Critics have long maintained that our obsession with technologically complex weapons inevitably yields unreliable systems produced in limited numbers because of their predictably high cost. They are furthermore likely to fail in combat because of the militaryâs lack of interest in adequate testing (lest realistic tests reveal serious shortcomings and thereby threaten the budget.) The unforgiving operational test provided by the Ukraine war has shown that the critics were absolutely right. Successive âgame changingâ systems - such as the Switchblade drone, the M-1 Abrams tank, Patriot air defense missiles, the M777 howitzer, the Excalibur guided 155 mm artillery round, the HIMARS precision missile, GPS-guided bombs, and Skydio drones endowed with artificial intelligence, were all dispatched to âthe fight,â as the military like to call it, with fanfare and high expectations.
Germany promptly follows suit, after politicians bribed by the military-industrial complex from all ends of NATO have started to cry out "the need" for days. - If you ask me, again, capitalism is risking to plunge the world into chaos for more financial gains of a select few.
"after politicians bribed by the military-industrial complex from all ends of NATO"
Germany promptly follows suit, after politicians bribed by the military-industrial complex from all ends of NATO have started to cry out "the need" for days. - If you ask me, again, capitalism is risking to plunge the world into chaos for more financial gains of a select few.
Sing it bro! that is precisely the problem with one-party rule. Alternative to Putin in Russia's last election? forget it. Xi in China? Forget it. Dictatorships can be beneficial but very often they are not and tend to foster perpetuation of the ruling elite. That is precisely the problem.
and yes, all the usual caveats about democracies still apply.
It was aimed at systems, not parties. Whether it is capitalist or not. And whether it has 1 party or 10. And whether it's democratic (people rule/participate in power) or authoritarian. Putin's Russia is not Xi's China is not North Korea is not Egypt is not Iran, etc.
They will have them, but they are different. No doubt aimed at the functioning of The Party, which can still be democratic (as offering choice on candidates, etc.).
The Chinese believe their system is democratic (the people rule) within the hierarchical and ideological constraints.
Any system can produce good and bad, and historically has. I don't buy e.g. Thatcher's TINA (There is no alternative). There are always alternatives. Preventing alternatives is worse. It's dogma.
Sing it bro! that is precisely the problem with one-party rule. Alternative to Putin in Russia's last election? forget it. Xi in China? Forget it. Dictatorships can be beneficial but very often they are not and tend to foster perpetuation of the ruling elite. That is precisely the problem.
and yes, all the usual caveats about democracies still apply.
But for all your detractions concerning the US system, autocratic, one-party systems avoid all such checks and balances by their very nature. They just do whatever the ruler(s) decide is best. They maybe wise. But they may also be incompetent or just downright deranged. There is no way this can be better than the US system.
They will have them, but they are different. No doubt aimed at the functioning of The Party, which can still be democratic (as offering choice on candidates, etc.) and stratified/decentralized.
The Chinese believe their system is democratic (the people rule) within the hierarchical and ideological constraints.
Any system can produce good and bad, and historically has. I don't buy e.g. Thatcher's TINA (There is no alternative). There are always alternatives. Preventing alternatives is worse. It's dogma.
Fair point.. it is quite possible for a fascist government to be democratically elected. Happens all the time. Well, sometimes. And then a democratic system is basically no different to an autocratic one.
To stop this, you need to have checks and balances anchored in something that the electorate cannot throw out, which is kind of what the founding fathers tried to do..
It is also why I am in favour of proportional representation rather than two-party first-past-the-post systems. They are more moderate by nature because they are forced to form coalitions.
But for all your detractions concerning the US system, autocratic, one-party systems avoid all such checks and balances by their very nature. They just do whatever the ruler(s) decide is best. They maybe wise. But they may also be incompetent or just downright deranged. There is no way this can be better than the US system.
This is where I disagree with you. Proportional representation can be more extreme because they give the balance of power to the extremist minorities. Well, when the extremists are in the minority that is.
In essence, when it comes to those actions, no. Changing parties or being allowed to criticize (to some extent, see increasing bans/media conformity/shunning) makes no difference. You can actually see the interests converge along party lines.
The only accountability is to vote them out? That has no effect on those actions performed with impunity while in office. And every time, after the fact, we can say: well, something should have happened, but didn't.
You can't bitch about international law when you mostly ignore it at will.
Fair point.. it is quite possible for a fascist government to be democratically elected. Happens all the time. Well, sometimes. And then a democratic system is basically no different to an autocratic one.
To stop this, you need to have checks and balances anchored in something that the electorate cannot throw out, which is kind of what the founding fathers tried to do..
It is also why I am in favour of proportional representation rather than two-party first-past-the-post systems. They are more moderate by nature because they are forced to form coalitions.
But for all your detractions concerning the US system, autocratic, one-party systems avoid all such checks and balances by their very nature. They just do whatever the ruler(s) decide is best. They maybe wise. But they may also be incompetent or just downright deranged. There is no way this can be better than the US system.
Oh, not very well at all. But it should have.
IMO US should sign up to the UCHR and obey it. It would be waaaay stronger on the international stage if it lived up to its principles. It is one of the great tragedies of the modern age that it doesn't, instead putting national interest ahead of some higher system of universal rights and accountability, such as international law.
But again, you are missing my point. I do not hold the US up to be the paragon of virtue that we should all aspire to. All I am saying is it s a lot better than an autocratic or even fascist regime that doesn't even pay lip service to any competing values-based system. Not because the US upholds certain values more than the other regimes (although I think it does to some extent), but because the US government is at least held accountable by the electorate and can be criticised in the media, including the internet. That is not true of the other two major powers.
