This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.  (Read 100821 times)

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #285 on: March 05, 2022, 01:08:17 AM »
...
They also can't understand that you can be sympathetic to the plight of Ukie civilians without wanting to get into another 20-year war. It doesn't help that Westerners don't understand the Slavic mindset - regardless of benign-ness of NATO membership, to Putin and Lukashenko, they see themselves surrounded by NATO.

This is big.

The situation sucks for the Ukrainian people.

But it's just not our business.

Oh here comes that old isolationism mantra. Just as unethical as it was in 1939.

It's our business. It's not our business enough to invade and start WW3, but it's our business. We live in a world larger than ourselves. There will always be an excuse to not care about what happens outside our border. That excuse is usually just bullshit.

And the easy was to demonstrate the lie? This thread. People are interested more than just making sure we don't start WW3. Everyone here knows on some level it's everyone's business when one of the world powers militarily invades another nation without provocation and expects to see no push back from the rest of the world for their actions.

You won't find him arguing the same about the ONE superpower currently commiting genocide but hey, it's never about principles with him.

Oh please do tell me about what you think is the "ONE superpower currently committing genocide." This should be good. Might reveal your spots finally.

China, as if you didn't know.

Ha! I honestly didn't know. I thought you were going to say something else. But I agree with you!

For at least 2 years it has been a major talking point all over the internet. But not on such far left publications as you read, so I'll grant you a MAYBE you didn't know.

My bet is you did but are a disingenuous twat.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #286 on: March 05, 2022, 02:37:39 AM »
Greetings!

Well, whatever a person wants to believe about "Isolationism". ;D I think the fucking Liberal Internationalist Interventionist philosophy is evil, corrupt bullshit. You can cover all that with self-righteous back-slapping and head-petting all you want--but the fact is, it is routinely used merely as a disguise to dupe the idealistic moron sheep and to cloak the deeper, more cynical and greedy motivations of the governments and corporations involved. Being the "World's Policeman" is a fucking fool's errand. Other nations take advantage and exploit the employment of American forces and the needless sacrifice of American lives and treasure--while they sit back in comfort and security, and rake in the profits.

Fuck that.

As far as the Jews and World War II go, well, demanding that the whole world embrace global war--as tragic and evil as the oppression of Jews by the Nazis during World War II was, there are still larger and legitimate concerns that entire nations seek alternatives to global war. In that regard, Jews are nothing special. There are individual groups of peoples that are oppressed, slaughtered, and exterminated all around the world, all the time. To think that *America* is somehow morally obligated to get involved in every fucking war--and even risk global war--because some group of people somewhere are oppressed--is simply not fair, not reasonable, and not realistic. It also may not even ultimately be ethical. So, NO. America is NOT obligated to offer itself up on the butcher's table itself for every fucking people being oppressed anywhere in the world. Let some other nations--neighbors--get involved. Otherwise, well, that's fucking life. Most other nations and peoples don't give a fuck about people on the other side of the world. That's Anthropology and Psychology 101. Human Nature, circles of relationship priority, and a natural preference for the "In Group". That's also just reality.

Beyond that, as I mentioned, there are all kinds of contexts and variables involved. Whether it is the US in early World War II, or even the other Western Allies, like with Czechoslovakia and Poland--there are very real limitations in regards to finances, resources, psychology, strategy, national security interests, and basic, raw military forces. *Morally* it was terrible for Czechoslovakia, for example, to be offered up in sacrifice to the Nazi beasts. However, the Czechs noble sacrifice was not in vain. Their sacrifice provided political impetus and also crucially, *time*, for the Western Allies to eventually be victorious. Whatever moral grandstanders may like to sniff and peddle to others--the fact is, prior to 1940 and onwards, the Western Allies in particular were genuinely in no condition to seriously challenge Nazi Germany, let alone embrace a global war. Britain and France were crushingly broke financially, exhausted psychologically and politically, confused strategically, and pathetically weak militarily, compared to Nazi Germany.

Furthermore, honestly, it wasn't just the enormous overall weakness of Britain and France--the United States was even weaker than either of the Western Allies were at the time.

There is a whole lot going on during those times, and for any nation at any time--as I mentioned, many contexts, variables, and factors, that are part of hard, absolute reality, and can not simply be waved away by snapping one's fingers and declaring it must be because it is therby moral to do so.

