IRC log started Fri Apr 19 22:09 Welcome to tonight's scheduled discussion on #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to bring to your notice that: 1) Discussions on this channel are copyrighted by myself and Pankaj Saxena (Subetai). You may log the discussion for your own personal use, but you may not redistribute it in any form whatsoever without written permission from the channel owners. 2) The discussion will be held in keyword-mode. If there is someone you would like to invite to the channel during the discussion, please message them the keyword. Now, let's begin toinght's discussion. I am assuming that you are all aware of the recent events in China and Taiwan. What we will be discussing here tonight is US foreign policy and what effect if has on situations like this and others like it. First, what is Clinton's China policy? Does he even have one? Clinton gave China MFN as I recall Wright: Clinton's policy on China is like everything else...a non-*policy*. (Betsy and PhilTwo are lagged by about five minutes to me.) Clay: No, he just maintained it. Tym: Explain He rarely seems to have a foregn policy other than react to what other countries do TomR, ok, right He wants to avoid confrontation with China. That dictates his foreign policy. He non-acts until forced to act Non-confrontation is a good assesment. "Don't get them too much madder" He's not forced to act, he chooses to act Clinton's does his best not to offend anyone, hence the conflicting action. Clinton couldnf't take a stand even if it wasn't bolted down. but it still is a reaction to, in this case, China's refusal to tolerate Tawain selfdetermination That's in all of his policies, not just China. Clinton's non-action remains in effect until crises emerge Betsy: Hmmm...hope that's all it is...guess I should have kept up ;) His policy is self-perpetuating crisis management For human beings, there is no non-action, there is the choice to do one thing or another Hmm. So is that all it is? A policy of neglect? The current foreign policy of the US is to appease everyone except our allies. or is there any policy as such? but for the past several decades US foreigh policy has been confrontaton avoidance - i.e. compromise and givng up eveything to anyy thug who waves a fist. Tom , appease the people who can, may and will hurt us If he has a policy, it's appeasement Wright: No policy as such...just range of the moment pramatism. Clinton thinks we need China, hence their treatment with kid gloves. However, it wouldn't look good to abandon a free (by Chinese standards) nation either. joe_: has it? what about the Gulf War? I agree with TomM. Wright: The Gulf War was an appeasement as well. The policy then is the policy of apologizing for being a superpower TomR: If that is so, why did he finally agree to send ships to Taiwan? TomM, I agree, it's just a question of who was being appeased in the gulf Tom: An appeaswmwnt of whom? Ousey: Actually, that may be right...according to Clinton "ethics", the status of the US is a shame. Wright: Read my second sentence. w=e Wright: An appeasement to altruists. Tom: Sorry The Gulf War was part of the security arrangment that kept low oil prices during the 80s Wright: But especially to collectivists. ...which helped bankrupt the Soviets more quickly Wright: He still didn't try to send ships through the Taiwanese Strait, even though they are clearly international waters. China claims they are off limits though. wright: the gulf war was a disaster! the outcome was a fiasco (saddam still in poower), and the excecution of the war was also a disaster - putting US forces in the desert fo a week without air cover while pleading with the saudis to allow the use of air fields (even thoughthere was a huge brand new unused airport in the area). and the only reason Bush put a deadline is because of the weather TomM: Well, we can return to the Gulf later, so to speak back to China... What philosophy underlies his actions with regard to foreign policy? his=Clinton's he has one? Range of the moment Wright: You're looking for a philosophy? You must not have been keeping up with the news ;) Someone already said it once Clinton is merely perpetuating a bad policy initiated by Nixon and supported by every president since. Pragmatism, Pacifism Thank you gilles! idealist-subjectivist-altruist-pragmatist Ousey: I think not :[ I would think Pragmatism, but that seems to be insulting Pragmatism. :) TomR: I agree. Nixon? I thought it was Johnson who started this line of policy Clinton is not a pacifist he'll fight if it serves his purposes Nixon is the one who visited China. Nothing ever seems to, unless it effects *him* personally (like his chance of getting reelected) Okay, that was an easy one.. now for something a bit more difficult If you stand up to China too strongly, you would alienate a lot of business interests in this country. That won't help your reelection chances. What will the result of this policy be? Inconsistency Wright: The results will be the overthrow of Taiwan in due time...rather quickly. Tom =-= true - but election chances != the right thing to