Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[Apocalipstic]

What I really do want to argue about is the comment about Latin American countries killing each other if they united.

I kind of need a logical explanation on how that was OK for Ruffrider to even say, much less for AJ to agree with.

Its sitting on my heart and I hope I am misunderstanding what y'all mean by this.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

What I really do want to argue about is the comment about Latin American countries killing each other if they united.

I kind of need a logical explanation on how that was OK for Ruffrider to even say, much less for AJ to agree with.

Its sitting on my heart and I hope I am misunderstanding what y'all mean by this.

What I meant by this is that if the Latin American nations were to attempt to unite and one nation were a hold out, then the Latin American nations that *were* in on unification would do what any other group of nations, surrounded by a nation that was standing in their way would do--they would invade that nation, conquer it and create a Pax Latin Americana. I'm not saying--nor would I say--that Latin Americans are violent who will slaughter each other if the sun rises. I'm saying that the people living in Latin America are, for better or worse, the same species living in Western Africa and Asia and North America etc. If Canada *ever* got it into its head that there was some compelling reason to conquer the United States and if they could get enough nations to go along with it, Canada would invade and conquer the United States in a heart beat. Does that mean that I think Canadians are violent? No! It means I think that Canada, as a nation, will do what it perceives to be in its strategic interest. Right now, it pleases Canada to be about as dovish a nation can be. At present there is no reason to believe that this will change. However, if there ever *is* a reason for it to change it *will* change because that is how nations--ALL nations behave.

My agreement with roughryder was merely the acknowledgement that border disputes *happen*. Despite the image that people seem to have that only Europe and the United States are uniquely territorial and war-like that is not the case. At present Venezuela is providing aid to rebels in Colombia. They are doing so because it is either in their strategic interest to do so or it is in their ideological interest to do so or both. I'm not--let me be clear--NOT--saying that Venezuelans are a uniquely violent people nor am I saying that Colombians are a uniquely violent people. I am saying that there is internal strife *inside* Colombia. For reasons known to the Venezuelan chain of command they are providing material aid, technical assistance, troops on the ground or all three to those rebels. Chances are, the Venezuelans are doing so because they perceive it in their interest to do so.

Should the day come that Brazil should decide that a Pax Brazilia is in their national interest they will take whatever steps to conquer or otherwise influence the nations of South America to do their bidding. Those that refuse will be subjugated if the Brazilians can get away with it.

ALL of that can be true without making ANY comment about the relative levels of violence of Brazilians specifically, South Americans generally, or any other group other than two: human beings and that same species grouped together in a nation-state. If human beings can get what they want by trade instead of trade, they will do so. If they perceive that the only way they can get what they wish is through violence they will use violence. Nations behave the same way. As long as it is more profitable for Brazil to trade with Bolivia, that is what will happen. Should it become more profitable for Brazil to conquer Bolivia *that* is what will happen.

The whole idea behind mutual defense blocs (NATO, Warsaw pact, etc.) is to raise the stakes of attacking any member nation that signs on to the pact. If Brazil wants to conquer Bolivia and knows no one will come to the aid of the Bolivians, Brazil will conquer Bolivia. But what if Bolivia and Peru, Argentina and Venezuela have a mutual defense pact? Well now, what was an easy job of conquering one country suddenly becomes a much more difficult job of taking Chile while having to worry about your flanks. What was simply a strike to the Brazilians west suddenly becomes being vulnerable from attacks on their Northern and Southern flanks PLUS their coast. Well, now that's going to give the Brazilian high command a moment of pause. This logic--and it is logical--is why WW III never happened. If Russia *could* have invaded Western Europe, driven all the way to the English channel, rested and jumped the channel to take England without *ever* having to worry about the USA getting involved they would have done just that. They never even tried (although they trained for it) *because* they knew that the USA would get involved.

Again, all of that can be true without saying anything about the war-like tendencies of the Russian people.

So, again, my point is that if Latin American nations decided to create a Pax Latin Americana and there was a holdout, for whatever reason, the members of the coalition would simply do the easy thing and conquer the holdout if for no other reason than to not have non-contiguous borders. My comments were about geopolitics, not about race.


Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What I meant by this is that if the Latin American nations were to attempt to unite and one nation were a hold out, then the Latin American nations that *were* in on unification would do what any other group of nations, surrounded by a nation that was standing in their way would do--they would invade that nation, conquer it and create a Pax Latin Americana. I'm not saying--nor would I say--that Latin Americans are violent who will slaughter each other if the sun rises. I'm saying that the people living in Latin America are, for better or worse, the same species living in Western Africa and Asia and North America etc. If Canada *ever* got it into its head that there was some compelling reason to conquer the United States and if they could get enough nations to go along with it, Canada would invade and conquer the United States in a heart beat. Does that mean that I think Canadians are violent? No! It means I think that Canada, as a nation, will do what it perceives to be in its strategic interest. Right now, it pleases Canada to be about as dovish a nation can be. At present there is no reason to believe that this will change. However, if there ever *is* a reason for it to change it *will* change because that is how nations--ALL nations behave.

My agreement with roughryder was merely the acknowledgement that border disputes *happen*. Despite the image that people seem to have that only Europe and the United States are uniquely territorial and war-like that is not the case. At present Venezuela is providing aid to rebels in Colombia. They are doing so because it is either in their strategic interest to do so or it is in their ideological interest to do so or both. I'm not--let me be clear--NOT--saying that Venezuelans are a uniquely violent people nor am I saying that Colombians are a uniquely violent people. I am saying that there is internal strife *inside* Colombia. For reasons known to the Venezuelan chain of command they are providing material aid, technical assistance, troops on the ground or all three to those rebels. Chances are, the Venezuelans are doing so because they perceive it in their interest to do so.

Should the day come that Brazil should decide that a Pax Brazilia is in their national interest they will take whatever steps to conquer or otherwise influence the nations of South America to do their bidding. Those that refuse will be subjugated if the Brazilians can get away with it.

ALL of that can be true without making ANY comment about the relative levels of violence of Brazilians specifically, South Americans generally, or any other group other than two: human beings and that same species grouped together in a nation-state. If human beings can get what they want by trade instead of trade, they will do so. If they perceive that the only way they can get what they wish is through violence they will use violence. Nations behave the same way. As long as it is more profitable for Brazil to trade with Bolivia, that is what will happen. Should it become more profitable for Brazil to conquer Bolivia *that* is what will happen.

The whole idea behind mutual defense blocs (NATO, Warsaw pact, etc.) is to raise the stakes of attacking any member nation that signs on to the pact. If Brazil wants to conquer Bolivia and knows no one will come to the aid of the Bolivians, Brazil will conquer Bolivia. But what if Bolivia and Peru, Argentina and Venezuela have a mutual defense pact? Well now, what was an easy job of conquering one country suddenly becomes a much more difficult job of taking Chile while having to worry about your flanks. What was simply a strike to the Brazilians west suddenly becomes being vulnerable from attacks on their Northern and Southern flanks PLUS their coast. Well, now that's going to give the Brazilian high command a moment of pause. This logic--and it is logical--is why WW III never happened. If Russia *could* have invaded Western Europe, driven all the way to the English channel, rested and jumped the channel to take England without *ever* having to worry about the USA getting involved they would have done just that. They never even tried (although they trained for it) *because* they knew that the USA would get involved.

Again, all of that can be true without saying anything about the war-like tendencies of the Russian people.

So, again, my point is that if Latin American nations decided to create a Pax Latin Americana and there was a holdout, for whatever reason, the members of the coalition would simply do the easy thing and conquer the holdout if for no other reason than to not have non-contiguous borders. My comments were about geopolitics, not about race.


Cheers
Aj

Thank you for explaining what you meant AJ. I think its an important distinction.

[Cin]

I don’t know exactly how to articulate my feelings around this. Perhaps because it is about feelings more than it is about facts. And that’s hard because with facts you always know where you stand. Either it’s a correct fact or it’s not. But for a good deal of this I don’t have facts. There aren’t any yet. It isn’t a fact that China is looking to assert itself in South America. It isn’t a fact that they aren’t. China may say that it isn’t interested in empire-building or intervening in the affairs of other countries but I doubt that can even be helped. As China emerges as a super power, the stakes will continue to change until imperialism is almost accidental or unintentional but rather unavoidable.

But I don’t think it is true that a unification of Latin America would either mean that the people of Latin America would end up killing themselves if one nation doesn’t want to join or that China and Japan (a dynamic duo that I think is still a long ways off) would unite to isolate the U.S. and own the Western Pacific ocean. Or that Russia will arise like a phoenix from the ashes and somehow find money to buy off a unified Latin America.

I also don’t believe countries should only be allowed to make decisions that are in the best interest of the United States. That would be nice for us. But hardly very fair.

