View Single Post
Old March 19 2011, 01:09 AM   #442
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
Basically, I'm satirizing the mantras invoked when such questions are brought up.
Indeed, Rush Limborg has shown consistent disrespect for the principle of the rule of law in almost every Section 31-related debate in which he has been involved.

Actions are not considered just or unjust intrinically,
Odd hearing such a claim from a professed Christian. One most typically hears contrary claims from the faithful.

Yes and no. Sloan notes that the actions he and 31 conducted were responsable for saving countless lives
Or so he claims. Interestingly, we never actually see Section 31 engaging in any operations have have the effect of actually saving lives throughout any of their canonical or non-canonical appearances set during the post-ENT era.

Granted, he did have a vested interest in making that claim, but he was also very confident that in time, Bashir would come to agree with him.
Con men are very confident that in time, you'll come to agree with them. That doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

Sci wrote:
Yeah, but the way you talk, it comes across like you perceive every damn thing as an existential threat and the "last resort" as being, at best, a third or fourth resort.
Well I can assure you, Sci, that is not my intent.
You say that here, and yet at the very end of your post, you start whittering on about Russia and Iran forming a "Typhon Pact"-like alliance and Iran attempting to destroy the State of Israel.

I'm sorry, but your behavior indicates a consistent tendency to exaggerate potential threats and to jump to war as a primary, rather than secondary or tertiary, tool of statecraft.

No, he was engaging in national self-defense. By murdering to remove corruption from world affairs.
By murdering to remove corruption from world affairs.
He wasn't "murdering to remove corruption." The U.S. government in The West Wing regarded the Qumari government has being corrupt years before the events of "We Killed Yamamoto." Bartlet ordered Sharieff's assassination because he represented a threat to the United States which he did not believe the U.S. would be able to counter through other means.

On the Vakerie conspiracy--

<SNIP>

The key difference, of course, being that in Nazi Germany, there was no functioning court system, no real justice system; there was only the will of the Führer. The Federation, by contrast, had a functioning justice system. Even if one accepts the idea that Zife could not be openly tried for his crimes, the fact remains that the Federation system is built on the idea that if you can't convict someone, you let them go, and that Zife did not pose a threat to the Federation upon his resignation. Hitler's rule, by contrast, was tyrannical and posed an existential threat to Germany, both in terms of state violence against its citizenry and in terms of the war being waged against Germany as a result of Hitler's provocations.

You can't compare a state where there is no social contract to one where there is. You simply can't compare the two situations.
By that argument, Sci, neither can you compare the existence of prisions to the existence of the Mafia or Section 31.
Of course you can. Both Section 31 and the Mafia exist in a society that has a functional judicial system and which is a liberal democracy. You can perfectly compare the existence of Section 31 to the existence of the Mafia. You can't compare the assassination of a Federation President to the assassination of a Nazi Dictator.

And yet you yourself claimed that all of those were equally accaptable as examples involving a society's dark side.
Now you're just confusing my argument.

I did not cite "all of these" as "examples involving a society's dark side."

I said that both the existence of prisons and, separately, the existence of a society's dark side (impulses towards imperialism, as an example) are consequences of humanity's flawed moral character.

That is it. That is all. I did not compare prisons to anything. Nor did I say that prisons are not an attempt to cope with humanity's flawed moral character. All I said was that societies have dark sides for the same reason they have prisons: Because people aren't perfect. That's it. That's all. Full stop.

Kindly stop trying to extend that statement further.

In a simmilar manner, Hitler and Zife are both examples of corruption. One is simply a more "extreme" example than another.
Once again, you cannot reasonably compare the two situations or the assassination scenarios, because the political cultures are fundamentally different. One is a dictator in a totalitarian system that lacks a social contract; one is a president who has engaged in criminal behavior in a liberal democracy with a functional justice system and social contract. Comparing the assassinations of the two is like comparing an act of murder committed in the middle of a police station to an act of self-defense committed in the Wild West.

Well, I suppose it depends on the motivations, doesn't it?

In this case, I will remain cynical in regards to Madoff's motives until proven wrong.
Fair enough, but you would do well to disabuse yourself of the fallacious notion that people's motivations are in general rationally consistent. People are complex and self-contradictory creatures.

Except the "high-level abusers got away scott-free" despite the exposure of the incidents.
Which is why I said that exposure of the initial crime is not enough.

Batman finds an interesting loophole, though. As he said to Ras-al-Ghul in the final battle of Batman Begins, "I'm not going to kill you...but I don't have to save you."
And that was a horrible perversion of the real Batman, who can only be found in the comics upon which Batman Begins is based. And in those comics, Batman would never let Ra's al Ghul die by refusing to save him.

Using that analogy, Donatra's actions seem more like moving your king right into you're opponent's territory--surrounded by rooks, bishops, and queens--and expecting said opponent not to notice. I wonder how on earth she felt she had any chance.
She didn't, really. But sometimes in chess, you simply have no other options. You take the move that gives you the highest probability of survival, but sometimes even that probability is ridiculously low. Sometimes, in chess, you have no other choice but to move into checkmate.

I agree that Putin's goal is to re-assert Russia's status as a major world power on the national stage, and to re-assert Russian control of the territories that both the Tzarist and Soviet regimes regarded as their "sphere of influence," and I agree that Russian diplomacy should be viewed through that lens.

But Putin is nothing if not a Russian nationalist. He was attached to the Soviet Union because it was a tool of Russian domination of the other Soviet republics, not because he had any real ideological attachment to Communism or to the idea of Russian equality with other Soviet nationalities. He's perfectly content to be the new Tzar of Russia (whether he calls himself "President" or "Prime Minister" at any given moment) under a Capitalist rather than Communist system.
Agreed. As you say--

Putin's goal is to unofficially restore the Russian Empire. That's why the Kremlin now appoints mayors and regional governors. That's why Moscow has created a new position to control the Caucasus-region territories of the Russian Federation -- essentially re-creating the old viceroy position the Tzars had. Putin's goal is Russian imperium.
Again, I actually see forthcoming a real-life kind of "Typhon Pact", among Russia, the other Former-Sovet-Union countries, and Iran, among other possible powers. This should prove especially interesting if Iran fixes up its nuclear program...and then tries to make good on its threat to wipe Israel off the map....


In the words of Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again."
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote