you can't really blame the one who gets rid of the dictator for the cracking that follows.

But you can blame them for:

1) completely pretending it was never going to happen, despite contrary claims from experts
2) their denial that it was happening
3) failure to react in a timely fashion (started after Nov. 2006 for some reason) to the reality of it.

 

[untermensche]

There was next to no sectarian violence and mixed neighborhoods.

It was only after the invasion that many turned to long dead sectarian identity and segregation.

Wow. You should read a little more. Quote your religious beliefs a little less.

This is something any idiot with no argument could say.

 

[ksen]

Hey, my good buddy dismal isn't just any idiot.

You take that back!

 

[arkirk]

Wow. You should read a little more. Quote your religious beliefs a little less.

This is something any idiot with no argument could say.

Oil powered empires always work about the way ours is working today. We just refuse to admit how addicted we are to having all our loads lifted by pollution. The Germans have hedged their bets, knowing full well this is not sustainable. They have invested substantially in alternative energy. As long as we believe we can power our way to a peaceful world, we will continue to lose. As long as we continue to place human needs and humane approaches to our problems last in our considerations, we will have more....interventionism.

 

[untermensche]

Hey, my good buddy dismal isn't just any idiot.

You take that back!

If you notice I was careful to not call him an idiot. I said what he produced could have been produced by any idiot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think I agree with you if you mean that the problem is systemic. In other words, you aren't going to solve it with something as simplistic as campaign finance reform. Nor are you going to solve it with socialism. That would merely make the state and industry and finance even more in bed with each other than they are now as we saw in the Soviet Union. But before we do anything about it, we have to recognize that it exists.

You fix it by lowering the cost of participation in the democratic process.

Why should a person have to raise huge sums of money first to serve in the government?

It makes absolutely no sense.

It is merely a method of controlling the system with money.

This is an unintended (at least theoretically) consequence of all the campaign finance laws designed to get rid of the influence of money in politics. We're treating poison by administering increasing doses of poison.


I say "theoretically" because I believe the elected officials knew the laws would have the reverse effect and that suited them nicely.

 

[untermensche]

You fix it by lowering the cost of participation in the democratic process.

Why should a person have to raise huge sums of money first to serve in the government?

It makes absolutely no sense.

It is merely a method of controlling the system with money.

This is an unintended (at least theoretically) consequence of all the campaign finance laws designed to get rid of the influence of money in politics. We're treating poison by administering increasing doses of poison.


I say "theoretically" because I believe the elected officials knew the laws would have the reverse effect and that suited them nicely.

So how would you eliminate the up front costs of serving in government?

Do we want money to have an advantage in the political system? Do we want it to have any special influence?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, since the laws designed to eliminate the up front cost have only increased the up front cost, then the way to decrease the up front cost is to get rid of the laws increasing the up front cost.

Our current laws give money an advantage in the political system and gives it special influence, even though you were told they were designed to do the opposite.

It's call "this isn't working, let's try something else."

 

[untermensche]

Well, since the laws designed to eliminate the up front cost have only increased the up front cost, then the way to decrease the up front cost is to get rid of the laws increasing the up front cost.

Our current laws give money an advantage in the political system and gives it special influence, even though you were told they were designed to do the opposite.

It's call "this isn't working, let's try something else."

So how exactly does that make running for office available to anyone who doesn't want to sell their soul raising huge amounts of money?

Now you have taken off all limits.

That just gives those with the most a greater advantage.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Our current laws give those with the most a greater advantage.

I know, you've been told that they are supposed to not do that. But they do that. Our entire structure of campaign finance law is nothing more than a giant bait-and-switch.

Open your eyes.

Our current laws do all the things that you are afraid their absence would do.

Right now. Currently.

They're not supposed to (if you believe lying politicians) but they do.

Since the current laws increased all the things you are against, then getting rid of them will decrease all the things you are against. Not eliminate entirely, but decrease. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Right now we have what you don't want. The current laws - which you think are supposed to give you what you want - give you what you don't want. The conclusion is obvious - get rid of that which gives you what you don't want.

 

[boneyard bill]

And here I thought L-O-S-E-R spelled "light oscillation by stimulated emission of radiation"

Anywho, how could any diatribe about US foibles not include the latest Syria-ISIS fiasco?

That's included in the discussion of Iraq.

 

[boneyard bill]

While I'm not a particular fan of interventionism and the often bogus reasons by which it is sometimes justified, I find these arguments that blame everything that goes wrong everywhere on the US to be a bit tiresome.

My sense is Libya would be a pretty screwed up place even without our gentle humanitarian bombing of it. Many of these countries have been scrabbling internally or with each other since before the US existed.

And why should the US try to fix it? It's pretty apparent that we can't. The most successful "nation-building" projects are now called colonialism and the most successful of these was probably India. But Britain was in India for 150 years.

But it is naïve to believe that we are actually engaging in nation building for altruistic reasons. There are powerful interests pushing these policies on the US government. What the hell did Clinton, George W. Bush or Obama ever know about foreign policy? Maybe as much as your average cab driver.

 

[boneyard bill]

So the US isn't much involved in Syria and we didn't do the right thing. US mildly involved in Libya and we didn't do the right thing. US not really involved at all in Ukraine and we aren't doing the right thing. US trying to keep at arms length in Iraq (because the long-term solution requires a mainly Arab response) and we aren't doing the right thing. US really uninvolved in Mubarak falling and Obama is blamed for supporting Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm not certain what the US can do in these situations and not be extolled as foreign policy failures.

We certainly were, and still are, involved in Ukraine. And we were involved big time in Iraq. But the way to avoid these foreign policy debacles is not to get into them in the first place. We had no compelling interest is any of these conflicts nor do we have any in Syria or Pakistan or Somalia or the other places where we are uselessly involving ourselves. And we keep losing so it isn't even good realpolitik.

 

[boneyard bill]

The point is all the US intervention, especially the intervention that began when the Bush administration came to town, has not created anything pretty anywhere.

You've got to be joking. To respond to that point by laying the problems in the Middle East in Bush is unbelievable. Do you actually think that the Middle East was going pretty well before Bush? Doo you actually think that if Bush had not been President they'd all be getting along fine over there now?

Yes. Except in Israel and Gaza.

 

[boneyard bill]

Saddam Hussein was going to die one of these days anyway. If your country's social problems are painted over by a brutal dictator, you can't really blame the one who gets rid of the dictator for the cracking that follows.

Hussein led a dictatorship. He would have passed power to another general or to his sons when he got old just like Castro turned power over to his younger brother Raul. Just like the North Korean leader is always named Kim-I-something.

 

[boneyard bill]

Well, since the laws designed to eliminate the up front cost have only increased the up front cost, then the way to decrease the up front cost is to get rid of the laws increasing the up front cost.

Our current laws give money an advantage in the political system and gives it special influence, even though you were told they were designed to do the opposite.

It's call "this isn't working, let's try something else."

So how exactly does that make running for office available to anyone who doesn't want to sell their soul raising huge amounts of money?

Now you have taken off all limits.

That just gives those with the most a greater advantage.

I think this whole discussion is misguided. Campaign contributions are not the most important influence. They are way down the list. Look the Defense Department and the defense industry are structurally separate entities. But functionally they are inseparable. This is true in many other areas especially banking which has its hands in just about everything. We can't look at these groups as "government" or "private." We have to look at the whole picture and see how they interact. It is this essentially fascist structure that we need to look at and decide how these special relationships can be prevented or broken up.