Simplistic, binary thinking in simple, absolute terms makes for a nice moral tale--but modern warfare requires much more than moral certitude.

As for Liberal Inetrnational Interventionism, as I mentioned, that philosophy is bankrupt and riddled with absolute corruption and stupidity. Instead of *one* nation being charged with being the "World's Policeman"--I think it is much more practical to allow local nations in whatever region--handle various issues and crisis that develop in their neighborhood. If they choose not to, then that is their burden to bear. Crisis's are expectedly most imprortant and meaningul to the relevant neighborhood--if they can't be bothered to rise to the challenge of whatever--then it is unreasonable and immoral for them to always expect or demand that America from the other side of the world come in and rescue them and clean their housefull of shit. That is a basic principle observed throughout the world by most every nation--again, rooted in Antropology and Psychology 101 and basic human nature.

If that idea rubs you the wrong way--then you sign the fuck up, or get your hildren to sign the fuck up, to go and fight in Europe; in Chinafor the Uigurs against the Chinese; in the Philippines, fighting against Communist rebels and Muslim insurgents; in Southeast Asia to fight in Burma; in Central America tofight against a range of rebel forces; in Africa, to fight against various rebel forces, revolutionaries, and Muslim fanatics; in Israel, to fight against Muslims; in India, to fight against Pakistani terrorist forces; in Yemen, to fight the various Iranian and Saudi Arabian factions there.

Those are just the current hot-spots of warfare, terrorism, oppression, and slaughter going on right now, currently. Every year, or every couple of years, strife, mayhem, and war breaks out somewhere in the world, usually with a confusing mixture of agendas, history, variables, and problems, typically barrels of more bullshit for everyone involved.

Personally, I don't like it, at all. It is all terrible and tragic. But expecting America to shoulder that burden is simply unrealistic, unfair, and ultimately, unreasonable. America doesn't want to be the fucking "World's Policeman".

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #287 on: March 05, 2022, 01:14:00 PM »
My family was slaughtered by Nazis at a time where other nations knew about it, had the power to stop it, and decided to not stop it due to isolationism. You can F yourself on my being "unfair" to people with "different beliefs."
Well all my great grandfathers died in WWII and my grandmothers mainly had to hide away in Siberia. While allot of our distant extended family was slaughtered by Nazis in mass graves (because we are jewish). So I counter your emotional put down with a put down of my own.

So let me repeat: you are being unfair to people with different beliefs. Your morality is binary and refuses to recognize nuance. Im not sure if there is any point in discussing an idea further if somebody is unwilling to even entertain the idea of them being wrong.

And you cut the rest of my reply to you because it responded to what you're saying in a way that made you uncomfortable. My morality is far from binary - it's the opposite. But again, you cut that part because it doesn't fit with your very narrow view of how this works.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #288 on: March 05, 2022, 01:15:36 PM »
Aparently a temporary cease fire has been negotiated between Ukraine and Russia. Lets hope they manage to cut a deal that allows Putin to save face in his country (because I don't think he would agree to anything else) and doesn't end with all of Ukraine under his boot. Praying for it.

No such cease-fire has been negotiated. Guess you're reading shitty sources again.

I dunno, is thewashington post a shitty source to you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/03/russia-ukraine-war-putin-news/

Yes. Of course it's a shitty source. Is it seriously a good source in your view?

There isn't a cease fire in Ukraine. There are some "corridors" for some people to flee, but that's not a cease fire and has never been defined as a cease fire before.

Yes captain hindsight, it's easy to be correct after the fact. You asked for sources, there's a far left source (so one that agrees with you on most things) but now you declare it a shitty one... Because you need to win and will make up anything post hoc in order to do so.

Also let me point you to a little tidbit hidden in the first word of my post: APPARENTLY

You might want to check the definition.

Anything else?

I am not fat left, jackass. I am a moderate (who leans slightly right), and have never claimed sources like Washington Post are my "good" sources.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #289 on: March 05, 2022, 01:17:44 PM »
...
They also can't understand that you can be sympathetic to the plight of Ukie civilians without wanting to get into another 20-year war. It doesn't help that Westerners don't understand the Slavic mindset - regardless of benign-ness of NATO membership, to Putin and Lukashenko, they see themselves surrounded by NATO.

This is big.

