Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Veto power for anything good for the world also exists for the Russians, Chinese, French and British. Still doesn't change the fact that anything we try to do to limit nuclear proliferation is poo-pooed by the Russians, since weapons are their best cash cow for export.

and how many nuclear weapons do the USA have?

Why does that matter?

The number of nukes that the US has doesn't have any bearing on preventing savages from getting them.

Am I the only one that noticed that when she started listing the countries involved that she was going to start doing the Animaniacs "nations of the World" song?

WarOne wrote:
Therefore failures in peacekeeping missions in Africa that cost millions of lives shows the glaring deficit in that capacity.

Considering the average success rate of any sort of foreign intervention in conflict, I wouldn't state that what's being shown is a deficit. Rather, we're seeing that peacekeeping is really, really difficult and tends to fail without proper support. I mean, if you want an example of a nation-state struggling to keep the peace in a given region just look at the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hell, US troops even get to shoot back.

WarOne wrote:
One of the UN's roles is peacekeeping. Realistically, it is unachievable. Ideally, it is supposed to prevent war, famine, and genocide.

Sure, through international dialogue. Sometimes it succeeds, but other times it doesn't. In that sense it is like every other political institution in the world.

Its strange to me that political realists will often talk about the percent chance of success regarding any given political body as though a certain threshold of failure is acceptable. Yet, when the UN is mentioned, they suddenly fail to be satisfied by anything short of perfection. Honestly, I think its because any international institution that exists in perpetuity tends to act as a pock mark on a realist world, where we should all be trying to kill each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
The number of nukes that the US has doesn't have any bearing on preventing savages from getting them.

That's debatable. Why do we care if Iran is capable of nuclear attacks if we are equally capable?

I mean, I guess you could argue that the Iranian government is irrational, but that's a lazy answer which roughly translates to "I don't understand them". It also happens to lack any concrete support.

dogma wrote:I mean, I guess you could argue that the Iranian government is irrational, but that's a lazy answer which roughly translates to "I don't understand them". It also happens to lack any concrete support.

Actually, I do understand them.

They're still irrational, and I know that this is a piss-take if you're going to sit there and act like there's no evidence for that statement.

Monster Rain wrote:
They're still irrational, and I know that this is a piss-take if you're going to sit there and act like there's no evidence for that statement.

What, the hatred of Israel? Why is that irrational? Israel is a huge check on Iranian power with a history of bombing any Muslim nation with a nuclear program. It is absolutely rational for the Iranian state to deploy rhetoric based on destroying Israel; especially given the antisemitic streak in Iranian, and Arab, culture.

Its pretty tough to actually demonstrate that someone is irrational because you literally have to show that they acting against a real desire. For example, someone walking to the left when they want to walk to the right. Iran wants regional hegemony and physical security, nuclear technology and opposition to Israel helps them get both of these things.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
They're still irrational, and I know that this is a piss-take if you're going to sit there and act like there's no evidence for that statement.

What, the hatred of Israel? Why is that irrational? Israel is a huge check on Iranian power with a history of bombing any Muslim nation with a nuclear program. It is absolutely rational for the Iranian state to deploy rhetoric based on destroying Israel; especially given the antisemitic streak in Iranian, and Arab, culture.

Its pretty tough to actually demonstrate that someone is irrational because you literally have to show that they acting against a real desire. For example, someone walking to the left when they want to walk to the right. Iran wants regional hegemony and physical security, nuclear technology and opposition to Israel helps them get both of these things.

Okay, I'll bite.

You can't define genocidal rhetoric as being rational from an objective standard. Yes, it makes sense to Ahmadinnerjacket. That doesn't mean that his point of view is worthy of consideration.

You can't define genocidal rhetoric as being rational from an objective standard.

I don't see why not. Rationality isn't morality, just because acting upon genocidal rhetoric would be irrational in Irans case that doesn't mean that basing rhetoric on it is. Unreasonably harsh words can get a lot accomplished, a statement made rationally and a statement that can be acted upon rationally are not the same thing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You can't define genocidal rhetoric as being rational from an objective standard.

I don't see why not. Rationality isn't morality...

So what?

Genocide is neither rational or moral, and if you advocate it you're a crazy douchebag, end of.

placeholder

Monster Rain wrote:
You can't define genocidal rhetoric as being rational from an objective standard.

First, I don't consider Dinnerjacket's rhetoric to be genocidal. He doesn't talk about killing all Jews, he talks about destroying Israel. These are different goals.

Second, because rationality is blind its pretty easy to set up a series of premises that render genocide to be a rational goal. If you hate a group of people so much that you can't brook their continued existence in the world, then it makes sense to kill them if you have the power to do so. The same can be said in environments where birth identities are so deeply ingrained that they constitute inescapable us-them mentalities, which is usually what causes genocide and failed states in Africa.

Monster Rain wrote:
Yes, it makes sense to Ahmadinnerjacket. That doesn't mean that his point of view is worthy of consideration.

Who said anything about his point of view being worthy of consideration? Rightness and rationality aren't the same thing.

You can strongly disagree with someone while also acknowledging that they're entirely rational.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
You can't define genocidal rhetoric as being rational from an objective standard.

