And those would be very good principles indeed, which is why they have been around for 2,000 years. Contrary to what is taught they are very moral and we are complelty de-moralized just like Boyd tried to explain.Originally Posted by Bob's World
And those would be very good principles indeed, which is why they have been around for 2,000 years. Contrary to what is taught they are very moral and we are complelty de-moralized just like Boyd tried to explain.
Last edited by slapout9; 07-14-2012 at 07:59 AM. Reason: stuff
I probably misunderstood you, but I don't think what you think is moral would stand the Kant's Categorical Imperative test.
Sorry for the late response. It probably wouldn't pass Kant's standard but I would regard that as a......... moral thing
Major Kong on moral riightness and stuff!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CRRVZqrRl0
Last edited by slapout9; 07-16-2012 at 07:59 PM. Reason: stuff
This is the top comment for that clip.
"B-52 solving the world's problems since the late 50's."
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
History will judge. America is undoubtedly the first Empire to pay retail.
What gets us in trouble is that we are stuck in the middle. We want to be a good guy, we think or ourself as a good guy, but we have all these bad guy urges that we keep acting out on, along with a bit of a control freak personallity that gets very insecure when others think about things differently than we do. That would be "Dr. Bob's" assessment if I had Uncle Sam on my couch. Do we blame our father for this, the good ol' British Empire? Or is it due to growing up rich and under supervised? I am sure a real shrink would have a field day.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Come on. The Romans (original, Western and Eastern Empires!) even paid Barbarians for maintaining peace!
They didn't even get anything for it - instead, they paid to not lose something!
I doubt the Romans paid market price or did not extract heavy taxes from those they exercised dominion over or offered their protective services to. Paying someone not to attack you or to protect you is a very different matter. We aren't there yet, but we are drifting in that direction. But I am not an expert on that facet of Rome, so I could be wrong. To me this seems uniquely American.
Last edited by Bob's World; 07-14-2012 at 10:55 AM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Well, you first need to conquer AND defeat an eventual insurgency fully before you can play master fully.
The U.S. gets as much tribute from Iraqis after their insurgency as did the Romans from the Cherusci after their insurgency.
Instead, both pay subsidies to a wide range of foreign folks, supposedly in their own security interests.
Besides, I cannot remember the Soviets getting much tribute out of Afghanistan during the 80's or out of their Arab allies during the 70's.
How much tribute do the Brits get out of Iraq today?
Being ingrained with the idea of exceptionalism creates the strangest perceptions of uniqueness...
Fuchs your examples miss the mark.
The Brits milked the world for decades, but that ended long ago. I doubt the Russians purpose in going to Afghanistan was a quest for tribute so much as an effort to attempt to extend their influence toward the south and warm water.
What I describe might be "exceptionalism," I don't know, I think much that gets bundled under that kind of thinking is based in the fantasy of the false self-image I described briefly above. I am simply talking cold facts. Vast amounts of American capital are currently held by Middle Eastern royals and Asian businesses who owe their liberty and protection to America. Do we get Hyundai's at half price? Oil at cost? No.
At some point we will wake up and realize these "friends" were never friends at all and wonder why they do not help us in our hour of need as we helped them. The Chinese study American closely, but I suspect they find this aspect of our nature to be rather curious.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Why should you? That wasn't the deal.
Besides, the age of overt empires is gone. We'd have World War 4 and the U.S. would lose if the U.S. attempted to grab the riches of the world.
It's not THAT kind of power. You guys can barely occupy a small country or two.
Try to subjugate all what the English oppressed by the end of the 19th century and you'd see real quick that the super power U.S.A. is much better at breaking things and killing people than at forcing people.
All real empires mastered at all three disciplines.
The US will protect others if it sees that action as in its own interest. It's not done out of charity. The idea, for example, that the US protected Saudi Arabia from Iraq and thus the Saudis owe us something is pretty far fetched. The US didn't intervene to protect the Saudi royals, they intervened to assure that all that oil wouldn't be taken over by people who would use it as a weapon against us. We'd do the same thing if Iran threatened to take over additional oil-producing areas. That has nothing to do with protecting anyone but ourselves, any protection extended is purely incidental and a quirk of transient overlapping interests. They know that, so do we. They do throw us a few favors (like buying all their arms from us, though better deals can be had elsewhere), but business is still business.
Comparing the US to classic empires seems a bit silly to me, as the US is not an empire, unless we stretch the definition of "empire" way beyond the breaking point.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
That is moral indecisiveness and it can be deadly!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks