This just in: Israel returns fire on Syrian targets from the Golan Heights

[Aeson]

It's a pity they both can't lose.

Often they do. Sometimes though revolutions against dictators turn out very well for humanity.

[Zevico]

That only makes sense if you're presuming the sole priority of the west is to ensure that no country attacks Israel. I'm very pro-Israel but if the price of Israeli peace is a bunch of other countries being forced to remain under dictatorships then I'm not at all convinced that's a price worth paying. Especially as the reason for much of that Israeli hate is that the dictatorships the US was propping up deflected internal critisism by blaming Israel for all their problems. This is a classic case of pigeons coming home to roost.

You assume that the sole beneficiary of peace is Israel. This assumption is unfounded. The ME is filled with countries that have blamed Israel and the West for their every ill, real and imagined. They have built their entire worldview and politics on this assumption. Even the moderate regimes pay lip service to it. The cost to these countries in blood and treasure is tremendous. I cannot help but pity those countless men and women whose lives have been torn asunder by this conflict, which has consumed so much. Additionally, you assume that the revolutionaries--wherever--are democrats. That assumption is also unfounded. In Syria there are--according to Barry Rubin--many real pro-Western democrats worth supporting. But they do not appear to have coalesced or gained control. And the most organised group are the MB. Supporting them means trading one tyrannous regime for another, as most Syrians realise. As Rubin documents, the US has now ceased backing for a MB dominated group simply because other revolutionaries refuse to cooperate with it further.

[Kuciwalker]

In any revolution against a dictator ... it's obvious that the specific dictatorship in question isn't preferable to at least one party.

Revealed preferences very clearly don't apply here. If people accurately anticipated the consequences of wars there would be far fewer of them.

[Zevico]

The west is going to going to look pretty foolish if with these so-called freedom fighters attack Israel.

This is the Middle East. Western foreign policy has been foolish here for decades at least. Why break the pattern of wishful thinking now? Hope and change came but funnily enough nothing much changed with it. The peace process is going for 20 years now and no peace in sight. Talks with Iran have been ongoing since the 80's. The Assad regime was going to flip to the West for three decades straight. Hafez the "reformer" followed by Bashar the "reformer" and now this. What were you expecting?
Sometimes the devil you know is better.[/QUOTE]

That's the way it is, I'm afraid.

[regexcellent]

To add to what Kuci said, if people could perfectly or near-perfectly anticipate the consequences of wars, the ones that did happen would typically end without a shot fired (or perhaps with very few shots fired).

[Aeson]

Revealed preferences very clearly don't apply here.

Revealed preferences are always applicable to what a person's preferences are.

If people accurately anticipated the consequences of wars there would be far fewer of them.

Just because a person's preference may be to do something that won't work out in their favor (in your estimation) doesn't mean it's not their preference.

[Aeson]

To add to what Kuci said, if people could perfectly or near-perfectly anticipate the consequences of wars, the ones that did happen would typically end without a shot fired (or perhaps with very few shots fired).

There would also be no dictators.

[DaShi]

Dictatorship is frequently preferable to war for every party, even the oppressed.

If only someone had told George Washington.

[Kuciwalker]

Revealed preferences are always applicable to what a person's preferences are.

Just because a person's preference may be to do something that won't work out in their favor (in your estimation) doesn't mean it's not their preference.

You think you are making a clever point but actually you just don't understand the (technical) meanings of the words that you're using.

[Kuciwalker]

There would also be no dictators.

Hardly. Dictatorship is at least a metastable equilibrium.

[giblets]

To add to what Kuci said, if people could perfectly or near-perfectly anticipate the consequences of wars, the ones that did happen would typically end without a shot fired (or perhaps with very few shots fired).

Please explain. If you just give in and make concessions without a fight, what's to stop your enemy from attacking you again and again until you have nothing left?

[Aeson]

You think you are making a clever point but actually you just don't understand the (technical) meanings of the words that you're using.

It's not meant as a clever point, it's an obvious one that you are now trying to weasel out of arguing against by pretending there's some technical meaning of the word "preferable" that's nothing like "preferable" actually means. People willing to die to throw off an oppressive regime are obviously illustrating that they find death preferable to life under the oppressive regime. There are even situations where people willingly kill themselves to advance their cause.

You want to pretend that this isn't what they find preferable because you believe they don't find the outcome preferable. I of course believe their actions rather than your delusions.

Hardly. Dictatorship is at least a metastable equilibrium.

No, if we're going to give everyone omniscience as to the consequences of their actions, dictatorships (of the sort we actually see in the world) would all fall in very short order. People all along the chain of command, except some very few at the very top, would see that they would quickly be much better off in a free society. They would also see just how easily they could overthrow the government by working together with everyone else who would be better off. They would also see that virtually everyone else is thinking the same thing, and they would all know the right moment to act together.

This (and it's war sibling) of course has no bearing on the real world where even simple choices lead to unexpected ends.

[regexcellent]

Please explain. If you just give in and make concessions without a fight, what's to stop your enemy from attacking you again and again until you have nothing left?

If everyone knew who would win a war, then if the defender is on the losing side, it would simply give up straight away if it were acting rationally. If the aggressor is on the losing side then it simply wouldn't start the war in the first place.

[giblets]

If everyone knew who would win a war, then if the defender is on the losing side, it would simply give up straight away if it were acting rationally. If the aggressor is on the losing side then it simply wouldn't start the war in the first place.

This only makes sense if total defeat and unconditional surrender is inevitable for the defender. Letting your enemies take what you have without a fight encourages future attacks.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not meant as a clever point, it's an obvious one that you are now trying to weasel out of arguing against by pretending there's some technical meaning of the word "preferable" that's nothing like "preferable" actually means. People willing to die to throw off an oppressive regime are obviously illustrating that they find death preferable to life under the oppressive regime. There are even situations where people willingly kill themselves to advance their cause.

You want to pretend that this isn't what they find preferable because you believe they don't find the outcome preferable. I of course believe their actions rather than your delusions.

You are describing ex ante preferences based on ex ante expectations. I'm talking about ex post preferences based on observed consequences. Revealed preference arguments don't have any bearing on that distinction; they let us explore the difference between stated ex ante preferences and true ex ante preferences.

No, if we're going to give everyone omniscience as to the consequences of their actions

Why would we do that?

dictatorships (of the sort we actually see in the world) would all fall in very short order. People all along the chain of command, except some very few at the very top, would see that they would quickly be much better off in a free society.

Elementary game theory disagrees that that would result in an immediate collapse. Ergo, metastability.