Is Discussing Foreign Policy Futile in General?

2012-01-29 19:09:20

#1

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

One thing that gets in the way of understanding foreign policy as voters is that only a very small chunk of the population has access to all of the facts. The only information the average person has access to is unclassified, while the rest is understandably guarded closely due to things like "national security."

Assuming that this arrangement is mostly inevitable, it's kind of hard to discuss foreign policy in a way that intends to be balanced and comprehensive. We have very little ability to verify if the story told by our officials is accurate or if we're just being led to a conflict that profits the elite. In many cases, it could be both.

So, I guess my question for this thread is... is there any real point to discussing foreign policy given the fact that 99.99% of us only have a small fraction of the relevant info available?

2012-01-29 19:11:51

#2

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5510|foggy bottom

no

Tu Stultus Es

2012-01-29 19:24:35

#3

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5609|London, England

No.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-29 19:43:02

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

Apparently, someone thinks I should move to Canada.

2012-01-29 23:17:14

#5

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

Applies to any topic, so its no less pointless than anything.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-29 23:34:53

#6

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6404|what

Wikileaks.

Access to so much information is difficult to sift through however.

When you do have all the pieces, you have to make them fit.

2012-01-30 00:02:01

#7

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6925|Canberra, AUS

seriously turq drop the cynicism. it's getting dull.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-01-30 00:02:37

#8

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

Its a good argument for total freedom of information, govts shouldn't be taking decisions when the public don't know all the facts.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-30 07:15:46

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

AussieReaper wrote:
Wikileaks.

Access to so much information is difficult to sift through however.

When you do have all the pieces, you have to make them fit.

Wikileaks does provide more info than we'd have otherwise, but it still leaves a big question mark as to what hasn't been leaked yet.

2012-01-30 07:18:50

#10

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

Spark wrote:
seriously turq drop the cynicism. it's getting dull.

I'm just saying it's hard to know if we're being lied to or if we're getting at least some truth.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a good argument for total freedom of information, govts shouldn't be taking decisions when the public don't know all the facts.

On the flipside though, some confidentiality is necessary.

2012-01-30 08:01:56

#11

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7026|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:
So, I guess my question for this thread is... is there any real point to discussing foreign policy given the fact that 99.99% of us only have a small fraction of the relevant info available?

there's information manipulation, turq, but then there's common sense. there are ways to discover the truth even when you know very little or cannot rely on the info you get to be correct. granted, very few people can be bothered to research stuff and are educated enough to process the info properly, but i wouldn't say it's completely pointless. if nothing else, discussion helps you with interpretation of the info you get and that, most of the time, is half the work required to complete any task (unless of course you have g@lt or bravo to discuss stuff with - that, no matter how hilarious, is not productive at all).

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2012-01-30 09:30:34

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
So, I guess my question for this thread is... is there any real point to discussing foreign policy given the fact that 99.99% of us only have a small fraction of the relevant info available?
there's information manipulation, turq, but then there's common sense. there are ways to discover the truth even when you know very little or cannot rely on the info you get to be correct. granted, very few people can be bothered to research stuff and are educated enough to process the info properly, but i wouldn't say it's completely pointless. if nothing else, discussion helps you with interpretation of the info you get and that, most of the time, is half the work required to complete any task (unless of course you have g@lt or bravo to discuss stuff with - that, no matter how hilarious, is not productive at all).

Sure, common sense comes into play, but here's a good example.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was the target of a kill mission because of his involvement with Al Quida. He was an American citizen, so this sort of move was unprecedented.

On the one hand, maybe he was a target for good reasons, because of information on him that hasn't yet been released to the public. We already know he contributed to terror groups, but the full extent of his connections and involvement is probably not fully disclosed to us.

On the other hand, was this the government taking the wrong approach by going down a very slippery slope?

Unless we have all the information in front of us, it's hard to really weigh the costs vs. the benefits. At the same time, it's understandable that some of the info hasn't been released because of national security concerns.

The same applies to things like the mission to get Osama. We were never even given concrete proof of Osama's death, and there seem to be persistent rumors about him dying long before last year.

All I'm saying is that it often feels like a shot in the dark even after researching these topics.

2012-01-30 09:39:37

#13

jord: Member; +2,382|6929|The North, beyond the wall.

Spark wrote:
seriously turq drop the cynicism. it's getting dull.

not really, it's a legitimate question to discuss.

2012-01-30 09:47:37

#14

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5836

When Spark is telling you to chill out you must have done something wrong.

2012-01-30 09:49:24

#15

jord: Member; +2,382|6929|The North, beyond the wall.

i just defend cynicism.

