Is foreign policy analysis contingent must be contingent upon age...

Is foreign policy analysis contingent must be contingent upon age, because economics and geopolitics change so drastically.

What I would like to know is, has anyone written foreign policy analysis for earlier times? I don't mean historical works of foreign policy analysis, I mean contemporary works directed to the past, like Medieval foreign policy analysis written by someone today.

I'd also be interested if anyone besides Marx did an in depth look at what was most economy efficient in most periods. For instance, do economists think contemporary liberal economics are the best in all times and places? Well, obviously not, many think sometimes the government has to step in. But did any write works on theory of economic management in the Middle Ages or ancient times? Like how it should be done, using a strategy very different from today (seeing as how economies worked drastically different then, with money being involved much less)? I know The Great Transformation analyzes the economics of the Middle Ages, but I'm asking if there are any works advising on policy.

>Malala
>Named after evil Anglo slaying heroine.
>Sucks Anglo cock for a medal

God almighty this is fresh

>muslims blowing shit up and killing people all over the world
>conquest is literally all they've been doing since Mohammads day
>'lmao don't talk shit about Muslims you might get them angry'

ISIS's reason for performing terror attacks in the West is to get them to declare war on them, turning around and telling the locals "look, we wuz right about these white Devils!"

Also al-Andalus is hardly comparable to fucking ISIS.

They don't want us there then. Great, we don't want them here. Just keep them out.

A whole generation has gone by since the world started pissing around in the Middle East. Even longer if you count Sykes-Picot.

We didn't choose to have these people as enemies but here we are. The smart thing to do is deescalation abroad and a strengthening of resolve on the homefront. This is what Trump has said he wants to do.

The cunt in OP's pic is just doing mental gymnastics to defend her people while we're apparently unwilling to defend ours. Either way a group that threatens you with bombings for insults shouldn't be trusted in the first place.

>that pic
>muslims are blowing up people
>"dont talk shit about muslims or even more people will be blown up"

I don't get it, I always thought of myself as quite liberal but this is just too much.

>she basically says "doing what ISIS wants us to do is bad"
>implying that involves any mental gymnastics

You're a fucking retard. Insulting ISIS is one thing--but if you insult all muslims, you're catch over a billion innocent people in the crossfire.

>A whole generation has gone by since the world started pissing around in the Middle East.

what is the Iraq war?
what are CIA backed rebels in Libya and Syria?
what is unparalleled US support for Saudi Arabia and Israel?

>We didn't choose to have these people as enemies but here we are

You did choose, cuck. And you did so gleefully and willingly.

Right now we've created an us vs. them mentality. When little Abdul grows up in the States and all he hears about in the news is about how bad his people are he's either going to become incredibly sad or mad, depending on his psyche.

The best thing to do is stop giving the terror groups verbal ammunition by interfering in their politics.

m8, I just turned 21

I haven't voted for anybody yet

When did Trump insult all Muslims?

>When did Trump insult all Muslims?
That's neither here nor there. The media as a whole is pushing this divisive narrative that plays exactly into the hands of ISIS and similar terror groups: "the West hates us. It hates Islam, so it hates you."

I'm not suggesting that we do a complete media blackout on Islam or anything because that's frankly ridiculous, I'm merely saying Malala has a point

Trump called for a shutdown on all Muslims entering the country, the registration of all American Muslims in the country into special databases, and mandatory badges to be worn by Muslims in America at all times (like the yellow badges worn by Jews in Nazi Germany). He also mentioned the possibility of internment camps several times.

So muzzies will murder you if you talk shit about them in the media? Do other groups of people do that or just browns?

>Trump called for a shutdown on all Muslims entering the country
Yes he did.
> the registration of all American Muslims in the country into special databases, and mandatory badges to be worn by Muslims in America at all times (like the yellow badges worn by Jews in Nazi Germany). He also mentioned the possibility of internment camps several times.
This is just bullshit. He was asked questions by reporters and his patent response is 'we'll look into it'. He has not called for Muslim registration or internment camps.You're buying into the media sensationalism that was talking about.

Please take the time to actually watch a Trump speech instead of getting your news from Huffington Post headlines.

That picture is pure liberal ideology.

What is said:
There is a relationship between how we speak about muslims and the existence of terrorists. Crudely, muslims are responding to our verbal abuse and through some directly related mechanism becoming terrorists.
What is implied:
1. Foreigners can't deal with criticism.
2. Solutions are to be found in how nicely we think of muslims.

It just ignores the literal fact that muslims or anyone for that matter are radicalised because of harsh conditions in their real lives, not what people on the other side of the world think of them. The chief culprit for instability in the middle east is precisely western intervention and foreign policy.

Malala is a useful idiot and Clinton loves pretending she is thoughtful and caring and comparing herself with people who are boisterous just so she can twist the narrative away from things that matter to things that don't matter.

Are you guys literally autistic?
If you bully someone for long enough, they eventually reach their boiling point, snap, and hit back in violent and unpredictable ways.

