What's Going On In Libya?

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1301003177' post='2223038']


A walk through history shows that prohibitions of all sorts lead to higher prices for the prohibited commodities. While there is currently no official embargo or prohibition against Libyan oil (that we know about), there is a high likelihood that oil is indirectly "prohibited" from a more massive importation simply by the pride of life of the agents of the United State, who do not want to stoop to purchasing much oil from a place ruled by a dictator such as Qadaffi: the same reason that someone would refuse to give his business to a shopkeeper who has everything you want, because the shopkeeper is a jerk. Now, when the shopkeeper dies, and the store is under new management, you would be much more likely to begin shopping there on a regular basis. You may think things are much more complicated on the international level. I don't understand why there is such a tendency to ascribe the idea "it's inscrutably complicated for all but politicians and Harvard professors" into every affair, interpersonal and international. It's as though it serves as some excuse for not exercising more control over one's own life, and instead, turning over the reins to the "experts." I assure you, it's not that complicated. Politicians are petulant children writ large. They love power. They love public praise. They love being treated like royalty all over the world. They love money, insofar as it buys them power.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

About three paragraphs in we get to the part where you start to actually muster a half-heated defense of your thesis.

I really don't think there is any point to needling Stern by taking him to task on how vapid an argument this is. I'd just like to make a note about the evolution of a claim. When we started out Stern seemed to be arguing that the United States wanted Gadhafi out because, without qualification, oil would be much cheeper without him. Kujo pressed him on this questionable claim and Stern responded with a rambling, extremely crude, economics/poli sci 101 'lesson' which finally led to what he has presented as an argument. It's not really an argument. It's more an allegorical claim based on a very primitive model of international relations. Stern posits that while he knows of no official prohibitions on Libyian oil, "there is a high likelihood that oil is indirectly "prohibited" from a more massive importation simply by the pride of life of the agents of the United State, who do not want to stoop to purchasing much oil from a place ruled by a dictator such as Qadaffi: the same reason that someone would refuse to give his business to a shopkeeper who has everything you want, because the shopkeeper is a jerk."

Does he present any evidence or justification for claiming that there is a 'high liklihood" that his model is true? Of course not. That would require gathering facts and serious research. All evidence I've seen suggusts that Stern is morally opposed to such activity. Does he discuss problemaic counter-examples, like the fact that America has oil relations with such countries like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, countries also ruled by "Jerks"? Of course not. Those are inconvenient facts that clutter up a neat, elegant model.

We do see Stern's primary mode of argument. Make a bold, clear claim. Like that oil would be cheeper with Gadhafi out of power. When challenged filibuster with a rambling narrative that avoids difficult facts and strict, deductive reasoning like the plague.

[Winchester]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1301020983' post='2223101']
Well.. this is false. 44,000 barrels is........... 44,000 barrels.

[/quote]
Circular logic.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1301218907' post='2223705']
Circular logic.
[/quote]
*high five*

[ParadiseFound]

Basically, the UN set up a no-fly zone in Libya by airstriking a whole load of tanks. The tanks can now no longer fly.

Edited March 27, 2011 by ParadiseFound

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://bando07.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/flying_tank1.jpg[/img]

[Jesus_lol]

I still think it is cool that some of the canadian fighter pilots turned around without attacking after realizing there was gonna be civilian casualties. we could use more of that these days.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1301242825' post='2223734']
I still think it is cool that some of the canadian fighter pilots turned around without attacking after realizing there was gonna be civilian casualties. we could use more of that these days.
[/quote]
That is cool. Good for them. Where did you read that?

[kujo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1301003177' post='2223038']
Kujo, do you believe there is any call for your trying to project such an ungentlemanly tone?[/quote]

Called. Won't happen again.