do Or, what will China do in the face of this policy? it'll encourage China (and every other dictator) to make demands In 1971 Taiwan was barred from the UN, The World Bank, and the IMF In 1979, the US broke w/ Taiwan officially China will invade in pure Chinese fasion (mass quantities of troops) A Chinese invasion of Taiwan doesn't seem likely to me.. If China does invade, what should the US do? Should we defend Taiwan with military force? They don't have the sea forces to mount an assult if I rememebr right? Clay: It won't have to be an invasion...most likely, merrely an elective overthrow. even for China, it seems it would be too costly It shows that all the high level moralizing shown by the US in the Gulf War was a sham, and when it came to a larger, stronger country, the US chose to be "practical" rather than "moral". That's not to say that the US owes it to Taiwan to protect it militarily. China will invade if they see anything to be gained by it. If Taiwan makes more serious noises about becoming independent, it could happen. An elective overthrow, coupled with a plea for "justice" that the Chinese government would answer Taiwan should be defended. What kind of government does Taiwan have? TomM, do you mean a "knuckling over"? Wright: I'm not sure what is in our interest regarding Taiwan, so I don't know if we should defend them militarily. Taiwan *must* be defended Clay: democratic. Not a whole lot of political freedom by western standards, but lots of economic freedom. joe_: It would be better if we just sold the Taiwanese what they needed to defend themselves. They can afford it. kpart: Sure...Does Tawain ahve any means of self-defense? especially if no other country comes to their aid? Clay: It was originally a freer dictatorship than the mainland, but they just had their first free elections a few weeks ago. An elective overthrow seems really unlikely, considering the recent Taiwan elections Ousey: Why? TomM, we sell thjem weapons but I don't think they are comparable in numbers to the mainlanders certainly not Because other powers in the region want it TomM: they have a samll army, with mainly US weapons Subetai, that was the impression that my reading lent, that seems typical of many new democracies in Asia kpart: Numbers don't really matter per se. TomM: They have F-16s. and a small airforce, with US planes The alternative is Japan being the defender, and some Asian-Pacific countries are more afraid of the Japanese than either China, or the US Get this: my company sells equipment to the mainland as well as military equipment to Taiwan. They're hedging their bets. :) What is our interest in protecting Taiwan Wright: Well, let's hope they know how to use them. Clay: yes, it's true of singapore and south korea as well. Hong Kong is freer - the British influence, probably. Our interest in Taiwan is maintaining the security of the Pacific rim trading area Not for long, Sube :-/ haven't you been seeing the "The Times" clippings I've been to the channel from time to time? Taiwan is a freer nation.. it is in our interest to promote liberty throughout the world, it makes the world a safer place :) Wright: The protection of a free market with which the US does much business. Ousey: That may be a good battle cry, but I'm not sure. Wright: They are a very important trading partner, even though we all but ignored them diplomatically for years. China is also a tradidng "partner". Of course, some businessmen would say that China is a more important market There is an embassy of "retired" diplomats at Taiwan... China is *not* a market What are the facts? well, a meat market, maybe If Taiwan falls, its economic impacts will be one thing, the other small nations will look to someone else for security and cut us out of the loop Clay: why not? Goods are bought and sold there Don't think it 's gonna happen what's the trade ballance like with china? heavily in our favor, no? may do a lot to lessen the "trade deficit" <> TomMiovas thinks China will go the way of the Soviet Union...although perhaps a bit more slowly. Wright: China's not a free market. They're a large country, but doing business with China is uncertain and risky. People are scared of investing in a country where the government is liable to make arbitrary rules any time. Could someone tell me what business the US does with China? Wright, goods produced by slave labor Lurch: Trade "deficit" is a myth. Tom - you note I used quotes? Lurch: Just emphasising. hokay I never saw numbers on our trade with China. I know it's about less than one percent of our GDP, while we're about 9% of theirs. Gilles: Much of the cheap electronic stuff, etc. that used to be made in Taiwan is now made in China and imported to this country. Hmm, then why do so many compamnies do business in China? -m Wright: They see it as an opening market. The cost of doing business with China is relatively cheap, and the market is relatively large gilles: Aircraft companies sell to China. Wright: Because they have a 12% growth rate, labor is cheap, and there's still money to be made. Yes, they see it as worth the risk if they can get away with it, but every once in a while China goes and nationalizes another business and loots it All right, we could discuss this all night, but there are a few other things to cover Compare China policy to foreign policy in other cases. e.g. Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc.? Are they treated differenty than China? If so, why? They think because of the huge population it's worth investing in, but most of these people are dirt poor. Wright: China is treated with kid gloves...perhaps because it is so large, and the last outpost of big communism. How do the Chinese have any money to buy our products? Isn't it a very poor country? North Korea and Cuba, definitely. Russia not so much anymore. gilles, b/c China has a population w/ four times as many people to loot as the US has gilles: they aren't really buying as such right now...just manufacturing. China's a potential goldmine, economically, if they loosen up their system. Plus they've got the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world. So definitely, they're treated differently from Cuba and N. Korea. US and western FP is consistent: cave in to the thugs, sell out the free countries. The lack of wealth of a county does not preclude it as a trade partner.. remind me to talk about comparitive advantange Russia is treated in a similar fasion, if you substitute Eastern Europe for the Pacific Rim. Subetai: Exactly. Cuba is allegedly liberalizing, but I think Clinton doesn't want to offend the Cuban refugees in Florida, a key swing state. China isn't very poor. The GDP is unpublished, but it's probably 3rd or 4th in the world. Large middle class that can buy non-luxury items. Maybe it's also a matter of having a hostile country only 90 miles away from your shore. Tom: You're not suggesting that we should open relations with Cuba, are you? North Korea, on the other hand, has been Stalinist from the get-go. No opportunities there. Wright: Of course not. I'm just trying to figure out the reasons (if any) of why our policy towards Cuba is different. I'd say that the reason China is treated so nicely is the pragmatism of American companies American companies should boycot China. they see money to be made there, so the pressure the gov't to play nice gilles: they should...but their pragmatism would prevent it. Well, American companies helped build the Soviet Union, so why should China be any different? :P By the way...what's the status of Italy? Italy? Why do you ask? They don't see the implications of what they are doing.. to the pramatist, China is just another market +g Wright: It's not that simple. China's a large military presence in the far east. The US Navy's 6th and 7th fleets in the Indian Ocean and along the Pacific Rim are wary of doing anything to disrupt their power there. TomR: We are currently doding some business with Italian companies...and I don't know a thing about Italy. That part of the world is economically important but politically volatile. Sube: I'm not talking about military action Wright: I'm talking about why the US is nice to China. We can't even take away preferred trade status from these monsters Just as a side note, a co-worker of mine who has gone to China on several business trips said the Chinese are absolute gangsters in business dealings. Military power does not explain that Wright: It's quite sickening. MFN status has to be revokable, Tom And, our trade is helping them to modernize their military Wright: It does, partly. Taking away MFN status makes the Chinese angry and recalcitrant, as has been seen in the past when it came up. Bill: It is Wright: One of many reasons we should stop now...but the US gov won't. They even violate US copyright laws left and right. Sube: By trade, we are simply strengthening them TomR: Maybe they'll steal _Atlas Shrugged_ ;) Clinton will never revoke it in an election year. :P Wright: I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out why it's so. In response to your statement that American business takes the blame squarely. TomR: Only because it would be a self-defeating crime ;) He would only do it if there was a strong Chinese refugee vote. :) Tom: If Bush couldn't revoke it after the Bejing Massacre in '89, Clinton never will TomR: I meant that as a follow-up to stealing Atlas. Pointing out that there are reasons why politicians are willing to go along, besides any pressure from American businessmen. Sube: Point takes taken Okay, now that we've seen the wrong way, what is the right way? What would be a rational, moral China policy? More broadly, what is the basis for such a foreign policy in general? Wright: You're probably right, but Bush had some ties to China Clinton doesn't, if that means anything. :/ Foreign policy should be: Uphold only capitalist countries...disdain all the rest. Diplomatic isolation would be the first thing. Businessman would be free to deal with them, but with no US government back-up. An embargo might not be necessary, but no loan guarantees should be given. Do what you can to strengthen free economies and free political systems anywhere in the world, at least