Scott Walker

Don't Expect Foreign Policy Restraint from Scott Walker

And for now, don't expect foreign policy specifics either.

|

He should cut something with Huckabee.
Philips Records

As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker dips his toes into the Republican presidential campaign, he's starting to face questions about his foreign-policy views. To judge from his performance yesterday on This Week, where Martha Raddatz tried with only limited success to budge him from his talking points, he isn't prepared to give substantial answers on the subject yet. What did become clear is that Walker is definitely not one of the small band of Republicans counseling foreign policy restraint.

Here, via The Capital Times, is the relevant exchange:

Raddatz: Let's talk about some specifics. You talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas….What's your big, bold idea in Syria?

"These questions seem awfully…aggressive."
This Week

Walker: I think aggressively we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world. Because it's not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil—or not if, I should say, it's when. And we need leadership that says clearly not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we're willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical—

Raddatz: You don't think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?

Walker: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it's a mistake to go down a path—

Raddatz: But what does that mean? I don't know what "aggressive strategy" means. If we're bombing and we've done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy?

Walker: I think anywhere and everywhere we need to go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that's what it takes because I think—

Raddatz: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?

Walker: I don't think that's an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world—

Raddatz: But you wouldn't rule that out?

Walker: I wouldn't rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom-loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don't allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.

Got that? The only real specific here is that he's willing to send ground troops to Syria, and even then he's trying desperately not to say that outright. But he's gonna be aggressively aggressive everywhere we need to go. Glad that's settled.

Bonus link: From Noah Rothman at Hot Air, "Scott Walker seeks to deflate the GOP's libertarian streak."

NEXT: Robert Gates: Destroying ISIS as Unrealistic as a Ground Invasion of Iraq

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What better way to get elected than to promise to kill brown people?

    1. By applying his supposed small government philosophy to our international adventures? Nah….

    2. promising to give away free stuff at the same time as promising to kill brown people.

      1. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

      2. This is how two lefts make a right.

    3. “anywhere in the world”

  2. The fact of the matter is that there is a large constituency in Team Red that supports a muscular foreign policy. Walker thinks by catering to them is a better way to the nomination than challenging them (as Paul is sort of doing). History suggests Walker is correct but we have a long (horrible) primary campaign ahead of us to sort this out…

    1. …there is a large constituency in Team Red that supports a muscular foreign policy.

      I think this goes beyond muscular. The Reagan and Bush 41 administrations had “muscular” foreign policies. If you proposed anything like the Powell Doctrine or Weinberger Doctrine today, you’d get branded an isolationist.

      The more accurate term would be “bat-shit crazy foreign policy”.

  3. Walker’s foreign policy is that he wants to be President.

    What did you expect?

    1. I doubt anybody expected anything else. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call him on it.

  4. Walker: I think anywhere and everywhere we need to go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes because I think?

    Raddatz: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?

    Walker: I don’t think that’s an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world?

    Raddatz: But you wouldn’t rule that out?

    I wonder if Ken…I mean Raddatz has any opinion on this

  5. Soudns to me like that dude has a pretty good plan.

    http://www.AnonVPN.ga

  6. More importantly would he have handed it off to lynch or passed it?

  7. Okay, libertarians what do you suggest the country do to combat the Islamist Totalitarian threat? Libertarian writers are starting to sound like defeatist know-it-alls without any real answers themselves about how to combat the Islamist threats this country faces. It is easy criticize Walker for his unformed positions for fighting ISIS and other Islamists. But do you deny the threat exist? Do you deny that 911 happened? Do you deny all the other Islamist attacks on American troops and citizens over the past decades? Do you deny that Islamist have cowered free speech in America and Europe by their continuous attacks and threats of attacks against writers and newspapers in America and Europe? Do you deny that there is a reason for security lines before we get on airplanes? Do you deny Islamist Totalitarians have and will continue attack Americans whenever they can?

    Libertarians are in the process of completely marginalizing themselves with their isolationist, head-in-the-sand positions. Libertarians do not sound like they can be depended upon to defend the country against the Jihadist threat most of their countrymen think is real and growing.

    1. Why don’t we just nuke them? Save a lot of american body bags, also don’t have to deal with dumb regional politics. Probably improve the mideast.

      1. And anyone that doesn’t like it can just get nuked too.

          1. Nuke U?

            I went to their prep school, Nuke Em High (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090849/), but ended up going to Memphis State for college.

        1. Exactly Sugarfree, and than after we create a irradiate global wasteland our dream of having a somalian/mad max dystopian future we’ve all been working tirelessly for can finally begin. Or we can just get our asses to mars.

          1. either way libertarians one, Islamo-facists and their french/canadian allies zero.

          2. Once we have killed everyone else, we can finally concentrate on the enemies at home. Those were the actual enemies all along.

            1. Welcome, to another edition of Thunderdome!

        2. Ah, the Cytotoxic Plan

        3. Gotta nuke something.

      2. You are being unserious about a serious problem. You support my argument. Libertarians have nothing.

        1. That’s the Reason commentariat. Snowden has saved them or something.

          1. Two great idiots that go great together; the Warboner Peanut Derp Cup.

        2. What was unserious about my proposal? Mass genocide worked during WWII why wouldn’t it work here? If your not serious about winning, why even get in a fight in the first place. You’re the one with with the problem, guy.

          1. Mass genocide worked during WWII

            The parties who committed actual genocide in WW2–as in, pogroms and death camps–lost (except the USSR, but that didn’t last).

            The credible threat of genocide may have won the war (on both fronts) but the commission of genocide did not.

    2. I think we trade the shit out of them. I think we go in with businesses and buy all of their poppy products in Afghanistan to use in our hospitals. I think we buy all the iranian capers and dates and whatever else they produce. I think we put a McDonalds in every town.

      I think we build factories if they have a competitive advantage in labor prices. I think we BUY ALL THEIR OIL.

      That will do a lot of good.

      1. I say we buy their countries. Seriously, go to the Saudi king and offer him an insane amount of money for his country, then we take over. We then stop all Islamic extremist madness by making it clear that we can and will sell Mecca to Disney if the shenanigans continue, and we’re not fucking kidding around.

        1. Shit if Disney owned Mecca, we still wouldn’t be able to print any pictures of Mohamed. Charlie Hebdo would have gotten shot up by Disney’s lawyers for copyright infringement instead of blasphemy.

