White Guilt and The Western Past

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
Your point about Bush is pretty stupid, though.

In what way? Don’t make blanket statements just because it doesn’t agree with what you believe. You’re usually much better than that. Explain why is it stupid.

If you look at it through the eyes of people you call nutcases, it’s exactly the same as what you see in them. That small group of religious fanatics that you said you want to wipe out distills things like this down in those basic terms. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to them. This is what they see as being true.

So, explain why is it stupid again? [/quote]

It’s stupid because in the context of this conversation, you are implying that Bush went into Iraq to convert them to Christianity or kill them if they refused.

Which U.S. president didn’t proclaim themself a Christian? Part of being a Christian is spreading the word of God. Do you think the other presidents were shitty Christians, or did Kennedy go into Vietnam to convert them?

[quote]doogie wrote:
It’s stupid because in the context of this conversation, you are implying that Bush went into Iraq to convert them to Christianity or kill them if they refused.[/quote]

You’re missing his point; he’s not saying that HE thinks that Bush went into Iraq to convert them, he’s saying they THEY might have that perception.

Understanding your enemy is part of defeating it, even if they are “stupid”.

[quote]hspder wrote:
You’re missing his point; he’s not saying that HE thinks that Bush went into Iraq to convertem, he’s saying they THEY might have that perception.

Understanding your enemy is part of defeating it, even if they are “stupid”.
[/quote]

Yep. I misread it. Shouldn’t read and post during work.

In the context of this thread: if we weren’t such nice guys it wouldn’t matter what our enemies thought. They get up in arms for whatever reason, here comes the MOAB.

[quote]doogie wrote:
if we weren’t such nice guys it wouldn’t matter what our enemies thought. They get up in arms for whatever reason, here comes the MOAB.[/quote]

True, but then could we claim the moral high ground?

What makes it even more interesting is that if we didn’t claim the moral high ground at all, we’d probably have less enemies.

In case that isn’t obvious by now, my whole point is: we need to stop claiming the moral high ground. It is hypocritical and brings a lot more grief than we’re ready to deal with.

I’m sure hedo can speak for himself, but I need to know if this is a joke:

[quote]hspder wrote:

Yes, but at even greater cost to ours. Remember how many US bonds they have. Remember how many products we buy from them. China has recovered from much worse situations, it would be a relatively small setback for them (a decade or so back) – the impact on our economy of such an attack, however, would make the Great Depression look like the good old days for us.

All our debt would come back to bite us. The dollar would fall so much all the whole world would immediately switch to trading oil in Euros, which would make the dollar plummet even more. We would never be the same again, since it would be completely impossible to buy anything from anyone else, and we would have to become fully self-sufficient literally overnight.[/quote]

You’re right, the US would become an instant pariah. The entire knowledge base, business infrastructure, communications networks, customer base, and fiscal investment would evaporate overnight. China would cease to be a world power and Americans would start dying in record numbers, I think you’re being overly fatalistic. We are not popular right now, but neither is China, and while I don’t think the EU and Russia would jump out of their chairs to help us, I don’t think they’ll turn a blind eye. Especially if the dollar plummets and Americans, en masse, begin working to rebuild it.

Yes, but the large majority of the world market is much more friendly to us than China and I don’t believe supplying arms to Iran would help that any.

They do value their pride above everything, and they’re learning that money is more valuable than closing your borders or adherance to strict communist doctrine and/or idealism.

This is the part that really made me chuckle. China…stable. Out of curiosity, how many dead bodies, civil wars, and violently overthrown warlords/dictators must a country/culture amass before you describe a country as unstable?

I think the Russians would take umbrage at the idea of providing fissile material to a well armed and unstable on-again/off-again foe. Additionally, the EU has no interesting in seeing a well armed Iran either. IMO, arming Iran would be one of the stupidist things China could do.

[quote]I’m not saying that with the current status quo things will go down the drain – even though China is as dependent on us as you make it out, the best possible outcome for them includes keeping our economy healthy – with the current status quo. But if we change the status quo – by attacking Iran, or some other country, or even China themselves – that will change.

As I said, the situation today is very different, and if we’re not careful with China, it might come a time where the mighty US will be just “one of the guys”.[/quote]

I agree things would change were we to attempt to flush China’s economy, but I’m also positive that you’re overblowing the situation.

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US could still crush the Chinese economy in two weeks. They know it, we know it.

Yes, but at even greater cost to ours. Remember how many US bonds they have. Remember how many products we buy from them. China has recovered from much worse situations, it would be a relatively small setback for them (a decade or so back) – the impact on our economy of such an attack, however, would make the Great Depression look like the good old days for us.