through political and economic pressure. Back that up with military strength if American interests are directly threatened. (in general) Should businessmen be free to deal with bad countries? Subetai: Agreed. Restore ties with Taiwan. tomM, tomR: I most strongly disagree. US business should *not* be allowed to deal with murderers, especially those who pose a threat to the US. gilles: yes...so long as we are not at war with them, why not? Gillies. Deal with people who deal in stolen goods? Kpart: People who deal in stolen goods from other countries. That's my question. joe: Not with the murderers, of couse, but with individual Chinese businessman would be fine. TomM: We were not at "war" with the Soviets? Does that mean it would've been okay for IBM to sell them computers? TomM: indivdual chinese businessmen!?!?! TomM: If you can find one. Wright: sure, so long as it does dnot put us at threat. I would put restrictions on the technology we sell to them at least. I think American businessmen should be free to trade with whomever they please, unless such dealings affect the security of the US. A state of war would be an example of where US security is threatened. TomR: Sure, it should dnot be permitted to sell them anything that would put us at threat. Hmm. But wouldn't any action benificial to our enemy hurt us? the only reason we should not be at full scale war with China is because the risks are too high. therefore, the next best thing is to impose an embargo, i.e. a boycott, with other countries being pressured also to boycott. Wright: It would benefit the individuals only...don't deal with the country per se. yes - just like we traded with Iraq, and during the war faced many artilery pieces manufactured in Indiana Should we have sold them grain? Wright: Forget the "we" and I say yes. Subetai: the very existence of a dictatorship of anysize is a threat to the US. joe: Then declare a state of war. Tom: Even though this prolonged the existance of the country and the threat to our lives? war not need imply guns (directly) <> TomMiovas is not in favor of boycots...but if anyone deals with dictators, he should not have the back-up of the US military. But meddling with business under a perceived threat that the government is too sissy to do something about isn't right. Joe: Dictatorships are not all threatening to us. Wright: Don't sell **to the country** but only to those individual persons willing to take the risk. Sub: no, because that would invite violence, as would a blockade. I advocate an embargo, which does not involve force against the dictatorship. I think that dealings with the Soviets presented a definite threat TomM, or underwriting if they are "nationalized" kpart: yes. TomR: not immediately, but potentially and in the long run (e.g., Sudan can fund terrorists) Where are Baz, Lisa, and Jon?? And is Yael around? Tom: In this case, there was no difference <> NathanJ pouts. joe: I'm not looking at it from the point of view of "what would hurt China?". I'm looking at it from the point of view of what the US government can tell its citizens to do, and for what reason. Hi. Thanks. <> TomMiovas thinks it's a good thing we can all read gibberese, when necessary. ;) TomR: In a collectivist country the term individaul person or businessman have no meaning. what individual would you have sold to in the USSR? other than through the black market Subetai: That's my question too. Sub: ok, my point is that the US govt. should not only tell but *force* its citizens to not trade with china. Joe: If they do have actual threatening intentions, they should be attacked. But, to give an example, Chile was never a threat to the US. That was for TomM. Subetai: the government has a right to prevent traffic in stolen goods. that's what trade with China amounts to. Wright: That's what I mean...don't sell to the country , but only to individual black marketeers. Axiom: I agree. Ghaki: You have to prove that, Subetai: If an American businessman deals with a foreign murderer, he's not violating the rights of Americans. But does he lose his rights with respect to the American government? Ghaki: There is a big difference in buying the nationally sanctioned goods...and buying form individuals on the black market. Tom: That's an entirely different thing from the grain sales to the USSR TomM: black marketeers thrive by paying off the govt. gilles: i would say yes to that. gilles: He can't turn to the US govt for help if they steal his money, if that's what you mean. joe: You can not enforce a trade embargo without a hell of a lot of US dollars...so the best solution would be to tell american companies that the US gov will not back up their claims (if nationalised, etc.). Ghaki: Why? The function of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens. There are black marketeers in Taiwan and South Korea too. There was a black market in alcohol in the US. There still is one in cigarettes. The problem with China is primarily that it is not *politically* free. If you deny loan guarantees for China and these companies, I really doubt that many of them will want to trade anymore