Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Diopolis]

Even the ADL acknowledge that Antifa is uses violent means. Y'know the "Fighting hate for good" people.

Because peaceful means will get hardcore fascists and neoNazis that only respect power and strength to see the errors of their ways.

Because when the state is already doing a fairly good job dealing with them, it's totally justified to go beat the shit out of people who also don't like them, for the crime of being to the right of Leon Trotsky.

[Kaltovar]

and why do we deny Russia a pipeline
Why do we not do so by other means

Because after World War II we became global rivals in the struggle for resources, and war is the most effective socially acceptable means of denying them the pipeline. The current war in Afghanistan costs us less than struggling with the additional resources Russia would get would cost us, is the assumption.

The USA and USSR had no problem being allies when their rivals for resource dominance were Germany and Japan. As soon as the buffer between them was eliminated, they suddenly stopped talking about how they were "Both revolutionary societies" and stopped sharing research and intelligence data.

As soon as it became clear there was no longer a multipolar world, the two sides took the assumption that ultimately only one of them could survive given the scale of their ambitions and the limited resources on our planet.

The result was that in 1945, the cold war started and the main way of bickering about resources became proxy wars. We got really fucking good at proxy wars, so now it's the first option we look at a lot of the time. A top Bush aid during the Iraq war said about our Army "When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail."

[Diopolis]

This might sound sarcastic but it's not. I'm actually impressed with the general level of maturity of everyone here when compared to if this same discussion were to take place on a different forum.

There haven't been any calls for death from either side yet, and nobody has been accused of being a secret clone of Hitler or part of a deep-cover KGB plot to nuke Washington!

Yeah, our mods really do a good job of keeping the place clean.

[Gormwood]

Because peaceful means will get hardcore fascists and neoNazis that only respect power and strength to see the errors of their ways.

Because when the state is already doing a fairly good job dealing with them, it's totally justified to go beat the shit out of people who also don't like them, for the crime of being to the right of Leon Trotsky.

Like the good job they did in Charlottesville?

[Kaltovar]

Because when the state is already doing a fairly good job dealing with them, it's totally justified to go beat the shit out of people who also don't like them, for the crime of being to the right of Leon Trotsky.

Like the good job they did in Charlottesville?

Nobody is happy with the way the police handled Charlottesville. Or for that matter, the way the police handled Portland. There are authoritarian structures that support your side too, y'know.

[Diopolis]

Because when the state is already doing a fairly good job dealing with them, it's totally justified to go beat the shit out of people who also don't like them, for the crime of being to the right of Leon Trotsky.

Like the good job they did in Charlottesville?

Ok, I'll bite.
What do you think the police should've done in Charlottesville?

[Fahran]

Like the good job they did in Charlottesville?

The lack of order and peaceable motives on both sides contributed to the injuries of many and the one death at Charlottesville as did the police presumption that people's better nature's would prevail. Protests involving radical right-wing and Antifa groups clearly require much more strenuous adult supervision.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You should say something in your own defense.

Nah. 5th time being reported for something stupid. I am done debating with mods, they never listen. If I get a ban, then so be it. I asked, "Are you brain dead" after they claim that a friend of mine is lying. Which they have claimed repeatedly. I don't care anymore.

Well, maybe you should stop posting stuff like that considering you just got your nation deleted by the moderators.

[Kubra]

and why do we deny Russia a pipeline
Why do we not do so by other means

Because after World War II we became global rivals in the struggle for resources, and war is the most effective socially acceptable means of denying them the pipeline. The current war in Afghanistan costs us less than struggling with the additional resources Russia would get would cost us, is the assumption.

The USA and USSR had no problem being allies when their rivals for resource dominance were Germany and Japan. As soon as the buffer between them was eliminated, they suddenly stopped talking about how they were "Both revolutionary societies" and stopped sharing research and intelligence data.

As soon as it became clear there was no longer a multipolar world, the two sides took the assumption that ultimately only one of them could survive given the scale of their ambitions and the limited resources on our planet.