It is not perfect. But it is massively better than nothing.
In essence, when it comes to those actions, no. Changing parties or being allowed to criticize (to some extent, see increasing bans/media conformity/shunning) makes no difference. You can actually see the interests converge along party lines.
The only accountability is to vote them out? That has no effect on those actions performed with impunity while in office. And every time, after the fact, we can say: well, something should have happened, but didn't.
You can't bitch about/extol international law when you mostly ignore it at will.
Human rights is the context cudgel for all those past, present and future conflicts. Care to point out how accountability succeeded in those cases vis-a-vis international law?
Oh, not very well at all. But it should have.
IMO US should sign up to the UCHR and obey it. It would be waaaay stronger on the international stage if it lived up to its principles. It is one of the great tragedies of the modern age that it doesn't, instead putting national interest ahead of some higher system of universal rights and accountability, such as international law.
But again, you are missing my point. I do not hold the US up to be the paragon of virtue that we should all aspire to.
All I am saying is it s a lot better than an autocratic or even fascist regime that doesn't even pay lip service to any competing values-based system. Not because the US upholds certain values more than the other regimes (although I think it does to some extent), but because the US government is at least held accountable by the electorate and can be criticised in the media, including the internet. That is not true of the other two major powers.
It is not perfect. But it is massively better than nothing.
Nuance is not really your strong suit either is it?
My standing on selected US foreign policy over the years
Vietnam War - misguided, ill-informed, driven by McCarthy-esque fear of communism
Chilean coup to put Pinochet in power - appalling. Replacing a democratically elected government with a right-wing despot
General Latin American policy - hair-raising. OTOH local politics in Latin America always does seem to be hair-raising. I'll admit, I'm out of my depth here.
Kosovo war - outstanding intervention without which things would have got very very messy as Europe stood there totally hamstrung watching atrocities unfold.
!st Gulf War - understandable given Iraqi aggression. Commendable that it stopped at the Kuwaiti border.
2nd Gulf War - inexcusable and a war crime.
Afghanistan - doomed to failure as every other intervention in the country has been
.. this is getting tedious. Point is, US foreign policy can be brilliant when it pursues the role of upholding the international charter of human rights. But it can also fall into the same pitfalls as any other major power of thinking it has to make dirty compromises to further its national interest. It basically sells itself too short and is itself responsible for a lot of its tarnished image.
So I am in, hook, line and sinker? I don't think so.
Human rights is the context cudgel for all those past, present and future conflicts. Care to point out how accountability succeeded in those (bad) cases vis-a-vis international law?
Nope, you swallow the US (hegemonic) line along with the hook and sinker. And the rod if you could.
Nuance is not really your strong suit either is it?
My standing on selected US foreign policy over the years
Vietnam War - misguided, ill-informed, driven by McCarthy-esque fear of communism
Chilean coup to put Pinochet in power - appalling. Replacing a democratically elected government with a right-wing despot
General Latin American policy - hair-raising. OTOH local politics in Latin America always does seem to be hair-raising. I'll admit, I'm out of my depth here.
Kosovo war - outstanding intervention without which things would have got very very messy as Europe stood there totally hamstrung watching atrocities unfold.
!st Gulf War - understandable given Iraqi aggression. Commendable that it stopped at the Kuwaiti border.
2nd Gulf War - inexcusable and a war crime.
Afghanistan - doomed to failure as every other intervention in the country has been
.. this is getting tedious. Point is, US foreign policy can be brilliant when it pursues the role of upholding the international charter of human rights. But it can also fall into the same pitfalls as any other major power of thinking it has to make dirty compromises to further its national interest. It basically sells itself too short and is itself responsible for a lot of its tarnished image.
So I am in, hook, line and sinker? I don't think so.
No, you are confusing my passion for pluralism with US hegemony. They share common ground, but they are not the same thing.
sigh, and again not what I said. You are trying to tie me to US realpolitik. The "he may be a sonnabitch but he's our sonnabitch" side of US foreign policy. That's not my calling. Surprisingly, I am free to criticise all three great powers at the same time. Marvellous isn't it? One of the benefits of pluralism, they don't lock you up when you criticise the government.
Nope, you swallow the US (hegemonic) line along with the hook and sinker. And the rod if you could.
It makes your crusading rhetoric against "authoritarianism" hollow and self-serving. It's ultimately always about economic interests. For all parties involved.
sigh, and again not what I said. You are trying to tie me to US realpolitik. The "he may be a sonnabitch but he's our sonnabitch" side of US foreign policy. That's not my calling. Surprisingly, I am free to criticise all three great powers at the same time. Marvellous isn't it? One of the benefits of pluralism, they don't lock you up when you criticise the government.
And no, I strongly disagree that it is "ultimately always about economic interests, for all parties involved." Though it is becoming clearer by the day, that ultimately you see things through this prism and therefore have no problem relativizing the various horrors of your regime of choice.
But if you throw out values for a purely economic-driven model, what do you have left? Not much I would argue. It kind of leaves you as hollow and vacuous as the German government kowtowing to China each time there is a state visit or selling out its gas industry to Gazprom and inviting. Russian spies into the highest level of government out of some weird combination of Schuldgefühl and modern-day appeasement, with a dash of making a quick personal monetary gain.
It makes your crusader rhetoric against "authoritarianism" hollow and self-serving. It's ultimately always about economic interests. For all parties involved.