The situation sucks for the Ukrainian people.

But it's just not our business.

Oh here comes that old isolationism mantra. Just as unethical as it was in 1939.

It's our business. It's not our business enough to invade and start WW3, but it's our business. We live in a world larger than ourselves. There will always be an excuse to not care about what happens outside our border. That excuse is usually just bullshit.

And the easy was to demonstrate the lie? This thread. People are interested more than just making sure we don't start WW3. Everyone here knows on some level it's everyone's business when one of the world powers militarily invades another nation without provocation and expects to see no push back from the rest of the world for their actions.

You won't find him arguing the same about the ONE superpower currently commiting genocide but hey, it's never about principles with him.

Oh please do tell me about what you think is the "ONE superpower currently committing genocide." This should be good. Might reveal your spots finally.

China, as if you didn't know.

Ha! I honestly didn't know. I thought you were going to say something else. But I agree with you!

For at least 2 years it has been a major talking point all over the internet. But not on such far left publications as you read, so I'll grant you a MAYBE you didn't know.

My bet is you did but are a disingenuous twat.

Oh for F's sake, a second accusation I am far left? Let me tell yah something buddy, I am the token Republican in most places I post and hang out. Just because I think all you q-anon Trumpers are jackasses who F'ed up the GOP doesn't make me "far left".  Why did you think so many here accuse me of being a neo-con? Whatever you think of neo-cons, they're generally not interchangeable with "far left".

I ASSUMED you were going to say Israel because the last time on this very message board that someone who said the things you're saying got into this topic, that's the answer they gave.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #290 on: March 05, 2022, 01:23:44 PM »
And you cut the rest of my reply to you because....
That part relied on 'I have a personal emotional stake in this so shut the hell up', which is never a good point of argumentation. That betrays such a disrespect for conversation, debating the rest is pointless with you.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #291 on: March 05, 2022, 04:04:27 PM »
And you cut the rest of my reply to you because....
That part relied on 'I have a personal emotional stake in this so shut the hell up', which is never a good point of argumentation. That betrays such a disrespect for conversation, debating the rest is pointless with you.

No, that part absolutely did not. In fact the last part was completely unrelated to the first part and involved a separate quote. The only remaining question is did you just lie and think nobody would look at the post we're talking about, or was this an honest mistake?
When I say "it depends on the circumstances" as my position, there is no rational way for you to spin that as "moral inflexibility". So I assume you're just lying to get out of a discussion at this point, but i am open to you offering a different explanation.

Here is a reminder for others (not you because I know you saw it and then cut it and tried to spin it) of what was said that you cut:

Isolationism at it's heart is unethical.
Well thats a really unfair way of viewing people with different beliefs.

My family was slaughtered by Nazis at a time where other nations knew about it, had the power to stop it, and decided to not stop it due to isolationism. You can F yourself on my being "unfair" to people with "different beliefs." It's OK to judge some beliefs as bad based on the impact they have on other people. Isolationism is unethical. Inherently so. It says no matter how bad something gets, no matter how easily you can stop it from happening, you're not to intervene based on that principal and that principal alone. That's unethical no matter how you spin it or no matter how you feel about it.

Quote
Well I think that goes more into your baseline beliefs about the role of government and intervention about what a person can do in day to day society. From my reading of you, you err much more on the 'interventionist' side.

It depends on the circumstances, for any ethical being it depends on the circumstances. If it doesn't depend on the circumstances for you because you think there are no circumstances in which you'd help your neighbor in need when you have the means to do so, then you're unethical.


That's the position you called morally inflexible. My saying it depends on the circumstances. Just so everyone can see. The only opposite of that position is "there are no circumstances for which it could depend on" which goes back to the first point I made about isolationism. If you view "it depends on the circumstances" as morally inflexible, you're inherently saying there are no circumstances which you view intervention as acceptable. Which is why I said it's ironic you're the one calling my position "morally inflexible" when you've literally taken a spelled-out inflexible stance while mine is highly flexible of "it depends."
« Last Edit: March 05, 2022, 04:09:35 PM by Mistwell »

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #292 on: March 05, 2022, 04:23:36 PM »
Quote
You can F yourself on my being "unfair" to people with "different beliefs."

