Comments on: Slouching towards realism

By: atopian.org

atopian.org — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:26:41 +0000

Slight changes

I’m probably going to shrink this site into just a blog and a set of essay/reference pages, all by myself.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:19:56 +0000

Carnival of the Britblog Roundup # 28

Yes, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the Britblog Roundup, this week named as a Carnival in honour of a slow Bank Holiday weekend. You collection of those pieces peoplehave nominated as must see posts of the week from British and Irish bloggers. Keep the

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:10:34 +0000

James: In the short term, nothing. In the longer term, potentially something very valuable. Increased energy supply stability.

By: James F

James F — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:52:41 +0000

As an example I offered Switzerland semi-flippantly. The truth is I’m not opposed to military action to achieve pragmatic national interest outcomes but don’t believe that there was ever a realistic prospect of that in Iraq.

It was always likely that this type of military action would radicalize a generation of muslim men.

And as for oil, how have our national interests been advanced? Security of supply? The stuff was available to buy on the world market before we invaded, only cheaper, and surely will continue to be available at market rates regardless of who pumps it. And regional instability has contributed to the price rises we’ve seen. So what have we gained?

By: Blimpish

Blimpish — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:06:25 +0000

Yes, surrounded by mountains and armed to the teeth. It’s also not that much of a prize – relatively small country, after all. France and Germany each had bigger fish to fry. (Didn’t Adolph say he’d take it over with the Berlin fire brigade, once he was done elsewhere?)

By: James F

James F — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:30:27 +0000

Potentially… but then again, look at Switzerland (although I concede it’s an exceptional example).

By: Blimpish

Blimpish — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:24:00 +0000

… never entirely wrong, but one day entirely defeated, potentially.

By: Jamie K

Jamie K — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:36:29 +0000

Just to clarify, I don’t think the law of unintended consequences is the only principle people have come to agree with, it’s just that I believe it might be making itself felt in places where it didn’t before.

Also, as Blimpish and Katherine point out, it doesn’t imply complete apathy or a completely cynical worldview. Having said that, I’m also reminded of the confucian precept that if you do nothing then you can never be entirely wrong.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:15:42 +0000

Doesn’t all this rather assume that there is a black and white definition of ‘do something’ and ‘do nothing’? Does ‘do something’ always have to mean ‘send in the troops’? There are variations of ‘doing something’, both actively and passively (and various grades in between), surely?

By: James F

James F — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:38:49 +0000

The problem is, even doing nothing might bring unintended (and potentially catastrophic) consequences. Arghhhh!