[quote]I don't understand why there is such a tendency to ascribe the idea "it's inscrutably complicated for all but politicians and Harvard professors" into every affair, interpersonal and international. It's as though it serves as some excuse for not exercising more control over one's own life, and instead, turning over the reins to the "experts." I assure you, it's not that complicated. Politicians are petulant children writ large. They love power. They love public praise. They love being treated like royalty all over the world. They love money, insofar as it buys them power.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I don't understand how someone could so deftly, thoroughly, and haughtily dismiss an entire field of research. Politics--domestic, international and comparative-- isn't "inscrutably complicated." In fact, I would contend that it's satisfactorily UNcomplicated. It's about choices--who makes them, why they're made, and what their consequences are. The who's are readily identified--heads of state, members of governmental bureaucracies, transnational corporations, intra-state groups, etc. The consequences, too, are often easily observable, if not understudied and underappreciated. Yet, where it gets more complex is the second area. As is the case in any social science, you are dealing with the kaleidoscope of possible "causes" for human behavior. Every model or theory which seeks to explain or predict why someone does something is critically underspecified because there is no way to adequately map the immense, interrelated, interwoven, contradictory and inexplicable reasons we do what we do. But that doesn't mean it's not important to try.

My field of research deals with the individual and social pressures that occur within IR and domestic political arenas. We seek to identify the psychological processes which influence the policy process in the U.S. and abroad. And, while I've yet to reach the height of my education, I can confidently tell you that you're right--politicians are self-propagating organisms, existing only to perpetuate and legitimize their own existence. In the absence of the venerable "philosopher king," we are led by individuals and groups who are susceptible to the same flaws, aromas and errors in judgement and decision-making that we lowlings are (e.g.- the theory that an unresolved Oedipal conflict with Bush I influenced Bush II's decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq). The operational difference is that our decisions tend to affect a much smaller constituency--our friends, families, coworkers.

[kujo]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1301242825' post='2223734']
I still think it is cool that some of the canadian fighter pilots turned around without attacking after realizing there was gonna be civilian casualties. we could use more of that these days.
[/quote]

We'll see.

I'm a big believer in the doctrine of double effect. Our enemies know we feel great pressure to avoid civilian casualties, at all costs. That's why al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, among others, conduct their business in villages, schools and hospitals. Ceding that ability in such a public manner is a huge strategic error. So long as civilian casualties aren't intended and veritable efforts are made to avoid them, we ought to go forward with the mission.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1301267856' post='2223794']
We'll see.

I'm a big believer in the doctrine of double effect. Our enemies know we feel great pressure to avoid civilian casualties, at all costs. That's why al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, among others, conduct their business in villages, schools and hospitals. Ceding that ability in such a public manner is a huge strategic error. So long as civilian casualties aren't intended and veritable efforts are made to avoid them, we ought to go forward with the mission.
[/quote]

You may feel differently if you're an Iraqi or an Afghan. Especially when "veritable efforts" can be very subjective. Iunno maybe I'm an idealist but going forward with something that will most likely kill civilians even if that's not the intent . . . just seems wrong to me. Especially sitting here in my snuggie typing on my laptop knowing that my family and friends are most likely not in danger of becoming collateral damage at the hands of a much more powerful nation thousands of miles away.

I'll obviously never be a leader, Just my two cents

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1301249777' post='2223749']
That is cool. Good for them. Where did you read that?
[/quote]

I posted it twice earlier in this thread, way to pay attention

[Lil Red]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300850704' post='2222564']In other words, HOORAY! It's Bosnia and Somalia all over again![/quote]
ummm, yay?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1301294530' post='2223867']
I posted it twice earlier in this thread, way to pay attention
[/quote]
Sowwy.

[StMichael]

The same thing that is happening in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, etc. muslims killing muslims. Except in the Sudan where muslims are killing Catholics.

Why is the US involved? That is an answer I don't even think Barry knows. Best ask George Soros to get the real answer.

[kujo]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1301439633' post='2224441']
The same thing that is happening in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, etc. muslims killing muslims. Except in the Sudan where muslims are killing Catholics.

Why is the US involved? That is an answer I don't even think Barry knows. Best ask George Soros to get the real answer.
[/quote]

???

The U.S. is involved because the international community has taken it upon itself to intervene, leveling the playing field so that the rebels/protesters can make their moves without being shelled by Gaddafi's air force. Whether or not you agree with that intervention is one thing. But insinuating that doing so is some part of nefarious conspiracy led by George Soros or whatever half-baked Glenn Beck garbage speaks for itself.

Edited March 30, 2011 by kujo