2012-01-30 10:00:19

#16

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6719

Spark wrote:
seriously turq drop the cynicism. it's getting dull.

It doesn't make your cool, or deep. It just makes you a drag and a bore.

2012-01-30 10:15:26

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Spark wrote:
seriously turq drop the cynicism. it's getting dull.
It doesn't make your cool, or deep. It just makes you a drag and a bore.

I figured this was a debate forum, not a popularity contest. I'm not running for office.

2012-01-30 10:26:28

#18

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6983|St. Andrews / Oslo

I am of the firm belief that domestic structure and opinion shape foreign policy.. So no, it's not futile - discussing things shapes public opinion, and (most of the time) leads to progressive changes in what we consider to be right/wrong actions, which has an effect on those in charge.

If we ignore what's going on in foreign policy, then decisions can be made without scrutiny or any fear of public reactions - which is always dangerous.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2012-01-30 10:48:16

#19

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7026|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:
Sure, common sense comes into play, but here's a good example.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was the target of a kill mission because of his involvement with Al Quida. He was an American citizen, so this sort of move was unprecedented.

On the one hand, maybe he was a target for good reasons, because of information on him that hasn't yet been released to the public. We already know he contributed to terror groups, but the full extent of his connections and involvement is probably not fully disclosed to us.

On the other hand, was this the government taking the wrong approach by going down a very slippery slope?

Unless we have all the information in front of us, it's hard to really weigh the costs vs. the benefits. At the same time, it's understandable that some of the info hasn't been released because of national security concerns.

The same applies to things like the mission to get Osama. We were never even given concrete proof of Osama's death, and there seem to be persistent rumors about him dying long before last year.

All I'm saying is that it often feels like a shot in the dark even after researching these topics.

i'd say that among simple questions like "who stands to benefit from this?", "who's paying for this?" and, most importantly, "should i care?" one can usually form an opinion close enough to the truth to be comfortable. weighting "costs" and "benefits" in politics is something better left to those, who otherwise have nothing to do at all. life is short, you know.

Last edited by Shahter (2012-01-30 10:53:22)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2012-01-30 10:56:54

#20

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5836

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Spark wrote:
seriously turq drop the cynicism. it's getting dull.
It doesn't make your cool, or deep. It just makes you a drag and a bore.

Who are you again? Don't see you much around here.

2012-01-30 11:40:54

#21

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6983|Cambridge, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a good argument for total freedom of information, govts shouldn't be taking decisions when the public don't know all the facts.

Its a lame argument for total freedom of information.

Firstly,

The public are morons.

Secondly,

How can you have the whole population voting on every governmental decision? We do this once by voting for the people that represent us and then it is their "job" to represent us. Not to come and check with every decision.

2012-01-30 11:55:16

#22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a good argument for total freedom of information, govts shouldn't be taking decisions when the public don't know all the facts.
Its a lame argument for total freedom of information.

Firstly,

The public are morons.

Secondly,

How can you have the whole population voting on every governmental decision? We do this once by voting for the people that represent us and then it is their "job" to represent us. Not to come and check with every decision.

Direct democracy does tend to suck, but a little more disclosure of information would be nice.

2012-01-31 00:43:52

#23

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a good argument for total freedom of information, govts shouldn't be taking decisions when the public don't know all the facts.
Its a lame argument for total freedom of information.

Firstly,

The public are morons.

Secondly,

How can you have the whole population voting on every governmental decision? We do this once by voting for the people that represent us and then it is their "job" to represent us. Not to come and check with every decision.

Who said the public would be voting on anything other than elections?

The public needs to understand the hows and whys of what the govt is doing to be able to have an informed vote in elections?

"Trust me, I know best, vote for me" No thanks.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-31 09:22:16

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6656|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:
i'd say that among simple questions like "who stands to benefit from this?", "who's paying for this?" and, most importantly, "should i care?" one can usually form an opinion close enough to the truth to be comfortable. weighting "costs" and "benefits" in politics is something better left to those, who otherwise have nothing to do at all. life is short, you know.

I agree to an extent, but those questions can also sometimes lead to paranoia.

I don't think government is benevolent, but I also don't believe it's totally evil/Machiavellian either.

A certain amount of skepticism is good, but there also comes a point where you figure that all this effort must have a certain amount of valid reasoning.

2012-01-31 09:39:33

#25

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6965|US

I think "self-interested" is the best description for politicians/gov.

BF2S Forums Is Discussing Foreign Policy Futile in General?

AussieReaper wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Spark wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Board footer