Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Acres Can't Vote
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Sands: [QB] Jay: yes, economic and cultural power can be great methods of changing the world. I think they have been instrumental to the effort in some areas (Eastern Europe) but also co-opted and perverted by others (China). Because that method is slow and fallible, I am uncomfortable limiting our efforts to only those means. I [i]do[/i] happen to believe that liberal democratic capitalism is the best arrangement of order and liberty that man has wrought. And I trace several of my conclusions to [URL=http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm]the work of Francis Fukuyama[/URL]. I think his reading of history and the political economies of nations has been more accurate than most any other commentator on the Left. But I also take a lesson in [URL=http://www.techcentralstation.com/031103A.html]historiographical humility from the work of Lee Harris[/URL]. I think that both have taken supra-tactical views of this clash of worldviews and have put forth lasting visions that rise above the tactical criticisms that opponents of the war level. And I think that many of the paradigms we have relied upon in such a stabilized manner since WW2 ought to be questioned; those that are inadequate ought to be cast away. And I think that the crypto-pacifism (not you, Jay, necessarily) that has gripped many commentators has weakened the moral lesson of St. Augustine that war can be both an instrument of evil [i]and[/i] good. It is a context-dependent, prudential consideration that must proceed with the moral maturity necessary lacking in many on the Left to say that sometimes a war saves lives, that it is good to wage those wars, and that we should not apologize for ignoring peaceful alternatives when those resorts are as unlikely to be availing as many have judged. The morality from which I derive my decision to support our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran, North Korea, and Syria one day, demands a confrontation with the cultural filth that Islamofascists seek to impose upon the world. I have not forgotten the importance of the always-to-be-striven-for-never-to-be-fully-achieved effort to domesticate international norms into intrastate laws. However, given that the conditions inside those nations are unripe for such adoption, and the insidious resistance by those in power that prevents that development, I see little choice but to proceed with our strategy of instilling democratic orders before they destroy us with any number of civilizationally wrecking weapons. Such a strategy does not exhibit the metaphysical consistency of personal or societal choice like we see at the end result of a democratic order. But I am comfortable with that. Future millions will benefit more from imposed democracy than the totalitarian stasis that has survived for centuries and that shows no sign of imminent collapse. And it is an open question among theologians to what extent just wars are an extension of the drive towards Augustine's [i]tranquillitas ordinis[/i]. I�m not sure what ethics you use as your touchstone for formulating international policy. Perhaps, it is a species of secular humanist ethics, which I am not proficient enough to argue within. I know you, Jay, and I have not spent enough time trying to whittle down our arguments to their fundamental assumptions. However, I can sense we probably don�t share several core beliefs, so at some level, I think agreement between the two sides we represent is impossible. With need for editing for expression, revision for clarity, and reflection for more congruent consistency than I can provide in 30 minutes, that is the snapshot reason why I think it is right to change the world to be more consistent with the image of democratic capitalism we see in North America, Europe, and East Asia. My own views have developed over the years on past interventions. My opinions changed as a wrestled with alternative philosophies by which our nation would live in the world. At the time, I was neither enthusiastic nor opposed to our involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Part of my hesitation undoubtedly came from the difficulty I was having navigating to firm stance in between [URL=http://www.techcentralstation.com/111501A.html]the four historical camps of American foreign policy[/URL]. (They�re towards the bottom.) However, despite my arguments with tactical failures past administrations suffered in foreign policy interventions, I seldom found that the other side�s worldview was wholly meritless. Therefore, I never found critics of our actions in the Balkans completely convincing, and I am comfortable with our engaging in wide-scale nationbuilding again, especially where it�s necessary for the world�s security. This will have to be my last post on this topic since I�ve started a new job. I�ll lurk and post once in a while, but I�m too busy until the bar exam in February to do too much online chatting. It [i]has[/i] been enjoyable. I�ve appreciated the chance to debate. (Most especially you, Jay!) It�s refined my thinking and helped me come to grasp with many more issues than I was able to thinking alone. My thanks to everyone. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3