Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: For all the people participating in the Israelian Navy and X MAS Thread
luigi.delta    7/23/2008 2:16:40 PM
For all the people participating in the "Israeli Navy and X MAS" I had a way to appreciate the fact that all the people participating on this thread have so far shown to be pretty competent observers of the international environment, and most of all, balanced mature people in their dissertations and discussions, which I have noticed it can't be said for the generality of the threads on this website. Having noticed and very much appreciated that, I dare to hereby pose a very delicate question to everybody and I would appreciate any personal analysis/evaluations on it. Recently I have worked for a while with some advisors of my county foreign policy decision makers. So far I always had an historical approach to the international environment and surprisingly, by working with these people, I have been discovering a complete new different world about the daily bread and butter of international relations in the trenches. I am not sure I like what I’ve learnt. Here below some bullet points I’ve perceived by working with these junkies  • nobody is worried very much about moral values (which count a lot in biasing public opinion though) in pursuing national interest, because there is no judge as long as you don't lose a war. This appears to sound like good, but it’s actually bad because…no judge, no certainty of the law. Foreign ministries have to struggle with this concept all the time. • Armed conflicts are so much the supreme magistrate, that entire hierarchies in the international community are created by them. (I’ve heard some of these war to be called “constituent wars”). • The major task of one or more constituent war winners (global or regional) is to create a post war order that gives security and stability even to the losers. The more the winners manage to do so, the longer and the more stable the “constituted order” will be. Someone was teaching me about the difference between the stability – in terms collective security and the duration of it – between the Roman Empire and the Versailles orders as an example of two extremes. • The more the order is imperfect in terms of losers satisfaction, the more there will be future objectors to the orders and probability of new wars, or at least of violent opposition. • A rogue state is not “a component of the axis of evil” as I naively thought, but just an objector to the order. The same can be said for non state organization who object the settlement of a given order. • Objectors very rarely object abut ideas or ideologies (like they like to claim to augment their followers among the masses), more often they object about practical orders settlement (economics, revenue distribution, balance of power). This fact becomes manifest in certain instances, like for example Stalin resorting to Russian nationalism and “the holy mother Russia” immediately after the 22 of June 1941. Guys, I must admit that I am shaken. This is just a microscopic resume of all the model paraphernalia these guys use, but I have an hard time to interiorize this approach. Despite thatI must admit that it explains many things if we look at it without any prejudice. Also such an approach would shut off many nasty uneducated and unmannered behaviours on this very website. Any illumination and teaching from you guys is appreciated. Respectfully Luigi.delta
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Shirrush    Mmmh...   7/24/2008 8:04:51 AM
By the sound of it, you've been working with the Quai d'Orsay, the French Foreign Ministry!
Of course, these aristocratic pedophiles were never overly concerned with morality or patriotism...

 
Quote    Reply

battar    The will of the Lord   7/24/2008 1:37:05 PM
Morality isn't absolute. One man's high moral ground is another man's evil.  What Israelis and the West call Evil is what the other side consider to be Gods (Allahs) will. And you can't get more moral than god, can you? Different conflicts have different causes, but most of the conflict in the Middle East is religious in origin. If you can overturn religious teaching (on both sides) you have a chance for peace. If not, I'm just hoping that the Navy's Italian 76mm guns hit with the first salvo.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       9/14/2008 12:46:29 AM

Morality isn't absolute. One man's high moral ground is another man's evil.  What Israelis and the West call Evil is what the other side consider to be Gods (Allahs) will. And you can't get more moral than god, can you? Different conflicts have different causes, but most of the conflict in the Middle East is religious in origin. If you can overturn religious teaching (on both sides) you have a chance for peace. If not, I'm just hoping that the Navy's Italian 76mm guns hit with the first salvo.
Morality certainly is absolute. The essence of morality is that it is a claim to absolutism. If it is specific to a tribe it is a code of honor.
 

 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       9/14/2008 11:43:07 AM

For all the people participating in the "Israeli Navy and X MAS"

I had a way to appreciate the fact that all the people participating on this thread have so far shown to be pretty competent observers of the international environment, and most of all, balanced mature people in their dissertations and discussions, which I have noticed it can't be said for the generality of the threads on this website.

Having noticed and very much appreciated that, I dare to hereby pose a very delicate question to everybody and I would appreciate any personal analysis/evaluations on it.

Recently I have worked for a while with some advisors of my county foreign policy decision makers. So far I always had an historical approach to the international environment and surprisingly, by working with these people, I have been discovering a complete new different world about the daily bread and butter of international relations in the trenches. I am not sure I like what I?ve learnt.

Here below some bullet points I?ve perceived by working with these junkies &O1514;

? nobody is worried very much about moral values (which count a lot in biasing public opinion though) in pursuing national interest, because there is no judge as long as you don't lose a war. This appears to sound like good, but it?s actually bad because?no judge, no certainty of the law. Foreign ministries have to struggle with this concept all the time.

? Armed conflicts are so much the supreme magistrate, that entire hierarchies in the international community are created by them. (I?ve heard some of these war to be called ?constituent wars?).

? The major task of one or more constituent war winners (global or regional) is to create a post war order that gives security and stability even to the losers. The more the winners manage to do so, the longer and the more stable the ?constituted order? will be. Someone was teaching me about the difference between the stability ? in terms collective security and the duration of it ? between the Roman Empire and the Versailles orders as an example of two extremes.

? The more the order is imperfect in terms of losers satisfaction, the more there will be future objectors to the orders and probability of new wars, or at least of violent opposition.

? A rogue state is not ?a component of the axis of evil? as I naively thought, but just an objector to the order. The same can be said for non state organization who object the settlement of a given order.

? Objectors very rarely object abut ideas or ideologies (like they like to claim to augment their followers among the masses), more often they object about practical orders settlement (economics, revenue distribution, balance of power). This fact becomes manifest in certain instances, like for example Stalin resorting to Russian nationalism and ?the holy mother Russia? immediately after the 22 of June 1941.

Guys, I must admit that I am shaken. This is just a microscopic resume of all the model paraphernalia these guys use, but I have an hard time to interiorize this approach. Despite thatI must admit that it explains many things if we look at it without any prejudice. Also such an approach would shut off many nasty uneducated and unmannered behaviours on this very website.

Any illumination and teaching from you guys is appreciated.

Respectfully
Luigi.delta
Several things might be remembered. One is that just because someone thinks he is smarter doesn't mean he is. Another is that when one talks in such a way one must separate the "should be" from the "is". Just because rulers are amoral doesn't mean they should be. Nor for the matter does it mean that you should be.
 For the matter of that, I doubt that those diplomatists really believe what they say they do. If they do, make sure you never play cards with them!
 As far as "no one being worried about values" that really is a repeat of the reductionist error that habitually assumes that nations are an extention of governments and governments are computers. Neither is true. Governments are run by real people who are responsible to their constintuents and therefore must take their feelings into account. Even totalitarian ones to some degree. Constintuents are far more important then is given credit for. And observation indicates that real government does not operate in the manner claimed, constituents aside. Even Diplomacy games don't operate like that. Governments are moved by pride, anger, greed, etc, etc, as well as by cold calculations of the balance of power. And their constituants certainly are even on the French assumption that rulers and ruled
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics