CHINA WAR INEVITABLE...SOONER THAN LATER

[Fig]

If you are 100% cynical in everything you post it’s no different than believing everything you read. It’s equally ignorant, and you will start reading the fantasies of daft scriveners.

In the Information Age you have to sift and discern. The truth is there, but it’s surrounded by the lies of people with agendas.

 

[Edsel]

It is important to emphasize that understanding the motivations and actions of states may be approached through foreign policy papers and history, as well as current events.

When appraising current events, a healthy skepticism is crucial. Recognizing cynicism must be grounded in some amount of reading prior. Sadly, without some baseline historical knowledge, one’s handicaps only become more apparent.

Blind belief, as well as resorting to disparaging others, can obscure the complex realities of global politics.

 

[Fig]

Lol. Do as I say, not as I do, huh?

 

[Edsel]

Lol. Do as I say, not as I do, huh?

Such is exemplified by our “Rules Based International Order,” meaning “Rules for thee, not for me.”

To elaborate further, this refers to a framework of global governance that is purportedly based on established international laws and norms. However, in practice, it often reflects western interests, particularly of that of America. As such, we Americans frequently bend or ignore these rules when it suits our strategic interests.

 

[Fig]

So, all of that is bad?

 

[Edsel]

Of course it is.

Please refer to Post #77.

It represents corruption extrapolated from a national to a global scale.

As stated in earlier posts, this nebulous catch - phrase is a blank check used to circumvent actual codified law.

 

[Fig]

You are a very bad sifter of information. It's probably because you use some sites (algorithms) for all your news that reinforces your already ridiculous biases to the point where you don't believe that actual current events are actually happening, but everything is part of some vast conspiracy. Really it's only the Iluminati who control everything completely, and only a small handful (including you) who understand what's going on. The rest of us are all in the dark and ignorant.

What's more, you can't seem to tell the difference from an institution and the people who inhabit it who misuse and abuse it for their own ends, or their perceived noble ends that in practice end up undermining the very thing they tried to stand for. While I agree that is evidence certain that the institution itself is fundamentally flawed and lacks the checks to keep it focused and on task, you attack the whole endeavor and ignore the reason it was put in place originally. Really, @Edsel is the only infallible and without sin person on planet earth, so only he can sit in judgement of the universe. Historically that's really easy to prove, as you have easy answers for very complex things like it's all at your fingertips. Your arrogance is not just off-putting, but ridiculous on a farcical level.

"Rules Based International Order", as a euphemism for the post WWII order or Pax Americana, which came forth at a time where the civilized world was largely lying in smoking ruins except for the single real victor (The United States of America) that, except for loosing the flower of it's young men, was actually in a much stronger position than any nation before it ever. While I don't disagree that the international institutions it brought forth have largely failed, the ideas behind them and what they were established to accomplish are needed now more than ever.

From the part of the Wiki :

Definition of Rules-Based International Order​

The rules-based international order (RBO) refers to a global system established after World War II, characterized by structured relationships among countries based on rules, norms, and decision-making procedures. It promotes political and economic liberalism, human rights, and multilateral cooperation through institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund.

Key Features​

• Political Liberalism: Emphasizes the rule of law and human rights.
• Economic Liberalism: Supports free markets and open trade.
• Multilateral Cooperation: Encourages collaboration among nations to address global issues.

These "Key Features", as the leftist leaning Wikipedia enumerates, are entirely valid as aspirations, though I would agree in practice the big international institutions have failed utterly (for the most part). You ignore all the small things that are unambiguous successes. COLREGS, for example, are a big part of that international order that actually worked, making blanket statements as you have is like saying there should be no traffic rules on American roads and because people have "accidents" that shit doesn't work. ABsurd.

"Liberalism" in the Wiki, clearly based on their definition, is of the classical American variety, and not the leftism masquerading as liberalism embodied in the Democrats. However, allowing communist and authoritarian governments a seat at these international tables for these aims ensured they contained a poison pill that doomed the institutions from their establishment. Being a part of the imaginary United Democratic Nations, with strict requirements based on those aspirations, that a nation had to maintain in order to keep a seat at the table and a vote (Great Britain would be on double secret probation today), would have probably led to better outcomes IMO.

