tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.comments2023-07-18T10:36:37.435-04:00To Secure LibertyDaniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-85619314065747030732017-05-13T08:02:38.833-04:002017-05-13T08:02:38.833-04:00Great Article! It is really informative and innova...Great Article! It is really informative and innovative, keep us posted with new updates. See also this<a href="https://lizzyloses60.blogspot.com/2016/11/tips-for-using-jumper-cables.html" rel="nofollow">web site</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125331390839357249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-20604071722536285792016-07-16T13:09:55.121-04:002016-07-16T13:09:55.121-04:00It may look like I'm falling into the dichotom...It may look like I'm falling into the dichotomy trap I mentioned in my last post. I'm not. There are very few perfect examples of either type. Most of us try to be both, to some degree, and that creates some cognitive dissonance. It is especially true for committed Liberals, and Liberalism was the intellectual basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. If EVERYONE has rights, shouldn't we be doing something about it? Everywhere? And what about rights in conflict? Does my culture, based on a thousand years of tradition, have the rights to female slavery and genital mutilation? Liberalism, taken to its logical conclusion, can be self-contradictory. Our founding fathers squared that circle by assuming that everyone, given sufficient time and the shining example of our "city on a hill" would eventually join Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty." Today, two centuries later, it's harder to stick to that line. It's more like, as the isolationists warned, falling into the trap of being a world empire has corrupted us.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-44379222186741501502013-03-15T12:02:28.731-04:002013-03-15T12:02:28.731-04:00That is the question, isn't it? In principle ...That is the question, isn't it? In principle I suppose so, but what would that "core interest" be? It's further complicated by the common tendency in negotiations to express desires in terms of requirements, and by the fact that different people within a government may have different ideas of what core interests are. It's not something to panic about, by any means, but I'm always a little concerned that people will misperceive what others really care about, and how far they are willing to go -- especially when the other side isn't entirely sure itself, and may feel bound by statements it regrets having made.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-77362446061315858992013-03-14T19:48:38.431-04:002013-03-14T19:48:38.431-04:00Dr. McIntosh, I must admit the prospect of nuclea...Dr. McIntosh, I must admit the prospect of nuclear armed great powers clashing is a disturbing one. One thing I have never been completely clear on is theory with respect to nuclear powers fighting each other. If the US and China were to go to war over some hypothetical "core interest", does the use of strategic nuclear weapons become essentially inevitable? Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00978832564608128259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-31147537426975503582013-01-17T10:01:35.472-05:002013-01-17T10:01:35.472-05:00Did you find any?
Did you find any?<br />Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-63516789126131728962013-01-15T08:08:46.477-05:002013-01-15T08:08:46.477-05:00I checked under my hedges for terrorists just yest...I checked under my hedges for terrorists just yesterday.Fowl Ideashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02667279541680008202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-38266980181517422092012-09-16T03:07:35.117-04:002012-09-16T03:07:35.117-04:00I think for now student loaning isn't a good o...I think for now <b><a href="http://lizloans.com/how-to-restore-your-credit-in-just-5-easy-steps/" rel="nofollow">student loaning</a></b> isn't a good option to apply for yet as it is currently having a problem with regards to loan defaults and borrowers that are having a huge debt.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232852826453772104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-47827675170113124052012-09-05T19:22:22.268-04:002012-09-05T19:22:22.268-04:00There is no profit to be made by donating to unele...There is no profit to be made by donating to unelectable candidates. If Ron Paul had real chances of victory, he would also have received large corporate donations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-18351062840443560112012-08-08T05:54:09.158-04:002012-08-08T05:54:09.158-04:00Outstanding blog you guys have preserved there, I ...Outstanding blog you guys have preserved there, I totally valuate the effort.<br /><a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">no fax payday loans</a>whittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14484796330129528891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-86712257987379329282012-06-27T15:58:23.858-04:002012-06-27T15:58:23.858-04:00I see your point. On the other hand, if you can f...I see your point. On the other hand, if you can find somebody else to do your fighting for you, that can be a pretty good policy. <br /><br />As for helping the Germans, neutrality means working with ("helping") everybody, so long as it is profitable to do so. There were Americans who made their deals with the Swiss, too.<br /><br />If the Germans had won, would the Swiss have fought? I suspect they would have, but we'll never know. Just as, during the Cold War, they maintained and expanded the facilities to protect themselves in case of a third European war. Was is all bluff? Hard to know. Would the US really have risked an attack on American cities to defend Paris? I doubt it, but a lot of effort was put into making the threat credible--and who knows, we might have done it. What we can say is the Swiss made the effort, at considerable expense, to provide civil defense and to threaten to raise the costs for a potential aggressor. Now that the perceived threat is reduced, some of that infrastructure is not longer getting the support it once was. But if similar circumstances were to arise, I suspect they'd get back to preparing for the worst.