[noisy06]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ozrLK_gTVc

The funeral of four Syrian military service personnel killed by extremist group "Free Syrian Army". Four families who will never see their proud soldier come home, four families whose children who will grow up never knowing daddy.

Anyone else notice how deranged the rebels seem - Calling themselves an "Army" in one sentence, and then claiming to be "peaceful civilians" the next?

Proud soldier? I hope his death was slow and painful.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by misterxninja)
Your blog is interesting I have been reading the most recent post on homepage, but struggling to see where the solid solutions are - but more interested in specific impact on foreign policy.

I must read more into Strauss before I can place what your speaking about into a proper context, but perhaps there is somewhere else we can take it - yes. A new thread a philosophical impact on foreign policy one? *shrug*

Quote me

Okay, I've quoted you to start a discussion about philosophy's impact on foreign policy. It's interesting how a man who lectured in the ancient Greeks could be said to be the architect of an entire movement, but neoconservatism is not solely focused on foreign policy. Indeed, many of the neocons had little if anything to do with Strauss or had only heard of his teachings from others. If you were to read Strauss I'd take my hat off to you because he's incredibly difficult to comprehend and always forces you to read between the lines. Douglas Murray's book on neoconservatism is a good introduction to Strauss and his followers, although if you're going to read it I'd ignore the last chapter. It's a book that starts off good then dips into a shoddy polemic.

[misterxninja]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Okay, I've quoted you to start a discussion about philosophy's impact on foreign policy. It's interesting how a man who lectured in the ancient Greeks could be said to be the architect of an entire movement, but neoconservatism is not solely focused on foreign policy. Indeed, many of the neocons had little if anything to do with Strauss or had only heard of his teachings from others. If you were to read Strauss I'd take my hat off to you because he's incredibly difficult to comprehend and always forces you to read between the lines. Douglas Murray's book on neoconservatism is a good introduction to Strauss and his followers, although if you're going to read it I'd ignore the last chapter. It's a book that starts off good then dips into a shoddy polemic.

I went from being a Liberal to the line on values, to a Neo-Liberal but when it comes to intervention sometimes I think the Neo-Cons got it right. I just wondered where on earth this ideology popped up from, is it reinvigoration of imperialism glossed up or what. I like moral intervention on humanitarian level, I do not subscribe to the spreading of democracy, we all know the damages of democracy spreading some dictators are better off as a lesser evil at the top.

But, they say his philosophy and talk of harking back to some other values is something that started Neo-Cons heads ticking with regard to moral decline the domestic side to the Neo-Cons. I must read some more of your work, really. My knowledge of Strauss is primitive and tertiary at best.

But I really should finish reading Plato's Republic it was a long term ambition of mine but soon as I started University I got dragged off in so many differing directions and before I knew it, it was all over. Aha.

Keep up the blog, it is highly interesting analysis there. It is very hard reading indeed, philosophical batting ideas often is.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by misterxninja)
I went from being a Liberal to the line on values, to a Neo-Liberal but when it comes to intervention sometimes I think the Neo-Cons got it right. I just wondered where on earth this ideology popped up from, is it reinvigoration of imperialism glossed up or what. I like moral intervention on humanitarian level, I do not subscribe to the spreading of democracy, we all know the damages of democracy spreading some dictators are better off as a lesser evil at the top.

But, they say his philosophy and talk of harking back to some other values is something that started Neo-Cons heads ticking with regard to moral decline the domestic side to the Neo-Cons. I must read some more of your work, really. My knowledge of Strauss is primitive and tertiary at best.

But I really should finish reading Plato's Republic it was a long term ambition of mine but soon as I started University I got dragged off in so many differing directions and before I knew it, it was all over. Aha.

Keep up the blog, it is highly interesting analysis there. It is very hard reading indeed, philosophical batting ideas often is.