The result was that in 1945, the cold war started and the main way of bickering about resources became proxy wars. We got really fucking good at proxy wars, so now it's the first option we look at a lot of the time. A top Bush aid during the Iraq war said about our Army "When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail."

Ah, war is the most effective method, insofar as other methods have proved wanting. We'll make a Clausewitzian out of you yet!

And what are these "sides"? we are of course to assume the western world, NATO, and the eastern, the Warsaw Pact/COMECON, yes?

[Kubra]

the only thing that unites disparate "Antifa" groups is being left wing. The trots are there, the anarchists are there, there's the tut tutting bookchinites, the tankies, the dudes into crystal healing, you get the picture.

They all sound like people who would have been deported from Ellis Island.

Anyhow, I'm aware. Hence my opposition to a resolution that isn't more nuanced in its approach. That said, the argument about loose affiliation applies to a good many groups that we presently, and rightly, tend to call terrorist organizations in our popular parlance - such as the Klan. My issue with some of the opposition to this policy is that a lot of people seem to believe that it's morally acceptable to hit people for saying bad things. They seem to be dancing around the point because they know that the same argument justifies throwing leftists out of helicopters, unless they specify that people should merely be allowed to punch leftists, and might cross the line into violating site rules by advocating criminal activity. That's what the "terrorism isn't automatically bad" and "government isn't the ultimate source on moral authority" arguments lend themselves to anyway. Both arguments are, of course, true, but they don't excuse hitting people for words.

As I said: the differences between klan groups is more personal than political. Ban the klan and you only hit the klan, not the right in general. Call "antifa" a terrorist group, an informal thing existing only in an abstract sense, and what you really end up doing is declaring the left in general terrorists.

[Fahran]

As I said: the differences between klan groups is more personal than political. Ban the klan and you only hit the klan, not the right in general. Call "antifa" a terrorist group, an informal thing existing only in an abstract sense, and what you really end up doing is declaring the left in general terrorists.

Nonsense. Most leftists do not reflexively identify with groups like Rose City Antifa and most leftist organizations do not employ that label in their name - the ones that do are often anarchist/communist in their ideology and a good portion of the ones that have been popularized in the media vocally endorse physical violence as a viable political strategy. Beyond that, loose associations does not preclude a movement or set of organizations from exhibiting antisocial, terrorist, or criminal tendencies. Racist skinheads weren't always as organized as they were in the 1990's, but they've been on watch-lists and have been subject to counter-terrorism and counter-gang measures for decades. The Klan also wasn't a singular organization, albeit their membership was more stratified and organized on a local basis.

[Kaltovar]

Ah, war is the most effective method, insofar as other methods have proved wanting. We'll make a Clausewitzian out of you yet!

And what are these "sides"? we are of course to assume the western world, NATO, and the eastern, the Warsaw Pact/COMECON, yes?

No, that is literally not what I said. I said war is the most effective socially acceptable method. The most effective method of denying Russia a pipeline would be to irradiate the area to the point where it was not capable of sustaining life and then carpetseed the area with mines, which would not be an act of war but an act of geo-engineering and genocide simply because the Afghans would have no conceivable way to resist it.


COMECON and WSP did not include all of the nations that were aligned with the Soviets. Both of those entities also focused mostly on economic aid and intrastate trade law, with military defense being only one of their aspects. And even then, NATO and COMINTERN weren't "The sides" because there were larger more loosely defined alliances ... For example, even after the Sino-Soviet split the PRC occasionally worked with the Soviets for pragmatic reasons despite both claiming that the other was an unspeakable demon-state which was perverting the words of Marx. If the only reason, or even the PRIMARY reason for war was politics, we shouldn't see nationstates behaving in this way at all. On the NATO side we had nations like Finland who weren't part of NATO but were clearly part of the "US Side" in that they were anti-Soviet and collaborated with us in many ways.

