Just blowing off steam by drowning everybody else in it...

[eques]

This is (as you can see) a long, endless post, including debate and possibly some whining.

Is this in the right forum, or what?? 

Anyhoo, to continue.  ;P

I watched this one video (I forget if it was posted here or somewhere else) and got emotional about the current war... I posted it on my LJ with some comments.  Well, I got somebody responding to my question, "WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?" with:

Because now it is about humanitarian aid. It's about keeping the region from imploding. It's about reducing human suffering.

That's why.

I kind of lost it with:

You'll hopefully pardon me for saying so, but that sounds like a load of hooey. I have a hard time believing that the presence of US troops is doing anything to keep the situation from escalating. The situation has been steadily worsening despite, or because of, the presence of US troops.

Also, I have a huge problem when the "mission statement" keeps changing. Granted, at first, we were given a litany of reasons why the US needed to invade Iraq. The big one was the WMDs. Okay, that was a big lie. After that, it was to depose Saddam Hussein--big whoop, the US installed him and strengthened him in the first place, so we're merely "cleaning up" after ourselves. Now, it's "humanitarian aid;" "keeping the peace;" "reducing suffering."

The scope just keeps expanding. Did it occur to you that we will never actually finish this last job? There's no end to human suffering. There's no end to human violence. There's no end to the need for aid. At least the first two objectives were somewhat measurable--this one really has no measurable end in sight.

If you haven't picked up on it by now, I have a big problem with war in general. I seriously question whether it is necessary. I didn't always think this way, however.

Is it the responsibility of the United States to act as the world's nanny?

I'm going to offer a somewhat radical notion: that if the United States were to withdraw all military interests and reserve them solely for national defense and at the same time remove all tarriffs and sanctions on foreign nations, we would see a remarkable reduction in violence against the United States and its citizens. It wouldn't happen overnight, because many people currently lack the means with which to trade. However, that particular barrier is something that the average individual can overcome without resorting to violence among his neighbors.

Which is the better form of humanitarian aid: giving somebody a fish, or teaching them how to catch them?

This isn't pie-in-the-sky. This happens every day around you in trade that isn't even remotely free. I say that if it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them, but it isn't for us to impose on them. We just need to open the door.

And she responded with this:

Did it occur to you that we will never actually finish this last job?
Sure we can. (Save for Mother Nature's incidents.) We've done a lot already with globalization 3 (more on this later).

There's no end to human violence.
On a large scale? Sure there is. 2/3rds of the world functions just fine. The Functioning Core: Those parts of the world that are actively integrating their national economies into a global economy and that adhere to globalization's emerging security rule set. The Functioning Core at present consists of North America, Europe both "old" and "new," Russia, Japan and South Korea, China (although the interior far less so), India (in a pockmarked sense), Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, and the ABCs of South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile). That is roughly four billion out of a global population of more than six billion. The Functioning Core can be subdivided into the Old Core, anchored by America, Europe, and Japan; and the New Core, whose leading pillars are China, India, Brazil, and Russia.

this one really has no measurable end in sight.
Sure there is. Shrink the Non-Integrating Gap: Regions of the world that are largely disconnected from the global economy and the rule sets that define its stability. Today, the Non-Integrating Gap is made up of the Caribbean Rim, Andean South America, virtually all of Africa, portions of the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and most of Southeast Asia. These regions constitute globalization's "ozone hole," where connectivity remains thin or absent in far too many cases. Of course, each region contains some countries that are very Core-like in their attributes (just as there are Gap-like pockets throughout the Core defined primarily by poverty), but these are like mansions in an otherwise seedy neighborhood, and as such are trapped by these larger Gap-defining circumstances.

Is it the responsibility of the United States to act as the world's nanny?
The world's nanny? 2/3rds of the world functions just fine without our intervention.

if the United States were to withdraw all military interests and reserve them solely for national defense and at the same time remove all tarriffs and sanctions on foreign nations, we would see a remarkable reduction in violence against the United States and its citizens.
Not likely. The first thing you'd see is an upsurge in deaths due to natural disasters and huge delays in crisis response times. Our round-the-world military provides a ton of humanitarian aid and disaster relief, many times arriving at the scene before native relief programs. You'd also see a huge rise in on-the-seas piracy. The world's seas are safe because of our Navy. And only we can afford to field that team. Then you'd see an increase in country-on-country warfare and the annihilation of Israel, among other countries. The world would be rocketed back to 1870, and globalization would cease to be. You also wouldn't see any more change-the-world technology leaps like the Internet and GPS (both institutions of the U.S. military).

It wouldn't happen overnight, because many people currently lack the means with which to trade.
What do you mean by lack the means?

However, that particular barrier is something that the average individual can overcome without resorting to violence among his neighbors.
Explain that one to all the victims of ethnic cleansing in Africa and the Balkans. Tell that to the Tamil Tigers. Tell that to all the folks living in "Bananna Republics."

In order for a country to be able to "fish for itself," it needs to make over $3,000 per capita gross domestic product. When a country starts making over $3,000 per capita GDP, its people get out of the violence business. We help get countries over that threshold through foreign direct investment and multinational corporations.