<br /><br />I should also mention in passing is that one of the things I most admire about the first century of American foreign policy was its skill in playing the great powers of Europe against one another to maximize American freedom of action. We probably can't do it now, but Washington's dictum to reject entangling alliances, while not a forgone conclusion, was the smartest thing we could have done: balance of power maneuvering in defense of liberal ideals. One of the things that made it work was we were so big and so far away. Another was the perception (and as 1812 showed, the fact) that we would fight.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-7686108871564402672012-06-25T15:05:42.374-04:002012-06-25T15:05:42.374-04:00During the WWII most neutrals in Europe were attac...During the WWII most neutrals in Europe were attacked and occupied by Germany. The only neighbors of Germany that escaped this fate were Sweden and Switzerland. What distinguished them from other neutrals were not their natural defenses (both were more vulnerable to attack than Norway) or readiness to fight (see the Ohi Day in Greece), but their accommodating attitude and usefulness to Germany.<br /><br />During the war the economy of both countries worked for the Axis. German industry relied on Swedish ore. Switzerland was useful for trading gold robbed from conquered populations. There was simply no compelling reason for Germany to invade these countries while the war with the Allies was still going on.<br /><br />The annexation of Switzerland (“renegade German province” according to German government) could be safely left until the war with the Allies was over. Would Switzerland dare to fight for its independence then? I doubt it. Given the German tactics of bombing civilian population to force military capitulation (worked great in Netherlands and Yugoslavia), all those mined bridges would have been of little use to the Swiss.<br /><br />As the events turned out, the Allies won and paid a dear price for their victory. So, in retrospect, the decision of Swiss and Swedish governments to stay away from the conflict while trading in stolen goods might have been an act of wisdom. But personally I find it hard to love them for this wisdom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-78320045604265412422012-06-12T09:27:20.386-04:002012-06-12T09:27:20.386-04:00You're probably right. :-)You're probably right. :-)Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-31397834820018295762012-06-12T09:25:47.368-04:002012-06-12T09:25:47.368-04:00My retirement plan assumes I never retire.My retirement plan assumes I never retire.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-43175919186375579672012-06-12T09:24:00.340-04:002012-06-12T09:24:00.340-04:00Aren't those two ways of saying the same thing...Aren't those two ways of saying the same thing?Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-44514782323954968632012-06-07T23:01:29.310-04:002012-06-07T23:01:29.310-04:00"Of the people. For the People. By the People..."Of the people. For the People. By the People.", I always say. However it could just be pandering too. Not quite sure!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-49250279250217355072012-05-31T15:31:32.012-04:002012-05-31T15:31:32.012-04:00My retirement plan assumes that there will never b...My retirement plan assumes that there will never be social security payments made to me, by the time i qualify (in 7 years).Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14908379995093389898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-29898129985670892132012-05-31T15:30:32.597-04:002012-05-31T15:30:32.597-04:00"anything is possible, but some things are mo..."anything is possible, but some things are more probable than others...." i keep repeating that in my quant analysis classes. it truly is a probabilistic universe!Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14908379995093389898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-54303209722675527872012-05-30T15:00:09.629-04:002012-05-30T15:00:09.629-04:00"Always" is too strong a word. There ca..."Always" is too strong a word. There can be illiberal democracies and liberal monarchs, and authoritarian democracies. But if democracy and authoritarianism are the only two choices I'd rather bet on a mass of people than a single dictator. <br /><br />My first preference is some version of sortition, coupled with a liberal constitution. Democracy-by-election is more subject to corruption, rewards self-centered power-hungry figures, and encourages citizen apathy. Knowing there's a chance _you_ might end up in the legislature encourages consideration of the issues, and knowing that _someone else_ might end up in the legislature encourages general public discussion. <br /><br />It ain't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill I suspect in the long run it's superior to the alternatives.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-78141507285728673342012-05-27T13:28:31.092-04:002012-05-27T13:28:31.092-04:00Is democracy always superior to authoritarian syst...Is democracy always superior to authoritarian systems?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-92079817071119715432012-05-20T13:57:15.137-04:002012-05-20T13:57:15.137-04:00Building a bigger workspace was one of the best de...Building a bigger workspace was one of the best decisions I ever made! This big long DIY sawhorse table has more than enough room for me to spread out my supplies..<br /><a href="http://www.nch.com/" rel="nofollow">にほんNCH</a>jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06122681827186864956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-16525035086994304282012-04-22T17:08:26.393-04:002012-04-22T17:08:26.393-04:00I sure hope it's the result of a political cal...I sure hope it's the result of a political calculation. War, after all, is political. But the calculation you describe is strictly domestic--it seems to miss the idea of a national interest independent of whether X or Y remains in office. And that may be much of what's wrong with American foreign policy.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-40228818994578981122012-04-03T00:45:21.656-04:002012-04-03T00:45:21.656-04:00How, in your opinion, should I invest my money giv...How, in your opinion, should I invest my money given that I'm a 21 year old male with the real possibility of not having a retirement option when I'm of age?