If the sides were PRIMARILY political in nature, Yugoslavia would not have been at odds with the Soviets and the Caucasus region would not have been aligned with them (deeply religious area, full of devout Christians and Muslims. Chechnya is there.) The only reason the top decision-makers on both sides cared so much about politics is because it was a tribal marker that identified you as blindly loyal and willing to compromise your principles for handouts from a bigger country which meant you were a good pawn to give tasks to. This is why Yugoslavia was hated by the Soviet administration, it was a horrible pawn and constantly insisted on making it's own choices.

And yes, there were many American leaders who thought they were on a crusade from god and who still think this and their reasoning is clearly political. In the USSR there was many who clearly believed in the Soviet Project, and their reasoning was political. But what do these all have in common? They were the tools of their masters to be used and manipulated in endless resource wars. They were the pretty mask over the rotting face of the authoritarian corpse.

[Kubra]

Ah, war is the most effective method, insofar as other methods have proved wanting. We'll make a Clausewitzian out of you yet!

And what are these "sides"? we are of course to assume the western world, NATO, and the eastern, the Warsaw Pact/COMECON, yes?

No, that is literally not what I said. I said war is the most effective socially acceptable method. The most effective method of denying Russia a pipeline would be to irradiate the area to the point where it was not capable of sustaining life, which would not be an act of war but an act of geo-engineering and genocide, simply because the Afghans would have no conceivable way to resist it.


COMECON and WSP did not include all of the nations that were aligned with the Soviets. Both of those entities also focused mostly on economic aid and intrastate trade law, with military defense being only one of their aspects. And even then, NATO and COMINTERN weren't "The sides" because there were larger more loosely defined alliances ... For example, even after the Sino-Soviet split the PRC occasionally worked with the Soviets for pragmatic reasons despite both claiming that the other was an unspeakable demon-state which was perverting the words of Marx. If the only reason, or even the PRIMARY reason for war was politics, we shouldn't see nationstates behaving in this way at all. On the NATO side we had nations like Finland who weren't part of NATO but were clearly part of the "US Side" in that they were anti-Soviet and collaborated with us in many ways.

If the sides were PRIMARILY political in nature, Yugoslavia would not have been at odds with the Soviets and the Caucasus region would not have been aligned with them (deeply religious area, full of devout Christians and Muslims. Chechnya is there.) The only reason the top decision-makers on both sides cared so much about politics is because it was a tribal marker that identified you as blindly loyal and willing to compromise your principles for handouts from a bigger country which meant you were a good pawn to give tasks to. This is why Yugoslavia was hated by the Soviet administration, it was a horrible pawn and constantly insisted on making it's own choices.

And yes, there were many American leaders who thought they were on a crusade from god and who still think this and their reasoning is clearly political. In the USSR there was many who clearly believed in the Soviet Project, and their reasoning was political. But what do these all have in common? They were the tools of their masters to be used and manipulated in endless resource wars. They were the pretty mask over the decaying face of Authoritarianism.

Well that's a bit much, surely we could simply annex the place as an insular territory without a path to statehood. Then it'd be a lot easier to throw money and soldiers at the war, no?

Yugoslavia? The guys who headed their own little entente of the NAM? On the Soviet side?
And hey, these russia fellows seem pretty formidable if we have to go to such lengths to contain them. Why not join em instead and antagonize those useless lumps in Europe? Lotta good dosh to be had doing that, they on two fronts.
a different line of questioning is necessary: what do you think is "politics"?

[Kaltovar]

] Well that's a bit much, surely we could simply annex the place as an insular territory without a path to statehood. Then it'd be a lot easier to throw money and soldiers at the war, no?

Yugoslavia? The guys who headed their own little entente of the NAM? On the Soviet side?
a different line of questioning is necessary: what do you think is "politics"?

An annexation would be infinitely less efficient and a massive drain on our resources requiring a constant military presence, deployment of FBI and Sherrifs' Department assets, creation of several District Agencies and a Governor of Afghanistan, and extension of our welfare systems to include a nation which hasn't had decent medical care in it's entire history and has many people who would need emergency treatment. That is not efficient. An irradiation and carpetseeding of mines is a onetime deal with potential for occasional renewals.


