Yarael Poof is living in a material world and he is a material girl.
Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Would America benefit from a multi-polar world?
GrandAdmiralPelleaon 
Registered: Oct '00
Date Posted: 4/20 1:44am Subject: RE: Would America benefit from a multi-polar world?
Referencing history like that pains me as a history student. You can't compare the modern era to the pre-WWI era like that. The Cold War was also one big arms build-up and it didn't erupt into full scale war. So it's not like every precedent of arms-build up leads to your scenario. Aside from that, France or the UK could probably whipe the floor with the South Korean or Pakistani army, even if those were 'bigger', since technology pwns size these' days. Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world at one point, so what.

You are viewing the world from a purely military standpoint, which is a factor in decline. You're overestimating certain effects. You still haven't answered the question as to how military presence promotes peace in Western Europe or even Japan. Okay, bigger Japanese army, might cause friction, might not. It's an open ended question, in Western Europe it doesn't even apply. There are no military threats that could cause any serious harm.

 

-----signature-----
Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois!
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Emperor_Billy_Bob 
Registered: Aug '00
24202_Palpatine
Date Posted: 4/20 2:06am Subject: RE: Would America benefit from a multi-polar world? - Date Edited: 4/20 2:07am (1 edits total) Edited By: Emperor_Billy_Bob
GrandAdmiralPelleaon posted:
Referencing history like that pains me as a history student.


I am a history student as well. Your argument from authority fails laughably, especially considering that your argument has been naive and not very cogent to begin with.


GAP posted:
You can't compare the modern era to the pre-WWI era like that.


That depends on whether you buy into the "exceptionalism" of the modern world.

GAP posted:
The Cold War was also one big arms build-up and it didn't erupt into full scale war.


Because of nuclear weapons and each side's willingness to negotiate to a larger extent. I think its also important to not the precedent of the two World Wars in the mind of the people considering beginning a cold war.

Essentially, neither side had anything to gain by fighting the other, except assured infrastructure annihilation and disruption of economic profits. Economy is what drives war, and always has.

The same principle underlies modern US grand strategy - no great power has anything to gain by going to war, because their economic security is to be guaranteed by American hard power overseas and in the Gulf region.


GAP posted:
So it's not like every precedent of arms-build up leads to your scenario.


There are reasons explaining why they don't.

GAP posted:
Aside from that, France or the UK could probably whipe the floor with the South Korean or Pakistani army, even if those were 'bigger', since technology pwns size these' days. Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world at one point, so what.


Thats a tangent from the argument you were making. We were not discussing whose army was more powerful, you were stating that the European and Japanese armies were large and it didn't promote friction, and I was just pointing out that comparatively you are wrong.

GAP posted:
You still haven't answered the question as to how military presence promotes peace in Western Europe or even Japan. Okay, bigger Japanese army, might cause friction, might not. It's an open ended question, in Western Europe it doesn't even apply. There are no military threats that could cause any serious harm.


Military presence promotes peace by preventing the buildup of military forces that could threaten the hegemony of American hard power.

During the Cold War, American military presence in Europe helped to balance against the Soviet.

In the Far East, American military presence does the same in holding China at bay, preventing Japan from converting more of its soft power into hard power in self defense.

In Europe, American hard power basically provides power projection for the US and helps to bolster the local economies.


 

-----signature-----
"I'd hit it." - Lord Vivec in regards to Adolf Hitler
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
GrandAdmiralPelleaon 
Registered: Oct '00
Date Posted: 4/20 2:25am Subject: RE: Would America benefit from a multi-polar world? - Date Edited: 4/20 2:27am (1 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:

I am a history student as well. Your argument from authority fails laughably, especially considering that your argument has been naive and not very cogent to begin with.


Easy boy, you haven't made a single cognent argument to begin with, so don't give me that crap. Your argument goes "Well, it promotes stability because I said so."

No it doesn't. It's not because the US has bases in Europe that it actually supports or is detremintal to the current situation. Furthermore, as a history student you should know that random referencing to other time periods is a complete no-go. Do that in any academic paper and you will be torn to shreds. You cannot, in any good faith, compare the world of today, with Europe pre-1914. It's just laughable. WWI lacked the information infrastructure, the mindset, the economy, the military power projection capabilities. It's just a completely different type of world you are making a reference to. You can't compare things like these. Just because the Roman Senate under the Republic could have done A in case of event B. Doesn't mean that the Roman Senate under Constantine could, or would, do the same thing. Understand me?


EBB posted:


That depends on whether you buy into the "exceptionalism" of the modern world.


No, that doesn't depend on the "exceptionalism" but on the ability to recognise that we are living in another time, which might adher to some of the same rules, but which has such different circumstances that you can't draw parallells between different situations.

EBB posted:
Because of nuclear weapons and each side's willingness to negotiate to a larger extent. I think its also important to not the precedent of the two World Wars in the mind of the people considering beginning a cold war.

Essentially, neither side had anything to gain by fighting the other, except assured infrastructure annihilation and disruption of economic profits. Economy is what drives war, and always has.