      2. I’ve said for years that we should never have put troop 1 into Afghanistan. Simply buy their poppy crops. Would have been cheaper and would have been far more effective.

    3. I’d be okay if we turned in the America, World Cop title for America, World Goalie. In other words, want to shoot each other within the comfort of your own country? Well, we don’t like it and likely won’t do business with you, but okay. However, spread that elsewhere, and we’ll blow something up.

      I would like to withdraw more than that, but it would at least be a start.

    4. Totally agree. Reason naively thinks doing nothing achieves something for liberty. Not.

    5. Do you deny that there is a reason for security lines before we get on airplanes?

      The reason is because panty wetters like you need security theater to feel safe.

      Do you deny Islamist Totalitarians have and will continue attack Americans whenever they can?

      What are my chances of dying in a terrorist attack? Pretty much zero.

      1. I would prefer no lines and giving the pilot crews guns and the means to defend their planes.

        Try printing a cartoon of Mohammed in France. Likely your chance of dying goes up.

        Go stick you head back in the sand, my friend.

        1. Unlike France, we have this thing called the 2nd Amendment, which pretty much everyone here defends vigorously and vociferously.

          What, exactly, is “head in the sand” about that?

          1. That’s my frustration. I agree with most libertarian positions. But many deny the Islamist threat to the country. I think it is real and must be faced. Many posters here do not and do not even want to discuss it seriously. They just want to discredit and marginalize anyone that disagrees with them. Very prog of them.

            1. You do realize that I was responding to you, right? The “libertarian position” of legal gun ownership is directly relevant to and addresses the “Islamic threat to the country”. Other such positions would include no restrictions on the sale of arms or the participation of American citizens in foreign wars.

              Thus, the libertarian philosophy does address such threats, by allowing people the means to counter them.

              Why must all solutions come from the state?

              1. No he doesn’t realize it. His next volley will be some retarded bullshit about how your having a gun won’t stop a terrorist with a dirty bomb or biowarfare.

                You know, kinda like the idiot gun grabbers.

            2. But many deny the Islamist threat to the country.

              Yes, I do deny the Islamist threat to the country. My odds of dying in a terrorist attack in any given year are one in 20 million. That’s twice as unlikely as getting struck by lightning.

        2. Why should I give a fuck about what happens in France? If the French want to let people kill each other over a cartoon then who are we to say no?

          If they want to kill someone in the states for a cartoon then we can prosecute them like the crimminals they are.

          If you want to be the world police then send in your money and quit threatening me with a rape cage when I don’t want to be the world police.

    6. the Islamist Totalitarian threat

      There’s a credible Islamist Totalitarian threat to the US?

      1. It’s an existential threat, asshole. THAT’S THE VERY WORSEST THREAT OF ALL!

      2. It’s even more credible than the GOP threat of more budget cuts and lower taxes.

    7. Okay, libertarians what do you suggest the country do to combat the Islamist Totalitarian threat?

      Go after the funding. The House of Saud, the Qataris, anyone who is giving financial support to the nutters.

      1. That’s it. The biggest bank heist in history. Crack squads of untraceable American-backed mercenaries break into every bank holding money of bad guys and empty their accounts.

        1. Pish. Its all digital anyway. The NSA could probably empty their accounts before lunch.

          1. The same NSA that lets contractors have access to their entire database? I’m thinking someone more concerned with security.

        2. If one of those teams includes George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt, I’m in.

    8. Okay, libertarians what do you suggest the country do to combat the Islamist Totalitarian threat?

      Before you can answer that question, You must first understand what terrorism is, its goals and the tactics terrorists use to accomplish those goals.

      Terrorism is an elegant form of warfare designed to bring about political change by frightening their enemy into ceding their given position. The tactic’s strength is that you can engage and defeat a vastly superior force by never needing to engage your enemy on their terms.

      Terrorists require publicity and fear in order for their operations to be successful. The more, the better. If they can disrupt society and negatively impact everyday life, or the economy, the more successful their efforts to bring attention to their causes.

      The way to defeat terrorism, is to treat it as a crime, to be punished, rather than to take the bait and go to war with a concept (as we have done). Bush and Obama are fools for attempting to fight a concept (military tactic) and playing right into the opposition’s plans.

      Defeat terrorism by finding, apprehending, trying, convicting and punishing terrorists, as you would any other criminal.

      Anything else, is a waste of resources as conventional military forces are effective at eradicating the threat.

    9. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

      “To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

      “When one treats people with benevolence, justice, and righteousness, and reposes confidence in them, the army will be united in mind and all will be happy to serve their leaders.”

      “Who wishes to fight must first count the cost.”

      “He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”

      Damn you Sun Tzu, you horribly libertarian bastard!

      Also, it’s not like one of Bin Laden’s goals was to get the United States constantly involved in little wars throughout the Middle East which would cost billions upon billions of dollars to kill peasants with AK-47s and a day’s worth of food with bloody anti-tank missiles. Guy studied economics and administration in school, he understood the concept of bogging your enemy down with these kinds of conflicts.

    10. I don’t think many here argue that Islamists aren’t awful and don’t have a willingness to attack Americans. What I think a lot of people question is whether confrontation is the optimal strategy to deal with that. Sure, in an ideal world, we’d have some magic wand that we could wave and the Islamists would go away. But, that doesn’t seem to be on the table. The question, then, is whether we would be better off confronting them or waiting them out.

      The fact is that confrontation is hardly a costless alternative. In practice, it means billions upon billions of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands of American lives. The practical question is whether that cost exceeds the cost of lives that we could realistically expect to lose from their willingness to attack us.

      To me, it isn’t clear that confrontation’s savings from their willingness to attack us exceeds the cost of the strategy itself.

    11. What you need is to abandon sentiment. Ally with the nastiest mofos who promise to be good to your interest, and when they turn on you, instantly turn against them and towards the other mofos, i.e. the ones you opposed, mercilessly. Repay kindness with kindness for the moment, and nastiness with nastiness, ditto. All favors conditional, and fight dirty when you fight.

      The USA could do this a ton and not approach anything like the degree of perfidy the British have used thru hx.

      1. And remember, kill the women & children 1st. Don’t mind if your enemies hate you, because they’re your enemies, after all. But let them understand they can become your friends in an instant.

  8. Can he just say something like, “I will break ISIS just like I broke the unions!”

    1. Crush the police union and you have my vote, Scottie.

  9. Reason’s foreign policy would be a disaster for liberty the world over.

    1. Yes. The editors and cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo understood the seriousness of their stand. Compare their brave humor with the jokesters commenting here. Disgusting.

