Skip to main content

View Diary: The New Dovish Imperial Grand Strategy (17 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wouldn't want to make deductions about Bush's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ormondotvos

      personal life. All I am concerned about are the policies.
     And I have been quite clear and quite consistent in saying that I perceive the primary foreign policy objectives to be the proliferation of the military industrial complex system (the quasi-socialist state sector of the economy), intensification of global conflict, full spectrum operations to secure an investor friendly business climate within the non-intergrated gap, and rollbacks in critical social welfare programs (the arm of the commonwealth republic) to be the basic foreign policy objectives of the high-level planners of all administrations since Kennedy.
      I do not find the operationalization and application of these policies to be humane or reasonable. They do not adhere to the principles of universality, proportionality, and sustainablity and thus, under my arbitrary ethical framework do not seem just or even logical.
      As for polymorphous perversity, it is the very propaganda system that I criticize that is responsible for convincing a highly suggestible Core society that they are hedonists, and Bush is a part of that society. So, it doesn't strike one as remarkable that this could be a plausible set of circumstances for our Commander in Chief. However, I don't think he sets the policies. In fact, he may be like Reagan and not even understand the policies. He is the Queen of America - the figurehead in Chief and I don't spend alot of time thinking about him as a central figure in the decision-making process.

    •  Very well putm Nathan. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nathan Jaco

      But ignoring the personal character of George III during the pre-revolutionary years would have given poor results about future events.

      Bush may be a puppet of the military-industrial complex, but he is president, and apparently is driving the planners of the oligarchy nuts with his "judgments" about how to do things.

      I don't disagree with your analysis of the drivers behind the current economic moves.

      I don't bother with ethical systems because I'm an evolutionary psychologist by inclination, and I derive my ethics from what must be, not what I'd like.

      I don't wish pain on anyone, but humanity seems to be approaching the nature of a cancer on the earth. If we can't figure out some way to reverse population growth humanely, I think it will reverse accidentally.

      Ethics is reducing pain, which means reducing numbers, because more people than resources leads to war (which doesn't always reduce numbers, over time, because after wars, people breed like crazy. Baby Boom, anyone?)

      Thanks for your engagement. We can meet in a later thread, Nathan.

      Humanity's niche is it's own culture. We change our world as it changes us. Evolution or devolution? -7.63,-3.28

      by ormondotvos on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 11:04:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the greatest threats to are existence... (0+ / 0-)

          ...are the strategic arsenals of the US and Russia. More specifically, I have heard that the US missile defense system is triggered nearly every day and there is a 3-minute window for human intervention to disarm it.
          Now, if this occured, the launch of the missiles I mean, it would be the end of civilization as we know it and could possibly be the end of the human species. The point is, this system has very little to do with population growth, but it is a monumental threat to the perpetuation of the species. And the same is true for global warming, etc.
          Global warming and strategic missiles are choices. A choice by the high-level planners, intelligentsia, and corporate "masters of the universe" that I criticize.
          So, you have identified yourself as an evolutionary biologist, but evolutionary biology has very little to lend to all this at its current state. I have stated in other threads that I think social science, in terms theoretical groundwork and all that, is several centuries behind the natural sciences (of course this is based on historical precedent and not adjusted for the exponential nature of scientific development as it has and will compound).
          You are looking at the problem in terms of some very myopic issues that are supposedly critical. The focus is on human tendencies as an aggregate and sociotropic issues and all that. However, the problems that are most urgent and most critical are the result of the actions of a very small minority of the human species. Socio-biology is very important, but it has to be developed before we can start utilizing it to justify changes in policies. For now, we must deal with the very technical and very artificial systems we have created that could potentially destroy are species.  

        M-A-R-S - Mars, bitches! - Black Bush

        by Nathan Jaco on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:07:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (134)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site