And these nuclear weapons are now absent, or would be absent in a multi-polar world? The Global economy is if anything even more integrated than before. Economy is not what always drives war, but its a large factor in a lot of wars. In a multi-polar world it would be the same thing, the integrated economy is not the result of American hegmoney. And in Europe it is in fact much more the result of the EU.

EBB posted:
The same principle underlies modern US grand strategy - no great power has anything to gain by going to war, because their economic security is to be guaranteed by American hard power overseas and in the Gulf region.


BS, it's only guaranteed as long as you hold the fact true that American hegmoney in the region is a positive factor for their economies. It's naive to think that Russia considers it that way.


EBB posted:

There are reasons explaining why they don't.


Now who's believing in the exceptionality of the current situation? For somebody accusing me of not being coherent you sure are all over the place.

There are also raesons why American hegmony isn't exactly the only thing that holds this 'Pax Americana' together.

EBB posted:

Thats a tangent from the argument you were making. We were not discussing whose army was more powerful, you were stating that the European and Japanese armies were large and it didn't promote friction, and I was just pointing out that comparatively you are wrong.


It's about power, not the amount of men. Because in that case, China would be the predominant army. I'm not sure if you are aware of what the French Army is up to all over the world, but it's not like they're sitting on their ass either. I'm sure you are unaware of French Africa? wink

EBB posted:
Military presence promotes peace by preventing the buildup of military forces that could threaten the hegemony of American hard power.

During the Cold War, American military presence in Europe helped to balance against the Soviet.

In the Far East, American military presence does the same in holding China at bay, preventing Japan from converting more of its soft power into hard power in self defense.

In Europe, American hard power basically provides power projection for the US and helps to bolster the local economies.


power projection helps bolster the local economies. Now this just doesn't even mean anything. Neither does the fact that Japan can't hold China at bay itself promote peace and security in the region more than it would if it could. It's idle speculation on your part which holds as a primery ideological pillar that the USA has the best interests of everybody in mind. It doesn't. It has its own best interests in mind, period.

Basically, what I get from your line is that we have peace assured in Western Europe because the US military there prevents the build up of European militaries that could threaten American hegmony. So what you mean to say is that, if we had a military the size of the US, the US would be our primary enemy?

Now that just doesn't sound comfortable at all.

 

-----signature-----
Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois!
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Emperor_Billy_Bob 
Registered: Aug '00
24202_Palpatine
Date Posted: 4/20 3:01am Subject: RE: Would America benefit from a multi-polar world? - Date Edited: 4/20 3:33am (8 edits total) Edited By: Emperor_Billy_Bob
GrandAdmiralPelleaon posted:

Easy boy, you haven't made a single cognent argument to begin with, so don't give me that crap. Your argument goes "Well, it promotes stability because I said so."


Actually, I have given reasons. However, your flaw from the beginning was that you are asking me to rationalize an argument that I only stated the premises of.

You're completely misunderstanding my argument and then bringing up a bunch of poorly stated and tangential points that relate to ASBSOLUTELY nothing I believe or have said.

You seem to believe (for whatever reason, presumably bad context recognition) that I am fully in support of the Neocon idea I outlined above. I am not FULLY in support of it, I merely understand the thinking of those who outlined it.

Going on and on about an argument I stated as though it is my personal belief is silly and represents a lack of ability on your part to comprehend the context in which I stated what I stated.

I said "This is what THEY think and put into practice, not what I state or believe in", although I am fully capable of understanding some of the justifications and ramifications of the theory.

GAP posted:
Furthermore, as a history student you should know that random referencing to other time periods is a complete no-go.


Actually you are incorrect. I attended a class last semester in comparative history, which is basically EXACTLY what you just stated is unacceptable in the historical field.


GAP posted:
You cannot, in any good faith, compare the world of today, with Europe pre-1914. WWI lacked the information infrastructure, the mindset, the economy, the military power projection capabilities. It's just a completely different type of world you are making a reference to. You can't compare things like these. Just because the Roman Senate under the Republic could have done A in case of event B. Doesn't mean that the Roman Senate under Constantine could, or would, do the same thing. Understand me?

No, that doesn't depend on the "exceptionalism" but on the ability to recognise that we are living in another time, which might adher to some of the same rules, but which has such different circumstances that you can't draw parallells between different situations.


Basic power politics remain the same, IMHO. All the technology in the world won't change the reason that powers go to war or don't go to war.

You are right in that infrastructure, mindste, economy, and military power projection capabilities have changed. I have never stated otherwise.

However, nation-state theory is still operative and still relevant.

The comparison I drew with Germany still fits quite well in the example I was using and is still valid. Your blite and overly dramatic dismissal of it was silly and showed a lack of deep understanding of the ideas I was trying to bring out.

"Germany went to war because of a military buildup around it that threatened to alter its standing in the Great Power community, effectively rendering it less capable of securing its basic economic needs."

Nothing about the above statement renders it unreasonable as an understanding of the ramification of power politics in a nation-state community, whether the event took place in 1900, 2008, or 1748. Whether Germany was going to eventually be outclassed in horsemen or tanks is irrelevant as far as understanding WHY Germany would go to war in such a system.


