46 Republicans vote to defund NATO

[kan...@aol.com]

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-republicans-voted-defund-nato-1908334#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2046%20House,and%20financial%20aid%20to%20Ukraine.

This should help support my contention that the foreign influence to worry about in the US is Russia. How Putinesque can you get? 

This proposal put forth by Marjorie T. Greene. Voting in favor were such luminaries as Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, etc. 

You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. 

The crazy right really just can't help itself. Trump Kool-aid potion works its magic. 

[David Fairchild]

Great quote, Ken. But a bit ironic, perhaps, that you pull it from the quintessential pop-cultural movie franchise about perpetual war or the threat or war -- given this is also NATO's reasoning for being.

NATO's territory in Europe more than doubled after the Cold War ended and at a time when there was no threat. Any theories as to why? Mine theory is is well articulated in Ike's farewell address given 63 years ago. 

Defunding NATO is not a right (or exclusively right) idea. It is a non-interventionist idea fully congruent with the NAP and American sovereignty .  

[GMoney]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 8:47 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Defunding NATO is not a right (or exclusively right) idea. It is a non-interventionist idea fully congruent with the NAP and American sovereignty . 

What does NAP say is to be done about aggression against one's friends/allies?

 

[David Fairchild]

It doesn't. 

Do you have friends in Ukraine? I don't. Ukraine is not allied with the U.S.

[GMoney]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 9:39 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

It doesn't. 

Do you have friends in Ukraine? I don't. Ukraine is not allied with the U.S.

I was talking about NATO....and treaties....in general. 

Are treaties an impossibility under NAP? 

On a more specific note. Riddle me this: You are standing in a park with your best friend, someone comes up and starts pummeling him....what do you do, and why, and how does your response align with NAP? or does NAP have nothing to say about such a situation? Are you allowed aggression towards another that has no shown aggression towards you?

These are honest questions given what you stated above about NATO and our withdrawing being within the scope of NAP.

 

On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 9:31:38 AM UTC-5 G wrote:

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 8:47 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Defunding NATO is not a right (or exclusively right) idea. It is a non-interventionist idea fully congruent with the NAP and American sovereignty . 

What does NAP say is to be done about aggression against one's friends/allies?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/f8c91328-528d-4b60-b1aa-70a851c66e1en%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

Well, first I think it important to make sure we have a common understanding of what is NAP. The best definition I have heard for it is that aggression or the threat of aggression is morally illegitimate. Full stop.

I offer that NATO's accelerated expansion post the cold war was a threat of aggressive toward an economically vanquished competitors when we could have instead worked much harder to make a partner on the world stage of the vanquished as we had done earlier with Japan and Germany. Did you read Ike's speech I linked? It is not long. We did exactly what he warned us against doing. And we did it specifically for the benefit of those with financial interests in the MIC who otherwise bemoaned the end of the cold war -- all the whilst creating creating greater world instability, not less, it seems.

I also offer that  NATO's accelerated expansion post the cold war was aggressive toward the American taxpayer who was coerced not to fund a hot war or even a cold war for clear moral reasons, but to fund the MIC more than ever ostensibly to dissuade anyone from aggressing in Europe again. The irony is palpable.

As to your park example, NAP does not preclude self defense or defense of someone else being aggressed against. Such defendings are not aggressive because they merely seek to end another's aggression. Nor does NAP mandate such defenses. It's up to the individual to consider the practical implications in deciding whether to engage or abstain in such defense. Perhaps a moral case could be made that in your example engagement is warranted or even required given the risks to non aggressors seems minimal -- but that moral case would depend on something other than the NAP.

On the other hand, the risks to non aggressors of engagement (directly or indirectly) in Ukraine, and even more so Gaza, seems more than minimal.

[GMoney]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:46 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, first I think it important to make sure we have a common understanding of what is NAP. The best definition I have heard for it is that aggression or the threat of aggression is morally illegitimate. Full stop.