You ... You have literally no idea about Yugoslavian history, do you? There was even a period where they tried to join NATO because of how much they hated with the Soviets, but after a couple years of trying they got disillusioned with the west too. That is why they lead a "Little Entente", which was not "On the Soviet side" but "On the side of non-aligned nations who also happen to believe in Marx but don't want Stalin telling them how to breath". The idea that they were "On the Soviet Side" is literal, actual NATO propaganda which you (I will presume a Marxist of some description, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) are now unironically parroting.

What do I think is politics? I think politics is a subjective term humans invented which can mean a great number of things, and that debating what they are is pointless and a sign that the participants lack understanding. I think you even asking me what I think politics are shows that you did not read my previous responses in good faith, because I've already explained that to you.

Since you're probably going to insist on discussing it anyways, I'll tell you that my personal definition is "actions which are chiefly aimed at altering the way in which a particular government or institution behaves, or preserving it's current behavior." - I do not accept the common use of the word politics in the context of when a weapons-system is cancelled and a general sighs and says "Politics ... ", to me that is just corruption disguised as politics. In fact, I think there's far more things out there calling themselves politics than should be reasonably defined as political (although remember, I think the entire exercise of defining what politics are is absurd anyways ... But if we WERE to get into that business). Like the Afghanistan war, for example -- Denying the Russians material resources under the guise of a political war on terror.

[Kubra]

] Well that's a bit much, surely we could simply annex the place as an insular territory without a path to statehood. Then it'd be a lot easier to throw money and soldiers at the war, no?

Yugoslavia? The guys who headed their own little entente of the NAM? On the Soviet side?
a different line of questioning is necessary: what do you think is "politics"?

An annexation would be infinitely less efficient and a massive drain on our resources requiring a constant military presence, deployment of FBI and Sherrifs' Department assets, creation of several District Agencies and a Governor of Afghanistan, and extension of our welfare systems to include a nation which hasn't had decent medical care in it's entire history and has many people who would need emergency treatment. That is not efficient. An irradiation and carpetseeding of mines is a onetime deal with potential for occasional renewals.


You ... You have literally no idea about Yugoslavian history, do you? There was even a period where they tried to join NATO because of how much they hated with the Soviets, but after a couple years of trying they got disillusioned with the west too. That is why they lead a "Little Entente". The idea that they were "On the Soviet Side" is literal, actual NATO propaganda which you (I will presume a Marxist of some description, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) are now unironically parroting.

What do I think is politics? I think politics is a subjective term humans invented which can mean a great number of things, and that debating what they are is pointless and a sign that the participants lack understanding. I think you even asking me what I think politics are shows that you did not read my previous responses in good faith, because I've already explained that to you.

Since you're probably going to insist on discussing it anyways, I'll tell you that my personal definition is "actions which are chiefly aimed at altering the way in which a particular government or institution behaves, or preserving it's current behavior." - I do not accept the common use of the word politics in the context of when a weapons-system is cancelled and a general sighs and says "Politics ... ", to me that is just corruption disguised as politics. In fact, I think there's far more things out there calling themselves politics than should be reasonably defined as political. Like the Afghanistan war, for example -- Denying the Russians material resources under the guise of a political war on terror.

we didn't do that in the Philippines, devil knows why we'd have to do it here. As for constant military presence, well...

So, in short, they were not on the Soviet side? That aside, I wasn't aware Nasser was a marxist.

Man, you like Prussia, don't you? All I've done is paraphrase one of the most famous Prussians around, and you can therefore imagine my surprise at this pushback. I mean, with the Prussia and Germany having a good few wars for resources and such while teaching the guy, I'm certainly under assumption that they acknowledged the political dimensions of resource competition. Is that an unreasonable assertion? I mean if two political parties differ on a proposed healthcare plan, this is no doubt a political problem involving resource distribution, no?