Quote
[Insert Emotional Appeal Here]

Quote
Isolationism is unethical. Inherently so. It says no matter how bad something gets, no matter how easily you can stop it from happening, you're not to intervene based on that principal and that principal alone. That's unethical no matter how you spin it or no matter how you feel about it.

That's the position you called morally inflexible.
Yes. I just have learned over time that if somebody is utterly inflexible on certain points, and tells others to 'F yourself', its generally not worth my time engaging the point. Nothing will be accomplished.

I don't see as anybody elses efforts owed to me. I think its right to do good things, but I don't see those things as owed to me. I see isolationism and non-interventionism a valid if morally neutral aproach, not one I would do myself, but I wouldn't tell those people off for not seeing themselves as obligated to help me.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #293 on: March 05, 2022, 05:02:36 PM »
Greetings!

Well, whatever a person wants to believe about "Isolationism". ;D I think the fucking Liberal Internationalist Interventionist philosophy is evil, corrupt bullshit. You can cover all that with self-righteous back-slapping and head-petting all you want--but the fact is, it is routinely used merely as a disguise to dupe the idealistic moron sheep and to cloak the deeper, more cynical and greedy motivations of the governments and corporations involved. Being the "World's Policeman" is a fucking fool's errand. Other nations take advantage and exploit the employment of American forces and the needless sacrifice of American lives and treasure--while they sit back in comfort and security, and rake in the profits.

Fuck that.

[snip]

Personally, I don't like it, at all. It is all terrible and tragic. But expecting America to shoulder that burden is simply unrealistic, unfair, and ultimately, unreasonable. America doesn't want to be the fucking "World's Policeman".
Well put. Glad to see you can still post something more thoughtful than commie-killing fantasies.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #294 on: March 05, 2022, 05:07:46 PM »
Oh for F's sake, a second accusation I am far left?
No, you're not.

I'm not a big fan of your posts lately, but GB is using one of the same tactics they deride. "Everyone I don't like is alt-right/a communist". Everything is seen from an Us vs. a Monolithic Them lens, which makes it very hard to talk about positions, people, and beliefs that don't slot neatly into one of popular political narratives.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2022, 05:09:25 PM by Pat »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #295 on: March 05, 2022, 05:43:47 PM »
Well, whatever a person wants to believe about "Isolationism". ;D I think the fucking Liberal Internationalist Interventionist philosophy is evil, corrupt bullshit. You can cover all that with self-righteous back-slapping and head-petting all you want--but the fact is, it is routinely used merely as a disguise to dupe the idealistic moron sheep and to cloak the deeper, more cynical and greedy motivations of the governments and corporations involved. Being the "World's Policeman" is a fucking fool's errand. Other nations take advantage and exploit the employment of American forces and the needless sacrifice of American lives and treasure--while they sit back in comfort and security, and rake in the profits.
Personally, I don't like it, at all. It is all terrible and tragic. But expecting America to shoulder that burden is simply unrealistic, unfair, and ultimately, unreasonable. America doesn't want to be the fucking "World's Policeman".

You're making this sound like being World Police was foisted on Americans by foreign countries and liberals - but America has generally been the one to push for more war from the mainstream of both parties - and more specifically, conservative Republican leaders like Bush have been even more hawkish than Democratic ones. Even Trump has had foreign involvement like his threats to North Korea.

There isn't  just a binary choice between America's typical war-making, and complete isolationism. There is a more reasonable middle ground. I don't think America should be urging the rest of the world to war as it has typically done, but I think it should contribute proportionally to its size and economy similar to typical other democracies like Canada or Australia. That would mean drastically cutting back our military budget and standing army, and far less wars and arms sales than has been the norm for the past several decades - but we would still be involved in peace-keeping and other military actions and economic sanctions with other countries.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #296 on: March 05, 2022, 06:28:40 PM »
Well, whatever a person wants to believe about "Isolationism". ;D I think the fucking Liberal Internationalist Interventionist philosophy is evil, corrupt bullshit. You can cover all that with self-righteous back-slapping and head-petting all you want--but the fact is, it is routinely used merely as a disguise to dupe the idealistic moron sheep and to cloak the deeper, more cynical and greedy motivations of the governments and corporations involved. Being the "World's Policeman" is a fucking fool's errand. Other nations take advantage and exploit the employment of American forces and the needless sacrifice of American lives and treasure--while they sit back in comfort and security, and rake in the profits.
Personally, I don't like it, at all. It is all terrible and tragic. But expecting America to shoulder that burden is simply unrealistic, unfair, and ultimately, unreasonable. America doesn't want to be the fucking "World's Policeman".