Thanks, it's nice to know someone's reading all the stuff I put on my blog. I'll go more into Strauss when I finally finish his introduction to political philosophy. The ideology was spurred by him essentially, but it has its basis in the counterculture of the 1960s too. Allan Bloom, a disciple of Strauss, was defiantly opposed to the prevailing counterculture movement and spoke about how the American mind became so open and tolerant that it essentially became closed. Neoconservatives don't want to hark back to the old order though. Kristol described him and the other neocons as 'revolutionary conservatives' in that they champion personal freedom as well as a strong moral order. You can see this come through in their foreign policy. Plato's book is essentially what Strauss believes should be the basis of modern democracies.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
...

Aren't you a atheist? If so, then how can you believe in natural rights? Do you use moral fictionalism i.e. lets pretend rights exist because it's advantageous as a basis for your view?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Aren't you a atheist? If so, then how can you believe in natural rights? Do you use moral fictionalism i.e. lets pretend rights exist because it's advantageous as a basis for your view?

I'm not an atheist, no.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I'm not an atheist, no.

Oh, fair enough then. To be on-topic, how do you think the west should disarm Iran? Economic sanctions? Full-scale invasions (which I think is what Hitch was getting at in that article in your sig)? Bombing of nuclear facilities?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Oh, fair enough then. To be on-topic, how do you think the west should disarm Iran? Economic sanctions? Full-scale invasions (which I think is what Hitch was getting at in that article in your sig)? Bombing of nuclear facilities?

I would support the strategic bombing of nuclear facilities a la Osirak, however I think either sanctions or clandestine support of the anti-regime movement could eventually lead to the toppling of the regime. Regime change, not just disarmament, would be the best option for us.

[Organ]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Oh, fair enough then. To be on-topic, how do you think the west should disarm Iran? Economic sanctions? Full-scale invasions (which I think is what Hitch was getting at in that article in your sig)? Bombing of nuclear facilities?

I hate the term "The West" the world view of Switzerland and the United States are not the same, despite both being part of the West. As for your question, it is best in my opinion for Britain to work around Iran - try and prevent it arming - but if it manages to then that is that. We are not under any threat, we'll have to deal with increased Iranian geopolitical clout in the ME - but it is hardly world changing from our perspective. Bombing raids and wars are a terrible idea, sound like the sorts of things that finish off already hugely indebted nations like the UK and the United States. We are called "perfidious Albion" for a reason, maybe we should cosy up to the Iranians, I'm sure we have plenty to offer them.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I would support the strategic bombing of nuclear facilities a la Osirak, however I think either sanctions or clandestine support of the anti-regime movement could eventually lead to the toppling of the regime. Regime change, not just disarmament, would be the best option for us.

I agree, I am particularly keen and think the west does have a responsibility to organize covert operations for regime change just like they did back in 54' (although properly this time) although it'll probably be much harder due to technological advances. If it's unrealistic, do you think the threat of Iran with nuclear weapons is big enough to justify a full-scale invasion?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
I agree, I am particularly keen and think the west does have a responsibility to organize covert operations for regime change just like they did back in 54' (although properly this time) although it'll probably be much harder due to technological advances. If it's unrealistic, do you think the threat of Iran with nuclear weapons is big enough to justify a full-scale invasion?

I think technology could be used to advance the cause. Iranians can now use technological advances and the spread of Western cultural ideals to see what life is like on the other side as it were. I would not advocate a full-scale invasion yet, no. I think strategic bombing would be prudent for the time being until the threat increases and the regime become more hostile and aggressive. What about you, what do you think?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Organ)
I hate the term "The West" the world view of Switzerland and the United States are not the same, despite both being part of the West. As for your question, it is best in my opinion for Britain to work around Iran - try and prevent it arming - but if it manages to then that is that. We are not under any threat, we'll have to deal with increased Iranian geopolitical clout in the ME - but it is hardly world changing from our perspective. Bombing raids and wars are a terrible idea, sound like the sorts of things that finish off already hugely indebted nations like the UK and the United States. We are called "perfidious Albion" for a reason, maybe we should cosy up to the Iranians, I'm sure we have plenty to offer them.

