Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Conserative Morality]

The West has been going on adventures with no profit or reason since its inception, SIR, either your ideal vision of the West is weak or you hate the West choose one

To be fair many of the West's adventures have been done with reason and quite profitable. For example the British Raj.

But most of the West's adventures have been glorious expenses and little more.

[Conscentia]

As a leftist, no they aren't.

We are referring to the American left, not fringe people like yourself. Your lot are in the dustbin.

R00d.

[The East Marches II]

I read that. I think it makes a better argument for liberal internationalism like we had during the Cold War, than than for "muh chessbord" foreign policy realism.

We were more than willing to do dirty things to win in the Cold War and on a scale we could only dream of today. Liberal internationalism relies on good will and other sorts of things which don't exist in quantity.

[The East Marches II]

Indeed. But the West needs to regroup before going on the offensive.

"Regroup" Where shall we meet? Sussex is nice this time of year.

Repair our economies first and foremost. I heard DC is nice.

[Conserative Morality]

Indeed. But the West needs to regroup before going on the offensive.

Never cede the initiative to the enemy. Regroup and go on the offensive. We're not weak. We're not floundering. We have enough power to crush the world, should we so desire. Assimilating them is comparatively easy in terms of our capabilities.

[Lowell Leber]

I read that. I think it makes a better argument for liberal internationalism like we had during the Cold War, than than for "muh chessbord" foreign policy realism.

You need to reconsider your conclusions. F
Realism in foreign policy recognizes that different nation states have different motives and agendas based on various factors. The factor most relevant in this discussion being cultural.

[Napkiraly]

To be fair many of the West's adventures have been done with reason and quite profitable. For example the British Raj.

But most of the West's adventures have been glorious expenses and little more.

Except those places were actually conquered so said nations got to paint another part of the globe with their preferred colour. America hasn't done that for a long time.

[The East Marches II]

Indeed. But the West needs to regroup before going on the offensive.

Never cede the initiative to the enemy. Regroup and go on the offensive. We're not weak. We're not floundering. We have enough power to crush the world, should we so desire. Assimilating them is comparatively easy in terms of our capabilities.

You can have all the power in the world but if your people are weak and unwilling, you can't do much. We need a cultural shift away from relativism. You have to set the ground work before you can run off.

[Conserative Morality]

We are referring to the American left, not fringe people like yourself. Your lot are in the dustbin.

>> American left
>> not ethnocentric

Don't be fooled by their soft words and/or the hippie-ass minority the American left is Obama, not Chomsky.

[Lowell Leber]

Indeed. But the West needs to regroup before going on the offensive.

Never cede the initiative to the enemy. Regroup and go on the offensive. We're not weak. We're not floundering. We have enough power to crush the world, should we so desire. Assimilating them is comparatively easy in terms of our capabilities.

I disagree. We are weakened from within from internal strife and discord. As well as enemies within our very walls.

[Conserative Morality]

Except those places were actually conquered so said nations got to paint another part of the globe with their preferred colour. America hasn't done that for a long time.

That's not really America's thing. It's not really the West's thing either, tbh. You're thinking of the brief Imperialist ventures of the 17th-19th centuries. Making puppet states out of enemy empires has a much longer history.

[Improved werpland]

I read that. I think it makes a better argument for liberal internationalism like we had during the Cold War, than than for "muh chessbord" foreign policy realism.

We were more than willing to do dirty things to win in the Cold War and on a scale we could only dream of today. Liberal internationalism relies on good will and other sorts of things which don't exist in quantity.

A lot of those dirty things haven't always ended well for us in the long term, though that's not quite the point either. Regardless of what foreign policy we take, it almost always has an ideological justification, which is basically what the article was about (ideology).

[Napkiraly]

I read that. I think it makes a better argument for liberal internationalism like we had during the Cold War, than than for "muh chessbord" foreign policy realism.

Liberal internationalism was a nice propaganda tool but first and foremost was keeping the Reds down. Hence why the United States supported tons of dictatorships and quite illiberal insurgencies throughout the Cold War.

[The East Marches II]

We are referring to the American left, not fringe people like yourself. Your lot are in the dustbin.

>> American left
>> not ethnocentric

Don't be fooled by their soft words and/or the hippie-ass minority the American left is Obama, not Chomsky.

Obama was a naive fool who got taken for a ride because he was inclined to show mercy instead of finish the job. So much for the reset, so much for the pivot.

[Conserative Morality]

You can have all the power in the world but if your people are weak and unwilling, you can't do much. We need a cultural shift away from relativism. You have to set the ground work before you can run off.