See: bullied white cuckbois who tend to shoot up their schools every week in the USA

If you mean that in the context of bombing middle eastern countries them that's a fair point but OPs pic is referring to people in The West exercising their right to speak.

People who attempt to curtail your rights with a vague threat of future violence ARE the bullies, user.

>criticizing Islam
>bullying

Salman Rushdie got death threats, Cartoonists have been killed for depicting Mohammad, ...

I hope that you have ever laid awake at night pondering over what happens when you take free speech away

>bomb and drone Muslim countries for decades
>invade some of them for resources
>prop up client dictators (Mubarak, Musharraf) and give them material and military support
>dispose of same dictators when they become liabilities
>give huge amounts of military and material aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia, two of the biggest meddlers in the Mideast
>CIA keeps arming and training "rebels" that go on to create more instability and chaos for local civilians
>"B-BUT WHY DO THEY HATE US???!???!?"

Reality
>more muslims are killed and worse more have their lives ruined by us, british and french military activity

Being liberal just means mystifying the discussion my man, don't be liberal at all.
>We didn't choose to have these people as enemies but here we are.
We did choose, it's US foreign policy to intervene in the middle east for our geopolitical interest and the economic interests of our allies.
There is no point in discussing east-west relations on the level of insults.

Who fucking cares? They're fucking terrorists, unabashed, shameless, and proud.

>Is foreign policy analysis contingent must be contingent upon age
This thread, with posts like , would seem to confirm it yes.

ITT people who are being disingenuous, or retards.

(You)

Do you even know what disingenuous means?

I don't see what military activity I disagree with has to do with my right to criticize a fascist, theocratic ideology.

I haven't conducted any drone strikes, I haven't burned any oil fields and I don't like what has become of the Middle East. It doesn't matter if I've benefited from these activities. This should not disallow me from criticizing the ideology endemic to that region.

Threatening violence like in OPs picture

will only make those who hate Muslims hate them more.

;)
Do you not?
I'm implying that you'd have to be naïve to think that Americans actually ask why Middle-Easterners think we're evil in those tones. That whole post reads like a Al-Jazeera opinion piece.

>I don't see what military activity I disagree with has to do with my right to criticize a fascist, theocratic ideology.

There is no relation, that's mystification. I made this point here: I'm not sure how to make it clear what a part of a post is not addressing or replying to.

>I haven't conducted any drone strikes, I haven't burned any oil fields and I don't like what has become of the Middle East. It doesn't matter if I've benefited from these activities. This should not disallow me from criticizing the ideology endemic to that region.

you and your countrymen voted in a government that did and continues to do so.

>Threatening violence like in OPs picture

sorry if the Muslims aren't total cucks and don't bend over for you while you bomb the shit out of them.
i guess they really do want to defend themselves and their territories from the occupier/invader (you)

>"they THREATENED US WITH VIOLENCE!!! HOW DARE THEY!?!?!?!"
>"and all we did was bomb their villages, kill their families, occupy their land, and take their oil"

kek

Do you consider yourselves a liberals, anons? I'm genuinely curious.

Conflating the self for the nation and vice versa seem like a decidedly illiberal thought process to me. See in the West we have the concept of self determination. Even if the government makes a decision off say, 51% of the vote I am by no means required to defend that decision and am only in support of it insofar as the government forcefully takes my income to fund itself. I am an unwilling participant in their ventures.

But it's just this belief in self determination that informs my view of Islam. I find it repugnant and detestable. It is the exact opposite of that system of values.

Does that make sense, or would you like to hear it in Newspeak?

Why are they planning terrorist strikes in my country then? A country that was not involved in any of those things

One thing I don't understand about liberal democracy is the ambiguity in its legitimacy.

Is it legitimate or not? If it is then the people by voting condone the acts of their leaders but very often none will ever want to take responsibility.

If it's not legitimate then why does it continue?

This is a very awkward position, people consider it their privilege to vote but in what way do you retain any sort of control? Voting is almost the complete opposite of a positive choice, the only way to make sense of this is to see a vote for a candidate as nothing other than a vote against every other candidate.

>western countries fuck shit up
>people hate western countries
here you go

Is your country a part of NATO or some 3rd world shithole that regularly oppresses some ethnic minority?

Also see >>CIA keeps arming and training "rebels" that go on to create more instability and chaos for local civilians

ie "blowback"

My country isn't necessarily western either. And that logic makes no sense.

>we shouldn't treat all Muslims the same because of the actions of a few radicals
>all Westerners deserve to be treated the same way because of the US government

Another piece of Liberal doublethink for the ledger. I could write a book at this point.

>Is your country a part of NATO

no

>3rd world shithole that regularly oppresses some ethnic minority

no

>equating governments and foreign policies with individuals and their autonomy

also

what country?

>implying Islamic militants aren't funded by Islamic theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran

Finland.

USA backs Saudi
Russia backs Iran

what's your point?

>Finland
>not a shithole

had me fooled for a second there my down's syndrome friend

I'm not disputing it's shit logic.

I'm explaining the justificatitions of terrorists not my own believes you autistic fuck.