You have not seen a Republican embrace any of that for a very long time. I would argue that even George W. Bush only used them in so far as it was in what he believed was our interest and security, and where it diverged he was willing to proceed without them. Clearly Trump doesn't GAF about them, and has concentrated on all the ancillary and direct diplomacy solutions like NATO and direct treaties with countries that share our interests, but from an America First perspective, which as you've argued earlier was put in place to advance those "Key Features", I would hope you agree with all of them... If you don't then you are hardly someone who believes in the Republican form of government and big "L" Liberalism. If not then you're just in the bag of totalitarian fucks and really have no worthy principals at all, in which bag I completely include Democrats who may reject the aspirations, but find utility in siding with our enemies at all those international institutions. This is esentially how Obama left our international relations in tatters by opposing our natural allies, and trying to befriend our worst enemies. How was his cynicism any different that yours or even the way the UN acts in fact? It really isn't. The fact is that there are way more bad actors and evil leaders who do not believe in the aspirational goals of the RBIO or Pax Americana than there are who do, and that they essentially are given equal footing, or even veto power in these institutions is why those goals are never even approached much less met.

Throwing it all out, including it's aspirational raison d'etre, absolutely proves my point about hiding behind cynicism in every single one of your posts and opinions. It not the kind of jaundiced view I am used to hearing from those who serve and fight overseas, or even from first hand experience of our own State Department, manned by overeducated, foppish children, undermining our interests and those of our supposed allies mostly through ignorance and incompetence rather than malice. Of course, when you get a truly evil cunt like HRC as the SecState you are going to have catastrophe, but even when running as designed it undermines us rather than preforming the tasks it was created to do.

It's really that you think it's all going according to someone's plan that is ridiculous. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition that is every bit as intellectually crippling as the Democrat's misunderstanding. It was this understanding by our Founding Fathers that made them stand out in all of history as truly deserving the mythic status that many, if not most people, who love this country feel about them. Do those truths about the human condition as it relates to power and man's inherent failings even enter into your conspiracy theories and skepticism about any event that does not conform to your preconceptions? I don't think so. You seem completely unmoored to me, and just have the same reaction and opinion about any event in the context that it is all calculated and preplanned. That is much more a religious line of thought that one that is based in any kind of discernable political science. As I've pointed out, I don't see how it's any different than it's converse of someone who gets all their opinions from CNN. Believing everything happens as it is reported and as pundits tell you what it means, isn't markedly worse than dismissing everything that happens and believing it is all a carefully orchestrated plot by a few people running everything.

If there were such people there would be no such thing as hedge funds, and they certainly would not be as effective as they are. Unpredictability and the inevitability of unforeseen events are the primary supposition of a hedge fund. It is an admission that no one is in control, and emotion plays at least as large a role as reasoning. This is exactly the reason why our Republic is established as it is with divided power, and rule of law. It's like a political hedge fund that hedges against the ambition, avarice, and human failing of those who would lead it. I don't see any of this evident in your absolute proclamations at all, and that's why they're bullshit and no better than getting all your opinions from CNN.

You don't see mistakes and failures. To you it's all going according to nefarious plan and you don't care how ridiculous your qui bono gets. That is more a level of insanity than a coherent sifting of information and events to predict outcomes or see trends.

The idea of the RBIO is absolutely valid and very American. It has worked at home better than anything ever devised by man. It's just that it only works for a good and just people who will enforce the rules and norms of society without the need for force, and almost unique to Western Civilization in terms of avoiding totalitarianism and use of force. We see it doesn't work in many cultures, and they simply should not have a say in international issues till they can meet certain requirements.

The institutions in pursuit of the original goals have become so corrupt they need a complete overhaul, and their fundamental flaws removed in the next iteration, or those will largely fail too. That said, all those institutions have never been in control, and they've never been anything but noise and a fig leaf over the real problems. I have been for kicking the UN out of New York, probably, since before you were born.

You have such simple answers because you see incredible complexity within all these conspiracy theories, but most of the time things are exactly as they seem and what common sense would dictate. Where they go and have gone wrong was entirely predictable. Maybe you just don't like the idea of so much chaos, and so men making so many repeated mistakes, but that's what history is in it triumphs and defeats.

If you want to get into grand plans you are into the realm of religion, not political science and current events. The only criminal geniuses that exist are openly in government, not in secret bases in volcanos, and they attack the system that checks their power in full view. Also something the founders predicted and mostly planned against, but they did not think the people would be so stupid as to kick out central pillars of our Consitution and central checks on power, like allowing an income tax, or destroying federalism with the direct election of Senators.

There are systemic problems. A conspiracy by definition is secret, and while conspiracies involving multiple people can stay secret for a short time, ultimately they are all exposed. Thinking you are a genius by calling everything a conspiracy, and then dancing in the end zone when a few come to light isn't a good look, and exposes you as a kook. So does believing that these things span years, decades, or centuries. They don't last, and they usually don't work.

Only one person can keep a secret. As soon as someone else knows it isn't a secret anymore, and in this information age while there is certainly more fuel for conspiracy theories, but the time the real ones stay secret is shorter and shorter.

