Free Republic

Foreign Policy Studies may be utter garbage, but this would be an entirely new debate...

No, in your #94, you claimed that there was a Logical Fallacy in my following challenge:

Actually that is what I meant by "objection" in this statement. It doesn't matter if I specifically identified the fallacy or not. What I am point out is what I meant by the term "objection", which you seem to have misunderstood.

But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.

C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".

You identified nothing.

Which is irrelevant to what I meant by "objection" in the later statement. I identified a fallacy but I did not express it -- mainly because I knew it would bog down the debate.

Merely claiming Logical Fallacy in my response is without value. You must identify my Logical Fallacy.

The fallacy identified is an invalid analogy. The reason it is invalid is that there exists a large support staff of policy analysts that receive feedback based on decision making. There also experts and degrees in Foreign Policy Studies, *unlike* the case of Corporate subsidies. Based on these essential criteria the analogy you presented was invalid.

Oh, then we may be arguing about different points. If this is your stance, then we may actually be much closer in viewpoint than I realized. I was under the impression that you were a STRICT isolationist.

I'm going to call it a night and pick this up tomorrow...

Now: Identify the portion of your "objection" which is not a Logical Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon Fallacy.

I am specifically appealing to expert testimony. This is how knowledge is typically gained. We end up having to trust experts to some extent.

Here is the definition of Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):

Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm

Appealing to expert opinion does not always fit this fallacy, but I suppose you could push the point if you wanted. I was primarily appealing to expert analysis, that even though there is not total agreement among experts, there typically is a congruence of opinion that eschews isolationism. You should also realize that this was *not* part of an argument of mine. I actually poised my reply in the form of a question -- waiting for you to answer the question.

Your "objection" was a Logical Fallacy, Uber.

Huh? The "objection" I am referring to was to point out the logical fallacy in one of your replies.

I do NOT assume that "the balance of power is how the nature of how the world works". I take it is a given that nations devour other nations. Those they want to devour, that is, or are devoured in turn in the attempt.

So we are back to the beginning of this debate. What about countries like Iraq, who back in the early 90's was dilegently attempting to aquire nuclear weapons -- and supposedly came very close at one point. They invaded Kuwait. We stopped them. An isolationist stance would very likely have led to serious repercussions in terms of both Israel and the United States. This simple argument is enough to refute a strict isolationist viewpoint.

Even Israel had enough sense to bomb their main reactor to prevent the production of fissionable material.

Yes, to show you how crude some of your "comments" are becoming. If you don't like it then why direct them toward me?

, Uber, but if you do, I might be forced to really embarass you.

Yawn.

You continue to bluster. How have you made any cogent arguments in support of isolationism? You also continue to ignore significant points made in support of intervention. Why no replies?

Let's not kid ourselves: I've already had to smear your claims of "logical fallacies" back in your face, given your egregious Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon Fallacies in your very same post.

Sorry you are taking it so badly. Pointing out logical fallacies is anything but a "smear". It's part of getting to the truth. I actually appreciate it *if* you would point out logical fallacies of mine. You should also be more specific in pointing out fallacies, otherwise it will get hard to follow what you are saying. I also explained part of a misunderstanding that may have led to your belief that a fallacy was commited.

I enjoy good-faith debates, so let's keep it friendly.

LOL.

Almost every one of your replys has some explicit or implicit insult, so I really doubt you want to keep it friendly -- unless of course you mean in some one sided manner.

But take on airs of condescension with me, and I'll be forced to crush your little pretense of logical acumen.

LMAO.

You can't even argue a simple point but you're going to "crush" me?

ROFL.

You should do a comedy act with this routine...very funny.

It's already obvious that I easily can

The only thing obvious is that you are becoming more desperate as you slowly run out of valid arguments -- if you even had any to begin with.

, so let's just keep it cordial, fair 'nuff? I prefer it that way.

Cordial? Just go back and read your replies -- you are anything but cordial. Not just to me but to others. How can you miss such a simple point?

You accuse me of logical fallacies, employing as your counter-argument a couple of textbook Appeal To Authority and Appeal To Bandwagon fallacies as your attempt at "refutation"?

LOL.

Give it up guy. You've just commited another fallacy. You're beginning to fall apart. My original objection *still* stands. I may have commited a logical fallacy but that does *not* negate your logical fallacy. Surely you are bright enough to understand this?