[Kaltovar]

So, in short, they were not on the Soviet side?

Man, you like Prussia, don't you? All I've done is paraphrase one of the most famous Prussians around, and you can therefore imagine my surprise at this pushback. I mean, with the Prussia and Germany having a good few wars for resources and such while teaching the guy, I'm certainly under assumption that they acknowledged the political dimensions of resource competition. Is that an unreasonable assertion?

I'm pushing back because while I like Prussia (not least of which because it was an extremely progressive and racially inclusive society in it's golden age), I do not believe that systems invented in the middle ages are a good way to run a modern society. And I happen to know that military doctrine has advanced a lot in the past few thousand years.

We didn't do that in the Philippines because it's not socially acceptable, and we're not talking about NEED but MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. Have you even been paying attention to the words I'm using? Not to mention nuclear weapons didn't exist at the time, and neither did aerially deployed mines ... Presuming you're talking about the period I think you are, which was 1900-1945

The TL;DR wouldn't be that they weren't on the Soviet side, but would be: "They started off on the Soviet side, then had a falling out when Stalin tried to repeatedly murder Tito for not doing what he was told. Then they went independent for a while, then they tried to join NATO, then they went back to independent. Then eventually they settled down and took aid from both NATO and the Soviet bloc while playing the sides off each other kind of like how Turkey works today with us and Russia until a US President decided fuck them and then they got most of their handouts from the Soviets while gritting their teeth and refusing to do anything of consequence in return for it. Then the Soviets cancelled their aid for not being good little boys, and not long after the USSR fell apart." And that really is the TL;DR, the actual situation would be it's entire own forum thread that would probably take months to sort out and where we would both learn that we're wrong because Yugoslavia is a fucking unicorn that resists your attempts to defy it.

[Kubra]

So, in short, they were not on the Soviet side?

Man, you like Prussia, don't you? All I've done is paraphrase one of the most famous Prussians around, and you can therefore imagine my surprise at this pushback. I mean, with the Prussia and Germany having a good few wars for resources and such while teaching the guy, I'm certainly under assumption that they acknowledged the political dimensions of resource competition. Is that an unreasonable assertion?

I'm pushing back because while I like Prussia (not least of which because it was an extremely progressive and racially inclusive society in it's golden age), I do not believe that systems invented in the middle ages are a good way to run a modern society. And I happen to know that military doctrine has advanced a lot in the past few thousand years.

We didn't do that in the Philippines because it's not socially acceptable, have you even been paying attention to the words I'm using? Not to mention nuclear weapons didn't exist at the time, and neither did aerially deployed mines ... Presuming you're talking about the period I think you are, which was 1900-1945

The TL;DR wouldn't be that they weren't on the Soviet side, but would be: "They started off on the Soviet side, then had a falling out when Stalin tried to repeatedly murder Tito for not doing what he was told. Then they went independent for a while, then they tried to join NATO, then they went back to independent. Then eventually they settled down and took aid from both NATO and the Soviet bloc while playing the sides off each other kind of like how Turkey works today with us and Russia until a US President decided fuck them and then they got most of their handouts from the Soviets while gritting their teeth and refusing to do anything of consequence in return for it. Then the Soviets cancelled their aid for not being good little boys, and not long after the USSR fell apart." And that really is the TL;DR, the actual situation would be it's entire own forum thread that would probably take months to sort out and where we would both learn that we're wrong because Yugoslavia is a fucking unicorn that resists your attempts to defy it.

What do you suppose I said we didn't do in the Philippines?
Has it evolved? The bloke is still on west points curriculum, no?

In 1948. Quite quick, you see. And as per a later edit, I was not aware that Nasser was a Marxist.

I've merely tried to have you answer a question in an organic fashion. It's a very simple question: why do certain people join together for resources, compete with others for resources, and why do these populations change hands?

[Kaltovar]

What do you suppose I said we didn't do in the Philippines?
Has it evolved? The bloke is still on west points curriculum, no?