 

[Edsel]

Really, @Edsel is the only infallible and without sin person on planet earth, so only he can sit in judgement of the universe. Historically that's really easy to prove, as you have easy answers for very complex things like it's all at your fingertips. Your arrogance is not just off-putting, but ridiculous on a farcical level.

Perhaps your allegations against myself are a form of projection on your part?

In each of our individual little bubbles, we all think we're the sole enlightened hero who's seen through all the lies that the silly masses have been unable to do so...

Think I'll coin the phrase - "Lone Survivor Complex" - because we're all so individually special, in our own minds

Now, your behavior fits the “Lone Survivor Complex” to a T.

Please be mindful of your footing.

My critique of American Foreign Policy stems from the disconnect between the “establishment,” sometimes colloquially referred to as the "Deep State," and the actual desires of the American public. The establishment tends to pursue interventionist policies that are not only costly but also frequently unsuccessful, as seen in the Middle East and elsewhere. The persistent belief in “American Exceptionalism” and the right to intervene globally has led to numerous strategic failures and a loss of credibility on the world stage.

Tied in with our culture of “Exceptionalism” is our frequent (mis)use of the “Rules Based International Order.” Though lofty definitions may exist behind it - reality repeatedly demonstrates that in no way are they serious arguments.

I would like to correct one of your misconceptions, which appear to be rooted in tribalism - as you would expect, we are most certainly referring to the two - party system represented by the Democrats and Republicans. American Foreign Policy remains is largely consistent regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in power. The "establishment," or the "blob," or the "Deep State," maintains significant influence over decisions, leading to a continuity in approach. While there might be some rhetorical differences, the fundamental structure of their policies has remained constant regardless of administration.

I fail to understand your obsession with conspiracy theorists. While they do exist, and are admittedly rather entertaining - I disagree with your characterization in associating them with analysis of established foreign policy papers properly used in conjunction with history and current events.

To your credit, I may indeed have some difficulty “sifting” through information - beyond the substance of your “Wiki” post, I had quite a bit of difficulty sifting through the tirade of insults and personal attacks. That being said, a “Wiki” post doesn’t quite stack up for proper discourse, even at a secondary level of education. To reiterate, without some baseline historical knowledge, one’s handicaps only become more apparent; blind belief, as well as resorting to disparaging others, can obscure the complex realities of global politics.

 

[Fig]

You don't need to convince ANYONE here that the permanent bureaucracy in Washington is rotten to its core, and cares way more about feathering their own nest, expanding the budgets of their gazillion departments, and ignoring the wishes of the plebeians they rule over. We love our country and hate our government pretty uniformly. Almost everyone here is a hard core, rule of law, constitutionalist. You either have to be that, or a moron to sign that blank check. We may disagree on a lot, but not first principals.

I would expect you to revert to your cartoonish skepticism and pretend that the Trump administrations exertions in the the first, full-frontal assault on that Deep State, in our lifetimes, will have no impact on it. How else does the one channel skeptic receive it? We all pretty much agree that necks need to be stretched to pay for the crimes committed by the Obama and Biden administrations and their coverups. Exposing them is not enough, but you are not talking about crimes of the deep state at all.

You appear to be talking about doctrines and policies that did actually make sense at the time. You are like the millennial who decries the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima without considering what just had happened on Okinawa, or laments the racism of a country that interred it's Japanese citizens. Some of those Japanese citizens in Hawaii gave comfort and refuge to the pilots who had just attacked us, and the American people at the time did not know the extent of their devotion to their god emperor even though they were American citizens... It's easy to grab modern moral high ground if you are ignorant of the circumstances of the decisions at the time, but you are not learned or wise for doing so.

You say you are a historian, but ignore the recorded truth. You lack perspective. You even lack it in CURRENT events.

You are touting yourself as a historian because you don't like most of the outcomes in Pax Americana (admittedly just as "peaceful" as the Pax Romana), and think you know policy better. That's some real millennial bullshit and ignorance. The history that wasn't written is far more important than any of the history that was; mistakes and all. The entire Cold War since the VE/VJ day did not result in the most significant event of the 20th century that never happened. Despite all the failures, missteps, bad decisions, and yes, some mal actors, WWIII did not happen. By all measures it should have happened, just as WWI was largely responsible for the rise of the Nazis. We came close to blowing up the world. 9/11 of the events of the 21st century seem pretty insignificant next to the threat of global thermonuclear war many of us grew up in and served in. It wasn't like a distant possibility, but fucktards were demonstrating in the streets and marching for unilateral disarmament (yes, leftist have always been complete dumbfucks).