All our debt would come back to bite us. The dollar would fall so much all the whole world would immediately switch to trading oil in Euros, which would make the dollar plummet even more. We would never be the same again, since it would be completely impossible to buy anything from anyone else, and we would have to become fully self-sufficient literally overnight.

Remember that the US is not the only market on the planet. We might be the greatest individual importer (in dollar value), yes, but we’re not worth more than everybody else combined – especially if you consider the size of China’s own internal market, which is growing much faster than our own.

On the other hand, our dependency on Chinese products just keeps growing.

In a game of chicken, they will always win – they value their pride above everything else, and we value money much more than they do. Remember that.

Furthermore, China has remained relatively stable over the centuries compared to the Western World. They know how to be patient, and exert their power slowly.

For example, it is in the best interest of China to arm Iran to their teeth. Not only the last thing they want is for us to take over their oil supply (they need it even more than we do), it is a great source of income…

I’m not saying that with the current status quo things will go down the drain – even though China is as dependent on us as you make it out, the best possible outcome for them includes keeping our economy healthy – with the current status quo. But if we change the status quo – by attacking Iran, or some other country, or even China themselves – that will change.

As I said, the situation today is very different, and if we’re not careful with China, it might come a time where the mighty US will be just “one of the guys”.
[/quote]

So you are saying that the sky will fall if the Chinese don’t buy our bonds. It won’t. The customer always calls the tune in the relationship. Remember that.

Interest rates may rise. The economy may falter and then we will move on. China exists as a manufacturing giant because we buy from them. We can buy from others or make it ourself. In a game of chicken the stronger nation always wins. China can threaten. We can threaten and back up our threats. Big difference. How long do you think the Chinese working class would remain calm if the navy the factories were shut down while the politcal leadership “saved face”? The same argument over “who will buy our debt” has been used over and over again The Arabs, The Japanese, The Europeans have all filled in the blank and in the end reason prevails.

All that being said I thinbk we can work with China and should. They are stable for now and we should take advantage of it. The stability you wrote about is a recent phenomenon. Those born in 1930 or later in China may not sure your view of the stable politcal situation that existed for the last 80-100 years in China.

In the end the realtionship we have with China is beneficial to both. We can each hurt each other. I only point out we can be much more lethal militarily and economically. I’m sure the point is not lost on the Chines.

(good post Lucassa…didn’t catch it before I responded…could have saved some typing)

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
I’ll also disagree that the West will not make “total war” upon our enemies. We will, unfortunately. Our enemies underestimate the savegery the West is capable of when pushed. We don’t do it unprovoked but once the course is set the West has shown the ability to be lethal as anyone else.

Yes, but in completely different geopolitical scenarios. Things have changed dramatically since then… Europe has handed over their balls to the Arab world – on a silver platter – and we have given ours to China. We’re all eunuchs now. Remember that.
[/quote]

I think the leadership in the USA simply recognized, as Britain did in the late 19th century, the up and coming power of another country. Is this ‘handing over our balls’? I’d think of it more like Orwell’s nation-states in ‘1984’ propping up one another.

hedo, lucasa:

I can see I’m not going to change your mind, but I do have a couple of comments:

  1. I find it interesting how you fear Iran much more than China. The only possible justification I can imagine you have for that is that you feel Iran is irrational while China is rational. Not only that’s simplistic, I feel that you are missing the point that eventually, it will be in the best interest of China to crush our Economy – even if it’s slowly. The fact that it isn’t right now doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future, and the last thing we need is to keep progressing in the direction that will eventually lead to be in their best interest to crush our economy. Basic Game Theory.

I do feel that China is, by far, the greatest threat to our Economy, our culture and our way of living. The way we’re feeding their growth and becoming more and more dependent on their products is reckless, even if you justify it through a self-righteous quest to spread Democracy.

  1. What has brought every single great power in History down has been a combination of three factors: self-righteousness, overextension and underestimating your enemies. We clearly fit all criteria quite nicely…

  2. I admit I tend to come off as pessimistic. That has served me well, and I have lost count of the times I’ve said “I told you so…”. Keeping an eye on potential problems and preventing them is always better than being caught off-guard. Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away…

I actually hope I’m wrong. Hopefully in 30 years we’ll all be here laughing about this. I do NOT want to be dispensing yet another “I told you so…” in 2036.