GAP posted:
And these nuclear weapons are now absent, or would be absent in a multi-polar world? The Global economy is if anything even more integrated than before. Economy is not what always drives war, but its a large factor in a lot of wars. In a multi-polar world it would be the same thing, the integrated economy is not the result of American hegmoney. And in Europe it is in fact much more the result of the EU.


Here you do but betray your misunderstanding by arguing against something I never stated or argued in the first place, except that you wanted me to have said that American hegemony guarantees international peace, which I never did.

The first post I made that you responded to was not about America's military hegemony creating PEACE as much as its military hegemony is there to prevent other countries from developing military power with which to eventually contest America's hard power dominance.

Its not necessarily that as soon as those countries develop military power there is going to be a war, merely that America's goal is to not allow other countries to develop militaries at all, to prevent there even being such a possibility.

Its essentially about America's power and influnce RELATIVE to other countries. This is very very grand scheme-ish power politics.


EBB posted:
The same principle underlies modern US grand strategy - no great power has anything to gain by going to war, because their economic security is to be guaranteed by American hard power overseas and in the Gulf region.


GAP posted:
BS, it's only guaranteed as long as you hold the fact true that American hegmoney in the region is a positive factor for their economies. It's naive to think that Russia considers it that way.


Remember, that the Neocon idea isn't exactly based on what other countries think. It is based on American dominance of areas of the world crucially tied to global economy.

You're equating American military presence in Europe with the Neocon idea that American assurance of economic stability involves American dominance over economically sensitive regions. They are not the same nor do they have the same purpose.

GAP posted:
Now who's believing in the exceptionality of the current situation? For somebody accusing me of not being coherent you sure are all over the place.


You have failed so badly at comprehending what my stance is that I find your psuedo-intellectual posturing to be borderline hysterically funny.


GAP posted:
I'm not sure if you are aware of what the French Army is up to all over the world, but it's not like they're sitting on their ass either.


Good, but that has nothing to do with anything.



GAP posted:
power projection helps bolster the local economies. Now this just doesn't even mean anything.


Wow. Can you actually read?

Power projection doesn't help the local economies. Rather, bases in Germany provide power projection for the US, whilst having the benefit of the host countries of bringing money in for the economies, because of the thousands of foreign soldiers who live there.

What I am going to need from you is less intellectual posing, less moralizing, and more of an attempt to engage in this discussion in a meaningful way.

GAP posted:
Neither does the fact that Japan can't hold China at bay itself promote peace and security in the region more than it would if it could.


Do you have anything you are actually basing this argument off of, or just stating it as fact because it suits your argument?

Japan and China, as the most powerful nations on the East End of Eurasia, have been power competitors and have gone to war countless times. Tension still exists between the nations, tension heightened by the rise in China's soft and hard power comparative to Japan.

GAP posted:
It's idle speculation on your part which holds as a primery ideological pillar that the USA has the best interests of everybody in mind. It doesn't. It has its own best interests in mind, period.


Several things wrong here.

I am IN FACT arguing that the US has its forces there because it IS in its best interests.

American forces are there for two reasons: to balance off against the forces of China and prevent China from considering invading Taiwan, and to assure Japan that the US will side with it in case of Chinese aggression, something which ultimately is meant to prevent Japan from mobilizing more of its hypothetical military capacity, and therefore remove Japan from a potential list of challengers of American hard power.

GAP posted:
Basically, what I get from your line is that we have peace assured in Western Europe because the US military there prevents the build up of European militaries that could threaten American hegmony.


No. The US military has forces in Europe presumably, if the Lind Neoconservative idea holds true and is actually the motivation of much of American foreign policy, to reassure Europeans of security via US military hegemony and thus prevent them from feeling the need to arm themselves.

They less they arm themselves, the less of a challenge they are to American hegemony.

And it is irrelevant if those powers would be enemies of America to begin with, or even whether they would be our very best friends.


GAP posted:
So what you mean to say is that, if we had a military the size of the US, the US would be our primary enemy?


I'm not sure where you live, but from the quoting of France in your sig I will assume you are speaking of France, but regardless the principle of what I will state holds... (actually, I just looked and you are from Belgium, my argument still holds)

No. France will not automatically become the US' worst enemy. Merely that the stated goal of American foreign policy is to prevent any other countries from developing military power sufficient to challenge American dominance, in order to "eternally" preserve America's status as sole superpower. The goal doesn't distinguish between France developing military power, or China. The development of sufficient military power to challenge American might is in and of itself a reduction of America's standing vis a vis the rest of the world.

You can argue that military might is a declining element in valuing overall nation-state might, and you would be correct, however that is to completely miss the point.

We're talking STRICTLY about military power and how it is used to secure economic power
GAP posted:
Now that just doesn't sound comfortable at all.


Comfort has nothing to do with whether something is true or not.

 

-----signature-----
"I'd hit it." - Lord Vivec in regards to Adolf Hitler
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 - Previous | Next | Reload
Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
© 2008 IGN Entertainment, Inc (6.08.17.2300, ASPNET2) 0.203