There is little or no hidden history, and the Kennedy assassination is remarkable because of how obviously twisted and opaque it remains to this day, kinda like the 2017 Las Vegas Shootings, or the Butler attempt, or the Seth Rich assassination, which we still don't know fuckall about. There are things that are opaque and speculation is fine, and things that aren't, and that are the stuff of modern revisionist history not because of the reality of the events as they happened, but because of the way modern morons feel about it. They want to think they're a different and wiser animal and they aren't.

If we rolled up on the Aztecs TODAY, it is very likely we would have the same reaction as Cortez did. These are devil worshiping maniacs for whom human life has less value than a cumquat, they need to be either conquered and civilized or fucking destroyed, because no other culture can ever hope to coexist with them, period. Same thing with many of the American Indian tribes. They were "savage". So either you give them wide berth, or you end them, because you can't live next to them. Trying to understand what happened and how it happened from your own frame of reference is to be not only ignorant, but willfully and appearently proudly so.

What kind of ignorance is proud of itself? There's quite a bit and it all comes from the left. Context is everything, and you spit stuff out like it's simple and with no context like you know what you're talking about, and it rubs me the wrong way. It's not educating anyone. It's spreading ignorance. It's fine to point out mistakes, and there have been many, but to believe you have a handle on it all from your own perspective is amazingly arrogant, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest.

For all the failures of the RBIO it was successful in the only one that really mattered. You even being here is evidence of that. We can and should build better institutions, ones that keep out those who don't believe in our first principals, but you don't understand what's going on better than an average person. Whatever you are reading on the internet is giving you a kaleidoscopic view, not a clear one.

You can state that understanding the past and history is critical to understanding the present and making good decisions, and I would agree with you 100%, but you cannot understand that past from your own perspective. That is leftist, woke bullshit. and you will end up less wise at the end of it rather than more wise, because it makes you believe that you are somehow different and wiser than all the people who made those decisions with the information they had at the time, and even worse you can judge them as evil for making those decisions with the benefit of hindsight.

If you feel personally insulted it's because I feel you approach all this from a position that is at once extremely arrogant and extremely ignorant and dismissive of anything but "your truth" at the same time. I don't know where that comes from, but a modicum of humility would do you a world of good.

 

[Edsel]

@Fig

I'm sorry, but all of it comes up as a tirade full of insults and personal attacks once more.

Let me clarify that I have made no fanciful claims about myself.

How about pulling up some publications to discuss instead?

Naturally, we'll have to steer clear of low - hanging fruit (you'll have to excuse me for using that term a lot) such as Wikipedia, Twitter posts, and miscellaneous podcasts of dubious provenance.

For instance, you can start by discussing key features of the International Criminal Court, and tying it in with the Rules Based International Order.

Something like that.

 

[Fig]

ICC IS A FUCKING JOKE. Your arrogance is nothing next to those fucks we've sanctioned and barred from entering or owning a matchstick of the USA. Not even Obama or Biden were dumb enough to push on that rotting corpse. Leave that shit for African warlords to worry about. It's even more irrelevant than the UN or the WTO has become. When we just bypass them they don't matter. When we sanction them we're saying fuck you. It's really only a tool for the left to claim moral high ground because of all the shithole dictatorships who agree with their point of view and their critical theory.

I've said I think those institutions are broken and fundamentally flawed from their inception. Other than some window dressing on certain decisions I fail to see how any of those have driven any history or mattered at all. They certainly could have were they to exclude all countries and the cultures who are incapable of executing first principals (including in Europe), the very ones the RBIO claimed to champion.

Those institutions are bad because they betray their founding principals, not because they are true to them. How is that hard to understand?

 

[Edsel]

As they say, "the proof's in the pudding."

Ideals on paper do not correspond to what we are in practice. “Institutions” are meaningless when they fail to deliver on what they supposedly represent.

Which now brings us to the ICC.

You are correct in describing the ICC as a "joke." Not only do they police predominantly Africans (with one Serb as an exception?), we are not a signatory, and we actually went as far as authoring...

...the "Hague Invasion Act."

I can assure you that this bit of paper reflects rather poorly on America on the world stage.

The existence and paradoxical inaction of the ICC where it’s inconvenient for the western powers is a testament to the double standards of our “Rules - Based International Order.” Conversely, the concept of the “Rules - Based International Order” comes up as a big hypocrisy when chastising other countries for their “transfressions.”

Did you get to listen to Putin’s comments?

There is great truth in what he said, which would do you some good to at the very least, understand.

Again, with the personal insults - I recall that I made it clear that you're free to think whatever you please, whatever floats your boat.

What's so arrogant about that?

While some rhetoric can be entertaining, tirades and vitriol are largely counterproductive.

Again, I would ask for you to pull up some proper references to discuss.