      1. The greatest honor any Frenchman can have is to die in the service of David Wall’s urine-soaked erection.

        1. The only reason I bother posting these comments is that I mainly agree with libertarians and appreciate the way many posters try to work through serious issues.

          Fine. You don’t think my question is legitimate. But many others will ask it besides me & your insults will be just as appreciated.

          You guys are going nowhere with your foreign policy positions or your nasty ad hominens.

          1. Another example. Why don’t idiots like you know the difference between insults and the argumentum ad hominiem? There’s a major deficiency in the curriculum at Idiot State.

            1. Many in the country fear Islamist and Jihadist. You guys think it is wrong, irrational and stupid. Tell me why. I see evidence that freedom of speech is being marginalized and the country security has been compromised. I offer it. You don’t like it. I see insults, attempts to marginalize me and not one bothers to address my questions.

              What would you do about the Islamist Threat? Nothing? Okay then. State that and say why that is a good position.

              1. Please, show me where our security has been compromised.

                Putting the lie to your bullshit security theater doesn’t count.

              2. Many in the country fear Islamist and Jihadist. You guys think it is wrong, irrational and stupid. Tell me why.

                If you are this scared of Islam, why aren’t you also demanding lightning rods everywhere and the banning of cars? Because you’re far more likely to be killed by either of those than Islamic terrorists.

                Freedom of speech is being marginalized.

                Because some people voluntarily won’t post images? Of course, it’s not like the U.S. government has a history of actively marginalizing freedom of speech over the kind of fearmongering you espouse (*cough* Espionage Act).

                1. Because the death toll is not the only measure of damage. Security measures also have great costs.

                  Yes, plenty of those security measures are stupid and cover up other motiv’ns, but there is popular demand for them, and there’ll continue to be popular demand for them as long as the threat is perceived.

          2. Hysterical people don’t deserve serious answers.

            1. What is hysterical about asking a question about what to do about the Islamist threat?

              1. What Islamist threat?

                How many people have been killed by Islamists in the states in the last 10 years?

                1. A fair few. Especially if you acknowledge the reality that Americans don’t only exist in the States, they go forth and live all over the planet.

                  And what is really cool is you just admitted to U.S. government accomplishing something in defending the homeland from a second 9/11. I agree with you… way to go Bush and Obama!

                  1. And what is really cool is you just admitted to U.S. government accomplishing something in defending the homeland from a second 9/11. I agree with you… way to go Bush and Obama!

                    Yes, the awareness and vigilance of the American people had nothing to do with this outcome. It is in fact only through the benevolence of our glorious government overlords that we have not been smited by the terrorist hordes.

                    Fuck off, slaver.

                  2. Show me how Bush and Obama have protected me from Islamists. Show me there would have been another 9/11 if we hadn’t given away a ton of our civil liberties. I would gladly accept a minor increase in the probability of getting killed by terrorists if I could gain my freedoms back. The terrorists have already won. And all they have to do is make vague threats now and we cower in the corner like scared little kids.

                    US citizens that live abroad must accept the conditions they choose to live in. If they choose to report a story in Iraq and get captured and beheaded thats from their own decisions.

                2. Start with this: the NYT editors admitted the reason they did not put the Charlie Bebko pictures up was FEAR for their employees.

                  The only think keeping us from having more attacks is probably the NSA and other police state tactics in monitoring the Jihadists. That is a clear and present danger because this same information can be used to invade our privacy. So we are given impossible choices because of the Islamist Threat. I would like and end to the militarization of this country. I think like lots of others here that that is a threat to our long term liberty. But that cannot and will not happen until the threat is eliminated. Start with those.

                  1. The only think keeping us from having more attacks is probably the NSA and other police state tactics in monitoring the Jihadists.

                    That’s funny, because when asked by Congress, the NSA couldn’t come up with even one example of a thwarted attack.

                    Shorter David Wall: We had to destroy liberty to save it.

                    1. No. I think what Snowden did was heroic.

                      American foreign policy has been terrible since the end of the war and the NSA is a manifestation of this. But my position is that libertarians do not have any better answers and denying a real threat makes it worse.

                    2. *since the end of WW II.

                    3. American policy has been terrible since WWII so your solution is to double down on interventionist policy that has been terrible since WWII?

                    4. American policy has been terrible since WWII so your solution is to double down on interventionist policy that has been terrible since WWII?

                      You mean double up, but that’s sure not my solution. Mine is to stop trying to be good guys. If you can get the terrorists to terrorize someone else, do so. If not, get (or be) your own terrorists to terrorize them. Be the 1st to use illegal holds in the ring, even if that means the audience is against you; they’re not in the ring.

                      The answer is qualitative, not quantitative.

                  2. So because a few wussies at the NYT is afraid to post a cartoon I must pay for and then blow up brown people in another country?

                    So according to you we can’t be free unless we wipe out 1.5 billion people. If my freedom MUST be at the expense of 1.5 billion people then kill me now.

                    There is NO proof that the NSA or any other of our liberty stealing laws and agencies have done anything that have made us safer. There are no impossible choices here. Only the choice for freedom or against freedom. If freedom means that I might be killed by a terrorist then so be it. I would rather die being free than live in a police state fighting a never ending war on terror we can’t win without wholesale genocide.

                    (I only use all caps because you did. Its hilarious that you think that makes your point…”FEAR”)

                    1. I don’t argue the NSA is stealing liberty, but it is the threat that the statist use to justify the existence of the NSA. My question is what is the libertarian alternative to the statist argument? It doesn’t pass the smell test to try to argue there is not a threat. There is a threat, but libertarians don’t have an alternative way to meet the threat.

                    2. When you give me as the only choice either a police state or wholesale genocide then it becomes impossible to argue. You meet the actual threat when it happens, not before. There are more than 2 bad choices. You just refuse to see past your fear of Islamists.

                    3. Where do I advocate genocide? How does defending oneself automatically mean genocide?

                    4. Where do I advocate genocide? How does defending oneself automatically mean genocide?

                      Your not advocating defense. There is no attack to defend against. We already killed those responsible for the 9/11 attack. You want to kill all Islamists. To do so is going to require killing 1.5 billion people.

                    5. “You want to kill all Islamists. To do so is going to require killing 1.5 billion people.”

                      You are conflating “Islamists” with “Muslims” in an unjustified fashion.