In 1948. Quite quick, you see. And as per a later edit, I was not aware that Nasser was a Marxist.

I've merely tried to have you answer a question in an organic fashion. It's a very simple question: why do certain people join together for resources, compete with others for resources, and why do these populations change hands?

I suppose that you said we didn't engage in geoengineering a genocide with carpetseeded mines and nuclear radiation.

Yes he is, as is Sun Tzu Julius Caesar and Erwin Rommel. Westpoint goes well out of it's way to study all history of war, so it's recruits will be less likely to be surprised when their enemy pulls some weird shit.

Cool, cluster munitions weren't invented until the 1970s.

That's not the question you've been asking, you've been repeatedly asking me what politics are and asserting that all war is politics.

It's also not one question, it could charitably be called two and uncharitably called three. So here are three answer:

1: More likely to succeed in greater numbers, and moving to another group of people is a large investment of resources which (unless you REALLY hate the people around you) defeats the entire purpose of banding together to compete for resources
2: The more resources you have, the less likely you are to die and the more likely you are to have an unlimited supply of prostitutes and cocaine (or whatever else makes you happy)
3: Because some people want to live in another country, usually for economic reasons. Sometimes people move for political reasons too, not liking the structure of the government in their local area and preferring another.

[Liriena]

Didn't the FBI director torpedo the whole rationale behind labelling antifa "domestic terrorists"?

[Kubra]

What do you suppose I said we didn't do in the Philippines?
Has it evolved? The bloke is still on west points curriculum, no?

In 1948. Quite quick, you see. And as per a later edit, I was not aware that Nasser was a Marxist.

I've merely tried to have you answer a question in an organic fashion. It's a very simple question: why do certain people join together for resources, compete with others for resources, and why do these populations change hands?

I suppose that you said we didn't engage in geoengineering a genocide with carpetseeded mines and nuclear radiation.

Yes he is, as is Sun Tzu Julius Caesar and Erwin Rommel. Westpoint goes well out of it's way to study all history of war, so it's recruits will be less likely to be surprised when their enemy pulls some weird shit.

Cool, cluster munitions weren't invented until the 1970s.

That's not the question you've been asking, you've been repeatedly asking me what politics are and asserting that all war is politics.

It's also not one question, it could charitably be called two and uncharitably called three. So here are three answer:

1: More likely to succeed in greater numbers, and moving to another group of people is a large investment of resources which (unless you REALLY hate the people around you) defeats the entire purpose of banding together to compete for resources
2: The more resources you have, the less likely you are to die and the more likely you are to have an unlimited supply of prostitutes and cocaine (or whatever else makes you happy)
3: Because some people want to live in another country, usually for economic reasons. Sometimes people move for political reasons too, not liking the structure of the government in their local area and preferring another.

Nope, that we didn't deploy civilian law enforcement, welfare systems, or a healthcare system. We did, however, annex it with no path to statehood.

Rommel? Caesar? We study their tactics and methods. Sun Tzu? Clausewitz? To explain the essence of war is a timeless thing. As I have said, in the periods before and after Clausewitz men have fought for resources, but men afterwards repeated his dictum's "war is the continuation of politics by other means.", "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." All the while, of course, fighting for land in the age of imperialism.

It is, of course, one question stated three ways: what is politics? Is what you have given not an apt description of politics?

That aside, you've misunderstood what I mean by population changing hands. It is to be understood as populations forming pacts with other populations and against others.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Didn't the FBI director torpedo the whole rationale behind labelling antifa "domestic terrorists"?

Sauce pls? Cuz this sounds spicy.

[Kaltovar]

Nope, that we didn't deploy civilian law enforcement, welfare systems, or a healthcare system. We did, however, annex it with no path to statehood.

Rommel? Caesar? We study their tactics and methods. Sun Tzu? Clausewitz? To explain the essence of war is a timeless thing. As I have said, in the periods before and after Clausewitz men have fought for resources, but men afterwards repeated his dictum's "war is the continuation of politics by other means.", "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." All the while, of course, fighting for land in the age of imperialism.