TomR: There's that too. gilles: I disagree. trading with a foreign murderer strengthens him, and potentially puts US at risk. The funds from any sale, black or not, will find its way to the government in a context like China. No. Subetai: No, I mean can the U.S. government forcibly prevent him from dealing with the murderers. Oh. Of course it can. Oops. Axiom: Until the US government recognises a country as a military threat, and treats it as such, the US citizens ahve the right to trade with individuals of that cofuntry. joe_ You disagree with what? I didn't say anything. I was asking a question. Of course, the US gov should protect such a persons life, but not anything else. I don't believe that one nation has any place taking an official role of liberator. JVC: True. TomM: what's so expensive? you pass a law that says no trade. that's it. Economic sanctions are often used for that purpose. joe: Yeah, right! TomM: I agree, I have a hard time with it morally though. Axiom: Well, one must differentiate between dealing officially with the country, and dealing with individuals of that country. joe_ Oh, sorry, I see what you were referring to. Right. That's why I said oops.. joe: We have a law (many) that says: No dealing in drugs...obviously, that's all that is needed ;) TomM: Again in that context Individual loses its meaning. I further think that dropping embargos to statist nations that do not pose the kind of immediate threat that warrants an invasion only strengthens us and shows the people of such states what's possible beyond statism. While, we're at it, we should create a blockade around Cuba and get it over with already. :) gilles: i disagree with this: Subetai: If an American businessman deals with a foreign murderer, he's not violating the rights of Americans. TomMio.: Good point. This discussion is getting a bit silly... a ban on offical trade would have no effect on black market trade anyway Axiom: Not every citizen of a country agrees with its policy....admitedly, it would be a tough situation to be in, though. JVC: yesd, that's true. joe: That is true though. The foreign murderer violates no US laws. Subetai: Is there a difference between economic freedom and political freedom? TomM: Do they have the right to trade with the governments of that country? JVC: Yes. Just as when we attack an evil country some individuals may be hurt/killed in the process. But, one can't take the concept gov. out of context a gov. is comprised of people who are responsible for that gov. I would say: Don't deal with the murderers...but not evgery Chinaman is a murdereer just because it has goolags. Okay, say that they would have the legal right... that by no means makes it morally right joe: And if they don't threaten us, it would not be in our interests to get into a military confrontation. We can't go around self-sacrificially liberating the world. gilles: No...I've said that many times. JVC: You can't have economic freedom without political freedom...and a government up-holding individual righjts. There is a fundamental principle involved here that states that a proper government should not stop freely negotiated trade between to people. How does our government, even if it were more objective, draw the line between free trade and coerced trade among foreign businessmen? Wright: You can't hold everyone in a country responsible for that countries policies (except in time of war). Would any of you do business with a dictator? No. Wright: No, not with the dictator. <> Mencken avers to TomM that it tends to be the other way around. If economic freedom exists, it becomes possible to create a non-coercive political order. Rights exist and can be defined before a political apparatus is in place. joe: Could you explain why I'm wrong? Wright: No, it's morally wrong because it isn't in my own self-interest. Should a banker want to do business with a robber? well I think it's disgraceful how western countries sit by and watch free countries get swallowed up (Hong Kong, Lebanon) and bash the ones that try to defend themselves (e.g. Israel) TomR: That was my point <> Mencken notes that to a large extent (somewhat benign neglect) that's what happened under nominal British rule in Hong Kong. Menchen: Nope...the political sanction of private property must come first. It becomes terribly, terribly difficult to understand who in another country is worthy of trading with while remaining ethically correct, when its entire country and predominating culture are "messed up". Okay, back to the Gulf War.. was it in our national interest to fight it? If a person murders thousands or millions of people, do you think he would have any qualms about screwing you over in a business deal? I truly believe that the proper place for change for other countries among Americans is with individual, private American citizens, not America's government. Joe:? The *sanction* of private property must come first. But must that come through setting up a political structure? Many historical examples suggest that it can. The American colonies largely grew this way. TomR: Why do you guys insist that to