Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:15:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
660 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> 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...
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 tiresome to add "except for the
Italians" after every generalization. Henceforth it will be assumed".
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
