Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[Kidlicious]

Okay. So your argument is that my beliefs are consistent with those of Nazism in one respect: you say that I "talk [as if] the nation...were a person who should not function with any or much moral constraint."

Response: not really.
War is justified--
(1) in self defence (pre-emptive or reactive);
(2) where it is clear that the opponent seeks war against you, though the opponent lacks the capacity to go to war as yet, and is seeking that capacity;
(3) where your opponent undertakes hostile acts against you not amounting to outright acts of war, such as proxy war;
(4) where your allies stand in position (1), (2) or (3).

That doesn't make a given war wise (invading Iran would not be wise, for example, even though it falls within (2), (3) and (4)).
War is not justified by reference to any supposed economic reward that might follow from it.
If you have some objection to that list I'd be happy to consider it but I doubt that I would agree with you. In any case, as I have a pretty clear moral delineation of when war is justified I think the comparison to "Nazism", which posits the unlimited expansion of state power and territory for pure selfish gain, unwarranted.

Well the Nazis considered themselves defending their nation in everything they did. I don't think we should forget that we are talking about diplomacy. Nations put up fronts. Even Hitler did so.

[Zevico]

Well the Nazis considered themselves defending their nation in everything they did.

Well, the Nazis had bizarre and dangerous theories about race that called for eternal war against race enemies.
Liberal democrats like myself don't.

I don't think we should forget that we are talking about diplomacy.

I take it you mean "international relations."

Nations put up fronts.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Kidlicious]

Well, the Nazis had bizarre and dangerous theories about race that called for eternal war against race enemies.
Liberal democrats like myself don't

Everyone doesn't have bizarre theories but subconciously we're all just like Nazis. That is we all believe in policies that favor our own tribe at the expense of all the others. I don't trust talk about justifiable war. I think all nations are the same, evil.

[Zevico]

I think all nations are the same, evil.

If you cannot see the difference between Hitler and Roosevelt, and the necessity of supporting Roosevelt over Hitler then I pity you. If Because if you do not trust in the concept of a just war then what you believe in is either a pitiable and detestable pacifism or a cynical tribalism that you profess to abhor.

If the former, well, I presume you have read Orwell's article on pacifism but I link it here nevertheless.

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

If the latter, I will say that democratic politics has greatly reduced the tendency of man to conform to tribal means of organisation and thought. And I will say that we must act on the basis that we are able to think rationally and are able to reason and analyse evidence in a way that doesn't just suit our purposes our personal interests, but which aligns with the truth of the matter. It is precisely the success of rational reasoning and thought which has brought about democracy, and in turn, free markets, economic prosperity and scientific innovations which go with it.

[C0ckney]

there are genuine concerns about political and press freedoms in turkey, but to call it a police state is ridiculous.

First, there is reason to to think that it is being turned into one.
Second, Rubin says it's being turned into one, not that it is one. He does not call it a police state. He says--I'll quote it again:

that [AKP, Erdogan-led] regime being a pro-Iran Islamist government that is turning Turkey into a police state

a view which is, as i said, ridiculous. turkey has never been a model democracy, it has always faced problems with its system of government. in the past, those problems were to do with military coups removing elected governments or the treatment of the kurdish minority. now it appears that erdogan's government has won the battle against the army (see the recent resignations in the high command) and it appears that they will play a less prominent role h in the countries political life. his government's "kurdish opening" project has aimed to improve things for the kurds, socially, economically and culturally, although obviously there is a long way to go there. while there has been progress in some areas, things have deteriorated in others.

These are the strategies of a regime that is trying, and succeeding, in whipping up the public in favour of Islamism and against democracy and the West.

as for the rest of your rant, do you deny that erdogan is genuinely popular? also, there's plenty of real analysis about turkey out there. you might consider reading it instead of relying on your usual cadre of israel first know-nothings.

You speak of American religious conservatives with an unfounded and unwarranted contempt. This is a "social conservative" to whom you dare compare American right wingers to? Do Christians deny the Inquisition, and simultaneously call for its reintroduction? Do Christians concoct blood libels, herd people into ghettos, expel them, massacre them for the mere fact of their ethnicity? Do they call for the abrogation of free speech or the rule of law? Of course not. They are democrats. The comparison is fatuous. It is frankly sickening.