First, I don't consider Dinnerjacket's rhetoric to be genocidal. He doesn't talk about killing all Jews, he talks about destroying Israel. These are different goals.

gen·o·cide
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

dogma wrote:Second, because rationality is blind its pretty easy to set up a series of premises that render genocide to be a rational goal. If you hate a group of people so much that you can't brook their continued existence in the world, then it makes sense to kill them if you have the power to do so. The same can be said in environments where birth identities are so deeply ingrained that they constitute inescapable us-them mentalities, which is usually what causes genocide and failed states in Africa.

You're never going to semantically distort this enough to make genocide seem reasonable. I don't care what backward people do in their god-forsaken countries. If they're committing genocide, they are flying rodent gak crazy.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Yes, it makes sense to Ahmadinnerjacket. That doesn't mean that his point of view is worthy of consideration.

Who said anything about his point of view being worthy of consideration? Rightness and rationality aren't the same thing.

You can strongly disagree with someone while also acknowledging that they're entirely rational.

Not on certain issues, I'm afraid.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You can't define genocidal rhetoric as being rational from an objective standard.

I don't see why not. Rationality isn't morality...

So what?

Genocide is neither rational or moral, and if you advocate it you're a crazy douchebag, end of.

and in the same boat as Hitler and same level of sanity. All I have to say is:

BluntmanDC wrote:


OT Fox news is untrustworthy, biased, republican funded propaganda, not a news channel.

One could say the same about CNN and the Democrats. Watching both and dividing by two should get you somewhere near the actual truth.

Monster Rain wrote:
gen·o·cide
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Destroying Israel does not mean killing all Israelis any more than destroying the US means killing all US citizens.

Monster Rain wrote:
You're never going to semantically distort this enough to make genocide seem reasonable. I don't care what backward people do in their god-forsaken countries. If they're committing genocide, they are flying rodent gak crazy.

I'm not distorting anything. I'm explaining how rationality works, and that 'irrational' does not mean 'thinking unlike mine'.

Monster Rain wrote:
Not on certain issues, I'm afraid.

Maybe if you're unimaginative.

The reason I hesitate to call anyone irrational is that, once you take that step, you've effectively put yourself at a disadvantage with respect to getting at their intentions. That's not a huge deal if someone is actually committing genocide, because you can just point at the action and say you don't like it, but when its just pomp and circumstance it isn't so easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
and in the same boat as Hitler and same level of sanity.

Way to cheapen the Holocaust. Good job.

As for sanity (another word that really relates to similarity of thought): how many two front wars have the Iranians fought?

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Not on certain issues, I'm afraid.

Maybe if you're unimaginative.

I don't see it that way at all. My worldview has a certain sense of absolute right and wrong, and on subjects like genocide I guess I'll just have to go ahead and be unreasonable and not try to justify the motives those who espouse it through moral relativism.

In a purely intellectual sense, I know what point you're making. The thing is that we don't live in a purely intellectual world.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
and in the same boat as Hitler and same level of sanity.

Way to cheapen the Holocaust. Good job.

As for sanity (another word that really relates to similarity of thought): how many two front wars have the Iranians fought?

On the contrary, I don't think the Holocaust is too far of a jump from discussing someone that wants a nearby nation "wiped off the map" and is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Then there's the whole deal about Ahmadinejad and his views on the subject.

Monster Rain wrote:
I don't see it that way at all. My worldview has a certain sense of absolute right and wrong, and on subjects like genocide I guess I'll just have to go ahead and be unreasonable and not try to justify the motives those who espouse it through moral relativism.

You misunderstand me. Just because something is rational does not mean that its justified. You can have perfectly legitimate reasons for doing something unjust, but that doesn't make the unjust thing just.

Monster Rain wrote:
On the contrary, I don't think the Holocaust is too far of a jump from discussing someone that wants a nearby nation "wiped off the map" and is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Whether or not Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons remains to be seen. Just as it remains to be seen if Dinnerjacket's rhetoric is matched by actual policy.

dogma wrote:Its strange to me that political realists will often talk about the percent chance of success regarding any given political body as though a certain threshold of failure is acceptable. Yet, when the UN is mentioned, they suddenly fail to be satisfied by anything short of perfection. Honestly, I think its because any international institution that exists in perpetuity tends to act as a pock mark on a realist world, where we should all be trying to kill each other.

They gave the success rate of UN peacekeeping missions at 2 out of every 3 ending successfully. The majority of those (I believe it was 9 out of ten) still are peaceful up to the time of the report.

They contrasted it with American peacekeeping, pegging it at about 50% success rate.

Define successful. I'd bet good money they'd consider the peacekeepers in Lebanon and the Congo as successful.

So the only interesting things to come out of this thread are Sealand and Monster Rain abbreviating Supreme Court of the United States to SCOTUS.

I just think it sounds funny. heheh, scotus.

POTUS: President of the United States
SCOTUS: Supre Court of the United States
FLOTUS: First Lady of the United States
Lotus: epic car

OCLD: Obsessive Compulsive Licking Disorder-its a weiner dog thing!