Rushdie was a fucking hipster. Charlie Hebdo are scum-sucking shitty parodists who are also racist, lowbrow and offensive to earn money. The latter was also ignored until they were bombed.

Freedom of speech is wonderful in the sense that it also implies a sense of maturity to ignore certain opinions. It is terrible but when you look at it, it does show how juvenile extremists are.

And I don't lay awake at night pondering about the lack of free speech; I live in the fucking result.

rude

>making alliances is the same as funding terrorists yourselves

Do you really think the US likes that Saudi Arabia has been funding its enemies for years? The Saudis have the West over a barrel with investment money.

Do you really think that the minute you sign a treaty with the USA your country becomes some kind of vassal. The Saudis and Iraqis have their own agency and they use that agency to fund terrorists and militants who are anti Western.

>Rushdie was a fucking hipster. Charlie Hebdo are scum-sucking shitty parodists who are also racist, lowbrow and offensive to earn money. The latter was also ignored until they were bombed.

Rushdie is a fiction writer, and Charlie Hebdo are anti-racist Leftist cartoonists who mock everyone from rightwingers to the Pope and also Islam.

Incidentally only one group of people think it's their right to murder someone because of satire.

is that picture real?
the quote I mean

Not denying those.

But from what I've heard about Charlie Hebdo, I have little sympathy for them except the bare minimum.

>Charlie Hebdo are scum-sucking shitty parodists who are also racist, lowbrow and offensive to earn money.
>racist
ayy lmao
is depicting muhammad in a not-so-comely fashion or depicting him at all racism?
of course it is, because 'Muslims' are a single race of people apparently

I don't like them either, but I don't want them killed, and I think the people who kill someone for writing satire are worse.

I don't like Muslims, because of what they believe, but I don't want them murdered. There's a huge difference between the two.

>Fascist
The Only pre French Revolution society that was Fascist is maybe the Spartans

I don't understand. Is her argument that if we don't let in Muslims they'll just bomb us more until we let them in? Or if we let them in they'll continue bombing us anyway?

her point is that if we don't give Islam the special position and safe space it needs above all other religions then we are bringing terrorist attacks on ourselves

That's technically freedom of expression. Racism is more of a conscious act against people who are not in the same "race" as you.
It'd be disrespect at best, and you can easily remedy that.

Their satire is pure edgy teenager stuff. Not really a fun thing. I agree that people shouldn't die because of stupid divisions, though.

>and you can easily remedy that.
yes, by deporting and imprisoning those who think that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for their feeling insulted
rather not have a bunch of tribalist monkeys in my country anyway

I was actually thinking ignoring them or memeing at them, actually.

Deporting them only legitimizes their argument.

>Deporting them only legitimizes their argument.
pic

>I was actually thinking ignoring them or memeing at them, actually.
because ignoring a threat is always a good idea
ignoring a poisonous ideology doesn't allow it to spread

Perpetuating an eternal cycle of hatred isn't the way to fix problems. Also, if you do deport them, you're only going to perpetuate the cycle of hatred.

In the end, you might as well say "start world war 3 with nukes", because that's the only effective solution that works. Destroy all the humans; solve all the problems, and everyone suffers as a result.

And the ignorance is more of a personal thing than a social thing. If you really want to eradicate poisonous ideologies, I do believe there are ways you can contribute without politicizing the matter, unless that is your goal.

He never said that lol if he said mainstream media (as in, not infowars or whatever shitty biased truther tabloid you use) would be all over him

If you actually knew any history youd know your ideas are emotionally driven self destructive pseud

>Perpetuating an eternal cycle of hatred isn't the way to fix problems. Also, if you do deport them, you're only going to perpetuate the cycle of hatred.
if we deport them they won't be here to stir shit
if we kill them they won't be alive
breddy obvious, I get the point that French retard was trying to make and your own but it simply doesn't work that way

>In the end, you might as well say "start world war 3 with nukes", because that's the only effective solution that works.
hardly, I'm saying getting rid of foreigners causing trouble in your land is an effective solution to them causing problems in your land

>If you really want to eradicate poisonous ideologies, I do believe there are ways you can contribute without politicizing the matter,
like ignoring it?
suggest a few solutions to people wanting you dead for making fun of their religion, sounds like they're the ones who need lessons on what discourse is given that the OP pic states you shouldn't "speak against" Islam

>He never said that lol if he said mainstream media (as in, not infowars or whatever shitty biased truther tabloid you use) would be all over him
true, that's essentially what the argument of the person I'm responding to is
a meme

>If you actually knew any history youd know your ideas are emotionally driven self destructive pseud
Oh trust me I know the dangers of promoting divisiveness and not encouraging discourse when there's an argument, but in this case one side is saying
>you can't criticize me or I'll kill you, you can't make fun of me or I'll kill you
and ignoring all discourse to be had

ITT:
>if you win, you lose
>by not letting the terrorists/extremists in, you do what they want you to do
>if you defend yourself, you're an aggressor
is there any more doublethink by these trudeau cucks?