You’re referring to coercive diplomacy. Except you flex your muscles if there’s a reason. So, is the US’s reason to flex its muscles justified? It’s your call after that.
Never heard of that. Hm. I should hit the history books harder.
…at least, I don’t THINK I ever heard of it.
All you’re saying is that nation-states do act in their perceived national interest at the expense of other countries’ national interests. Which dodges the question of this thread: Is it ethical for them to do so?
Or are you saying it is meaningless to try to apply ethical standards to states at all? If so, you need to explicate that argument more clearly.
Why did they have to?
You realize, of course, that the kind of “presence” you describe is exactly what we had in the ME before 9/11, and it is only slightly less infuriating to the Muslim world than actual invasion, which is why the 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.
:dubious: No. That situation does not cause right and wrong to “fly out the window,” it merely adds another set of factors to the moral calculus. We still have to weigh the interests of those citizens against the interests of those whose lives are directly affected by our military actions.
No . . . merely that “national interest” does not justify a state’s actions to any greater (or lesser) degree than personal interest justifies an individual’s actions.
Well, at that point, the US had trhe Pillippines and a few other holdings in the deep Pacific as well as the resources on them. Japan, obviously as an island naiton, needed such things eventually.
Besides, Japan agreed with America previously that they’d stay out of Manchuria. They like Manchuria. They want Manchuria. Manchuria has nice things, that Japan wanted. Eventually, they’d pounce on it and have to tussle with the Americans.
I sort of answered this in my first post when I talked about how ‘morales’ are realitive to the perspective of the entity (person, clan, tribe, state) viewing them. To a nation state the ‘ethical’ thing for them to do is primarily to serve their own citizens first. This will, to a greater or lesser degree impact other nations…whether good or ill. Whether its good or ill though, the ‘ethical’ thing for a nation state to do remains primarily focused on its own people first.
For that matter, sometimes the most ‘ethical’ thing for a state to do involves sacrificing some of its own citizens…for the greater good (in theory) of the nation as a whole.
Its meaningless to apply the same standards for an individual to those of a group, be it a clan, a tribe, a city or a nation. I would think this is obvious…its one of the sacrifices we must make to HAVE a civilization after all.
Why yes, BG, I DO realize that this is the kind of presence we had in the ME prior to 9/11. Whats your point exactly? Are you saying that nation states need to be able to read the future when attempting to pursue what they feel are their vital national intersts? Should Clinton have forseen 9/11 and pulled out US troops and US assets, even though it was felt to be vital to the US that we have those there? Having pulled them out, perhaps we’d have avoided 9/11 (then again, perhaps not)…but can you forsee what other things may have occured had the US done so…things that would have a direct impact on the US and our interests (not to mention other nations)? Seriously…where are you going with this?
I disagree. ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are relative positions based on the perception of the individual or group determining it. To me whats ‘right’ could be ‘wrong’ to you…and vice versa. When expanding to incompass entire nations the determination of whats ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is even more complex…as sometimes those in power do things that the general population may find ‘wrong’, but do them for the greater good (I’m thinking of Roosevelt’s intervention with Lend Lease and the secret war of the US Navy against the Germans prior to the US actually entering the WWII).
While I think that taking into account other nations is important in the calculation of foreign policy, the MAIN calculation has to be whats best for the majority of our citizens. Otherwise what is the point of having a government at all?
Completely disagree with you here. But I think my post is long enough at this point and I’m unlikely to sway you while I’m half drunk so…
Hope your day goes well BG.
-XT
Note that postwar Japan controls no territory outside its Home Islands, has few domestic natural resources, and has no military power to speak of; but it still gets all it needs, because it is has a highly industrialized economy, a proficient workforce, and a high level of mass education. Perhaps the leaders of the time misread what their “national interest” really was. In any case, they might have decided they wanted peace more than they wanted Manchuria or the Philippines, and it would have been no disaster for their country. They didn’t have to choose war.