Relativism is the very tool that lets us consume other cultures you wanna fight or something

[The East Marches II]

We were more than willing to do dirty things to win in the Cold War and on a scale we could only dream of today. Liberal internationalism relies on good will and other sorts of things which don't exist in quantity.

A lot of those dirty things haven't always ended well for us in the long term, though that's not quite the point either. Regardless of what foreign policy we take, it almost always has an ideological justification, which is basically what the article was about (ideology).

Operation Condor did what it was supposed to do. You method of playing nice has failed us. Internationalism failed. We are now on the backfoot facing a China which will surpass us in GDP and a Russia that can hold Europe hostage. Hobbes was a realist first and foremost. Thats what the article's point was. You still can't see past your blinders.

[Improved werpland]

I read that. I think it makes a better argument for liberal internationalism like we had during the Cold War, than than for "muh chessbord" foreign policy realism.

You need to reconsider your conclusions. F
Realism in foreign policy recognizes that different nation states have different motives and agendas based on various factors. The factor most relevant in this discussion being cultural.

I recall it being significantly more dumb, like: "each nation looks out for its material interests only." No?

[Conserative Morality]

I disagree. We are weakened from within from internal strife and discord. As well as enemies within our very walls.

Obviously you've not watched much Arab television. We've got no strife and discord compared to the rest of the world. I have yet to see our political commentators throwing their shoes at one another. The perfect is the enemy of the good m80

[Lowell Leber]

You can have all the power in the world but if your people are weak and unwilling, you can't do much. We need a cultural shift away from relativism. You have to set the ground work before you can run off.

Relativism is the very tool that lets us consume other cultures you wanna fight or something

Again I disagree. Relativism leads to not finishing the job of conquering.

[Napkiraly]

Except those places were actually conquered so said nations got to paint another part of the globe with their preferred colour. America hasn't done that for a long time.

That's not really America's thing. It's not really the West's thing either, tbh. You're thinking of the brief Imperialist ventures of the 17th-19th centuries. Making puppet states out of enemy empires has a much longer history.

15th-20th centuries* and this isn't including the Crusades, Charlemagne, Sweden and most importantly of all, Rome.

[The East Marches II]

You can have all the power in the world but if your people are weak and unwilling, you can't do much. We need a cultural shift away from relativism. You have to set the ground work before you can run off.

Relativism is the very tool that lets us consume other cultures you wanna fight or something

Relativism has been the cause of our decline. No longer is the American way superior, its merely different. No longer are they poor shitheaps because their culture sucks, they are exotic with a different way of life and "we shouldn't judge".

[Conserative Morality]

Obama was a naive fool who got taken for a ride because he was inclined to show mercy instead of finish the job. So much for the reset, so much for the pivot.

The reset was a poor choice but the pivot failed/was changed because of circumstances not poor choices unless you think the Arab Spring was a US conspiracy

[Napkiraly]

Relativism is the very tool that lets us consume other cultures you wanna fight or something

Relativism has been the cause of our decline. No longer is the American way superior, its merely different. No longer are they poor shitheaps because their culture sucks, they are exotic with a different way of life and "we shouldn't judge".

I maintain that the people who insist that interacting with other cultures lessens bigotry do so out of a nice resort and not slumming it. I mean, if you slum your way through fucking Egypt you'll end up hating everything about the place and its culture.

[Conserative Morality]

15th-20th centuries*

>> 20th century
>> doing actual conquering

Pull the other one

And 15th century? Are you really including the discovery of the Americas in this? That's like two countries doing it until the 17th century.

and this isn't including the Crusades,

Puppet states. All of them. Really. Seriously. The Euros that sent the troops over did not control the resulting kingdoms.

Charlemagne,

"Im gunna convert a bunch of pagans by force lol and then let my empire split up when I die"

10/10 would found Western culture on his example

Sweden

... why Sweden?

and most importantly of all, Rome.

DELET THIS

With all seriousness, Rome tended to make puppet states first and then assimilate them later.

[Improved werpland]

A lot of those dirty things haven't always ended well for us in the long term, though that's not quite the point either. Regardless of what foreign policy we take, it almost always has an ideological justification, which is basically what the article was about (ideology).

Operation Condor did what it was supposed to do. You method of playing nice has failed us. Internationalism failed. We are now on the backfoot facing a China which will surpass us in GDP and a Russia that can hold Europe hostage. Hobbes was a realist first and foremost. Thats what the article's point was. You still can't see past your blinders.

Yes and now most of South America, with the exception of a few countries, distrusts the US. The Marshall Plan worked better. Since I don't have time to argue the article with you note how it has terms like liberalism and nation riddled through it several times. Realism appears once and in the last paragraph. It was solely about ideology.