                    6. It doesn’t pass the smell test to try to argue there is not a threat.

                      You’re begging the question.

                    7. Come on. Jihadist are killing people everywhere they have opportunities in the world. The US has been a prime target since the first bombing of the world trade center (lower parking area). Eventually they will return. What makes you think they won’t?

                    8. Eventually they will return. What makes you think they won’t?

                      Of course they will.

                      Someone else will commit murder.
                      Someone will eventually rob someone else.
                      There will be another rape.
                      Someone will commit fraud.
                      There will be another mass shooting.

                      What part of there is nothing one can do to prevent it don’t you understand?

                      Live with it, and deal with the perpetrators after the fact.

                  3. The only think keeping us from having more attacks is probably the NSA and other police state tactics in monitoring the Jihadists.

                    In other words, you do not understand how either government or society works, yet here you are lecturing us about how wrong we are.

                    The “police state” (your words) might catch a few people here and there, now and then–and it’s questionable how many of those people were actual, credible threats–but it is ultimately a self-serving beast, as any institution of people will turn out to be.

                    Better solutions cannot take hold in an environment where the government claims a monopoly on solving the problem. Moreover, if ever the problem ceases to be, then the government “solution” will remain regardless. How many of our laws still on the books were tailored to “solving” previous crises? And how many of those have been instrumental as causes of later crises?

                  4. Start with this: the NYT editors admitted the reason they did not put the Charlie Bebko pictures up was FEAR for their employees.

                    Oh no, the NYT editors are cowards! Clearly this represents a threat to the United States! Seriously, the best example you’ve got is the NYT editors being their typical degenerate selves?

                    The only think keeping us from having more attacks is probably the NSA and other police state tactics in monitoring the Jihadists.

                    Cite examples of attacks stopped by NSA monitoring please.

                  5. Start with this: The NYT editors are fucking pussies who view muslims as lesser people who can’t control their own actions.

              2. That’s you, asking the ToughQuestions. Why don’t you post some answers on Youtube?

                1. You don’t get why I am asking and being purposely incendiary. I support libertarian positions, but their foreign policy positions suck. You’re smart enough to know it. They are not well reasoned or thought through. Why not discuss the questions reasonable people will have. Excuse me for asking.

                  1. You can’t support libertarian positions if you support the wholesale destruction of another country because of your fear. The NAP is the basis of libertarianism. If they attack us directly then we respond against those who attacked.

                    1. So does it follow that I cannot support libertarian positions if I think the wholesale destruction of Japan and Germany were justified? I am a statist because I think these totalitarian regimes were a threat and needed to be destroyed?

                    2. I think the wholesale destruction of Japan and Germany were justified

                      So, which nation state has declared war on the United States in the same way that Japan and Germany did?

                    3. Iran. Saudi Arabia has financed terrorist groups to the tune of 72 billion dollars IIRC.

                    4. So the hijackers were Revolutionary Guard and Saudi Arabian Army right? And those nations actually declared war on the United States right? Or were they instead part of a terrorist group that is highly mobilized and primarily focused on tactics that conventional warfare does not stop?

                    5. If you think the wholesale destruction of Germany and Japan was justified then I can’t really help you. When Germany and Japan attacked us then we were justified in responding. It’s not our job to police the world and end totalitarian regimes. We will be at a constant state of never ending war.

                      Your a statist because you see the only solution is for the state to do something. Which leads the policies that you claim to dislike.

                    6. Exactly. 911 was an Islamist Totalitarian attack on this country. There were many attacks before and after. The threat still exist. Bush and Obama were terrible leaders in that the did not fight wars that ended the threat. The question is why? Libertarians are lazy in answering this question. They are now being defeatist.

                    7. The threat still exist. Bush and Obama were terrible leaders in that the did not fight wars that ended the threat. The question is why? Libertarians are lazy in answering this question.

                      Because conventional warfare has an excellent track record of winning against guerrilla groups that engage in terrorist activities. The fact that you thinking a vague, open-ended idea like ‘fighting wars’ will magically end your fear of Islam speaks to your inability to think beyond ‘kill them so I’ll be safe!’

                    8. The question is why?

                      Because they’re morons like you who can’t understand the concept of blowback.

                    9. I got it. Anyone that does not agree with Ron Paul & his blowback theory is a moron. That includes about 90% of the American public. Good luck getting people behind you by calling them morons.

                    10. If 90% of the people belief the world is flat I’m gonna call them morons and not give a shit if they get behind me. You just want me to agree the world is flat so people will get behind me.

                    11. Yes, anybody who doesn’t understand that blowing up peoples’ family and friends, supporting the regimes which torture and oppress them, and occupying their countries tends to piss people off is definitely a moron.

                    12. Anyone that does not agree with Ron Paul & his blowback theory is a moron.

                      Sounds like you’ve finally figured things out.

                    13. Well David, if we went with your theory and smashed Saudi Arabia and Iran as hard as we could (non-nuclear obviously) by destroying their governments, disbanding their armies, leveling their infrastructure, etc. I’m sure that wouldn’t cause some kind of large scale willingness of angry young men to join terrorist groups promising revenge on the people who destroyed their lives and murdered their families.

                    14. Because after all David, if the horrible ‘totalitarian Islamists’ showed up in America en mass in America one day, leveled your home town, killed the majority of your family and forced you into a life of poverty as infrastructure broke down, you certainly wouldn’t be thinking of revenge, right?

                    15. Because after all David, if the horrible ‘totalitarian Islamists’ showed up in America en mass in America one day, leveled your home town, killed the majority of your family and forced you into a life of poverty as infrastructure broke down, you certainly wouldn’t be thinking of revenge, right?

                      Unless I thought I was more powerful than they were, and had just been restraining myself, no, I wouldn’t be thinking of revenge, but surrender. I would see what I could possibly do to keep them from killing me too.

                    16. Why do you think surrender exists? It exists to keep people from being hurt. Why do you think people fight? It’s to induce surrender. You induce surrender by threatening harm. That’s what threats are.

                    17. Unless I thought I was more powerful than they were, and had just been restraining myself, no, I wouldn’t be thinking of revenge, but surrender. I would see what I could possibly do to keep them from killing me too.

                      Some people are made of far sterner stuff. Others no longer have anything to lose. Ultimately, some will absolutely surrender. But others will bide their time, waiting and wondering how they can fuck things up for their occupiers as much as they can. England’s centuries of crushing the Irish didn’t stop them, nor did Germany’s extremely destructive invasions. In the end there were always people willing to fight in sneaky ways to ensure some kind of damage.

