Comments on: Imperial power strikes again

By: Temujin

Temujin — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:13:43 +0000

I agree with Jason that the US activities in Pakistan cannot reasonably be called “invasion”. I’m not convinced that they were necessary, but they don’t constitute invasion.

While striking military targets in neutral countries is not ideal, I don’t think we can necessarily rule it out as a tactic a-priori. It is a better approach that outright invasion… and by confusion targetted strikes with invasion we are bluring an important distinction.

I’m not saying that I support this particular situation. I don’t know enough about it.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:23:38 +0000

That’s quite true. Islam is more ‘practical’ than Christianity. Islam, for example, allows for slavery, Christianity does not. However as we well know Christians did keep slaves. Unfortunately Muslims still do.

It’s not about Christinaity v Islam tho’. It’s simply the old truism about morality and herd behaviour. The rules of morality have typically only applied to those within the group – outside the group it’s carte blanche barbarism.

Applied to maritime conflicts and theft one should remember the function of the privateer: a privateer was a pirate licensed by one (European) power to attack the ships of others.

But when we steal from the Other we don’t call it theft: we call it Empire.

By: jc

jc — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:26:05 +0000

I’m not sure the teachings of Christianity actually could even be remotely associated with piracy.

However there is a strong case to be made that in Islam stealing from a non-believer is okay or it’s such a trivial offense that it doesn’t merit much concern.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:13:32 +0000

I actually don’t see that much difference as a lot of the interference at sea was actually jihadi inspired according to a book on he subject.

What we think of as Jihad is a modern geopolitical phenomena. It wasn’t Jihad inspired. What inspired Muslim pirates was the same thing that inspired Christian pirates – greed. According to the principles of ethnocentricity they simply decided that the rules of Islam (like don’t steal) only applied to other Muslims – open season on Christians.
.
We can’t complain we were exactly the same only much more successful.

By: War with Russia next on the agenda « Thoughts on Freedom

War with Russia next on the agenda « Thoughts on Freedom — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:15:09 +0000

[...] with Russia next on the agenda The US is currently on the offensive in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and probably Iran. Recently ABC News reported that vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin won’t [...]

By: Jason Soon

Jason Soon — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:05:33 +0000

Pakistan has nothing of value to the US. To call its recent military action an ‘invasion’ is ridiculous. The situation is that it has a backyard which it claims sovereignty over but isn’t actually able to govern. This backyard has the potential to leak its toxic sludge to the rest of the world including the US. The US is going in and cleaning out the toxic sludge for Pakistan. The fact that there are ex-Taliban still running around cravely in this place is outrageous. The only thing these Pashtun tribes respect is action. Every last member of the Taliban that gave aid to the terrorists of S11 should have his head on a stick lining the border of this tribal land.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:20:19 +0000

Actually, OBL was enraged into jihad by the presence of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia, at the time of Gulf War 1. (Or should that be called Bush Senior War?) That was caused by Saddam invading Kuwait- which did not seem to worry osama at all.
The Infidel troops are there, ultimately, because the Kings of Saudi Arabia made deals with American Oil Companies. Troops follow trade, guys.
Could we stop trade, or not protect nationals overseas? To stop Imperialism, nations would have to agree that national power stops at national borders, and trading companies must look after their own defences when trading internationally.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:40:36 +0000

JC – in the case of Timor John Howards concern was the spillover of refugees into Australia. Killing the leaders that were causing the fundamental problems in Timor was not really a viable option because it would have entailed invading Indonesia. It was a humanitarian intevention however it included a heavy dose of self interest.

I don’t mind overly if the USA kills evil arseholes in Iran or Pakistan. I don’t share Sukrits moral outrage in this regard. However I won’t pretend that I believe that the breadth and depth of US involvement around the world is strategically good for the USA. And it does concern me that by weilding so much hard power the USA is allowing it’s soft power (it’s economic eminence and moral suasion) to slowly atrophy.

By: jc

jc — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:47:44 +0000

JC there’s a big difference between defending your own territory from seabound poachers on your mercantile trade and invading other peoples’ countries. Classic liberalism took a very dim view of European imperialism.

I actually don’t see that much difference as a lot of the interference at sea was actually jihadi inspired according to a book on he subject. The US also direct intervened along that coast by attacking and overtaking the kings place at times threatening his execution if it happened again.

The Taliban directly supported AQ offering Osama a safe haven.

No I don’t that much difference at all.

By: jc

jc — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:43:38 +0000

And?

how do you square that circle with the opposition to the Afghan intervention and hot pursuit across the border when people in the border territories are offering sanctuary to attackers?