That's not even offensive; it's embarassing.

Yes, you are becoming embarassing. You bluster on, yet never quite making a cogent argument. I let this go on for quite a while, but it seems to be a characteristic of your replys.

If you were even past the level of Freshman Logical Analysis, I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself.

Yawn...more bluster. Where are your cogent arguments? How have you answered the original issue that started this debate? Yet, you continue posting non-sequitur after non-sequitur.

It's pitiable. You want me to respect your argumentative talents, OP, not to pity you.

Sigh.

Look, watch this: "Well, Golly-Gee, Uber, I don't think all experts are Wrong; I think that only the Foreign Policy Journal Interventionist (so-called) 'experts' are Wrong, and the Foreign Policy Journal Isolationist Experts are Right!!"

Yawn.

Actually you miss the original point. The point is that pragmatism is built on the contributions of many foreign policy experts, including no doubt contributions from isolationists. However, a strict policy of isolationism involves almost *no* decision making whatsover. It's a rigid criteria that can only be justified by a general argument -- an argument that you have failed to produce and an argument that is contradicted by the reality of global politics.

Huh, wouldja look at that -- all of a sudden, I have my very own Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon fallacies with which to counter your "arguments" -- and you have no leg to stand on

It's getting worse. First of all, as stated above, if I have commited a logical fallacy, that says nothing concerning the logical fallacy I pointed out previously. Secondly, it would not "counter" my arguments except possibly the one in context. Finally, you seem to have misunderstood my point so there may not actually be a fallacy. I see nothing wrong with you pointing out possible fallacies of mine. If the arguments are invalid, why not point it out?

That's the problem with Logical Fallacies, Uber -- they gain you nothing when debating someone who is familiar with the science and practice of Logic.

Ironically it's just the opposite. An argument based on a fallacy is typically *invalid*. Depending on the relevance of the argument this could be critical to a general discussion. I would expect you to understand what fallacy I am referring to, otherwise how would you understand what I am saying.

Sheesh, you should already know that.

LOL.

You seem to think that fallacies are some kind of debating point, but if your "arguments" are based on fallacious reasoning they will be invalid.

Oh, heck, I'll say it any way -- for that blatant argumentative blunder, you should be ashamed of yourself.

But the point is getting to the truth, not some kind of argumentative point system.

Try harder next time. I was enjoying our debate, but now you are just disappointing me.

LOL.

The point still stands. You seem to be getting desperate in trying to argue for something that is unsupportable.

Sigh. Try harder next time OP -- don't disappoint me.

Nah.

LOL.

Sorry but your overly simplistic notion that all nations will somehow cancel all other nations, all to the benefit to the United States is not naively idealistic but is unsupported by the evidence. You seem to think that this balance of powers is somehow in the nature of how the world works. Ironically much of this balance of powers is *due* to foreign policy making of the United States. Nations devour other nations -- this is how the world works. Your naivity is beginning to disapoint me. Surely you're brighter than this.

As for myself, two gin-scented tears trickle down the sides of my nose. It is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over My Self. I trust Big Brother.

I love Big Brother.

Hehe.

I do appreciate your sentiments here. Yes, I believe there is corruption in "statecraft", but I also believe that there are honest State Department "experts" who still guide policy making. I think the difference here is that without (foreign) policy makers who exactly would be making these decisions?

You almost sound like an anarchist...

I'm saying that it works enough to be a reasonable tool of foreign policy decision making.

My answer is simple: Let them kill eachother.

With nukes I suppose? Once again though who is to say that some of these actors (including terrorists) will not direct nuclear weapons toward the US? Iraq was working deligently toward aquiring nuclear weapons *until* the West intervened. Who do you think they would have used those nuclear weapons on? Perhaps the United States, but probably Israel -- and yet you claim to be a friend the Israelis? It sure doesn't sound that way.

Read the previous posts to try and make sense of what we have been talking about. All you are doing is listing examples of poor policy making, and I probably would agree with you.

War is hell. Concerning those killed *after* the Iraqi intervention, you should directing this to OP, since these deaths would not be the result of economic aid and military intervention but its exact opposite.

Why not also, then, trust the "pragmatism" of the Treasury and the Commerce Departments to plan your economic Life for you, over any sort of idealistic, non-interventionist Capitalism?