                    18. Unless I thought I was more powerful than they were, and had just been restraining myself, no, I wouldn’t be thinking of revenge, but surrender. I would see what I could possibly do to keep them from killing me too.

                      Why would surrender when you can use terrorist tactics to win? The reason terrorism exists is to defeat a superior force.

                    19. I don’t know how many more ways this can be answered. Your only solution seems to be wholesale genocide. Just state that is your position and move on. 9/11 was an attack by a nut job not an organized totalitarian attack on this country. It was an act of terror that accomplished its goals. It made Americans fear their own shadows and allow the state to take their freedoms.

                    20. 911 was an Islamist Totalitarian attack on this country.

                      Name the totalitarian nation who engaged in that action.

                      There were many attacks before and after.

                      Attacks that often were committed by different groups or individuals that had nothing do with each other. But you present it as some terrifying united front of ‘totalitarian Islam’. You don’t seem to understand the nuance in anti-terrorism activities.

                      You seem to be offering up a lot of complaints, but no solutions. Tell me, what is your magical solution to ending Islamic terrorism?

                    21. The threat still exist. Bush and Obama were terrible leaders in that the did not fight wars that ended the threat. The question is why? Libertarians are lazy in answering this question. They are now being defeatist.

                      The answer is that American leaders are too ignorant to realize that attempting to fight a tactical concept, with a conventional force won’t work. They simply don’t understand warfare.

                    22. But he FEELZ that war against a concept is the answer!!!1!

            2. Hey, hey, he’s just “asking questions”.

          3. You guys are going nowhere with your foreign policy positions

            As opposed to the rousing success we’ve had with our other policy positions…

            1. Look, the only legitimate foreign policy worth considering is one that satisfies the chicken-hawks bloodlust, while safely peeking at the nightly tee-vee news from behind the well-gripped Lay-Z-Boy.

            2. And the last two hundred years of interfering in every hotspot around the world has been so successful we might as well double down on it.

          4. The foreign policy of pissing away trillions in Iraq has clearly paid dividends.

    2. Unending, global warfare is the only thing standing between Murica and Shariah Law.

      1. Its almost like you divide the world into two camps, or “houses”, perhaps.

        There is the House of Peace, where America rules. And there is the House of War – everybody else, who will be at war with the House of Peace until they are defeated.

        Sounds . . . familiar.

  10. Reason supports Edward Snowden who lives in liberty loving Putinist Russia. That’s Reason’s idea of awesome governance.

    1. See, this is an ad hominem (or, at least, the implication of one). Now, I shall demonstrate an insult:

      You are a fucking moron who is projecting his lack of nuance onto libertarians.

      1. How is what I wrote ad hominem. Be specific.

        1. While you have other criticisms of Snowden (I assume), this particular one is of the form “he did something bad, therefore he’s wrong, and so is anybody who supports him”. If that is not what you meant, then perhaps I misread what you wrote, but the gist of it is the same and I stand by my insult.

          1. Haha… I am arguing against Reason’s support of Snowden by pointing out that Snowden is now living off the benevolence of Vladimir Putin. That’s not ad hominem.

            1. I gave an explanation, now it’s your turn.

              1. it wasn’t a very good explanation

                1. I’m glad I could participate in your mental masturbation exercise. Please, bitch some more about Reason and libertarians, and our complete inability to appreciate the brilliance of your superior mind. Maybe in all that whining you’ll find out what words mean or how stringing them together into sentences conveys meaning.

                  I doubt it, but there’s always hope.

      2. We could always go with strawman.

        1. Where is this strawman? Be specific.

          1. “That’s Reason’s idea of awesome governance.”

            Reason has never, to my knowlege, argued in favor of Putin’s Russia. The strawman couldn’t be any clearer.

            1. No, Reason hasn’t, but they do argue in favor of Edward Snowden. I didn’t write that Reason liked Putin, I wrote that Reason supports Snowden.

              Read more carefully please.

              1. I’m squinting real hard but the plain meaning of “that’s Reason’s idea of awesome governance”–exactly what you wrote–is not weaseling away nearly as well as you seem to think.

    2. Being a whiny little pissbag, suckling from your mommies tit is no way to go through life son.

    3. Stealing from WTF:

      Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  11. I like how the vacillation between

    “tie-our-hands isolationism”
    and
    “nuke anyone who looks at us funny”

    …shows how anyone with an ‘in-between POV’ doesn’t feel comfortable voting for libertarians.

    FP will always be a problem if the only way you can possibly talk about it are in ridiculous absolutes.

    1. A place to start is to ask why Bush and Obama’s wars did not end the threat. Try to identify what they did wrong and what now needs to be done to end the threat. Libertarians committed to liberty should be the one to discuss this.

      1. “David Wall|2.2.15 @ 12:35PM|#

        A place to start is to ask why Bush and Obama’s wars did not end the threat

        because that was not the objective?

        because ‘ending threats’/eliminating the existence of adversaries is never possible; but making the costs of their adversarial position as high as possible *is*?

      2. Obviously the threat was not ended, the entire premise of your arguments upthread is that there is a clear and continuing threat.

        The wars ended some threats, allowed some others to fester, and arguably created some new ones.

        No one is obligated to explain the consequences of a false premise.

      3. Try to identify what they did wrong and what now needs to be done to end the threat.

        Because that was never the goals of those conflicts and you really don’t understand the concept of strategic planning beyond ‘just kill people until I feel safe’?

        1. Listen John Titor. I want libertarians to gain more of a following in the American culture. But I strongly feel that their foreign policy positions published in Reason will completely marginalize the movement. Americans expect the government to protect them from foreign threats. Denying the existence of the threat that most people believe exist will require some very persuasive arguments. I am not seeing such arguments from libertarians, nor am I seeing a coherent strategy for ending the threat most people see.

          1. I am not seeing such arguments from libertarians, nor am I seeing a coherent strategy for ending the threat most people see.

            As FoA stated above. Their is no way to end any threat.

            Rapists gonna rape
            Murderers are gonna murder
            Terrorists gonna terrorize
            Warmongers gonna urge for more war

            Why must libertarians throw away their principles to support your fears?

            Unless you want to wrap everyone in bubble wrap and keep them under 24/7 scrutiny then there is no way to end all threats. No one is denying the threat may exist. Most here just don’t think the solution is a preemptive strike on 1.5 billion people and the destruction of the Middle East.