Yeah but look at how many western nations were involved in the war, most western nations aren't Switzerland. Anyway, I agree, I can't see any circumstances where a full-scale invasion would be needed, I think having a nuclear Iran is better for us than a full-scale invasion.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I think technology could be used to advance the cause. Iranians can now use technological advances and the spread of Western cultural ideals to see what life is like on the other side as it were. I would not advocate a full-scale invasion yet, no. I think strategic bombing would be prudent for the time being until the threat increases and the regime become more hostile and aggressive. What about you, what do you think?

Yeah I agree but I don't think Iranian people would be able to overthrow the regime by itself. I don't think mullahs would care about human life if it was threatening there very existence. As above, I can't really see any circumstances where a full-scale invasion would be necessary even if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

[Organ]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Yeah but look at how many western nations were involved in the war, most western nations aren't Switzerland. Anyway, I agree, I can't see any circumstances where a full-scale invasion would be needed, I think having a nuclear Iran is better for us than a full-scale invasion.

Which war? Iraq? There was a huge spilt amongst major Western powers and smaller splits even amongst ideological allies. Germany and France were hugely opposed to the war, whereas Britain, Italy, the USA, Poland, Spain were hugely in favour. Canada supported the war providing it passed the Security Council (which it did not). What I am saying is that there is huge disagreement within "The West", especially after the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Organ)
Which war? Iraq? There was a huge spilt amongst major Western powers and smaller splits even amongst ideological allies. Germany and France were hugely opposed to the war, whereas Britain, Italy, the USA, Poland, Spain were hugely in favour. Canada supported the war providing it passed the Security Council (which it did not). What I am saying is that there is huge disagreement within "The West", especially after the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters.

Fair enough. What's your position on Afghanistan?

[Organ]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Fair enough. What's your position on Afghanistan?

A total disaster. Look at it from an American perspective (as the main contributing force by a huge margin). There are approximately 90,000 US troops in Afghanistan. it costs $850,000 - $1,000,000 per soldier per year to keep them there. Obviously this is not sustainable, when people in the US are being thrown out of their homes and unemployment benefits run out for the long term unemployed. There have been approximately 1,800 US troops killed and many more maimed for life (psychologically and physically), over 400 British soldiers dead, and many more maimed for life. Thousands and thousands of civilians have died.

What has been achieved since 2001 after spending more than $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars)? Answer the question in bold, and try and describe the war as anything but a disaster. The whole Afghanistan episode is a sorry tale of failure and disaster. Trillion(+) of dollars wasted - much of it syphoned off by corrupt officials. Thousands of lives lost - including hundreds (400+) of British servicemen. And a country whose future looks even bleaker than its past.

On top of starting a war in Afghanistan, the chief clowns decided to launch into Iraq in the middle of a war that was already started in 2001. They triggered and entered into the midst of one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history and spent trillions more in the process and in their arrogance forgot about Afghanistan until it was too late to prevent the defeat that has been inflicted in that country. They lost their direction in Iraq and strangled themselves in Afghanistan. A decade of total failure that have done more to unite Islam than fifty years of Baathism. Seriously, the Taliban will re-establish their government within six hours of the helicopters leaving the roof of the American embassy in Kabul.

British leaders also desperately should realise that Britain is no longer a world power. Those days were over long ago. It is a developed country and has its place in the corner of Europe. It needs to give up all its "great power" ambitions and focus on the well beings of its citizens and little else frankly. Britain should not be poking its nose in world affairs anymore. Hope that Iraq and Afghanistan are the lessons learned, although I fear that they are not.

