[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, are you now claiming that playing a leading role is the same as being in charge?
Make up your mind already.[/quote]
Are you changing the subject yet again?
What is so hard to understand here? Leaders are usually in charge. I don’t know how familiar you are with team sports, but the team ‘leaders’ are also the ones in charge on the field.
The U.S. has taken a leading role in most areas of international trade, defense, and politics. Even though there is no official declaration the makes the U.S. in charge - we assume that position because of us taking the lead on most global issues.
Isn;t there another topic on this vast website for you to sit under your tree and pontificate on? You obviously have no grasp whatsoever of this subject matter as evidenced by your changing of subjects, and eagerness to question my intelligence.
It is an old and tired game that you play. Either contribute something more than the ponitless whining drivel of your last few posts, or move on to topics where you might actually have a chance of tricking someone into thinking you are as smart as you think you are.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, both quotes are, as you so astutely noticed, in the same article. However, I think you are mistaken when you try to separate the two.[/quote]
The two quotes are pulled from two totally different contexts. Now saying that you can’t separate Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s quotes would be accurate wrt to the first half of the article. But it doesn’t take college level reading comprehension skills to notice the difference in the two Bush quotes.
[quote]
The president and administration are most certainly trying to frame Iraq as a win/lose proposition with respect to getting out.[/quote]
Yes - we win when the Iraqis are trained, the gov’t is stable, and there is no longer a big insurgent threat that would require our troops to combat.
[quote]
I think that is going to bite them on the ass later. You don’t. We disagree. I’m shocked. [/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
The U.S. has taken a leading role in most areas of international trade, defense, and politics. Even though there is no official declaration the makes the U.S. in charge - we assume that position because of us taking the lead on most global issues.
Ahahahaha. Now that’s funny shit![/quote]
I’m sorry, vroom but your laughter is hardly proof that my statement is wrong. Is that what you do when you get your ass kicked nowadays? Fake laughter?
I’d ask for proof - but I think everyone on T-Nation knows how you feel about having to stoop to backing up what you say, or insinuate.
Please - find another hobby. Maybe you should spend more time on your blog where pesky things like the truth and common sense won’t get in the way of your self-edifying opinions.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The world truly is a global community. Letting it deteriorate into little clusters of gangs fighting each other will truly make the world more and more like the south Bronx.
I hate to break this to you, but the world “deteriorated” into that around the time of Moses. Hell, some might even say Cain and Abel.[/quote]
Winston Churchill recounts the story of caravans flying the Union Jack in Mongolia. Local tribes let them pass, knowing that the full fury of the Empire would come down upon them, should they attack. That was the meaning of British power in the 19th century. What would happen today, to that caravan?
The British brought law, order, and economic development. They put an end to barbaric practices, like putting a Hindu wife on her husband’s funeral pyre. They could do these things because they had overwhelming, smashing power.
It is when no country possesses that power that the world decends into chaos. By asserting that power in the Middle East, the US is demonstrating that it has the power. Notice how the stock market shot up 1991-2000 because investors were convinced that the US would maintain order.
If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, every little group and ‘tin pot’ dictator will know that the sheriff has ‘left town’. Watch what happens to the world if this event occurs. Get ready for hell on earth, most likely in our own backyards.
If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, every little group and ‘tin pot’ dictator will know that the sheriff has ‘left town’. Watch what happens to the world if this event occurs. Get ready for hell on earth, most likely in our own backyards.
[/quote]
If our actions have led to standing on the verge of “hell on Earth”, you aren’t exactly showing how us going into Iraq the way we did with very little planning for the aftermath is a good thing.
What the hell are you talking about? I’m laughing because you think the US is now in charge of the world. You are strangly deluded – no wonder the world pisses you off so much.
[quote]I’d ask for proof - but I think everyone on T-Nation knows how you feel about having to stoop to backing up what you say, or insinuate.
Please - find another hobby. Maybe you should spend more time on your blog where pesky things like the truth and common sense won’t get in the way of your self-edifying opinions.[/quote]
More hateful attacks. Boohoo.
Maybe you should stop being such a cheerleader and start paying attention to the world around you. To claim “you” are “in charge of the world” is completely a “might makes right” mindset.
No wonder so much of the world has such a dim view of the US. Luckily, I don’t share that view, but I can see where it stems from. Congratulations on being “the” cause for that – not that I’d even expect you to care.
Look, think of the world as a classroom full of teenagers ( can do that:)). If no one is in charge, what happens to that classroom? Chaos. The world is just like that. If we are not in charge, if small groups know that they can confiscate assets with impunity, if they know they can erect trade barriers without consequent, what will happen?