            Here’s the strategy: When someone attacks the US then we respond to those who attacked us and then put our guns away until the next attack.

          2. Actually, based on your comments on NSA monitoring, you have no interest in actual libertarian positions.

            And again, you are accusing libertarians of lacking a coherent strategy when the vague concepts you espouse are ultimately lazy, emotional responses to problems driven primarily by fear that absolutely fail to conceptualize how terrorist groups operate, enlist individuals and mobilize. You want to perform surgery with a sledgehammer.

      4. Try to identify what they did wrong and what now needs to be done to end the threat.

        For people like you there is no end to the threat. You will just move to next “threat” and ask why libertarians are too lazy too support ending the threat. And then blame libertarians for the police state because they don’t want to end the threat. It’s a circular argument with no ending.

        1. I do not think the war with the Islamists is unwinnable. Compared to the Japanese and German the strength of the regimes (Iran and Saudi Arabia) supporting the Jihadist movement is very small. What is missing now is the will to end the threats. Poorly fought wars and appeasement by our leaders have played a major part in the loss of will in the US since 911.

          It is critical to understand and have discussions about why these wars failed and what has to be done to end the threats.

          Cynicism, defeatism and tossing cute insults around at those who disagree with you may entertain others in your community, but it will not end the NSA, Homeland Security and other internal threats to the country’s liberty. Nor will keeping yourself in a constant state of denial about the external threats to liberty.

          1. And again, David Wall fails to understand the distinction between conventional warfare and terrorist activities.

            1. Okay Mr. Titor. Enlighten me.

              Iran has as much as declared war on us, So what that they use terrorist proxies. Proxies that could not exist without Iranian Islamist government support. In 1979 they allowed the overrunning of our embassy, they did nothing to intervene kidnapping of US citizens for 444 days. They directly killed our troops in Iraq, they directly supported the people who bombed the USS Cole. They have directly supported groups that bombed our embassies in numerous countries. The directly supported the group that killed US Marines in Beirut. They repeated have called for our destruction. Why should we not declare war on a country that is obviously in a state of war against us, have acted upon those threats and continue to support those who would threaten us.

              I say that government is due some military attention. You say I don’t understand the distinction between conventional and terrorist activities. Enlighten me.

              1. Ok, so we storm Iran, destroy their government, disband their armies, level the infrastructure, etc. Costs billions of dollars to do, puts plenty of Americans in harm’s way, but gets rid of the supposedly scary Iranian funders of terrorism. What now?

                Options:
                1. Allow local elections, which primarily results in either a government too weak to respond to problems or actively sympathizes with those who view American intervention as unjust. Result: More local terrorist recruitment or the continued funding of terrorist activities.
                2. Install a strongman dictator to follow American interests in the region. Iranian people are resentful of this, encouraging terrorist activities against the United States. Strongman himself may have other motives. Result: More local terrorist recruitment, possible continued funding, possible instability in the region as a whole.
                3. Constant and continued U.S. occupation costing billions of dollars. Causes Iranian people to loath their occupiers, continues to place U.S. assets in areas of easy attack (also ties up assets, allowing other terrorist groups in other regions more mobility). Result: More local terrorist recruitment, perception of the United States as an aggressor and an easy target for terrorist activities. Funding by wealthier elements of Iranian society who can get away with it. (continued)

                1. Congratulations Mr. Wall, you’ve just done the local terrorists’ enlistment drive for them. You’ve successfully alienated and driven people to desperate actions against the United States. You complain that we view the ‘war on terror’ as unwinnable, when you are too stupid to realize that your childish strategic concepts are exactly what makes such a conflict impossible to win.

          2. It is critical to understand and have discussions about why these wars failed and what has to be done to end the threats.

            It is you who is just not fucking listening.

            a. The “threat” you speak of is simply your own irrational fear. As I said above (which you ignored) your odds of dying at the hands of a terrorist in any given year is one in 20 million. That is HARDLY a rational threat.

            b. War failed to eliminate your “threat” (read irrational fear) because war isn’t the right methodology to counter terrorism. As I explained above (and you again ignored).

            1. David Wall is clearly just looking for a simplistic way to end his irrational fear. He really does think that if we just invaded and bombed Saudi Arabia and Iran in a conventional way terrorism would magically evaporate as a tactic for radical Islamic groups. He’s literally a poster boy for what Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to do, get involved in constant, expensive warfare in the Middle East that they can’t possibly win by conventional methods.

            2. My point is that I do not think it is an irrational fear and I have pointed out why I don’t think it is. Maybe it is you that is not listening (or reading).

              Yes, the Bush/Obama wars failed to end the threat. Does that mean it is then hopeless and we must learn to live with the threats and the existence of the NSA, Homeland security and all the BS, or is there another way to end the threat once and for all? I think the threat can be ended and should be ended as quickly as possible by ending the governments that are mainly supporting the Islamist terrorist and totalitarist.

              1. My point is that I do not think it is an irrational fear and I have pointed out why I don’t think it is.

                Then you have identified your own problem. Regardless of what you “THINK”, fearing being killed by a terrorist IS irrational.

                One in 20 million. Here. Compare that to other “threats” you face everyday. You are 40 times more likely to freeze to death than be killed by a terrorist.

                As I explained above, terrorism only works because of people’s irrational fears. IOW, YOU are the reason terrorism works.

            3. My other more important point is not so much whether my fear is irrational or rational, but the perception of the American people of the libertarian movement. Your positions look weak and look like blame America first arguments. It is indistinguishable from the Michael Moore liberals.

              In any case, you must be ready to make cogent arguments that Americans’ fear of the Islamist threat is irrational–forget about me. Statistics is not going to do it. So what if it is very unlikely I will be killed by a terrorist. Beheadings, killing cartoonists, movie makers in Europe and self-censorship in American newspapers are real and have consequences. The terrorist actions are effective even if only a small number of people are killed. That is how terrorism works. And in fear people will start to self-censor more and more. That is how loss of freedom starts. I can’t believe I am having to say this on a libertarian blog.

              1. Yes, the Bush/Obama wars failed to end the threat.

                And once again, those wars were not designed to ‘end the threat’. Unless you’re arguing that we have to murder every single Muslim on the planet, your goal to ‘end the threat’ is impossible.

                Beheadings, killing cartoonists, movie makers in Europe and self-censorship in American newspapers are real and have consequences.

