Dániel Boros Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) First you would have to determine the role of government in international relationships. ->To protect the rights of its people same as the domestic Than you would have to determine what methods are available to do that ->Voluntary: diplomacy, contracts, international law, trade ->Force: sending the military Than you need to restrict how force can be used and in what cases just like in domestic affairs. If the decision to go to war was made the military is obliged to go through wit it. Naturally in a conflict you would need allies and in the end your enemies determine your allies. Athens and Sparta allied even though they hated each other. After the conflict is over the military alliance should be over as well. After WWII the USA and the Soviets became enemies, Italy was the enemy of Germany in WWI but not in WWII etc... Athens allies benefited from their alliance, but after the war they all became the slaves of Athens unjust taxes. The lesson of history is that all Alliances fail sooner or later. (Although the conflict in the Middle East was never meant to end) The US foreign policy in a way follows the "Might is Right" principle and a "Altruistic" principle as well. Alturistic in that they sacrifice their man for the well being of their allies. Might is Right because they start war knowing no one has the means to oppose them. Just because you have bigger guns doesn't mean you can do anything... well maybe it does.... You know wrong. And I wish you'd just make your point, instead of telling me what I mean or don't mean. I was satirical which means I was right. Sorry I merely wanted to point out how much the Israelis love this alliance of the US that is forced on them. Maybe one day you will even have to occupy them to keep them your allies lol That's what Athens did... Edited February 21, 2012 by Dániel Boros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Daniel, care to elaborate on our enemies determining our allies? Specifically, what method would you use to determine your ally after being presented with an enemy? I'm also interested to know why you don't seem to think peacetime alliances are legitimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinderpro2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Might is Right because they start war knowing no one has the means to oppose them. Just because you have bigger guns doesn't mean you can do anything... well maybe it does.... Or is that just a consequence of the fact that our military is superior, being substantially larger, smarter, and better equipped than others? Citizens of the United States are relatively free in comparison to the subjects of states we have either freed or re-subjugated under pragmatic puppet governments. Hence, Americans are able to think and produce such inventions as stealth fighters, body armor, and accurate weaponry. The large amount of wealth they generate also provides the US government with a large base to pillage funds from in order to support such a military. So, when compared to the rag-tag bands of small slave states equipped with weaponry they pillaged from Soviet stocks or received from other slave states (or the US in the case of the Mujahadeen...), of course we have the advantage of military might. From my understanding, the United States government rarely, if ever (maybe actions related to manifest destiny?) justifies its actions by the 'Might is Right' notions of the Old World. For example, considering the prominence and success of the US, we have not been particularly imperial or aggressive when compared to the Old World states of Britain or Spain. Military action of the past few decades has generally been founded upon the altruistic notion, not "Might is Right". Except for the hawkishness riled up by politicians trying to get re-elected, we don't really care to see lives and money wasted in war. No values are gained, only destroyers are halted from further value-destruction. Rose Wilder Lane discusses this at length and with greater eloquence in "The Discovery of Freedom", comparing her experience with that of an Italian man of the Old World mentality. Furthermore, In regards to Ron Paul, Gary Johnson comes across as a far superior candidate. He doesn't have the isolationist attitude towards foreign policy and he respects individual rights much more wholly (e.g. abortion and marriage issues). From what I can see, Ron Paul is using the presidential race as an educational megaphone in archetypal libertarian fashion, while Johnson is running as a serious candidate for president while espousing his largely pro-individual rights political platform. Johnson lacks eloquence and philosophical depth, but he definitely seems genuine in character (everything from the way he built up his own business to his mountain climbing) and approach. So, given the alternative values of Paul and Johnson, I have and will again vote for the latter (so long as he does not compromise on any issues from now to Nov.). The "electable-ness" factor does not concern me so much when considered longterm. Johnson has plenty of time to make an impact on this election and try again in the next cycle. He most certainly will not win this time around. But it would be far better to show him support rather than lending it to one of the major parties that will ensure more of the same statism. Every vote is one more additional, though minuscule, voice against a two-party manufacturer of bad candidates. Edited February 22, 2012 by Sidewinderpro2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I was satirical which means I was right. Sorry I merely wanted to point out how much the Israelis love this alliance of the US that is forced on them. Forced on them by whom? Might is Right because they start war knowing no one has the means to oppose them. I think you're misusing your meme there, fella. Edited February 22, 2012 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dániel Boros Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 From my understanding, the United States government rarely, if ever (maybe actions related to manifest destiny?) justifies its actions by the 'Might is Right' notions of the Old World. For example, considering the prominence and success of the US, we have not been particularly imperial or aggressive when compared to the Old World states of Britain or Spain. Military action of the past few decades has generally been founded upon the altruistic notion, not "Might is Right". Except for the hawkishness riled up by politicians trying to get re-elected, we don't really care to see lives and money wasted in war. No values are gained, only destroyers are halted from further value-destruction. Rose Wilder Lane discusses this at length and with greater eloquence in "The Discovery of Freedom", comparing her experience with that of an Italian man of the Old World mentality. How you justify your actions not necessarily justify your actions. If the USA wants to promote altruism and democracy why didn't they go to the Congo when 6 million people died there in a bloody civil war? Or why didn't they intervened in 56 when the Hungarians started their revolution? Spreading democracy is just government propaganda