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo, lucasa:

I can see I’m not going to change your mind, but I do have a couple of comments:

  1. I find it interesting how you fear Iran much more than China. The only possible justification I can imagine you have for that is that you feel Iran is irrational while China is rational. Not only that’s simplistic, I feel that you are missing the point that eventually, it will be in the best interest of China to crush our Economy – even if it’s slowly. The fact that it isn’t right now doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future, and the last thing we need is to keep progressing in the direction that will eventually lead to be in their best interest to crush our economy. Basic Game Theory.

I do feel that China is, by far, the greatest threat to our Economy, our culture and our way of living. The way we’re feeding their growth and becoming more and more dependent on their products is reckless, even if you justify it through a self-righteous quest to spread Democracy.

  1. What has brought every single great power in History down has been a combination of three factors: self-righteousness, overextension and underestimating your enemies. We clearly fit all criteria quite nicely…

  2. I admit I tend to come off as pessimistic. That has served me well, and I have lost count of the times I’ve said “I told you so…”. Keeping an eye on potential problems and preventing them is always better than being caught off-guard. Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away…

I actually hope I’m wrong. Hopefully in 30 years we’ll all be here laughing about this. I do NOT want to be dispensing yet another “I told you so…” in 2036.
[/quote]

Hspder

I hope so too. I want to be retied and golfing in 2036.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I hope so too. I want to be retied and golfing in 2036.[/quote]

Personally, I hope to be teaching until I can’t stand up. I honestly can’t imagine myself doing anything else.

That is part of why I give such importance to be physically fit and strong, and why I am here in this site – so that I can stand up and teach every day for the rest of my life.

[quote]hedo wrote:
So you are saying that the sky will fall if the Chinese don’t buy our bonds. It won’t. The customer always calls the tune in the relationship. Remember that.[/quote]

Let me address this one specifically, because it is an important problem.

The issue is not them stopping the purchase of US bonds; the issue is if China decides to DUMP the bonds they already have – either because they want to mess with us or because they need the liquidity – the dollar will suffer immediately.

In a nutshell, they have more of an ability to value or devalue the dollar than anyone else – including ourselves.

Now, as I said, under current circumstances it is in their best interest to keep the dollar at its current level – devaluing it would increase the price of Chinese products and potentially reduce their sales.

But imagine a scenario where for some reason this Administration does something to piss them off, relatively close to Election time. They can, overnight, devalue the dollar, immediately triggering inflation over here in the US; that would create social unrest, a backlash against the incumbents and possibly affect the election.

Is it just me that finds that having a foreign nation – especially one that constantly goes against us in the UN – have that much power over us troubling?

Isn’t it profoundly asinine that, having gotten rid of the Cold War, we immediately proceeded to feed another potential foe and hand them all the power they need to screw us on a silver platter?

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
I hope so too. I want to be retired and golfing in 2036.

Personally, I hope to be teaching until I can’t stand up. I honestly can’t imagine myself doing anything else.

That is part of why I give such importance to be physically fit and strong, and why I am here in this site – so that I can stand up and teach every day for the rest of my life.
[/quote]

[quote]hspder wrote:

  1. I find it interesting how you fear Iran much more than China. The only possible justification I can imagine you have for that is that you feel Iran is irrational while China is rational. Not only that’s simplistic, I feel that you are missing the point that eventually, it will be in the best interest of China to crush our Economy – even if it’s slowly. The fact that it isn’t right now doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future, and the last thing we need is to keep progressing in the direction that will eventually lead to be in their best interest to crush our economy. Basic Game Theory.[/quote]

You misunderstand, I prefer slow/predictable economic destruction over irrational violent physical destruction any day of the week. Also, Game Theory runs kinda contradictory to what you’re saying though. Unilateralism is virtually always the worst outcome of most if not all of the games proposed.

Agreed, however, IMO, China is one of the last great nations to the table of modern economics and is rapidly learning that even rigid culture and government doctrine can’t restrain free market capitalism.

What can I say? I don’t know how much I believe ‘past performance as an indicator of future results’? But then, I’m an underestimating, self-righteous American.

It’s my experience that people who’ve lost count of the number of times they said, “I told you so…” were never really counting in the first place and more importantly, ignore the vastly greater number of predictions they made that didn’t end in “I told you so…”

I agree that keeping an eye on the potential problem is always better than being caught off guard, but crying ‘wolf’ (dragon?) is equally, if not more detrimental.

The only way I see ‘us not being’ here in 30 yrs. involves outright war and/or nuclear weaponry, the only way I see us laughing about this is if hostile communist China and/or its economy is reigned in. But I do agree, I’ve heard more than enough “I told you so…”

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
I hope so too. I want to be retied and golfing in 2036.