I offer that NATO's accelerated expansion post the cold war was a threat of aggressive toward an economically vanquished competitors when we could have instead worked much harder to make a partner on the world stage of the vanquished as we had done earlier with Japan and Germany. Did you read Ike's speech I linked? It is not long. We did exactly what he warned us against doing. And we did it specifically for the benefit of those with financial interests in the MIC who otherwise bemoaned the end of the cold war -- all the whilst creating creating greater world instability, not less, it seems.

I also offer that  NATO's accelerated expansion post the cold war was aggressive toward the American taxpayer who was coerced not to fund a hot war or even a cold war for clear moral reasons, but to fund the MIC more than ever ostensibly to dissuade anyone from aggressing in Europe again. The irony is palpable.

As to your park example, NAP does not preclude self defense or defense of someone else being aggressed against. Such defendings are not aggressive because they merely seek to end another's aggression. Nor does NAP mandate such defenses. It's up to the individual to consider the practical implications in deciding whether to engage or abstain in such defense. Perhaps a moral case could be made that in your example engagement is warranted or even required given the risks to non aggressors seems minimal -- but that moral case would depend on something other than the NAP.

On the other hand, the risks to non aggressors of engagement (directly or indirectly) in Ukraine, and even more so Gaza, seems more than minimal.

Thanks for the thoughtful answers as always Dave. 

The world would certainly be a better place if more people and nations adopted NAP...whereas most nations seem to adopt an AP....forgetting the "N" *sigh*.

[kan...@aol.com]

"Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be."

So I read the speech, Dave. Not that short. I posted the above paragraph because it seems to speak to the threat of the Soviet Union. Also, the last sentence sounds like Yoda in  syntax. The fact that the Soviet Union dissolved doesn't, IMO, end the threat. In Ike's words, we still have a threat that is anti-democratic, atheistic, etc. Yes, Russia is weak and broke; but so is North Korea. But both countries seem to insist on keeping massive military capability and a certain bombastic stance to back it up. According to Ike, we need a persistent effort to counter these threats. 

We've negotiated with Russia and gotten little for it. They continue to flex their military muscle. 

The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union couldn't afford to keep up. Russia is in the same situation. Now, should we continue this stand-off and wait for them to tire of the effort  or go broke trying? I'd love some kind of NAP detente (I want to use the word rapprochement; but it seems snooty). But any kind of financial support- a quasi Marshall Plan- is a really BAD idea. Russia is rife with kleptocrats who would profit mightily from such financial input. 

True that NATO is much larger, by virtue of previous Soviet satellites asking for protection from RUSSIA. What are Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania to do? They can't defend themselves. Even Ukraine can't. And Russia, despite its apparent poverty, seems intent on prosecuting military aggression. 

So I vote for NATO as an NAP way to prevent military conflict. And it seems to have worked for quite some time. It has cost a lot of money (Ike said it would); but no lives have been lost (not counting Ukraine; which isn't really a NATO conflict). 

Ike was prescient on a variety of subjects. Perhaps one of our underestimated POTUS. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

I'm sorry but 

Aggression is the initiation of the use of force. If that's a fair definition then no it's not inherently immoral. In fact it's use can and often is deplorable. There are times that is not the case. If there are times when using force against someone who isn't using force against you is sometimes moral then aggression isn't inherently immoral. NAP is based on a logical fallacy. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/62f19a77-9a89-481f-8fad-6e719908064fn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

"There are times that is not the case." Examples please?

"NAP is based on a logical fallacy." Which fallacy? https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[Brian Kegerreis]

You gave an example in the park. You say it's not aggression but it is. If you come to the aid of another by using force against someone who is using isn't using force against you that is aggression.  It may be moral aggression, but it's still aggression all the same. The logical fallacy is called lying to yourself to justify your inconsistency. 

