BF2S Forums United States War in Iraq -- Can We Afford to Lose?

Yes but Trump, and I'm sure the Iranians know about computer viruses now.

I know that in Trump's direct political sphere there will be idiots who advocate the option. However I'm convinced that the US DoD and DoS have more than a few reasonable people in its upper echelons who will expressly advise against doing something so monumentally stupid. Rather than change a regime, they would facilitate the entrenchment of the current religious political philosophy in Iran. A philosophy that has slowly but surely been losing steam.

Moreover, the House of Congress would have to sign off on any military engagement of considerable scope in time and size. Trump alone cannot make this happen.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm sure the Iranians know about computer viruses now.

You're tech savvy I reckon, you should know it's a little more complicated than just 'knowing about computer viruses'.

can you cite your claim that iran's theocratic political philosophy is 'losing steam'? they are the shia bulwark in the region with multiple sunni enemies around them. i think that denominational dynamic will keep iran humming along just fine for a very long time.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-23 06:27:11)

yes, said rural majority being the whole reason for the overthrowing of the bourgeois and increasingly secular iran of the shah ...

there’s long been a tacit compact in iran that a university-educated intelligentsia is allowed to flourish along with other urbanites so long as they don’t poke the ayatollah’s and clerics’ nest too much. i don’t think they will ever get beyond the usual frictions and protests. the weight of provincial inertia and shia islam is too strong.

i dated an argentinian-iranian girl, who was raised in the states, for a year and a bit. her father’s family’s emigration is the usual trajectory for dissidents. they prefer the hamptons to shiraz.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-23 09:31:52)

The uneven effects of globalization has lead many western countries to backslide into isolationist politics and authoritarian rhetoric. I wouldn't bet on globalization to save the day here there or anywhere.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

I don't see theocratic governance survive the current wave of globalisation & urbanisation.

Yes, ISIS spun out of the hipster trend.

ISIS was the ultimate culmination of fundamentalist, jihadist aggression against changes brought about by globalisation. It failed spectacularly. What will they do now? Retreat into more subversive terrorism? To achieve what? Sure, they will continue to be violent but their 'dream' is gone and their long term goals truly unachievable. The only ones who now keep their faith in that future are hardcore zealots and no one else. It's a lost cause and always was, their threat at its peak still barely registering.

The uneven effects of globalization has lead many western countries to backslide into isolationist politics and authoritarian rhetoric. I wouldn't bet on globalization to save the day here there or anywhere.

Globalisation is about more than the political powers that be. It's the unavoidable intermingling of cultures due to advances in travel, communication, education etc. You can hop on the internet and write to people all over the globe in real time, even in languages you don't know assisted by automated translation services. You use/consume products from various countries and cultures every week and have access to food from all over the world in any given medium sized city. People have also massively moved from rural to urban areas everywhere for decades now with major implications for local cultures.

Of course the road ahead is rocky because all of this challenges the stability and fundamental structure of nation states, but restrictive, nationalist and religious conservatism are fighting a losing battle here and they know it.

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

I don't see theocratic governance survive the current wave of globalisation & urbanisation.

Yes, ISIS spun out of the hipster trend.

ISIS was the ultimate culmination of fundamentalist, jihadist aggression against changes brought about by globalisation. It failed spectacularly. What will they do now? Retreat into more subversive terrorism? To achieve what? Sure, they will continue to be violent but their 'dream' is gone and their long term goals truly unachievable. The only ones who now keep their faith in that future are hardcore zealots and no one else. It's a lost cause and always was, their threat at its peak still barely registering.

The uneven effects of globalization has lead many western countries to backslide into isolationist politics and authoritarian rhetoric. I wouldn't bet on globalization to save the day here there or anywhere.

Globalisation is about more than the political powers that be. It's the unavoidable intermingling of cultures due to advances in travel, communication, education etc. You can hop on the internet and write to people all over the globe in real time, even in languages you don't know assisted by automated translation services. You use/consume products from various countries and cultures every week and have access to food from all over the world in any given medium sized city. People have also massively moved from rural to urban areas everywhere for decades now with major implications for local cultures.

Of course the road ahead is rocky because all of this challenges the stability and fundamental structure of nation states, but restrictive, nationalist and religious conservatism are fighting a losing battle here and they know it.

ISIS was the culmination of radical nuts in America trying to create a new world order - thats what failed spectacularly

ISIS failed because America and Russia decided it should fail, not because teenagers prefer to spend their time on facebook.

Most countries are turning inward and becoming more insular and polarised - Britain, America for two.

America supporting division and trying to tell countries and people on the other side of the world what they can and can't do is driving restrictive, nationalist and religious conservatism.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-05-23 15:32:16)

America elected a protectionist, insular, reactionary, racist nut.
Britain voted for Brexit.
China is pursuing globalism because it benefits their nationalist expansionist policies, not because they want to create a global, blended social justice paradise.

The average person does not benefit from or want globalism or multiculturalism, if you believe otherwise you're as deluded as Ken.

Why, because he provided a concise summary/definition of what globalization is? I remember having this discussion in the early 2000s in literally my first quarter of university.

I prefer Chip Douglas' take on it though:

The future is now! Soon every American home will integrate their television, phone and computer. You'll be able to visit the Louvre on one channel, or watch female wrestling on another. You can do your shopping at home, or play Mortal Kombat with a friend from Vietnam. There's no end to the possibilities!

How prescient!

depends on where that average person is and how you define "raise them up".

During the great divergence, capital flowed from colonies to their imperialists, but information stayed within the imperialists.  The second phase was the start of globalization, where capital AND information began to flow back to areas geographically close to those former imperialists (think US -> Mexico, Germany -> Poland, etc). Now the great convergence means capital will continue to flow from the historically imperialist countries, but to the global south at large, with no geographic constraints due to the ease of technology and information transfer.

If you follow a hardcore free-market philosophy, there are no losers because a rising tide raises ALL ships. However, there's no denying that the western world is suffering in some ways due to the efflux of capital and now information, just as there's no denying that the global south (especially areas like SE Asia and Eastern Europe) are benefiting from this new convergence.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Globalisation is about more than the political powers that be. It's the unavoidable intermingling of cultures due to advances in travel, communication, education etc. You can hop on the internet and write to people all over the globe in real time, even in languages you don't know assisted by automated translation services. You use/consume products from various countries and cultures every week and have access to food from all over the world in any given medium sized city. People have also massively moved from rural to urban areas everywhere for decades now with major implications for local cultures.

You sound like 2007. CamPoe  2007.

i feel like i'm being spoken to by a bagehot editorial from the economist that isn't especially enlightening.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

It turns out that when you give the average person more access to communication tools and information it doesn't actually raise them up.

jay is the living encapsulation of the fact that a little reading can be a terrible thing. the man applies analysis and synthesizes arguments like a paraplegic robs banks.