Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
Bill Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq,
which is manifestly false.
Since this chain started by ragging on RAH about it being a
_geodesic_ neo-{Khan, con-men} empire, you're both correct -
there isn't a conflict between ruling them by proxy
and not ruling them directly
Most all empires that lasted more than a few decades used indirect
rule (famous big exception China - though not always and they had
to endure generations of collapse between each advance)
Rome Britain just best known.
Read up on Lord Lugard.
Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
At 8:29 PM + 11/1/04, ken wrote: Read up on Lord Lugard. Oh. I get it. September came two months later this year across the pond... Cheers, RAH Foghorn-LeghornNow, *that*, I say, *that*, son, is an ad hominem.../F-L -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
RE: Geodesic neoconservative empire
-- On 29 Oct 2004 at 10:20, Tyler Durden wrote: We're not reducing the quantity of government, just consolidating under a single growing Borg-like government, namely the US. This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq, which is manifestly false. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TCB2vWoGyhVihGigpgZNddyxcR+FX8/hDPZankmv 4jNqo70KLA5nfPvXptDt0z6bJGMJ0LDIX5iVsCD/p
RE: Geodesic neoconservative empire
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: On 29 Oct 2004 at 10:20, Tyler Durden wrote: We're not reducing the quantity of government, just consolidating under a single growing Borg-like government, namely the US. This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq, which is manifestly false. Agreed. Our interest in not in Afghanistan/Iraq per se. Our interest is in ruling the *planet*, rather than any individual pissant player. --digsig James A. Donald -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 09:24:20PM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: Agreed. Our interest in not in Afghanistan/Iraq per se. Our interest is in ruling the *planet*, rather than any individual pissant player. Empires never last, and if there's going to be a new one, it's going to be Chinese. (Of course it won't last, either). It sucks to be old-growth in a large new-growth market. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgp9MyKcAfxHN.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Geodesic neoconservative empire
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq,
which is manifestly false.
Since this chain started by ragging on RAH about it being a
_geodesic_ neo-{Khan, con-men} empire, you're both correct -
there isn't a conflict between ruling them by proxy
and not ruling them directly, assuming that the Commander-in-Chief
can get Our Puppet Iraqis to take over ruling their country for us
as was supposed to magically happen when we knocked off
our previous puppet. It didn't help that the Iraqis have
con-men of their own like Ahmad Chalabi telling our con-man
how easy it would be (which is what they wanted to hear)
and we've not only had to get a new puppet, we've had to
do an awful lot more work that we were supposed to.
At 07:24 PM 10/29/2004, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Agreed. Our interest in not in Afghanistan/Iraq per se.
Our interest is in ruling the *planet*,
rather than any individual pissant player.
I've never been clear how much the neo-con gang
(Wolfowitz, Leo Strauss, et al.) desire to
give America a cohesive sense of national purpose
through empire was because they cared about actually
controlling the rest of the world and
how much was because they cared about ruling America.
Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
For the most part, I'm going to answer this (mostly) seriously, though I expect it wasn't asked in the same fashion. At 9:17 PM -0700 10/28/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Is this geodesic neo-conservativism? Where can I start bearer-document goose-stepping? Impedance mismatch. You're using a (now) cryptocommie codeword for Jewery (neo-conservative) with Nazi imagery. Everybody knows that Jews are communists, right? ;-). Except, of course, to a cryptocommie, *everyone*'s a fascist. Must be like eskimos and 19 different names for snow, or something. It has always amused me that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists insist on using the language of the left to describe the things they don't like. One of the reasons that the right in this country has been so successful has been their development of a useful analytic apparatus, and corresponding language, over the past 50 years, certainly more so than the left, which is nothing but marxism, dilluted or otherwise. Whatever happened to leaving the barbarians to kill themselves, and getting the fuck out of family spats? When they can't seem to kill themselves fast enough, it's time to help them along a bit, especially when they start killing *you*? :-). At the moment force-monopoly is, by definition of monopoly, a hierarchical market. Hence the dance with the girl that brung ya bit. They have already *stolen* my money, they might as well be doing something with it that goes back to their existential principle (a bandit who doesn't move as Mancur Olsen says), i.e. the use of force itself instead of bread and circuses, and furthermore in killing people (and their friends, and the camel they rode in on) who now have a demonstrated ability to kill me, personally. Sure, there's something to be said for the notion that terrorism is some form of geodesic warfare, but, notice, when you take out certain nation-states, terrorism subsides. Or, at least, it returns to that nation-state, where terrorists can be killed faster. Better there than here, certainly. So, I would say that geodesic war consists of (bearer settled :-)) cash auctions for force. That exists in certain, um, informal markets, but transaction costs aren't low enough for general use yet. I think we're we're going to get there, though. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Geodesic neoconservative empire
At 10:07 PM 10/24/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: If the only way to kill barbarians is to kill barbarians in their bed before they kill you in yours, to pave over nation-states that support them, starting with the easiest first, it can't happen fast enough, as far as I'm concerned, and I'll gladly vote my expropriated tax-dollars for the purpose of draining the swamp that is the Middle East. Is this geodesic neo-conservativism? Where can I start bearer-document goose-stepping? Whatever happened to leaving the barbarians to kill themselves, and getting the fuck out of family spats?
RE: Geodesic neoconservative empire
Sounds good, but there's a little flaw in the logic: At 10:07 PM 10/24/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: If the only way to kill barbarians is to kill barbarians in their bed before they kill you in yours, to pave over nation-states that support them, starting with the easiest first, it can't happen fast enough, as far as I'm concerned, and I'll gladly vote my expropriated tax-dollars for the purpose of draining the swamp that is the Middle East. We're not reducing the quantity of government, just consolidating under a single growing Borg-like government, namely the US. I consider one giant government a far more dangerous situation that lots of little ones. -TD _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
At 4:16 PM -0400 10/29/04, John Kelsey wrote: looks like a waste of time and money I suppose we'll find out sooner or later. I'm not going to piss in the wind here on this anymore. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 29, 2004 7:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire .. It has always amused me that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists insist on using the language of the left to describe the things they don't like. One of the reasons that the right in this country has been so successful has been their development of a useful analytic apparatus, and corresponding language, over the past 50 years, certainly more so than the left, which is nothing but marxism, dilluted or otherwise. Is there a better term than empire for what gets built when your country goes out, invades lots of other countries, takes them over, and runs them? I don't know about other peoples' objections to this, but mine mainly involve my belief that this is an expensive and not very effective way to deal with terrorism. .. At the moment force-monopoly is, by definition of monopoly, a hierarchical market. Hence the dance with the girl that brung ya bit. They have already *stolen* my money, they might as well be doing something with it Well, the question is, what ought they to be doing with it. Invading Iraq to build a democracy there, in hopes of somehow fixing the root causes of terrorism (as similarly goofy idealists on the left once thought they could do for crime in the US), looks like a waste of time and money. I suspect we're causing ourselves more problems, as Iraq is not only a place where terrorists can go to attack the US and be attacked by us in turn, it's also a place where there are lots of people learning the basic skills of being a terrorist, gaining some experience in doing so, etc. Do you think we're going to kill all of those people? Do you think they'll all abandon terrorist tactics when things quiet down in Iraq? I know the Republican line these days is that we're safer because the bad guys are all shooting at Marines in Iraq, rather than at civilians in Des Moines. But that only makes sense if we don't end up with a much bigger problem later, as a result. Perhaps we should all have rested more secure in our beds when the jihadis were streaming into Afghanistan, where they would be killed in large numbers by the Red Army. But it's not clear that was a long-term win Anyway, you sound like there's some willingness on the part of this administration (or the one Kerry may set up in January) to actually cut government spending to other things, in order to do the nation building thing. What evidence have you seen for that, so far? .. Cheers, RAH
