Controversial Political Opinions

[Eric the Green]

(05-12-2022, 05:22 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-12-2022, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-12-2022, 12:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: 1) The concept of "liberal hegemony" needs to die. Geopolitics is, has been, and always will be, anarchistic, and must be looked at, first and foremost, through the lends of realism. The US should not be "promoting Democracy", supporting coups or revolutions or otherwise meddling in the affairs of other countries unless it is for the purpose of fostering trade relations or monitoring/extinguishing a significant threat. 
2) Similarly, putting the interests of another country's people above your own is not just a difference of political opinion, it is treason. In this case, that is how I would describe our current response to the Russia sanctions and further provoking Putin. Just because the Ukrainians are (arguably at least) "the good guys", doesn't mean that we should be making significant sacrifices on their behalf unless the American people have something significant to gain from it. It is not the job of one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" or helping out the populace of a country in dire need.

1) I understand the concern. Non-intervention can be a good approach. I don't think I agree, though. We are all one people on one planet, and are members of a global society. The destiny of our times, which began at the turn of the 20th century, is how to organize this new global society in a way that meets people's needs and respects their rights. That means law, and not anarchy. The universal declaration of human rights was promulgated by Eleanor Roosevelt and the new United Nations in 1945, I believe. That should be the standard, and ideally this should be enforced by the world power. But this will probably be more-perfected during the 2160s, when the next "world order" conjunction of Uranus and Neptune happens in Aquarius, in situations much like those under the same type of conjunction in circa 1990, 1815 and 1648, or like the situation of 1945. We won't see that time, but our reincarnated selves or our descendants may well see it.

I think the "liberal hegemony" is simply human rights, and are universal, not cultural or relative, and will be increasingly upheld if progress continues. There is no guarantee that such progress will continue; that is true. It just seems to me to be our destiny. People everywhere just want to be free, and will demand it over and over again. Right now, my opinion is that thug military rulers should not have a monopoly on the weapons within a state. They have lost all legitimacy. So if the people rising up ask for help, perhaps we should give it, without the USA itself invading or bombing their lands.

2) So I entirely disagree with your evaluation of the Ukraine situation. They have pointedly asked for help from the USA and NATO and any others willing, and we have responded. The Russian invasion was unprovoked. It is of benefit to us to restrain Putin, because otherwise our allies will be threatened and we will be required to defend them militarily. The USA is not sending its soldiers to defend Ukraine; so I don't know why you mention "one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" ". Severe sanctions against Russian fossil fuels are a chance to eliminate this portion of this out-of-date industry, doing which is of immediate necessity everywhere. I agree the USA is doing the right thing by not invading Ukraine or defending it ourselves with our soldiers, and Ukraine has not asked for this.

The burden is on you to prove that this is capable of being anything but a fantasy. The international sphere has been anarchistic since the dawn of civilization, and that shows no sides of abating any time soon. What people don't understand about this topic is that diversity can never create social bonds. Social bonds are formed by finding ways we are similar: similar beliefs, similar religion, similar history, similar experiences, etc. Unfortunately, this can take the form of...similar skin color, but while this particular avenue of kinship should not be encouraged, the fact remains that we have never successfully gotten all of humanity on the same side because humans will always form in groups and out groups and look out for their own more than they do outsiders.

That we live in a global society is irrefutable fact. National borders have not kept out other nations; the flow of goods has become global, and so has communication and transportation. Problems like pandemics, climate change/pollution, economic crashes can only be properly managed globally. We have entered a new era. Races are and will be breaking down; people will be all of one race in a few generations. Some people have already discovered that there's only one religion. The new religions of recent decades and centuries are based on this idea. Humanity is already all on the same side, with one history available and belonging to all, but old habits do die hard, and the new ways and new paradigm take time to unfold. Folks like you will be dragged along kicking and screaming, shouting "build the wall" and "keep the aliens out", but they can't be kept out.

Quote:In practice, the people who tend to push for this kind of universalism are generally also the people least likely to listen. More likely to demand that other accept their paradigm, rather than being respectful of the fact that countries all over the world don't all want liberal governments. The mindset behind this kind of universalism is little different than the idealistic warfare between Muslim and Christian crusaders, the benevolent mercantilism of the British Empire, the Manifest Destiny of the United States. Come to think of it, you would have been of draftable age during the Vietnam War. The mindset isn't all that different from that.

Well I guess I more or less fit into your picture. The leaders of many countries don't want liberal governments-- meaning governments respectful of human rights, because they are thugs who enjoy the power their out-of-date systems give them. But the people all want to be free. Younger people don't want the religious wars like the Islamic State and the Taliban and the Christian Right-wing want. A lot of people of my age in the USA, including myself, refused in various ways to go to this illegal, immoral war in Vietnam. Liberal governments don't need to go to war to impose liberal values on the people. The people want them. It is just a matter of overturning the monopoly of weapons held by the thugs. And that's all these rulers are: thugs and criminals. It's true, in the past some liberal governments have tried to impose liberal government on others. The Vietnam War and the Iraq War were examples. But I was opposed to these wars. Imposing on them what the people already want is not necessary, not effective, and is not ethical. Sending them weapons which they request is not the same as an invasion or bombing campaign, and doesn't necessarily lead to such.

Quote:Sure, we haven't sent troops....yet, but trade wars are usually followed by actual wars, including the Opium Wars in China, the Meiji Revolution in Japan, countless tribal and dictatorial wars in Africa and, arguably, the American Revolution. The fact is: we have nothing to gain from aggravating Putin, and it's time for America to step down from its role as global policemen. No one wants us doing so, including most of our own citizens.

This situation is different, mainly because if the USA and NATO invade Ukraine and fight directly with Russian forces, the risk of nuclear war is too great. Sanctions put on countries don't necessarily lead to wars. Sanctions on South Africa led to the end of aparteid, for example.

Again, we are not aggravating Putin; Putin is aggravating us. If you don't understand that, you are laboring under delusion. Right now, Ukraine and NATO very much WANT us to help them. Putin has unified NATO, and it is not the world police, but it is defending its interests by helping Ukrainians defend their country against this genocidal monster war-criminal tyrant. And if Americans want us to step down from helping Ukraine, why do all the senators and almost all the representatives they elected support this help? From the far left to the far right and all in between?