Because the "actors" in each case are entirely different. Foreign policy "actors" typically are nations, while economic "actors" are typically individuals. Surely you see the difference. The most ideal entity to implement decision making for an individual is the individual himself. There will always be decision making concerning state actions, so your point fails.

Comparing capitalism to foreign policy is of course a poor method of making sense of either of them.

C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".

Huh? Now you're beginning to commit logical fallacies. Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct?

LOL.

Talk about insane...

Without the inducement of money Pakistan could just as easily focus its attention toward helping its Muslim brothers in other nations. What if a more fundamentalist government were to gain power in Pakistan? You make quite a number of assumptions concerning what Pakistan would do without *any* financial aid from the US. It's a foolish wish that by isolating ourselves from the world that "somehow" things will work out for the best.

At least, it hasn't worked for decade after decade after decade.

But it has worked for decade after decade after decade. It doesn't work perefectly but it still works.

And so we are back to the beginning. What to do about the proliferation of WMD (especially among unstable regimes) -- the fundamental question that started this debate, and a question you have yet to answer.

This is assuming that it is morally correct in the first place to EVER "tax the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" (which is the essence of Foreign Aid).

I'm not sure what kind of moral argument you could possibly present to dispute the practice of foreign aid. Money going from poor people to rich people is also typical of the essense of capitalism. Try presenting an argument that doesn't work for foreign aid but does work for capitalism.

But even if that idea were philosophically moral in the first place, it plainly hasn't worked.

But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.

Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Batista, and managed to so radicalize the Cuban peasantry that they allowed the murderous Castro to come to power. Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Somoza, and managed to so radicalize the Nicaraguan peasantry that they allowed the murderous Sandanistas to come to power. Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Shah, and managed to so radicalize the Iranian peasantry that they allowed the murderous Ayatollahs to come to power. So, in order to "counterbalance" the murderous Ayatollahs, Interventionists subsidized Saddam Hussein of Iraq. That ended up working out real good too. Interventionists subsidized the maniacal Taliban, and they thanked us by carting barrel-loads of US dollars down to the local Al-Queda training camps where fanatics were poring over schematics of the World Trade Center.

Every example you have given is to some extent bad policy. So how is this is a general critique of foreign aid or specific policies toward Israel?

Whoa... Hold on a minute... you are saying that this (inherently illegitimate)

Perfectly legitimate.

policy of "taxing the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" is intended to stabilize regional conflicts?

You are confusing specific implementation with the general policy. You are also making judgements concerning what would have occurred *without* foreign aid. This is a very complex subject. Are the policy wonks in the State Department sometimes wrong? Of course, but I would rather trust this pragmatic decision making rather than any sort of idealism based on isolationism.

As for myself, I am perfectly happy to give that "Missile Defense Shield" thing a whirl, and see how that works.

Research on Missile Defense Shields has been going on for decades, with few signficant results. Generally the critique is that the measures needed to defeat the shield are quite simple and easily developed, or the complexity of the system would so much that the system would breakdown during operation. At this point in time there is no system that looks viable. This is reality. Perhaps in a few decades something more viable will be developed, but that is not the case now.

Let's go over this. There is no shield. So what exactly do you think is protecting this country from nuclear weapons? To confuse what *may* be developed in the future with what exists *now* is an irresponsible approach to decision making.

Won't know 'till we try!!

But we have tried -- for decades.

And "Non-Interventionism" speaks primarily to a posture of military defense (as opposed to military interventionism), not complete withdrawal from world affairs. China has nuclear weapons? Well, sure, we can try the "direct military confrontation" thing

No one is claiming that "direct military confrontation" with China is implied by an non isolationist approach. The actors that we should be worried about are unstable regimes or individuals who would tend to either use nuclear weapons against the United States or perhaps lose control of their weapons. This would include nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. You're also missing the obvious point that the time to prevent proliferation is *prior* to these nations aquiring nuclear weapons.

Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic.

Non isolationism is not incongruent with other policies as you have described above. So I'm not sure why you are raising this issue.

But the fact that China would thereby be hamstrung between looking West (at India) and looking East (at Japan) is pretty nice gravy on the Moral steak, IMHO. Meanwhile, US troops and taxes are able to stay home.

Most of this irrelevant. See above.