The people engaging in mass slaughter in Sudan today are Islamists. Erdogan has no problem with that--anyone who opposes an Islamist isn't a human being anyway. That is the basic logic of Erdogan and Islamism. And that is the consequence of his beliefs.

see this post is exactly why everyone considers you a joke here, you pompous little twerp. it sums you up perfectly. firstly, it's both incredibly sanctimonious and overblown ("who you dare call" indeed ), and secondly, it displays a basic lack of reading comprehension and logical argument. if you remember i said that erdogan was a 'social conservative' who you would probably support if he were not a muslim. you reply with a ridiculous rant about 'islamists' and muslims in gerenal it seems. pathetic, even by your low standards.

[C0ckney]

i mean honestly, compare turkey in the 1990s with today, yet now everything is going to hell according to some?! seriously, you need to stop reading the opinions of 'historians' who know nothing about history.

[Dauphin]

Are you saying this with a straight face, or missing the direct statement that the Nazi policy of expansionism is not only compatible with what you propose, but directly expounded by your stated philosophy.

First of all, I don't know what "directly expounded by your stated philosophy" means. Philosophies are not physical beings. They cannot expound on anything.

I take it that you mean that expansionism is a consequence (or permits) this political doctrine.

Plainly stated, there is no reason why territorial expansionism (when it means war) is always and necessarily in the interests of a nation, and, when conducted merely for its own sake, is both unwise and wrong. So much should be obvious.

I see you are playing the word play game of deliberate misinterpretation by breaking a sentence into individual parts without context and then implying that it makes no sense. The sentence makes perfect sense. The "stated philosophy", the philosophy you set out if you will, is the expounding process.

Given that further discussion will probably go down the route of further misdirection, I won't pursue it further. Unless you want to unequivocally state under what circumstances you would be against expansionism that is otherwise in a nation's interest. e.g. would you be supportive of an invasion of a free democratic nation that it just so happens no-one really cares about (let's say somewhere in Africa and there is no PR problem with mistreatment of natives)? Perhaps you are best genociding the population to avoid insurgence? Your motive is only the acquiring of those resources which are in your nation's national interest. Doing nothing would not have negative consequences, you'd only have the opportunity cost of not invading.

[notyoueither]

The French had good cause to intervene in Germany at an early date, and had they done so a lot of suffering would have been avoided.

[notyoueither]

Would should have been stated as could.

[DinoDoc]

Given that further discussion will probably go down the route of further misdirection, I won't pursue it further.

Why is it meaningful or even productive to have a discussion of the question of it international realism is a Nazi-like philosophy Dauphin? When a discussion is founded on one side throwing around pejoratives its bound to be a frustrating experience for someone.

[DaShi]

Heh heh.

[Kidlicious]

If you cannot see the difference between Hitler and Roosevelt, and the necessity of supporting Roosevelt over Hitler then I pity you. If Because if you do not trust in the concept of a just war then what you believe in is either a pitiable and detestable pacifism or a cynical tribalism that you profess to abhor.


If the former, well, I presume you have read Orwell's article on pacifism but I link it here nevertheless.

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

If the latter, I will say that democratic politics has greatly reduced the tendency of man to conform to tribal means of organisation and thought. And I will say that we must act on the basis that we are able to think rationally and are able to reason and analyse evidence in a way that doesn't just suit our purposes our personal interests, but which aligns with the truth of the matter. It is precisely the success of rational reasoning and thought which has brought about democracy, and in turn, free markets, economic prosperity and scientific innovations which go with it.

I've got no opinion on the value of things like economic prosperity but I think that if this unholy democracy progresses any further down the same path God Himself will destroy this nation. Under a dictatorship at least people fear God.

[giblets]

I've got no opinion on the value of things like economic prosperity but I think that if this unholy democracy progresses any further down the same path God Himself will destroy this nation. Under a dictatorship at least people fear God.

Why hasn't God destroyed all those European countries that are way more godless than America?

[Aeson]

Would should have been stated as could.

... a woodchuck should chuck if a would chuck could shuck wood.

[Kidlicious]

Why hasn't God destroyed all those European countries that are way more godless than America?

Maybe america is worse. We do tend to like to kill and destroy His creation more. And we're also more materialistic. Lets see other sins include pride, shall I go on?