But:

No (American) will, no boots
No boots, no security
No security, no rules
No rules, no stability
No stability, no infrastructure
No infrastructure, no growth
No growth, no markets
No markets, no resources
No resources, no money.

Then she added a blurb about "Globalization III":

"Globalization III (1980-2001) has been an era of relative peace and enormous economic growth around the world that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but whose rule sets have now been challenged by rogue states and international terrorists, as exemplified by 9/11."

"In this century, it is disconnectedness that defines danger. Disconnectedness allows bad actors to flourish by keeping entire societies detached from the global community and under their dictatorial control, or in the case of failed states, it allows dangerous transnational actors to exploit the resulting chaos to their own dangerous ends. Eradicating disconnectedness is the defining security task of our age, as well as a supreme moral cause in the cases of those who suffer it against their will. However, just as important, by expanding the connectivity of globalization, we increase peace and prosperity planet-wide."


Yes, there are still reasons to go to war.



You can see Mr. Barnett on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7El18wbBd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqJ1QJ9Kjd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7KGAvxjlUM

Here's the full, one-length version (audio only, but you can download the mp3 to keep for free) http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail238.html

And, well, if you got through all of *THAT*.... heh.  I'm not sure I'm willing to respond to this person... I totally disagree with her philosophy and I don't think that another whiny rant from me will help much.  So, I figured, hey, this might be good to throw into "Endless Debate and Whining!"

[ Linda Richman ] I'm so verklempt... okay, okay, "War is Peace."  Discuss. [ / Linda Richman ]

(I did debate whether to link that post, but I decided to do so because, hey, somebody might have a salient point to make to this person.  Dunno.)

[AlanM]

This person is a prime example of the NWO types. It is our (Read the 'Elite') duty to protect and nurture the world. The masses are obviously too stupid to take care of themselves. They need our guidance.
Globalization is actually a return to the Middle Ages, with the names changed. There will be the Rulers/Kings (UN and its Divisions), Lords (Corporate CEOs and Boards of Directors, and the Intellectuals), and the serfs (the workers).

[Braddogg]

That's what you get for debating with women!

Er . . . .

[Braddogg]

There we are.  I had a go at it, hope you don't mind.

[cathleeninnh]

That's what you get for debating with women!

Er . . . .

Are you lookin to be smote?

Cathleen

[Braddogg]

That's what you get for debating with women!

Er . . . .

Are you lookin to be smote?

Cathleen

  Not smote, but maybe smitten . . . .   

[eques]

There we are.  I had a go at it, hope you don't mind.

I saw that.

It's appreciated--I've got so many other things on my mind right now that it was difficult to formulate a coherent response to her "rebuttal."

[Rosie the Riveter]

That's what you get for debating with women!

Er . . . .

Debate with women and you lose 

Chicks Kick ASS!!

[Michael Fisher]

That's what you get for debating with women!

Er . . . .

Are you lookin to be smote?

Cathleen

  Not smote, but maybe smitten . . . .   

Ooh, we didn't see that one coming.  LOL

[eques]

I know that "don't debate with women!!!" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I think it's a shame that it's been said twice, even in jest.

Now, yes, I know, women are wired differently, but that still doesn't mean that men should be all "yes dear" and "of course, honey."  I think that's demeaning.  I may stand to learn something, or the other person might stand to learn something (most likely a little of both).

I am no respecter of dangly bits (or the lack thereof). 

[Rosie the Riveter]

I know that "don't debate with women!!!" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I think it's a shame that it's been said twice, even in jest.

Now, yes, I know, women are wired differently, but that still doesn't mean that men should be all "yes dear" and "of course, honey."  I think that's demeaning.  I may stand to learn something, or the other person might stand to learn something (most likely a little of both).

I am no respecter of dangly bits (or the lack thereof). 

I will admit I am definetly wired differently.

I'm glad that I don't know any "yes dear, men"-- that would be no fun at all. The men I know just seem to take losing a debate harder.  :whp2:  Maybe said men are just getting frusturated with me because I am a tenacious pain in the ass 

(Sorry, I've been generalizing on this topic, but it's all in good fun)

Respectfully, I still stick by the fact that Chicks (generally) Kick Ass.

[Michael Fisher]

On the topic of sexism, professors say it's distracting when you use "he" in scholarly research writing when referring to an example individual.

Then again, it's chauvanistically distracting to use "he", feministically distracting to use "she", old-queen's-English distracting to use "one", quasi-illiterate to use "they", annoying to use "someone" or "a person", REALLY annoying to use "he or she", and completely illiterate to use "s/he".

Conclusion:

I say guys should use "he" and girls should use "she". Then, whichever gender writes the most stuff and the best stuff, wins.

[Michael Fisher]

Now, please proceed to call me sexist for not including transsexuals in my conclusion.

[error]

What those university professors really want is for "he" and "she" to go away and be replaced by "it."

[Michael Fisher]

What those university professors really want is for "he" and "she" to go away and be replaced by "it."

Or "comrade".