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-34406665110379081602012-03-24T13:00:30.299-04:002012-03-24T13:00:30.299-04:00The continued American presence in Afghanistan is ...The continued American presence in Afghanistan is likely a result of a political calculation. Voters who prefer to withdraw the troops whatever the consequences are unlikely to desert to Republicans. Others may be angered if the Taliban returns to power soon after the withdrawal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-80249471902892742472012-03-24T12:58:07.509-04:002012-03-24T12:58:07.509-04:00“substitute a couple of labels (Muslim fundamental...“substitute a couple of labels (Muslim fundamentalists for Jews, for example) and much the same things could be said for the United States. Mirror imaging? More like these things are true for most (all?) countries.”<br /><br />There is a crucial difference. Placed with two options – safely “wiping Iran of the map” or establishing normal relations with it (like the times of the Shah) – governments and most citizen of the US, Israel or any other western country would choose the latter.<br /><br /><br />"Preemptive War is like committing suicide for fear of death."<br /><br />Given Bismarck’s manner to pose as a peacemaker in between his “wars of choice”, I would take all his pacifist statements with a grain of salt. In general, though, preemptive wars usually made little sense in the XIX century, when Clausewitz’s maxim -“defense is the stronger form of waging war”- was still relevant.<br /><br /><br />“…Iranians sink an American ship, America retaliates against Iran”<br /><br />If Iranian government is truly reckless enough to provoke a full-scale war with America now, when it would most likely repeat the fate of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, how can it be expected to behave when it acquires a nuclear deterrent?<br /><br /><br />“The one thing that would push them to greater radicalism would be if they felt they were under direct and large-scale attack”<br /><br />The future is hard to predict, but since history often tends to repeat itself, historical precedents are usually the best predictors of the future. I recall quite a few cases when an authoritarian regime collapsed or became more liberal after a military defeat. I would be really interested in examples to the contrary.<br /><br /><br />“Perhaps the war scare is meant in part to distract from other problems.”<br /><br />My own impression is that Obama’s administration is just making a show to escape accusations of inaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-60920247024051975302012-03-21T15:39:56.948-04:002012-03-21T15:39:56.948-04:00Thanks for correcting the date. I forgot about th...Thanks for correcting the date. I forgot about the taking of Abu Musa. Not much of a military operation, and Iran had the better claim, but if their claim was that the British had no authority to grant rights to the UAE (and there's a good case to be made) they should have let the issue work itself out through the ICJ. <br /><br />You are right that a lot is about having the power to act. A lot, but not all. The interesting things are the moves they haven't tried. Generally, especially since 1979, they seem to prefer deniability to direct assault.<br /><br />You may be right about the other stuff, too. There's no certainty in this business. But there are some very high probabilities, in my opinion.<br /><br />1) Some, but not all, Iranian leaders are looking for the 12th Iman, etc. Some of these wouldn't mind seeing the end of the world, since they consider it a precondition to the construction of the next one.<br /><br />2) Most aren't. They'd rather stay alive and achieve their goals the old fashioned way. They have a strong interest in keeping the crazies in line. <br /><br />3) Some of the Iranian people really hate the US. Some really, REALLY hate Israel, and would like to see the Jews driven into the sea.<br /><br />4) Some of the people chanting "death to America" don't much care, one way or another. <br /><br />5) Most wouldn't mind getting rid of their enemies--if they could make the Jews disappear at no cost, with the push of a button, they'd do it--but don't want to throw away their lives (or a sizable chunk of their wealth) in the attempt. The one thing that would push them to greater radicalism would be if they felt they were under direct and large-scale attack. <br /><br />I just noticed: substitute a couple of labels (Muslim fundamentalists for Jews, for example) and much the same things could be said for the United States. Mirror imaging? More like these things are true for most (all?) countries.<br /><br />One thing I'm pretty sure of:<br /><br />1) An attack on Iran could be VERY expensive. In one worst-case scenerio, similar to the Millennium Challenge war game conducted in 2002, the US loses. I hope the US learned from that game. I worry that it hasn't (a war game played out a devastating sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in the early 30s--it was ignored). The recent CSIS proposal includes sending troops to take and hold Iranian soil in order to facilitate keeping the Straights open, with all that means for a long-term, ugly commitment. A (classified/leaked) war game earlier this month ("Internal Look," according to the Times) started with an Israeli attack on Iran, and quickly led to regional escalation. Israel hits Iran, Iranians sink an American ship, America retaliates against Iran (which is, after all, what some in Israel want). Or, to avoid that, a long and bloody terrorist campaign. Personally, I consider the estimate to be optimistic.<br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong--but it worries me more than the prospect of long-term (mutual) deterrence, or an arms race.<br /><br />I keep thinking of Bismarck's old line: "Preemptive War is like committing suicide for fear of death."<br /><br />Something that might be true, but I hope isn't:<br /><br />1) Perhaps the war scare is meant in part to distract from other problems. Or, God help us, provide an excuse for a more "proactive" policy under the guise of emergency measures. <br /><br />More likely, however, it's another case of the tool determining the definition of the policy. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened.Daniel McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com