Pick a side

brianthebard

Can someone please explain the thought process that leads them to believe we should jettison our neutral policy and pick a side?What is the reasoning behind this?Try and make the reason pro-war/imperialism/benefit of non neutrality,rather than anti neutrality.Thank you.

Frankie Lee

The reason for it would be to make money for people like Declan Ganley.

Fine Gael are all for it.

Romantic S

brianthebard wrote: »

Can someone please explain the thought process that leads them to believe we should jettison our neutral policy and pick a side?What is the reasoning behind this?Try and make the reason pro-war/imperialism/benefit of non neutrality,rather than anti neutrality.Thank you.

You make it sound as if it is a question of Man Utd or Liverpool. The good if sometimes misguided in the and the bad in the conflicts of this last half century since the end of the second world war have been clear. It is also clear to me that if democracies do not stand up for each other, fight and put a military contribution as to maintain their sovereignty as a collective entity, the West if you will, we are going to lose everything we take for granted. How many reminders do you need. Czechoslovakia march 1939? Finlandisation? 9/11 and what happened to Georgia recently? It isn't so much a matter of that they(Russians, Al Qaeda or whoever) will come for you one day as it is a principle that it is morally wrong for this to happen to a democracy and if principles are to mean anything they must be vindicated. I do not see this as a right wing phenomenon, indeed true neutrality is a right wing phenomenon, but the right to be in control of one's own destiny. Some of those on the left with a brain which can think objectively and teleologically like Bernard Kouchner and Christopher Hitchens have come to this conclusion long ago and support a muscular foreign policy.

PS, You clearly will not have an intelligent, reasoned discussion if you toss around idiotic phrases like imperialism.

Kama

I'm unsure why you think imperialism idiotic; the concept of empire seems to have come back into fashion, both internally in the US as a conceptualiztion, as in the PNAC hawk wing, and externally as critique by people like Hardt and Negri. Its quite possible to have a 'intelligent, reasoned discussion' using the term; what's your problem with it?

I'm more than a little concerned by the 'pick a side' approach, whether it was 'with us or against us' or the current tendency to split on the heightening tensions between Russia and the US. I'm not 'on' either of these sides, they both seem to be aggressive projects. Its quite consistent to be for democracy but against the foreign policies of democratic countries. To say that not supporting Georgias apparent aggression in Ossetia necessarily means one is 'against democracy', as if all the democratic countries and peoples of the world are on one side as a coherent bloc seems loose thinking to say the least.

I find a more useful split, if you have to turn everything into 2 sides, is between those who are for war, pro-escalation, and those who are against war, and anti-escalation.

*waits patiently to be accused of being Chamberlain*

Romantic S

Kama wrote: »

I'm unsure why you think imperialism idiotic; the concept of empire seems to have come back into fashion, both internally in the US as a conceptualiztion, as in the PNAC hawk wing, and externally as critique by people like Hardt and Negri. Its quite possible to have a 'intelligent, reasoned discussion' using the term; what's your problem with it?

I'm more than a little concerned by the 'pick a side' approach, whether it was 'with us or against us' or the current tendency to split on the heightening tensions between Russia and the US. I'm not 'on' either of these sides, they both seem to be aggressive projects. Its quite consistent to be for democracy but against the foreign policies of democratic countries. To say that not supporting Georgias apparent aggression in Ossetia necessarily means one is 'against democracy', as if all the democratic countries and peoples of the world are on one side as a coherent bloc seems loose thinking to say the least.

I find a more useful split, if you have to turn everything into 2 sides, is between those who are for war, pro-escalation, and those who are against war, and anti-escalation.

*waits patiently to be accused of being Chamberlain*

You see, this is what the future of freedom is up against. People who intentially blind themselves to reality for the purpose of constructing straw men to fit their ideological straight-jacket.

How the hell could Georgia have invaded Ossetia? That is theequivilant of saying that When Irish troops march into Connacht they are agressing against Connacht. Nonsense upon stilts. Just like that waffling about "Imperialism". You either know not what Imperialism is or the reality of what neo-conservatism is, a Kissingeresque foreign policy (separate and diverging schools of thought), nor why the US went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not see the relevence of Neo-conservatism, the Bush administration's foreign policy or PNAC has to this question in the slightest.

Kama

You see, this is what the future of freedom is up against.

Apaarently questioning foreign policy, and being against escalation, makes one a enemy of freedom. This doesn't sound like any kind of freedom I associate with the Western Enlightenment project, tbh. Pray tell, what is 'the future of freedom'?

People who intentially blind to reality ... constructing straw men to fit their ideological straight-jacket.

Reality just doesn't seem as clear-cut to me as it does to you; seems to have a lot more grey areas. Neither Georgia or Russia are innocent babes-in-arms here. And the thing with ideology is you generally are blind to your own. Perhaps you could point out to me exactly how I am ideologcally confused? Just saying 'you're ideological' doesn't tell me much; its not even an argument.

How the hell could Georgia have invaded Ossetia? That is the equivalent of saying that When Irish troops march into Connacht they are agressing against Connacht.

To say South Ossetia to Georgia is the same as Connacht to Ireland seems...inappropriate and unhelpful. Connacht is not a disputed zone, nor does it have a de facto seperatist government

I do not see the relevence of Neo-conservatism, the Bush administration's foreign policy or PNAC has to this question in the slightest.

Then I'm not sure we can communicate, if you cannot see any connection between the regime and doctrines, and the situation with Georgia and Russia. 'Ideology' again :pac:

Thing with ideology is, like Jesus said about motes and beams, its easy to see other peoples, harder to remove from your own eye.

Kama

But in answer to the OP, its not a matter of 'picking a side', the argument goes; we have always-already been on a side, haven't been truly neutral and non-aligned, that this is essentially an empty Shibboleth brandished all the more the less it has come to exist, pretending to be all vestal virgin, when we've been happily in the matrimoniual bed for years, having dinner made for us in the morning like clockwork.

We enjoy the security benfits of the Nato umbrella, and are de facto integrated in a military and economic system; the economic succes we until so recently enjoyed wasn't something we did on a 'ourselves alone' basis. We have drawn the benefits of American hegemony, both geopolitically and economically, but whine about paying the (relatively small) bill. We don't have a neutral policy, we have an aligned-but-lazy-and-cheap policy.

So we wouldn't be 'giving up' anything. We'd just stop being such damn hypocrites about it all...

brianthebard

Romantic S wrote: »

You make it sound as if it is a question of Man Utd or Liverpool. The good if sometimes misguided in the and the bad in the conflicts of this last half century since the end of the second world war have been clear. It is also clear to me that if democracies do not stand up for each other, fight and put a military contribution as to maintain their sovereignty as a collective entity, the West if you will, we are going to lose everything we take for granted. How many reminders do you need. Czechoslovakia march 1939? Finlandisation? 9/11 and what happened to Georgia recently?

Do you remember Sandinistas, Allende? Why didn't other democrats stand up for them?

It isn't so much a matter of that they(Russians, Al Qaeda or whoever) will come for you one day as it is a principle that it is morally wrong for this to happen to a democracy and if principles are to mean anything they must be vindicated. I do not see this as a right wing phenomenon, indeed true neutrality is a right wing phenomenon, but the right to be in control of one's own destiny. Some of those on the left with a brain which can think objectively and teleologically like Bernard Kouchner and Christopher Hitchens have come to this conclusion long ago and support a muscular foreign policy.

Link to those articles please?

PS, You clearly will not have an intelligent, reasoned discussion if you toss around idiotic phrases like imperialism.

Do you know what Imperialism is? What would you call it when a state or states compromises another states soverignty?