It is, of course, one question stated three ways: what is politics? Is what you have given not an apt description of politics?

That aside, you've misunderstood what I mean by population changing hands. It is to be understood as populations forming pacts with other populations and against others.

I notice your careful use of the word civilian, because as you know we DID deploy LEO there but they were MPs. We didn't have the laws we have today, and the laws we have today require us to give annexed territories most of the rights that states have including full US citizenship which would then entitle them to all of the benefits of US citizens. There is no legal basis to deny a US citizen full privileges because they're existing outside of a state. We also had no public healthcare of any kind at the time (Medicaid and Medicare is "Of a kind", just shitty), and I honestly do not know if welfare even existed yet.

Believe it or not, before you mentioned Clausewitz, I actually made a bet with somebody for five dollars that you were going to use that quote "war is the continuation of politics by other means." as part of your argument. I don't worship Clausewitz or Prussia simply because I admire aspects of both. I'm not obligated to agree with everything Clausewitz says, just like I'm not required to support the period in which it was illegal to publish materials in French because Freddy G's dad got butthurt one time. I do think there is really some wisdom to the quote, but pretending that war or politics are simple enough to be summarized in a single sentence really misses the point of Sun Tzu and his "Essence of war" that you apparently understand so well. Sun Tzu views politics as an aspect of war and subordinate to it, with war itself being subordinate to and a function of the state. It is however in direct contrast with Clausewitz, who views neither as subordinate but both as equal parts of the same whole.

So which of these people distilled the correct "Essence of war", and which is a liar? My view is that they both propose models of reality and that both models provide useful insight, but that pretending a model is actually the real world that it claims to represent is like trying to navigate to India using a Columbian-Era map and then wondering why you rammed into New York half way through the trip.

I DO think that the idea "War is politics through other means" can be used to explain many conflicts through human history, but not all of them, and I'm realizing that I'm defending a position that I don't hold: That war is ONLY for resources. What I should be saying is that "I think sometimes war is only for resources and pretending it's for something else gives the belligerents way too much credit." ... You'll notice I already admitted that Afghans don't fight for resources, but politics.

I just think saying every single instance of war arises out of politics is a limited view that warps your ability to independently assess the real reasons for a given conflict ... Because you will always be far more likely to seek a political narrative, when there are many times that a certain critical resource is actually why the political groups were able to get the people who make decisions about where to bomb on their side.

The Pentagon is a great example ... You have a ton of Republicans crammed in sardine can together, and what do they decide after just a few years of thinking on it? That climate change is an existential national security risk, for which they got called "Bleeding Heart Liberals" by Fox News. If their primary concern was politics and not resources, shouldn't they be more likely to tow their party line?

[Kaltovar]

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I'm very upset that Puerto Rico and Samoa aren't states yet.

And honestly, I wish we had accepted Liberia and the Phillipines when they applied for statehood.

Extensions of full rights and patriotic duties to new populations makes me happy, as does giving them a reason to stand on my side if another big international resource war breaks out.

[Kubra]

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I'm very upset that Puerto Rico and Samoa aren't states yet.

And honestly, I wish we had accepted Liberia and the Phillipines when they applied for statehood.

Extensions of full rights and patriotic duties to new populations makes me happy, as does giving them a reason to stand on my side if another big international resource war breaks out.

the Philippines never applied for statehood. I mean, it was kind of conquered, so even if there was a path to statehood it would have probably not been taken.
And in any case, why take in another group of resource-consumers?

[Liriena]

Didn't the FBI director torpedo the whole rationale behind labelling antifa "domestic terrorists"?

Sauce pls? Cuz this sounds spicy.

https://reason.com/2019/07/24/ted-cruz- ... y-the-fbi/

FBI Director Christopher Wray told Cruz the agency is "absolutely concerned about violence committed on behalf of any ideology." But "the key there," said Wray, is that "the FBI doesn't investigate ideology, we investigate violent criminal activity."