                And so do foolish attempts at intervention that don’t actually have long-term benefits.

                Again, David, this open-ended fearmongering and demands to engage in billion dollar invasions you want? That’s exactly what the (more intelligent) terrorists want. Fear and massively expensive foreign policy mistakes. And you’re falling for it hook, line and sinker. It’s cute that you think ‘self censorship’ is some great example of this but your own fear-based behaviour is valid. Again, you’re looking for simplistic, childish way to ‘end the threat’. And it just doesn’t work that way.

                1. You guys can call be names all you want, but that is not going to help the discussion. True story: I have relatives and several friends that probably agree with most libertarian positions, so I say, take a look at the libertarians, I think they have some answers. But as soon as they see or hear positions by Ron Paul or read some of the defense positions of other libertarians–whose positions many of you are repeating here–they say forget it. They say those guys will not defend us and they think the attacks on this country are justified. Blowback is not a winning argument for isolationism and statistics is not a winning argument against the rear of terrorism. You guys will never get anywhere.

                  I think it is you who is advocating a simplistic, possibly naive foreign policy.

                  1. They say those guys will not defend us and they think the attacks on this country are justified.

                    Then they are stupid and unable to think about foreign policy beyond their emotional responses.

                    Blowback is not a winning argument for isolationism and statistics is not a winning argument against the rear of terrorism.

                    Who said anything about isolationism? And shockingly your policy of ‘engage terrorism in the exact conventional tactics that they want us to engage in’ has far worse success.

                    You guys will never get anywhere.

                    Why it’s almost like libertarians focus more on actual principles than empty emotional populist validation for fools and cowards.

                    Seriously, that’s the best you’ve got, an argumentum ad populum?

              2. Your positions look weak

                It’s weak to be brave?

                In any case, you must be ready to make cogent arguments that Americans’ fear of the Islamist threat is irrational

                I just did.

                You stop terrorism by not being a pussy. Stop being a fucking pussy!

                1. You stop terrorism by not being a pussy. Stop being a fucking pussy!

                  Crudest, best way to put it. For all his complaints about ‘self censorship’ Wall has absolutely zero problem engaging in emotionally driven logic to deal with his irrational fear. There really is no difference in the emotional state of those ‘self censoring’ and your tiresome foreign policy concepts.

                  You want to help ‘end the threat’ Mr. Wall? Stop being such a coward.

                2. Many people who have live under totalitarianism have made the point over and over, the dictators only have to act against a small number of people to maintain power. Anyone who speaks up, prints a cartoon of Mohammed, speaks up for women education in Muslim countries is under threat. The same is starting here. Self-censorship has started in our major newspapers and some of it is cause by fear. Your statistics are immaterial. The statistics for those who speak up are the only statistics that matter. That is a different number than the one you gave me Francisco.

                  NYT editors are likely cowards, but you could also argue they are being prudent, But the important thing is that according to internal memos, fear play a part in why they did not run the cartoons. Think about that.

                  1. I’m done. Gotta get some work done. Thanks for at least responding.

                  2. But the important thing is that according to internal memos, fear play a part in why they did not run the cartoons. Think about that.

                    And yet you refuse to think about how your fear plays directly into your poor understanding of strategic planning. You’re just lashing out in the desire to ‘DO SOMETHING’ and refuse to consider the long term consequences of your positions. Again, you don’t understand the nuance of terrorism and responding to it, and then accuse us of being naive. What’s more naive than engaging in the exact behaviour Bin Laden wanted you to?

    2. I think you can have policy of (mostly) “tie-our-hands isolationism” for the government while allowing for the people to get involved as and when they see fit without being some sort of radical “can’t see the world on its own terms” ideologue.

      The military of the state exists for emergency defense; it is a last resort to protect the people when their own natural instincts have failed to do so. It is a tool meant to be kept on the highest shelf of the furthest shed in the most disused yard.

      When you concede that the only mechanism for solving threats to Americans abroad is through the state, then you place the justification for the constant use of that tool in the hands of the those who least deserve to wield it.

      Now, I think there is a place for the state to act abroad against the agents of other states when they constitute a threat to Americans that no other solution can address. Whether and to what extent a terrorist organization constitutes a state is subject to some debate, but the role of our state in fighting abroad should be strictly limited and clearly defined.

      None of this is easy to figure out, and I don’t proclaim to know all the answers. But no one who argues against it really has better answers, they’re just willing to ignore the consequences or better yet use them as a feedback loop to justify more of the same.

      1. “I think you can have policy of (mostly) “tie-our-hands isolationism” for the government while allowing for the people to get involved as and when they see fit “

        so, Libertarian foreign policy as the Saudi, ‘Al Qaeda franchise-model’?

        1. Jokingly, it seems to be working for them…

          More seriously: no, that was not what I was saying at all. I did not advocate for the government to endorse or sponsor anyone, only for it to not interfere. There is a whole body of law dedicated to restricting the involvement of Americans in foreign conflicts. Some of it is based on treaties, but the rest should be scrapped.

          1. “kbolino|2.2.15 @ 12:43PM|#

            Jokingly, it seems to be working for them…”

            Insofar as the greatest threat to Saudi Arabia is a Nuclear Iran…

            …and that their historical strategy has been to both minimize their own domestic military capability (to reduce apparent threats to neighbors) while partnering with the largest military power on earth to provide for their long term security….

            …and whom is currently working actively against them now?..

            …no, i don’t think its been the hottest idea.

            1. Considering the greatest threat to the House of Saud may be the internal one of the Wahhabis, I don’t know if the strategy has been a complete failure, but that was definitely not meant to be a serious endorsement of the policy, especially from a libertarian perspective which would not endorse the House of Saud to begin with.

      2. “…that the only mechanism for solving threats to Americans from abroad is through the state”

        I believe this is actually part of the opening sentences in most definitions of foreign-policy theory = that “the state” is in fact the only legitimate international actor; or the only one that *matters*, at least.

        regardless of whether or not you *believe* that – that’s how the entire Westphalian system is set up. Merely *acknowledging that* is probably step one in growing up and thinking about foreign policy in mature ways and less like freshmen philosophy students.

        1. Eh, in terms of IR theory, if you’re a realist, yeah. Neo-realists are a little different and neoliberals lean pretty heavily towards the influence of NGOs. And no one takes the social constructivists seriously.