I think we could handle a united Latin America. We might have to actually be a little nicer to them. In our dealings with other countries there is just something about the way we control things even while we supposedly set them free that is troubling. But I really am not going to get into a litany of wrongs that the U.S. and its corporations have done to the people, the natural resources and the environments of a variety of other countries. I will just take a moment to say that if I was a country surrounded by weaker nations that were geographically important to me I would have done everything in my power to make sure that the things I did to these nations were always in the their best interest so I could keep them as allies. It’s just good politics. At least I would imagine it is. It’s certainly how I try to treat my friends. I don’t take advantage of them, steal their stuff, dump my crap in their yard because the repercussions for me are nil, unlike if I dump in my own back yard nor do I interfere in their personal affairs.

This isn’t about South America but just our militaristic way of being in general. There is a choice. One can choose a militaristic stance right from the get go so as not to appear weak or whatever. Or one can choose to lay back a bit and watch which way the wind is blowing. I just think we need to start thinking economically rather than militaristically if we even want anything left to worry about defending. If we keep spending so much of our money on offense disguised as defense there may be little left to concern ourselves with. I wish we would stop sniffing around Iran. And China really has all it can handle right now worrying about its own people. They are certainly an economic power, and with that comes a certain degree of imperialism however, history so far has shown that China is not an imperialistic country.

And scare tactics just suck. Maybe it’s just realism to others but to me it’s scare tactics to talk about China and Japan uniting and owning the Western Pacific and Russia controlling the North Atlantic. It’s scare tactics to say the United States would end up isolated, cut off and unable to move anywhere but within territorial waters. It’s scare tactics to me because it opens people up to all sorts of possibilities that they are willing to do just to try and feel safe and secure. We have to protect ourselves from some threat or other to our freedom. And every time we start talking about threats to our freedom other people in other countries start to die. I’m not saying not to be aware of the possibilities but for too long now the rich have used our fears and fed them to the war machine and we have been at the mercy of a litany of fear that is transformed into violence, blood and death. And they make more and more money.

It also makes little sense to me that simply the unification of Latin America would cause China, Russia and Japan to make moves that would most likely cause world war. If they were interested in a war of that magnitude I can’t imagine that they need a united South America to do it. I don’t think it is a lack of unification that stops China from inching its way toward the Americas. And those little piss wars where poor countries are destroyed for fun and profit seem to always happen.

It’s like our policy is always shoot first and don’t bother asking questions later.

It reminds me of a story my grandmother used to tell me when i was little. I think it is a kind of Portuguese proverb or some such. But I don’t think it loses much in the translation. There was this farmer whose plow broke and he needed to borrow one. So he started the 5 mile walk to his neighbor’s farm to ask to borrow his. All the way there the farmer kept remembering all the things he had done for his neighbor over the years. And he would think what if his neighbor refused to lend him the plow. He would say “But I gave you that axe when you needed it” and then he would remember “I lent you my wheel barrel more than once over the years” And on and on it went. When he finally reached his neighbors farm he knocked on the door. When his neighbor answered the farmer had worked himself into such a state that he screamed “keep your fucking plow you asshole”.

I don’t know I’m kind of all over the place. I have a hard time thinking in militaristic terms. It’s upsetting. I feel a bit sick. It doesn’t feel like justice and fairness we can do better than we are to me at all.

[Apocalipstic]

I can't see China and Japan uniting either. Historically they have hated each other and Japan has acted pretty badly in regards to China...but I am not sure AJ meant that they would unite? Just that both would like control of the Pacific? But either way, I agree.

It has always made me feel a lot sick to think about the political chess games we engage in and how horrible the fall out seems to be eventually.

My dream is to see North and South America united, a very unpopular opinion in this thread. Lol.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

I can't see China and Japan uniting either. Historically they have hated each other and Japan has acted pretty badly in regards to China...but I am not sure AJ meant that they would unite? Just that both would like control of the Pacific? But either way, I agree.

It has always made me feel a lot sick to think about the political chess games we engage in and how horrible the fall out seems to be eventually.

My dream is to see North and South America united, a very unpopular opinion in this thread. Lol.

I do think China and Japan will join forces. Not soon. But they will. I know the Chinese people really don't like the Japanese. Bad blood there. However they will push past it I believe. And the governments will do what governments do best regardless.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I do think China and Japan will join forces. Not soon. But they will.

Don't they hate each other? Really bad and of long standing good reason?

Oh and an add on from last post... Not all South America is poor. Not sure of you meant that, but if you did....