deal with one chinaman means dealing with the dictator? Wright: Given our dependence on oil from the Middle East, yes. <> Mencken meant, many examples suggest that it can come without a political structure in place. It is only when another country becomes a clear threat to our national security that our government has the duty to protect its citizens with a military strike or any other kinds of political sanctions. gilles: that must be several screens back. Why, by the way, is this here and not in #AynRand? Marbury: I do. TomM, becasue in the typical dictatiorship has little reservation about seising private property. TomR: Technically, our oil comes mainly form south america, but a shut off of the middle east supply would raise prices drastically gilles: ? Wright: Point? kpart: Granted, but that is why such a business venture would be a high risk. The question is, is it possible to have free trade with individuals in a dictatorship? Wright: That Americans might "suffer" economically? That's not a direct threat, any more than the closing of an industrial plant in someone's town is. You can not separate a gov. from its people. Wright: Had we gone in to take back those oil fields...no problem...but that was not what the war was about. Hello Joe: Oh, okay. I understand now. Because We like it here? TomM: because the the chinesegovt. benefits! see atlas shrugged! how are these goods being produced? are they being produced by workers who freely contract to work in the factories that are managed by people who have started the company with their own capital? or are the workers slaves, and the owners the beneficiaries of government subsidies? Wright: I know. We only get 15% from the Middle East ourselves, but that is also a source that other countries depend on. If that dries up, it creates shortages elsewhere. joe: An american would ahve the right to trade with anyone of any country (so long as we are not at war). JVC: I'm sorry. what were you responding to? TomM: that's what the war *should* have been about. This goes back to our past discussionm on the treat of force. A dictatiorship exists under force. joe: Agreed. TomM: I most emphatically disagree. Wright: I was wondering why you pointed out that we would "suffer" economically if Mid-East oil were cut off. Those of you on OSG will be getting a weird test msg from me...looks like it didn't bounce (at elast not yet). TomM What was the war about then? You don't really take Bush at his word on that, do you? TomM and Joe: This is my question. You all must remember that a proper foreign policy is one that protects the nation's self-interest. Perhaps we should have discussed this sooner. TomR: Nations do not have "self-interests". JVC: of course we would suffer.. no quotes needed Wright: The Gulf War was about Bush acting like a big-wig behind approvale of the entire world. JVC: No, but the people who make up those nations do. Tom: No TomR: yes, the *purpose* of a rat. FP is to protect US interests; but what is the *standard* - freedom. perhpas partly, but the real reson was oil What many overlook about the OPEC countries is that they (narrowly) use U.S. dollars as the pricing standard for their oil. Iraq's taking over Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia, if they got to it) allowed the vote to go against that. reason JVC: Oh, then I should tell Peter Schwartz that he screwed up then. :) -then You didn't see Bush storming into Bosnia And if it did, U.S. firms would have to pay in foreign exchange, driving up costs. That was part of the rationale for protecting Kuwait. Many Bush people were candid about it. The Gulf War was "nominally" about stopping a dictator. There is a fundamental difference between economic suffering and political suffering. The two should not be equated. Peter Schwartz did an excellent essay on proper foreign policy. Also, there is good reson to speculate that the US had secret security arrangements with the Saudis. If they are, then things like plant closings and Mid-east oil gougings should be considered political attacks on human rights. JVC: So, if a dictator cuts off our oil, that's just too damn bad? wright: actually, those security arrangements were well known. Wright: I don't think that's speculation anymore. I thought they admitted they had signed treaties with the Saudis. I think one of the most pressing reasons the US got into the war - the only reason I've yet heard which fits all the facts of which I'm aware - is that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait set all of the Arab nations on edge. Instead of being at each other's throats in particular and united against Israel in general, they were suddenly allied with Israel as a potential target of attack by Iraq. Wright: Possible secret treaties, then, and propping up of a cartel that isn't as detested in D.C. as they admit publicly. Not much free trade involved, where I sit. Ghaki: oh? I wasn't aware Wright: Well, if the US had acknowledged that it was 8our* oil, it would ahve been different. Wright: Consider taking your logic to its conclusion. You own a factory. You discover it's more