FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
19d ago
Like how they “allowed” China to grow.
America had the strongest industrial base in the world. We made deliberate decisions to dismantle than industrial base, and to trade on generous terms with China in a way intended to help them build up their own industry and trade. We did this on the belief that Chinese economic prosperity would converge them toward a liberal, democratic "end of history". This was all public policy, debated in the open, and the effect on China's economic and industrial growth is obvious. Maybe (even likely!) they would have made good some other way, but absent specific actions we took, their ascent would have been considerably harder.
How are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and all those other third world countries doing after your carpet bombing?
To my knowledge, none of those countries actually experienced "carpet bombing" in anything even approximating the way Japan and Germany did in WWII. We dropped a lot more bombs on Vietnam, but almost all those bombs were dropped on the countryside rather than being used to obliterate major urban centers. Subsequent wars, we haven't even dropped that many on the countryside.
The history of US military operations post-WWII is a long succession of attempts to achieve political ends without engaging in total war. Notably, the last total war we fought is popularly understood to be an overwhelming victory, and all subsequent, "limited" wars are popularly understood as stalemates or defeats, often humiliating defeats.
"Proportionality should be a guideline of war" appears, empirically, to be an excellent way to generate longer, bloodier, messier wars that we then go on to lose. And of course, the fact is that the firebombings didn't end the war, but the nukes, generally held to be even more horrifying, did.
The above is not an argument for securing all political desires through maximum brutality. It is an argument against "limited" and thus cheaper and more frequent war. Nor is it an argument that war should be all or nothing, that there is no place for limited strikes, raids or punitive actions. But if you are going to fight an actual, for-serious war, "proportionality" is very clearly a miserable way to do it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
25d ago
The problems observably get worse faster than solutions can be coordinated. At some point, people might get desperate enough to get the solutions up to speed, but at some point solution power exceeds the binding force holding society together, and it's rather like trying to lift a one-ton block of jello with a forklift.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
28d ago
He's a man who has devoted his life to the study of the American constitution.
The Constitution is dead. It has not protected me, it is not protecting me now, it will not protect me in the future. To the extent that power flows from it, it is because people with poor understanding allow themselves to be scammed by appeals to it.
This is the challenge facing the project of building a new American nationalism, you can't excise people like Amar without destroying much of what makes this country great.
I emphatically do not agree that racial descent is a workable frame for pulling together a nation out of the wreck, but that does not change the fact that most of the things that made this country great appear to be either dead or dying, and the appeals to a "creedal nation" were either useless to prevent this process or actively accelerated it. The basic fact is that we hate each other, and cannot find consensus on what the law is or how it should be enforced, and that is not a survivable situation long-term.
If there be a way to salvage something worthwhile from the wreck of America, it seems likely that it is going to involve more sacrifice than your arguments presume.
Briefly, gay marriage is a policy. Proposed policies have predicted positive and negative consequences, and supporters of proposed policies are staking a position that the positive consequences will outweigh the negative consequences. People are wrong on a policy if, when the policy is enacted, their prediction is falsified because the positive effects end up being outweighed by the negative effects. You can be empirically right or wrong about the consequences of a policy, including gay marriage.
More options
Context Copy link