Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:10:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
589 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes
>
> <snip>
>
> > The fact that we have greater resources and greater technologies with which
> > to manage those resources today means that an entangled alliance now is not
> > the same as it was in Jefferson's time.
>
> Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it
> was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made
> WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary
> flexing muscle in the Balkans. So I think the notion of entanglement is not
> about ability to project power, but rather the implication of what it means
> to be *committed* to do so.
The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that
in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very
simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed
documents have confirmed--that the German leadership *wanted*
a war, albeit one like the Franco-Prussian rather than one like
the land phase of the Russo-Japanese. The alliances just gave
states the justification to do what they wanted to do. For an
indication of how much leeway was available had it had been
desired in WWI, just look at Italy...
I've always read Jefferson as a proto-realpolitik thinker.
He also understood that the United States, at that time, was
in an extremely vulnerable position--wealthy and exposed, to
friend and foe alike, in a world that was increasingly unstable.
Freedom of action was absolutely necessary.
> That said, I'm not sure where I'm going with that so may just try to let it
> rest to focus on the sanctions part, below, which is much juicier...
I'm not sure where we were going with it either, but it
gave me a chance to recite pointlessly. :)
> > Agreed--this is a murky area in which no answer is proof against "yeah,
> > but." I would say that the the absolute hands-off attitude professed by
> > some is reprehensible, but I don't have a clear-cut answer of when
> > involvement is appropriate.
>
> Me either. Not even "I know it when I see it."
Consider: Is the uncertainty of appropriateness of action
taken by government a result or a *cause* of the nature
of government? The ship only moves in the space where the
rudder can be turned.
> > > ++Lar
> >
> > As an aside, if I address or refer to you within a paragraph, should I
> > call you Lar, ++Lar, or Larry?
>
> The increment is an operator, a preface for the sig, not part of the
> identifier/name. (it's really just an old gag on Todd signing his name
> --Todd that stuck....) Should I be reciprocally leaving off the bang then too?
>
> ADD 1 to LAR. (is that better?? :-) )
"Lar-One?" You sound like you should be on a 70s SF show. ;)
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) Heh. That reminds me of my favorite footnote... In the introduction to Struggle for Mastery in Europe, AJP Taylor says something about European diplomats of the time being generally honest. Then in the footnote, he says something like, "It is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