economically sound to move to Mexico. Thousands in one area lose their jobs. Political suffering? No. "Just too damn bad." Tom: it was, and Bush could never admit that TomM: It _was_ our oil. That oil was discovered by American companies. That is not the same and you know it TomR: *I* know that...tell it to Bush! ;) TomR: Who owned the wells? Where is the force in moving a factory? JVC: American companies who had their property nationalized. Well, bush didn't have a choice - he had to go in because of the large number of US citizens in the area (30,000?) plus huge US companies' assets. Weren't most of those claims of nominal ownership tossed out when regimes changed in Iran and Iraq? I don't recall Washington protesting such semi-nationalization too vigorously. Wright: The issue is economic; therein lies the analogy. JVC: Americans did, before they were nationalized. :P TomM: Then the Kuaties should have been invaded, too :) Mecken: No, it didnf't, but should have. JVC: Agreed. At least the Kuwaitis were reliable. JVC: so, it's not in our national interest to protect our supply of oil from dictators? <> TomMiovas thinks we are talking apst one another. past, even. Kuwait is not as bad as Iraq is. TomR: TomM: actually in saudi arabia the american companies (actually company, Aramco) were bought out, not nationalized, which is probably why US and Saudi Arabia are on good terms. Wright: If we owned it, then yes it is. I wasn't aware that the oil fields and refineries in question were rightly and legally American-owned. just an economic problem? Do you realize what would happen to us if the oil were forcibly cut off? joe: Ok, but I wasn't refering to Saudi. Some have said that with the proportion of national budget the U.S. pumps into Israel (higher than most states get from D.C.), it should be the 51st state de facto. If so, maybe Kuwait should be the 52nd. Joe_: Interesting. That changes things. Wright: We'd draw on our reserves for the next 80 years. Wright: Yeah. We'd be s*** out of luck. What if I owned all the oil in the world and did the same thing? I think this is why we had colonialism in the first place. :) TomM: yes, but we're talking past each other ;-) Wright: A lot of people would suffer economically. That doesn't give anyone the right to claim it from me. The fact that a dictator invaded another country gave us the moral right to act, but certainlly no obligation.. the oil wells made action in our national interest joe: We have reached a point of agreement ;) This would be good to discuss. Are colonies good for a country or not? JVC: we are NOT talking about taking something by force, rather restoring it to it's rightful owner, which also happend to be in our interests TomR: What are colonies? TomR: good if they can be kept with a minimum of military force. Wright: What makes you believe that a nation gains the obligation (much less the right) to defend another country from invasion? Doesn't it depend on whether our country is fundamentally at risk? Wright: Moral right to allow private militias to hire out as mercenaries to take back Kuwait, perhaps. Not a moral right to mulct the American taxpayers for it. Wright: I think what drove Bush was not national interest (he wouldn't know it if it hit him in his face) but merely the immediate need to protect civialians in the area. TomR that would be good for anoth er discussion Wright: What if, as Joe suggests, we didn't own it, but sold out to others? joe: You underrate Bush, I think. Not to say that I like the man We ended up being quasi-mercenaries, anyway: Kuwait paid for most of our costs, after the fact. If you introduce at least a modest amount of capitalism to a region and get a flow of goods from it, does that make up for the headache of trying to maintain it? I need to be going...interesting discussion. wright: how can Bush be underrated? he stopped 10 miles outside of baghdad! Mike: Like what countries had until just a few decades ago. The right comes from the lack of respect for rights Joe: Actually, they stopped over 150 miles short of Baghdad, except of course for the air strikes. Leave the question of taxes out of it for now, we all know taxes are immoral, but that is how the army is currently funded Dictatorships do not have any rights that we need to respect Here's an interesting question: under what conditions should the American government recognize the claim of an American to ownership of property in another country? put "rights" in quotes Wright: It's very much the point, though. Separating taxes from what they're used for is precisely part of the broken conceptual chain that allows such a burden on those who pay. If a military action is in the interests of the country, then it is proper for the army to be used Congress could simply have modified the Logan Act and let Exxon, Texaco, etc. help the Kuwaitis hire mercenaries. JVC: I'm not sure it can. Mencken: True. It's true that in considering taxes in foreign (and our own) countries puts thier governments in the roles of rights-violators. Does that give us the right to invade on behalf of non-Americans? You have yet to