          1. “neoliberals lean pretty heavily towards the influence of NGOs.”

            which is why no one should ever take them seriously

            1. Technically you can easily call Islamic terrorist groups a form of NGOs, but I’m not sure if any neoliberals are wise enough to actually make that distinction.

              1. Yes

                And I think the states that use them are starting to realize the long term costs, and working on de-commissioning many of them.

            2. My comment was more based on the fact that the entire 1990s was something like a “Greatest Hits”-record of how holy-fucking-shit ungodly terrible the UN is at dealing with conflicts.

              I mean… where do i even start. Rwanda? Sierra Leone? Congo? Timor? Haiti? Kosovo/Serbia? Sudan?… if you were a space alien viewing world history, you’d be fairly convinced that the Blue Helmeted people had some magic power for ‘amplifying social disasters’ wherever they went.

              1. Oh yeah, I’m not defending the UN by any means. The fact that people still consider ‘peacekeeping’ to be a legitimately applicable concept to most military conflicts is insane (then again I live in Canada, who claim to have ‘invented’ it and hold a nationalistic optimism towards it).

        2. I am questioning that premise, yet you insult me by suggesting that I don’t even understand it.

          What is the benefit of the Westphalian system, considering especially its great failures (the two World Wars)?

          1. What is the benefit of the Westphalian system, considering especially its great failures (the two World Wars)?

            I’d question the seriousness of the Westphalian system in general, given the fact that historically speaking ‘sovereignty’ hasn’t really been taken that seriously outside of European affairs (or within in a lot of cases).

            1. “historically speaking ‘sovereignty’ hasn’t really been taken that seriously outside of European affairs (or within in a lot of cases)”

              Historically speaking, we’ve had very little history.

              Its like saying ‘computers aren’t significant’ – look, for 3000 years, the HORSE was the most significant technology in human evolution!…

              1. Technology’s a wee bit different than the interactions of states in geopolitical environments. I’m just saying that the ‘Westphalian model’ was touted as important up until it became a hindrance to whatever foreign policy goals were being pushed. Then suddenly the ‘sovereignty’ of the Qing empire didn’t matter if they were inferring in the free trade of opium.

                1. “Technology’s a wee bit different than the interactions of states in geopolitical environments”

                  No – i think realists would probably rank ‘technology’, and control of it, as underpinning Sovereignty …which is worth less than the paper its printed on if you don’t have the guns to give it any credibility.

                  I think the realists’s assumptions are that states exist *because they can*; and that in the post WWII world, that Nuclear Armed states are the most significant actors; that the NGOs increasingly serve to protect non-nuclear states from the dictats of the Nuclear ones.

                  i don’t think its ever been all that different; with the qualitative differences being ‘who had a navy’, who had gunpowder, who had horses, etc.

          2. ” you insult me by suggesting that I don’t even understand it.”

            Not intended.

            there is a general audience here who seems to have never heard of it.

          3. “What is the benefit of the Westphalian system, considering especially its great failures “

            lack of a plausible alternative?

            1. That’s like saying there’s no plausible alternative to the FDA regulating food production. Yeah, sure, the top men in charge and their enablers aren’t going to allow any alternative, but that doesn’t mean none exist.

              1. “That’s like saying there’s no plausible alternative to the FDA regulating food production”

                Not at all.

                The FDA performs a task that could easily be performed by independent agencies or by vendors themselves in a free market.

                By contrast, the Westphalian system of Nation-States is the *status quo* of the world order; no matter how the US chooses to position itself, its still simply a participant in that framework. You can’t change the ‘system’ by pretending it doesn’t exist.

                Which is part of the core point of the falsity of the ‘isolationist’ position = no one is going to *leave you alone*, or refrain from impinging on your ‘interests’ just because you choose to withdraw. Mere existence as a nation within a world of nations requires engagement. There is basically no such thing as ‘neutrality’ in a world where everyone’s interests are in perpetual competition with one another.

                The Soviets understood this, which is why they saw “global domination*” as a necessary feature of the survival of their system.

                *(or at the very least, intimidation of all other powers into compliance)

              2. as a side note =

                I’ve heard people proposing this kind of ‘free-market foreign policy’ where the state takes no actual position, but citizens are free to engage in any foreign activity they want sans interference.

                I’ve then heard some of these same people whinge about the “Zionist Lobby” in the US.

                Just saying = the idea seems nice until you consider how things work in practice.

                Not to mention how i can imagine Salon would spin it = “Libertarians Suggest Oil Companies Should Have Their Own Armies” etc.

                1. I’ve then heard some of these same people whinge about the “Zionist Lobby” in the US.

                  WTF? You’re going for the antisemitism angle here?

                  I’m the unrealistic one, but you’re one criticism of Jews/Israel/Zionism in what I wrote? Jesus, where are you finding these secret decoder rings?

                  1. … you’re seeing criticism…

                    Ah, fuck it, this is another fruitless topic of debate…

          4. speaking of which,

            i always find it funny that science fiction films *always* without fail posit that the “end of history” – where all national governments are ended and international issues settled in favor of some kind of ‘planetary federation’ (where everyone wears jumpsuits and white people -*usually women!- are in charge) – is actually the most likely scenario, or even the most desirable scenario…

            I think “Man in the High Castle” was actually a more intelligent sci-fi story for its intimate understanding of potential cultural/political evolution compared to its peers

            1. My commment whenever seeing this* in Sci-fi films…

              (the ubiquitous, jedi-conference “panel of Earth’s collective leaders” with the old white black woman in charge)

              …is, “that’s about as plausible as the 1970s hairstyles persisting in Star Wars

            2. It’s optimism that in scifi goes back to H.G. Wells’ world government dreams, but was really influential in the 90s.

              Some authors seem to argue the opposite and it’s becoming more common. Neal Stephenson seems to see the reverse happening, with political bodies becoming smaller and numerous but not based on geographical territory (Snow Crash, Diamond Age).

              1. “Optimism”

                lol

                Its like wishing that Olympic Selection Committee ran the planet.

                That’s not optimism – that’s *insanity of the highest degree*

                If Huntington had any value to offer in ‘Clash of Civilizations’, it was that cultural differences will remain persistent sources of conflict for the foreseeable future. Technology isn’t ‘lubricant’, and western institutions aren’t universally accepted as ‘ideal’ in the slightest.

                1. It’s certainly not my optimism but the optimism of people who believe that vastly complicated systems and problems can be solved by better management.

                  It’s the same ‘optimism’ that lead people to believe that the horrors of Great War would result in an end to armed conflict.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.