[Organ]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I think technology could be used to advance the cause. Iranians can now use technological advances and the spread of Western cultural ideals to see what life is like on the other side as it were. I would not advocate a full-scale invasion yet, no. I think strategic bombing would be prudent for the time being until the threat increases and the regime become more hostile and aggressive. What about you, what do you think?

You are completely mental. Any decision going to war against Iran (including bombing) will put any western society on the brink of mutiny at some point in the future. Ordinary people, struggling to find jobs and pay their bills, will be in no mood whatsoever to embark on another costly military adventure whilst infrastructure at home is crumbling and austerity packages are testing the social fabrics of societies to limits unknown since the post-war period.

I'm not sure if you have noticed either, all whilst the United States is bankrupting itself and achieving so little with their constant war games (that you are still egging on) China is quietly taking over. The chief irony is; is that the USA opened up Iraq's oil to China and is currently providing security in north eastern Afghanistan, and area that China has bought up in order to exploit the minerals that are present in huge abundance in that country. Additionally, Russia, China and Iran all have a large stake in minimal stability in Afghanistan. But special interest groups in the USA block any improvement in US relations with Iran, and they do not care how much damage this does in Afghanistan. We should be grooming Iran to improve security in Afghanistan (after all they helped us invade), instead we are goading them into war.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Organ)
You are completely mental. Any decision going to war against Iran (including bombing) will put any western society on the brink of mutiny at some point in the future. Ordinary people, struggling to find jobs and pay their bills, will be in no mood whatsoever to embark on another costly military adventure whilst infrastructure at home is crumbling and austerity packages are testing the social fabrics of societies to limits unknown since the post-war period.

I'm not sure if you have noticed either, all whilst the United States is bankrupting itself and achieving so little with their constant war games (that you are still egging on) China is quietly taking over. The chief irony is; is that the USA opened up Iraq's oil to China and is currently providing security in north eastern Afghanistan, and area that China has bought up in order to exploit the minerals that are present in huge abundance in that country. Additionally, Russia, China and Iran all have a large stake in minimal stability in Afghanistan. But special interest groups in the USA block any improvement in US relations with Iran, and they do not care how much damage this does in Afghanistan. We should be grooming Iran to improve security in Afghanistan (after all they helped us invade), instead we are goading them into war.

I am insane, yes. I'll respond to this tomorrow.

[MxSK]

Putting the western domestic issues aside (as the Post above focuses on). There is absolutely no reason or justification for military action. And that's not even considering the fact that military strike may be an option, but it is not a solution. A strike for the sake of a strike is incredibly foolish. You need to look at what your objectives are and there is no clear physical way to solve this problem. Ultimately, either the regime goes oor the regime itself decides to not to militirise its program (which in the eyes of US and Israel is Intel is the regimes current status).

It's telling that one Romney's foreign policy advisors just expressed this exact viewpoint just the other day. Yes I know that John Bolton is floating around but it's not clear at all that he would be appointed to any position.

I'll just add one more fact which appears to be completely ignored for some reason, the United States ALREADY Has a a CONTAINMENT And DETERENCRE policy against Iran and has had so for a very long time... "Dual Track" is a very new policy started by Bush in 2007 (after the us apparently had a large "intelligence breakthrough and made the reconsider) . Before then, the us policy was solely to isolate, contain and deter any iranian action and influence. And this continues to this day. So all the commotion regarding containment and Obama saying that he" does not have a policy of containment"... All that is just talk because all successive presidents have had this policy since 1979. I mean seriously, what was Reagan's policy called when saddam Hussain was stilLet a factor, what was the policy called? Yes... Dual containment. It simply became single when saddam become less relevant.

So something to keep in mind.

[Aj12]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85T08K20120630
Egypt to uphold treaties and to work to help the Syrian people

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85T08K20120630
Egypt to uphold treaties and to work to help the Syrian people

It looks like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt being post-revolutionary states will be key in opposing these sort of anti-democratic actions. Morocco is only 'internally democratic' as the king still has control over foreign affairs and the military.