You're making this sound like being World Police was foisted on Americans by foreign countries and liberals - but America has generally been the one to push for more war from the mainstream of both parties - and more specifically, conservative Republican leaders like Bush have been even more hawkish than Democratic ones. Even Trump has had foreign involvement like his threats to North Korea.
I hope you realize you just contradicted yourself. Being World Police was foisted on America by the neoliberal elite, which includes the mainstream leaders of both parties. Americans in general rarely care about other countries, except when drummed into a demagogic furor, and that rarely lasts for long.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #297 on: March 05, 2022, 08:14:05 PM »
Greetings!

Well, whatever a person wants to believe about "Isolationism". ;D I think the fucking Liberal Internationalist Interventionist philosophy is evil, corrupt bullshit. You can cover all that with self-righteous back-slapping and head-petting all you want--but the fact is, it is routinely used merely as a disguise to dupe the idealistic moron sheep and to cloak the deeper, more cynical and greedy motivations of the governments and corporations involved. Being the "World's Policeman" is a fucking fool's errand. Other nations take advantage and exploit the employment of American forces and the needless sacrifice of American lives and treasure--while they sit back in comfort and security, and rake in the profits.

Fuck that.

[snip]

Personally, I don't like it, at all. It is all terrible and tragic. But expecting America to shoulder that burden is simply unrealistic, unfair, and ultimately, unreasonable. America doesn't want to be the fucking "World's Policeman".
Well put. Glad to see you can still post something more thoughtful than commie-killing fantasies.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Well, thank you, Pat! ;D

These kinds of discussions remind me of the many things I studied in my degree in Political Science--where I specialized in *International Relations*. Taking a deep dive into political machinery, political philosophy, diplomacy, and all that--it struck me, that from a more or less objective viewpoint, and at the same time affording many principle participants and political actors a measure of charity--the realization emerges that so very often in the international political arena, there are NO CLEAR MORAL CHOICES or feel-good victories. Many of the choices involved are typically between shitty and shittier. The selections are often bad, with an unavoidable menu of all parties involved getting fucked and losing--it is often just a matter of determining or trying to influence the degree of shit that different parties must deal with. These scenarios of course typically involve the US, and the US attempts to minimize the shit, and maximize any advantages or gains. The harsh political realities of these dynamics are the same to a large degree for every nation. Many scenarios are also damnably complex, with multiple competing interests and international actors, from nation-states, to individual leaders and ambassadors, Generals, and also individual corporations. Oftentimes, such political scenarios involve a mixture o some measure of shit and some measure of gain or benefit, for one party or another, or sometimes several, but it is also clear that many scenarios involve frustrating losses or poor results for several parties involved. Honestly, trying to apply self-righteous, simplistic, absolute morality in the environment of international relations is fucking laughable and fucking insane.

I'm reminded also of some studies I reviewed on the Carter Administration--where fellow Liberal Democrats and even staffers and members of Carter's administration when interviewed revealed that Carter was a sincere man that sought to often apply Christian morality and Christian principles to diplomacy and international relations--and such efforts and expectations by Carter met with constant frustration, confusion, and disappointment. The lynchpin for me was the official and advisors arguing with Carter back and forth an coming to grips with the realities that there were often no clear "Good Guys" and that many scenarios involved no one really winning and everyone being covered in shit. (Inspiring my previous commentary).

Of course, that begs the question, why can't absolute morality be applied in international politics? Well, because we do not live in a fantasy world. There are limited resources, limited money, and limitations of lives and blood. Then, there are also absolute differences in philosophy and values--and various people simply refuse to compromise on A, B, or C. When such participants are willing to fight to enforce their beliefs--or withhold their support or resources, you, your moral vision, and your grand plan--regardless of how personally morally satisfying it might be or even righteous--is fucked. In the real world, people--even political leaders and such--hold to different morals and values--or they hold largely the same morals and values as you, I, or us--but have them arranged in different priorities. That dynamic makes all the difference. You can see such dynamics involved in the debates between Interventionists and "Isolationists". Both can ascribe to morality, but order such in different priorities and weights, balancing such in a buffet-like list of objectives and goals. The harsh truth is that, depending on the scenario, either position can be right or wrong--or just as often, like my previous commentary--embracing a mix of being both good and bad at the same time.

