6 ms·

The group that wrote this is not exactly a reputable source in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft#Critic

The group that wrote this is not exactly a reputable source in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsib...

rsj_hn 4y ago
The existence of a "criticism" section on wikipedia does not mean a journal isn't reputable. But if you want to censor your own information sources that way, go ahead. The Quincy Institute -- which publishes Responsible Statecraft -- is a realist foreign policy think tank, designed to oppose neo-con foreign policy and advocate for a rationalist approach rather than an ideological approach. They opposed many of the foreign wars the U.S. has recently waged. Here is their mission statement: "The Quincy Institute promotes ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace." That, of course, is enough to make a lot of the redditors very angry, but it's certainly a reputable outlet. You can read more here, which has their mission statement, list of board members, and major funders: https://quincyinst.org/about/ https://quincyinst.org/about/ Funders include The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Open Society Foundation, The Ploughshares fund, Ford Foundation, Streisand Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Examine their full list of donors here: https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ There is also a podcast you can listen to, called "in search of monsters". If you are a foreign policy wonk, you will get the reference. https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ I would also argue that wikipedia is not an unbiased source on anything that touches politics or foreign policy, and it would be quite foolish to trust it as a reputable information source on those topics.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Firstly, it's not a journal. It's a think tank. There is nothing "rational" from a US point of view in opposing the supporting Ukraine in this war. It has basically infinite upsides with no downsides. They obviously have funding routes that come from the Russian government. Also it seems hacker news isn't following their own policies as a different comment of mine got flagged simply for noting the background of this think tank.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    The article is in the journal - Responsible Statecraft -- published by the think tank - Quincy Institute. This stuff isn't hard. In terms of rational or irrational, it's irrational to fight wars that destabilize the world and that you cannot win. It doesn't matter that you really want to win. It doesn't matter if you think you should win. That's the difference between acting emotionally versus acting rationally. The Quincy Institute distinguished itself by opposing many of our middle east wars for this reason - wars that we lost and that resulted in millions of deaths. The US has attacked or invaded over 120 nations since 1991, and that's not even counting all the color revolutions and coups that we've sponsored to destabalize nations all over the world because we didn't like their governments or we want to create chaos along the borders of our rivals. I'm sure an argument could be made that each of these nations were led by a government that didn't share our values or that did some bad things, but nevertheless it was irrational to follow this course. For example, we destabilized Afghanistan by sponsoring Islamic terror there, incentivizing the Soviets to invade. That was covered in the book "The Bear Trap". The result was the radicalization and destruction of Afghan society, and it also led to the promotion of Islamic terror all over the world, including the creation of Al Qaeda. So this was irrational, even though it felt good to give the Soviets an L at the expense of destroying Afghan society. Similarly we are sponsoring Kurdish terror now to destabilize Iran and punish Turkey, but it is again causing a coalition of nations to form against the U.S. We are currently supporting Myanmar terror groups attacking the Junta in order to cause chaos on China's border, and also radical islamic terror groups in Pakistan that are attacking Belt and Road projects. We dismembered Libya with over 50,000 bombing runs because it was a Russian ally and now the nation which had the highest standard of living in Africa is a Mad Max scene of rival warlords and open air slave markets. We engineered two violent color revolutions in Ukraine to install anti-Russian governments and urged Ukraine to not negotiate and not implement the Minsk 2 agreement, and now we are pumping it full of weapons so that they will fight until the last Ukrainian. We supported contra terror groups in Nicaragua, mined their harbor, and blew up their oil pipelines. It is a wreckage of destroyed nations all around the world, which only hurts our long term interests, and this is why it is irrational.
    - mlindner 4y ago

rsj_hn 4y ago

The existence of a "criticism" section on wikipedia does not mean a journal isn't reputable. But if you want to censor your own information sources that way, go ahead. The Quincy Institute -- which publishes Responsible Statecraft -- is a realist foreign policy think tank, designed to oppose neo-con foreign policy and advocate for a rationalist approach rather than an ideological approach. They opposed many of the foreign wars the U.S. has recently waged. Here is their mission statement: "The Quincy Institute promotes ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace." That, of course, is enough to make a lot of the redditors very angry, but it's certainly a reputable outlet. You can read more here, which has their mission statement, list of board members, and major funders: https://quincyinst.org/about/ https://quincyinst.org/about/ Funders include The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Open Society Foundation, The Ploughshares fund, Ford Foundation, Streisand Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Examine their full list of donors here: https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ There is also a podcast you can listen to, called "in search of monsters". If you are a foreign policy wonk, you will get the reference. https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ I would also argue that wikipedia is not an unbiased source on anything that touches politics or foreign policy, and it would be quite foolish to trust it as a reputable information source on those topics.

mlindner 4y ago
Firstly, it's not a journal. It's a think tank. There is nothing "rational" from a US point of view in opposing the supporting Ukraine in this war. It has basically infinite upsides with no downsides. They obviously have funding routes that come from the Russian government. Also it seems hacker news isn't following their own policies as a different comment of mine got flagged simply for noting the background of this think tank.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The article is in the journal - Responsible Statecraft -- published by the think tank - Quincy Institute. This stuff isn't hard. In terms of rational or irrational, it's irrational to fight wars that destabilize the world and that you cannot win. It doesn't matter that you really want to win. It doesn't matter if you think you should win. That's the difference between acting emotionally versus acting rationally. The Quincy Institute distinguished itself by opposing many of our middle east wars for this reason - wars that we lost and that resulted in millions of deaths. The US has attacked or invaded over 120 nations since 1991, and that's not even counting all the color revolutions and coups that we've sponsored to destabalize nations all over the world because we didn't like their governments or we want to create chaos along the borders of our rivals. I'm sure an argument could be made that each of these nations were led by a government that didn't share our values or that did some bad things, but nevertheless it was irrational to follow this course. For example, we destabilized Afghanistan by sponsoring Islamic terror there, incentivizing the Soviets to invade. That was covered in the book "The Bear Trap". The result was the radicalization and destruction of Afghan society, and it also led to the promotion of Islamic terror all over the world, including the creation of Al Qaeda. So this was irrational, even though it felt good to give the Soviets an L at the expense of destroying Afghan society. Similarly we are sponsoring Kurdish terror now to destabilize Iran and punish Turkey, but it is again causing a coalition of nations to form against the U.S. We are currently supporting Myanmar terror groups attacking the Junta in order to cause chaos on China's border, and also radical islamic terror groups in Pakistan that are attacking Belt and Road projects. We dismembered Libya with over 50,000 bombing runs because it was a Russian ally and now the nation which had the highest standard of living in Africa is a Mad Max scene of rival warlords and open air slave markets. We engineered two violent color revolutions in Ukraine to install anti-Russian governments and urged Ukraine to not negotiate and not implement the Minsk 2 agreement, and now we are pumping it full of weapons so that they will fight until the last Ukrainian. We supported contra terror groups in Nicaragua, mined their harbor, and blew up their oil pipelines. It is a wreckage of destroyed nations all around the world, which only hurts our long term interests, and this is why it is irrational.
  - mlindner 4y ago