I agree with you. Smut is boring. Long live the plot readers! I want a story to continue when I can't get more of the movie/book/anime/whateverfandomthingI'mobsessingabout.
On the war: I have this very skewed philosophy that works from a perspective that refuses to argue on behalf of U.S. interests. Personally, I'm opposed to the war because I want global politics to move towards the gradual elimination of national sovereignty in return for supranational governments. More power to the UN, etc. Religiously I don't sanction war, but it's sort of like my opinions on abortion—my morals forbid me from getting an abortion or participating in war, but I don't believe that morals should be imposed on government actions at all. So I'm not really opposed to the war on a moral stance, because I believe morality has no place in politics. I don't like this war because it creates a horrible situation historically. If this war is long and painful, with lots of American casualties, then America will return to the Monroe Doctrine and no longer attempt any preemptive measures again. If this war is successful, it sets a precedent for preemptive strikes by the U.S. which will completely discredit the UN and make it even more nonfunctional than it already is. (Preemptive strikes, despite all of Dubya's word bandying, is against the UN charter.) In short, either we have tragedy for American soldiers or a complete setback for the trend to internationalization. It's a historical disaster no matter which way you view it. I'm sure going to war with Iraq will defend American interests. That's what war does. Peace, truly long-term and global peace, always contradicts immediate interests. Think Locke and Hobbes on a national level: instead of individuals in a state of nature, we have nations in a state of nature. Just as individuals must subordinate their individual interests to the government in order to live in a social state, I believe that nations too must subordinate their interests to a larger international government. This will maintain peace, just as governments (functioning governments, I mean) prevent dog-eat-dog anarchy and disorder. But this will inevitably contradict national interests.
What I'm trying to say in my usual rambling way is: you're perfectly right, this war is good for the U.S. in terms of short-term interests. (Short-term being 10 or 15 years, long-term being centuries.) Your argument about WWII is perfectly valid. Peace is bad for the U.S. in that sense. Nevertheless, I maintain my opposition to this war on terms of a historical imperative which probably exists only in my imagination.
Still, trends are hard to change, and if we really are heading for a more international era, U.S. power will end up being checked in some other fashion. For example, all the international opposition to this war will damage U.S. political influence overseas considerably. It'll be a lot more chaotic, but history is conservative and to a certain degree almost deterministic. If things are meant to be, a war with Iraq won't considerably alter the final result. If things weren't meant to be, a war with Iraq is only historical fulfillment.
Isn't this an even better way to offend people? Declaring that you don't care about U.S. national interests....heh. In any case, I agree with your arguments about the war, but they have led me to vastly different conclusions. Ah...the pitfalls of being an armchair theorist...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-03-18 01:29 pm (UTC)On the war: I have this very skewed philosophy that works from a perspective that refuses to argue on behalf of U.S. interests. Personally, I'm opposed to the war because I want global politics to move towards the gradual elimination of national sovereignty in return for supranational governments. More power to the UN, etc. Religiously I don't sanction war, but it's sort of like my opinions on abortion—my morals forbid me from getting an abortion or participating in war, but I don't believe that morals should be imposed on government actions at all. So I'm not really opposed to the war on a moral stance, because I believe morality has no place in politics. I don't like this war because it creates a horrible situation historically. If this war is long and painful, with lots of American casualties, then America will return to the Monroe Doctrine and no longer attempt any preemptive measures again. If this war is successful, it sets a precedent for preemptive strikes by the U.S. which will completely discredit the UN and make it even more nonfunctional than it already is. (Preemptive strikes, despite all of Dubya's word bandying, is against the UN charter.) In short, either we have tragedy for American soldiers or a complete setback for the trend to internationalization. It's a historical disaster no matter which way you view it. I'm sure going to war with Iraq will defend American interests. That's what war does. Peace, truly long-term and global peace, always contradicts immediate interests. Think Locke and Hobbes on a national level: instead of individuals in a state of nature, we have nations in a state of nature. Just as individuals must subordinate their individual interests to the government in order to live in a social state, I believe that nations too must subordinate their interests to a larger international government. This will maintain peace, just as governments (functioning governments, I mean) prevent dog-eat-dog anarchy and disorder. But this will inevitably contradict national interests.
What I'm trying to say in my usual rambling way is: you're perfectly right, this war is good for the U.S. in terms of short-term interests. (Short-term being 10 or 15 years, long-term being centuries.) Your argument about WWII is perfectly valid. Peace is bad for the U.S. in that sense. Nevertheless, I maintain my opposition to this war on terms of a historical imperative which probably exists only in my imagination.
Still, trends are hard to change, and if we really are heading for a more international era, U.S. power will end up being checked in some other fashion. For example, all the international opposition to this war will damage U.S. political influence overseas considerably. It'll be a lot more chaotic, but history is conservative and to a certain degree almost deterministic. If things are meant to be, a war with Iraq won't considerably alter the final result. If things weren't meant to be, a war with Iraq is only historical fulfillment.
Isn't this an even better way to offend people? Declaring that you don't care about U.S. national interests....heh. In any case, I agree with your arguments about the war, but they have led me to vastly different conclusions. Ah...the pitfalls of being an armchair theorist...
...Tari