Personally, I hope to be teaching until I can’t stand up. I honestly can’t imagine myself doing anything else.

That is part of why I give such importance to be physically fit and strong, and why I am here in this site – so that I can stand up and teach every day for the rest of my life.
[/quote]

Goddamit, you and I disagree on a lot of things but that’s my personal philosphy too! I can’t imagine doing anything else in life, and I teach teens!

I am very sorry for misjudging you. Anyone with that philosophy of life deserves respect.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Also, Game Theory runs kinda contradictory to what you’re saying though. Unilateralism is virtually always the worst outcome of most if not all of the games proposed.[/quote]

Very good point. That is very true. However first, it is the worst outcome of “most”, not all. Second, you’re again forgetting the world is not only China and the US, and the US economy’s “relative weight” is decreasing… Crushing the US economy might not be “unilateral” at all, in the sense it might be a “side-effect” of another Game that doesn’t even have the US at the table… The outcome of which might be very favorable to them.

Think about this game: “Fight for Oil Supplies”.

Again, I don’t want this to happen, I’m just exploring all possible scenarios…

Finally, at the risk of sounding corny:

"
Colonel Madden: First rule when dealing with the devil: don’t.
– Solo (1996)
"

Back on topic.

Let’s take a look at where he states the US fights with one hand tied behind his back.

Is there ANYBODY out there who thinks this guy has any real fighting experience? Is there anybody out there who thinks this guy knows the first thing about fighting a insurgency?

Where does his idea of “minimalism and restraint in war” come from?

Didn’t the US go for “shock and awe”?
How about the carpet bombing in Vietnam? Was that “minimalism and restraint”?

What does he mean by “using the full measure of military power”? Lining up every civilian and shooting them in the name of freedom and democracy?

If that is not what he’s talking about, someone please tell me what he IS talking about then.

And dismissing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as “stigmatization campaigns”. He thinks he can get away with it because he’s black. But I won’t let him of the hook.

If I ever get the chance, I’ll stigmatise his sorry ass so bad, he won’t be able to sit down for months.
And with me being white, and him being black, it would give him some first hand experience about “white guilt”.
I somehow get the feeling he needs that, if only to put things into perspective.

An interesting Op-Ed piece indeed… Interesting for his shrink.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Back on topic.

Let’s take a look at where he states the US fights with one hand tied behind his back.

Is there ANYBODY out there who thinks this guy has any real fighting experience? Is there anybody out there who thinks this guy knows the first thing about fighting a insurgency?

Where does his idea of “minimalism and restraint in war” come from?

Didn’t the US go for “shock and awe”?
How about the carpet bombing in Vietnam? Was that “minimalism and restraint”?

What does he mean by “using the full measure of military power”? Lining up every civilian and shooting them in the name of freedom and democracy?

If that is not what he’s talking about, someone please tell me what he IS talking about then.

And dismissing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as “stigmatization campaigns”. He thinks he can get away with it because he’s black. But I won’t let him of the hook.

If I ever get the chance, I’ll stigmatise his sorry ass so bad, he won’t be able to sit down for months.
And with me being white, and him being black, it would give him some first hand experience about “white guilt”.
I somehow get the feeling he needs that, if only to put things into perspective.

An interesting Op-Ed piece indeed… Interesting for his shrink.[/quote]

I mentioned earlier that he doesn’t get a free pass with his opinion just because he is black. I also mentioned that I am very familiar with Shelby Steele and the Hoover Institution, a privately-funded Neo-Con think tank.

[quote]hspder wrote:

Think about this game: “Fight for Oil Supplies”.[/quote]

Efficiency for efficiency’s sake, it pays dividends all over the place. If I’m not mistaken, we’re dumping money hand over fist into ‘independent energy’. Did you think it was just about global warming? :slight_smile:

[quote]doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
I agree that there is absolute right and wrong. I absolutely think it is wrong to allow the kind of evil that lives in the heart of this enemy to exist on this earth one day longer than we have to.

Unless you know some effective wholesale brain-washing technique, you do realize you’re talking genocide?

Just checking…

Not true. I only advocate the extermination of the ones who want to kill or convert us. That is only a subgroup of Muslims, unless you think they are all evil and want to kill us.[/quote]

God gives every person the freedom to choose. Conversion is one thing killing is another. I don’t believe that Jesus would want us to kill off all Muslims.

Me Solomon Grundy

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

I mentioned earlier that he doesn’t get a free pass with his opinion just because he is black. I also mentioned that I am very familiar with Shelby Steele and the Hoover Institution, a privately-funded Neo-Con think tank.[/quote]

Define “Neo-Con”.