convince me that protecting the oil supply is not in our interest Cya. There is always the right.. that does not mean that we SHOULD do it I'm not even sure about the rights of Americans living in other countries. Well, "right" imples "should", or does it? no it does not JVC: Part of the problem is defining "us." Those who had property in Kuwait had every right to invade (or pay others) to get it back. Whether that made it fall on the U.S. taxpayer is another story. I mean they have rights, but I don't know whether we have the obligation to protect them. Of course, I believe Americans have every right to buy grenades and bazookas and send them over to other nations to supply their battles--Americans as individuals. There is no question of "rights" of dictatorships, as I said, they have none TomR: That's critical. The only moral queation there is what is in out national interests Wright: Does the U.S. government have "rights" in this sense? TomR: We don't, as citizens of a presumably free nation, have the duty to protect other people's rights, unless they seek assylum in America. Which brings me to the point of "protecting our borders". I strongly oppose the stopping of free immigration to the US. The only individuals have rights of course JVC: of course there should be free immigration Mencken: The government has obligations and powers, granted by its citizens. absoultely JVC: There would still be some restrictions on immigration, but definitely no quotas. that doesn't mean we allow the Mexican Army in :) Would the desideratum then be whether or not a country's citizens "granted" such obligations and powers, or not? That is, a representative govt. or not? Tom: what restrictions? Wright: Or spies. :) TomR: Right. I have nothing against a customs and registration agency, so long as its fundamentally registration, not permission. or people with infectious diseases yep.. we would always reserve the right to throw out the "bad apples" <> Mencken wants to discern what made a moral right fall upon the U.S. government, if anything, to carry out the Gulf War. Wright: You just gave an example. :) <> Mencken meant, the response to the Gulf War. Mencken: carefulm right, and duty are different If there was a justification for American participation in the Gulf War, it was not stated explicitly, as far as I know. e.g. The US would have the right to go to Bosnia, but of course it should not go Not by the government that carried it out, that is. Bush said it was to "liberate Kuwait." On several occasions. If the U.S. govt. gained a moral right to do so, I don't see where it came from. I'm doing some Web research on China trade. No surprise they have a trade deficit in grain... I'll see what else I can find. <> Wright gives up If you haven't gotten it by now dictatorships have no rights. any nation has a right to overthrow or boot out an invading dictatorship. geeze. JVC: defense of US personnel and assets. the right was always there... the moral decison can only consider US interests You said "The US would have the right to go to Bosnia". Where would that come from, even in a theoretical sense, if govts. as such have no rights? As far as I can tell, the Bosnia issue is simple. All sides of the strife are ethnic biggots involved in ethnic cleansing. None of the governments are worth saving, and amount to financial drains on America, if we get involved. perhaps my wording is not correct You can't save a country that doesn't want to accept the proper way of being saved. The US should have installed govts in Kuwait and Iraq. joe: oh, agreed joe: that depends on whether or not a notable degree of property was at stake. We still haven't established that amongst ourselves, here. which the citzens of those countries would have lovwd, BTW <> Mencken thinks that many evangelists could have told us that as well, JVC. :) Think of it this way... It is just as impossible to force rationality down irrational people's throats in Kuwait as it is in America. country X and country Y are trading partners Wright: Stop right there. Wright: What does that mean? JVC: I estimate US assets in the Gulf at $20 Billion, with US citizens numbering around 30,000. I'm seeing a breakdown of China's trade: Japan and Hong Kong seem to do the most business with China. trading partners? Yeah. What does it mean for one country to be a trading partner with another? just a way of saying that there is trade between the two countries Hell, even Taiwan exports more to China than we do. :P that's common usuage usage Ok. But "Country X" doesn't trade with "Country Y." Firms/indivs. trade with firms/indivs. Or in some cases, govt.-backed consortia. arrgh! Wright: What if the trade on one side is with criminals? Can't forget that possibility, as has been brought up. Of course! We all know that and that is totally irrelevant to the example <> Mencken apologizes if he missed some earlier-plowed conceptual ground, having shown up late for this soiree. Well, then, please do proceed with the example. yow, that was a big net split. <> Mencken wonders what he said to get them so mad. :) IRC log ended Sat Apr 20 00:03