So, as matt b said, we should just give up? Just stop trying to make things better, stop criticizing those doing harm, because, hey, who can think of anything better? This is TERRIBLE reasoning, trying to pass off your failure to think outside of the modern political doctrine as "realism." I know k-punk has written a fair amount about this (i believe he calls it "capitalist realism"). But basically, what the hell is this "realism" you seem so keen on? Who defines it? What does it entail? Does this "realism" allow for any sort of actions that are outside of the status quo? Doesn't it basically just state that anything outside the status quo is unthinkable, and shouldn't that maybe worry you a bit?Paul Hotflush said:the acceptance that the current situation (American dominance) is infinitely preferable to any realistic alternative (the most likely current one being American dominance being replaced by Chinese economic and political dominance).
....
It pretty much boils down to this: no-one's saying the Americans are a picture of virtue, but bloody hell, what about everyone else?!
While I'm here I might as well comment on this too, i guess.oliver craner said:Someone's settling in rather well, I note.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1576551,00.html
bipedaldave said:Please, tell me what is so "unrealistic" about the US following international law.
bipedaldave said:So, as matt b said, we should just give up? Just stop trying to make things better, stop criticizing those doing harm, because, hey, who can think of anything better? This is TERRIBLE reasoning, trying to pass off your failure to think outside of the modern political doctrine as "realism." I know k-punk has written a fair amount about this (i believe he calls it "capitalist realism"). But basically, what the hell is this "realism" you seem so keen on? Who defines it? What does it entail? Does this "realism" allow for any sort of actions that are outside of the status quo? Doesn't it basically just state that anything outside the status quo is unthinkable, and shouldn't that maybe worry you a bit?
bipedaldave said:"Realism" is just a huge cop-out, when you've finally given up on trying to improve things, and have decided to disguise your capitulation as pragmatism.
Ummm, the Geneva Convention? Made by a consensus of international powers, reflecting a general shared believe in the value of human life and the need to mitigate unnecessary cruelty. It could even be said to be a "realistic" document, in that it doesn't try and outlaw all war (that would be "unrealistic") it just tries to minimize the uhhh "collateral damage" war often causes. And the enforcement was supposed to be done by those who signed up for it--many of whom have definitely been remiss. But again, isn't uneven enforcement better than none? Why give up on it all just because it's not perfect?Paul Hotflush said:The whole concept of international law is ridiculous. Whose values is it built upon? Who enforces it? How can it be enforced evenly? Having laws that apply internationally assumes that conditions can be applied across continents, which is clearly not always the case.
Alright, that's a bit of a strawman argument there, please don't try and argue that lefties don't care about the crimes of other nations. They do. However, there are two reasons why they (and myself too, I suppose) tend to focus more on the US (and UK and Canada, and many other western gov'ts). One is that these crimes are very much NOT focused on by the news media and (obviously) the government, so we feel the need to point these things out in order to get them heard, and also to show the hypocrisy of these governments.In any case, the notion that the US is the only country ignoring the current legal setup is absurd. So why don't you guys bang on about the other offenders? Oh yeah, sorry I forgot.
bipedaldave said:Ummm, the Geneva Convention? Made by a consensus of international powers, reflecting a general shared believe in the value of human life and the need to mitigate unnecessary cruelty. It could even be said to be a "realistic" document, in that it doesn't try and outlaw all war (that would be "unrealistic") it just tries to minimize the uhhh "collateral damage" war often causes. And the enforcement was supposed to be done by those who signed up for it--many of whom have definitely been remiss. But again, isn't uneven enforcement better than none? Why give up on it all just because it's not perfect?
bipedaldave said:Alright, that's a bit of a strawman argument there, please don't try and argue that lefties don't care about the crimes of other nations. They do. However, there are two reasons why they (and myself too, I suppose) tend to focus more on the US (and UK and Canada, and many other western gov'ts). One is that these crimes are very much NOT focused on by the news media and (obviously) the government, so we feel the need to point these things out in order to get them heard, and also to show the hypocrisy of these governments.
The second one is that the US really is the most dangerous country in the world right now (there, I said it). Do you see any other countries unilaterally invading other countries, completely illegally, completely unprovoked, and then occupying the country, installing a government of their own choice, and then sitting there, staring out at the world and practically daring them to do something about it? That is some scary fucking shit. They can just invade a country for no good reason and no one can do anything about it. That is the scariest thing I have ever seen in my life and I desperately want it to never happen again.
I don't hope america crashes and burns (I know lots of nice americans), but yes i definitely want americas power in the world to decrease. Surprisingly enough I don't want the chinese to be in power either, what I would like would be if no one country had as much power as the US does right now, and that the relative power of these nations might counterbalance each other enough to ensure a bit of relative stability. At least from there the chances of effecting real change might be a bit better.
Paul Hotflush said:Yes, I agree with most of that, especially with how quick-draw American foreign policy seems to be. But not the bit about the media not focussing on Western governments. The Guardian and other left-wing media are overflowing with poorly-researched inflamatory nonsense about the actions of various governments and corporations, half of which they subsequently have to retract.
oliver craner said:I hadn't noticed that! Bland centre-ground or liberal papers are in the majority, aren't they?
matt b said:liberal/left: guardian, independent, observer, mirror
right: sun, times, daily mail, daily express, news of the world, daily telegraph, star
bassnation said:plus the circulation of those on the right dwarves that of the left - ultimately right wing media in this country has a massive distorting influence.
oliver craner said:People on the right say exactly the same thing about the left! Oh dear.
oliver craner said:People on the right say exactly the same thing about the left! Oh dear.[/I].
oliver craner said:The Times is centrist now. It's also a largely diminished "force". The only two Tory rags left are the Telegraph and the Mail.