If Bob and Tom are fighting and I beleive one or the other should be stopped because they started it or the other has been rendered defenseless and I use force to intervene that is an act of aggression since neither are using force against me. Which one I intervene against determines of its moral/legitimate or not. If Tom is beating the crap out if Bob who's juat laying there defenseless and I act against Bob I'm a piece of shit, but if I act againt Tom I'm a hero. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/9d65d384-4ab6-4f9f-9349-e75e507b5edbn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

Suppose I see Bob aggressing against Tom and I defend Tom by picking Tom up and moving Tom away from Bob, have I aggressed against Bob? 

[Brian Kegerreis]

Yes you've forcibly moved someone 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/bb9a1c72-4d48-48f9-9baa-4ee4bdc4e422n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Kegerreis]

And what's to stop Bob from following you and continuing to hit Tom repeatedly while not hitting you?

[David Fairchild]

Forcibly? Well, yes, any physical change requires a force if my 11th grade physics teacher is to be believed?

Do you mean I used coercion to move someone? If so, okay. So if I first ask Tom if he'd like me to move him away from Bob and he says yes and then I move Tom away, have I aggressed? If so, against whom?

[B Keg]

No, but what if you can't get an answer from the unconscious Tom? And even if you move him what's to stop Bob from just following you and continuing to pummel Tom? What if Tom is too incapacitated to move where he's unconscious and either moving him or being hit one more time will likely kill or cause grievous injuries? What then? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/fb4aee43-d0f1-4a8e-8b48-a41f909d795cn%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Too convoluted, Dave. Just go with the simplified version- the "golden rule". It doesn't rule out the appropriated use of force. 

[David Fairchild]

What if, what if what if...

The burden of logic is not on me to show a defensive solution that is NAP compliant in all scenarios. The burden is on you to show that aggression is sometimes moral. That's what we're discussing. 

With your "no" you acknowledge there is at least one scenario in which a defense of Tom is possible without aggression. Therefore, by way of counter-example I have shown false your claim that NAP is based on a logical fallacy. 

Moreover, given my suggested defense to remove Tom with Tom's explicit permission, if Bob subsequently aggresses toward me, then any force I use toward Bob in response is not aggressive since self defense is certainly legitimate under the NAP. This is what differentiates NAP from passivism. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

I'm sorry but it was your contention that initiating aggression is always immoral. That is/was your claim to defend. Do you now withdraw the claim?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/a5b21924-3da5-405d-9dc4-8038b2eb490bn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

Yes, that is my claim. Aggression or the threat of aggression is illegitimate because it depends on coercion. It violates the basic tenet that individuals are free to do as they wish so long as their actions aren't aggressive toward another. In short it is immoral to coerce someone engaged in non-aggressive activity. Do you disagree?

[Brian Kegerreis]

I'm just trying to clarify your position. 

Aggression against someone who is not agressing against you is immoral unless they are engaged in aggression against others and you use aggression to come to their aid. Which would then be a moral aggression. 

My position is aggression is moral when defending oneself or others, and can in rare circumstances be justifiable as a first strike option. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/580ab025-a116-4180-be68-52f1be558ec0n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Dave, I'm reading your back and forth with BK. 

So, aggression is not moral against someone not themselves engaged in aggression. Check

So attacking Hitler to end the Holocaust is okay; although that's not what actually transpired. 

But I think that NAP doesn't play well in the political arena. Didn't we start out with NATO and the Cold War? Both sides used the threat of aggression to play to a stalemate. Aside from the trillions of dollars spent, it did prevent aggression. I don't know how much non-aggressive talks were held during that time; but they didn't seem to do much to lower the threat level. We claim that the Soviets weren't interested in a peaceful NAP situation. We claimed them to always be the aggressor. I'm sure they saw it differently. 

However, if we had, say, disposed of our nuclear arsenal in an attempt to foster NAP results, I don't think it would have done much good. Heck, even with a much weaker Russia we can't work toward disposal of our nukes. In the meantime they threaten to use theirs; all the while prosecuting aggression in Ukraine. Russia has a kind of paranoid inferiority complex, has for centuries. They don't make good partners in an NAP scenario.