especially if you are giving money to dictators at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dániel Boros Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Daniel, care to elaborate on our enemies determining our allies? Specifically, what method would you use to determine your ally after being presented with an enemy? I'm also interested to know why you don't seem to think peacetime alliances are legitimate. Why do you need allies in peacetime? What for? Free trade is the best policy a country can have with another country in peacetime. Because of the military Alliances the EU countries have they are always drawn into the fights where they have no interests. Like Afghanistan... Why are our soldiers there? What for? They didn't commit any crime against most of the EU countries... Likewise the US is drawn in by the EU where it has no interest fighting. NATO is a coalition of epic fail. How to determine our ally? That's simple: whomever have the means and willingness to be our ally. Picking allies based on ideals would be a form of altruism, because we would not pick the countries most able to protect our own. (The US was the ally of the Soviets in WWII because they had a common enemy: Japan and to some degree Germany) The US is in a position where it can pick allies and enemies freely, but what if it weren't? What if the US did not have the might to annihilate anyone. They would have to pick allies based on the country's military might and not based on the purity of their ideals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Daniel, let me get this straight. We shouldn’t have alliances in peacetime; we should wait to form alliances until war begins. Also, if we didn’t get attacked, it’s not our problem, so… Assuming that other nations are following the same rubric, who the hell will ally with us when we need them? This doesn’t seem to be a very well-thought position. What am I missing? Allies in peacetime can share intelligence regarding an enemy's movements and plans. A peacetime alliance can also engage in military exercises to prepare for attacks. Alliances even provide certainty of security to non-military folks, who might otherwise not engage in trade or the development of border regions. Al Qaeda is and was a worldwide threat. They were planning to bomb a market in Strasbourg, France, on or near Christmas in the year 2000 before Germany caught them. 12% of the people who died on Sept. 11th were non-Americans, 90 of which were UK citizens. It is in an individual's interest to be concerned for his neighborhood, just as it is in a nation’s interest to be concerned for its international neighborhood. Lack of such concern leads to bigger problems in the future. Consider WWII, when the US and UK chose to wait until the shit hit the fan. It wasn’t until after the Soviets helped Germany carve up Poland and start the war that the English-speakers felt the need to ally with them. But the US didn’t even jump in right away. Once it was clear that Britain had more than it could handle, Japan felt that it could cripple the Pacific fleet of the US and we’d back down because big brother Britain wasn’t there to help. After the war that depraved slave-state we allied with had gained territory and would intimidate the world for generations. Perhaps if we had taken preventative action we would have had the freedom to choose better allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Why do you need allies in peacetime? What for? To be ready for war. Possibly deter it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinderpro2 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 How you justify your actions not necessarily justify your actions. If the USA wants to promote altruism and democracy why didn't they go to the Congo when 6 million people died there in a bloody civil war? Or why didn't they intervened in 56 when the Hungarians started their revolution? Spreading democracy is just government propaganda especially if you are giving money to dictators at the same time. First, in regards to justification, I am not trying to morally justify recent US military action, I was simply explaining it as it is. Political pragmatism and goldfish public attention span generally govern such military decisions. Drawn out conflicts become unpopular (e.g. Vietnam and Iraq), and the public loses its interest in favor of more exciting news rather quickly. Altruism and democracy are just popular reasons that stick when the government hurls their usual cocktail of excuses at the wall (e.g. the ever-dynamic justification of war in Iraq). As for the Hungarian uprising and other Cold War era conflicts, this should be blatantly apparent. Allying directly and meaningfully (beyond normal proxy war tactics) with the Hungarian resistance would have equated to open, hot war with the Soviet Union. As discussed elsewhere in this forum and numerous Objectivist periodicals and publications, American foreign policy ought to be conducted much differently than it is. Intentions should be clearly stated and rationally justified and decisive action taken to protect individual rights. Likewise, alliances should not be thrown together with just anyone because war has been declared by another state. They should be maintained during 'peace' times as well as open conflict. Consider it this way: Do we form new alliances (possibly contradictory if frequent enough) every time some new conflict breaks out, regardless of magnitude? What about when pirates take over American or friendly ships? Do we wait for the Senate to approve a new treaty so we can deal with every new thug that comes along? Law, including treaties, must be general, not specific to just one specific situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinderpro2 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 It seems I am beyond the point of editing, so to continue... In regards to the claim that our enemies determine our allies, this is not immediately so. Our enemies may force an unpleasant situation upon us, but it ought to be our values that influence with whom we decide to ally. For example, if Iran declares war on the US, do we ally ourselves with anyone and everyone who doesn't like Iran, or do we select our allies based upon the degree of their respect or disrespect for their citizens' individual rights? Do we ally ourselves and arm any random nation, just to seek victory? It seems that that sweeping generalization brings us Pyrrhic victory, if anything, when say years later, our own Stinger missiles are being launched at us (e.g. Afghanistan). To further the discussion of alliances and treaties, consider the implications of constantly breaking and forming international agreements. This myopic foreign policy measure would create total legal uncertainty. International corporations would not know where to safely establish factories and other plants. Captains would not know whether the route they sailed last week will be legal or protected the next. So long as an ally remains relatively free and also employs a rational foreign policy, they ought to remain an ally to the US in the face of a world of slave states, pirates, terrorist organizations, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.