Of course, our own moral convictions are good and critically important in many areas of life--including politics--but the fact is, insisting that political policy and foreign involvement--including embracing adventures and choices involving full-scale war--governed by a sense of absolute morality, is simply opening one's self up to absolute disaster and failure. Furthermore, since such policies are ostensibly guided and directed by such leadership embracing such--can also be hugely unethical, as such political choices are condemning millions of other people to suffer, sacrifice, and die, so that a nation state or a particular leader can enjoy a sense of moral righteousness and certitude. That's an arrogant and self-righteous position, and at the end of the day, it is difficult to avoid seeing such insistence as also a form of wickedness and evil.

International relations and foreign policy is an ugly business usually offering a range of bad choices, with very little room for absolute morality. Insisting on absolute moral policies is largely unrealistic--even if it is inspiring and makes us feel good--and often opens the door to even greater loss, humiliation, and lasting negative consequences or an even larger number of people.

International politics and foreign relations must always be pursued by intelligent, sober-minded, pragmatic individuals that keep the big pictire in mind and do not become blinded or obsessed with adherance to an unworkable absolute moral policy position.

And yes, to be honest, admitting such is not easy for me, because I as an individual embrace absolute morality in many ways. I *like* absolute morality. I like righteousness and the simple fierceeness of moral certainty! Applying such to international relations and foreign policy though, is frought with multiple dangers and often courts disaster and unforseen consequences that may be far worse than a more pragmatic approach would ensure.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #298 on: March 05, 2022, 10:33:05 PM »
Regarding Interventionism… I don’t think failing to intervene is inherently evil because things are rarely that clear-cut. Just running into a hostage situation with guns blazing and no idea who is who and where they are is intervention… but it’s stupid and will likely get at least some of the very people you’re supposed to be trying to save killed; possibly even by you as one of them pops up from cover to run for the exit and had the misfortune of wearing a black coat while the hostage takers were wearing black hoodies.

Rather, the moral standard for intervention should be a bit like that of a doctor’s oath… “Don’t cause more problems than you’re trying to solve.”

You say we should intervene in Ukraine? Okay, tell us how. Tell us what is hoped to be gained. Tell us the expected costs. Tell us the realistic case and worst case consequences. If the outlined plan doesn’t make things worse, it’s something I’m amenable to. If it’s just “send over a bunch of our soldiers over to drag us all into WW3” then I suggest booking yourself a flight over there and volunteering for the front line first.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #299 on: March 06, 2022, 04:33:10 AM »
Of course, our own moral convictions are good and critically important in many areas of life--including politics--but the fact is, insisting that political policy and foreign involvement--including embracing adventures and choices involving full-scale war--governed by a sense of absolute morality, is simply opening one's self up to absolute disaster and failure. Furthermore, since such policies are ostensibly guided and directed by such leadership embracing such--can also be hugely unethical, as such political choices are condemning millions of other people to suffer, sacrifice, and die, so that a nation state or a particular leader can enjoy a sense of moral righteousness and certitude. That's an arrogant and self-righteous position, and at the end of the day, it is difficult to avoid seeing such insistence as also a form of wickedness and evil.
It's the problem with socialism. Or any large centralized government. It's arrogant to assume you can choose for so many people, and to force them to your will, and it becomes murderously arrogant in practice.

It's the distance that makes it so monstrous. It's hard to turn on your friends, or neighbors, without outside pressure. But it's easy if everyone else is doing it, and you feel like you have no choice, or they'll turn on you as well. Genocide and totalitarian control walk hand in grisly hand.

The gray is what allows it to happen. No good choices, so you might as well make the most convenient one. This is why leaders become corrupt, because if everything's bad, why not pad your pockets, and help your allies, and pull a few strings or break a few rules to stay in power, because it might as well be you, right? It's also why the populace in general goes along, when tyrants spring up like weeds in a vast bureaucracy; because it's safer, more comfortable. Though of course it's even more insidious than that, because one excuse leads to another, and one hard choice makes the next one even easier. Over time, the moral window shifts to a gray that's nigh indistinguishable from black.

Free, small, and local is the only solution.