Prof X, I’m think you are deliberately refusing to understand my argument. It is the LACK of one nation having overwhelming, smashing power that will lead to hell on earth. Further, I contend that I want the USA to have that power. Should China have the power to dictate to the world? Should the UN? Obviously, no. Consequently, you must support our government or a) want another nation to have that power or b) no one has power, hence chaos. You are boxed in to either supporting US hegemony, or other, less desireable alternatives. Choose.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe you should stop being such a cheerleader and start paying attention to the world around you. To claim “you” are “in charge of the world” is completely a “might makes right” mindset.
No wonder so much of the world has such a dim view of the US. Luckily, I don’t share that view, but I can see where it stems from. Congratulations on being “the” cause for that – not that I’d even expect you to care.[/quote]
I don’t know that I could say, or do anything to flush out your true colors any clearer than you have just done with this last post.
I don’t think you should ever gripe about being labeled again. You have done more than enough to affix “Anti-American” to your post script.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Prof X, I’m think you are deliberately refusing to understand my argument. It is the LACK of one nation having overwhelming, smashing power that will lead to hell on earth. Further, I contend that I want the USA to have that power. Should China have the power to dictate to the world? Should the UN? Obviously, no. Consequently, you must support our government or a) want another nation to have that power or b) no one has power, hence chaos. You are boxed in to either supporting US hegemony, or other, less desireable alternatives. Choose.[/quote]
Since when does ensuring your place through technology and military capacity equal “World Police”? No one in this thread seems to be against the US attempting to stay ahead of the game on the chessboard. That is simply the way the world works. That doesn’t go hand in hand with controlling every other country or policing every other country. One requires diplomacy and acknowledgement and respect of other ways of life in other countries…the other implies total dominance which isn’t much different than many other “empires” that have gone the way of the dinosaur given enough time.
So, on one hand you represent the US as the great liberator, representative of freedom and choice, and on the other hand it is the global dictator enforcing it’s world view on humanity.
Really. Nobody else sees the irony and hypocrisy involved in these types of statements?
Folks, do you actually believe in the principles your country was founded on and stands for or not? I’m guessing not – thus, sadly, the fall of the empire approaches.
No. My point is that SOMEONE has to be in charge, or all hell breaks loose. Do you want a liberal, representative-democracy doing it, or a less desireable alternative? That does not conflict at all with our principles. Freedom does NOT mean the ability to act with unprovoked violence or to confiscate other people’s property. A country like ours will enforce those rules, just like an honest policeman. Would China? Would the UN?
History is replete with examples of exactly what I’m writing. Read the nearest history book (except for Howard Zinn).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No. My point is that SOMEONE has to be in charge, or all hell breaks loose. Do you want a liberal, representative-democracy doing it, or a less desireable alternative? That does not conflict at all with our principles. Freedom does NOT mean the ability to act with unprovoked violence or to confiscate other people’s property. A country like ours will enforce those rules, just like an honest policeman. Would China? Would the UN?
History is replete with examples of exactly what I’m writing. Read the nearest history book (except for Howard Zinn).[/quote]
You are spouting bullshit. I know that may hurt, but the world doesn’t avoid utter destruction due to any one country holding a throne. There is also the scenario of a BALANCE of power. You seem to be unable to even comprehend this concept.
History will support a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is the one I have to accept.
All hell breaks loose when people assume a dictatorial position also. Societies work because an agreed upon set of rules are enforced. There is a bargain made.
Imposing “your” will on the world is not a bargain – no matter how right you think your vision of the world may be.
Stalin had a view of the world, he’d have been happy to be in charge, but he didn’t want to bother asking for permission and living up to a bargain either.
Hell breaks loose whenever people are treated poorly… regardless of whether or not somebody is in charge. Sure, for a time it might be suppressed, but I don’t see much of a British Empire these days either.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No. My point is that SOMEONE has to be in charge, or all hell breaks loose. Do you want a liberal, representative-democracy doing it, or a less desireable alternative? That does not conflict at all with our principles. Freedom does NOT mean the ability to act with unprovoked violence or to confiscate other people’s property. A country like ours will enforce those rules, just like an honest policeman. Would China? Would the UN?
History is replete with examples of exactly what I’m writing. Read the nearest history book (except for Howard Zinn).
You are spouting bullshit. I know that may hurt, but the world doesn’t avoid utter destruction due to any one country holding a throne. There is also the scenario of a BALANCE of power. You seem to be unable to even comprehend this concept.[/quote]
Uh-oh! It’s ‘We can’t answer an argument time so let’s fling the slime’ time. Wow, what a brilliant answer, Prof! “Bullshit” I tried to have a civil discussion with you, since you appear to be reasonably intelligient. Maybe things like historical records are outside of YOUR comprehension.
Every historian on this planet concedes the ideas about hegemony, about bringing order to the world. This was one reason for the battle for colonies and markets. When did WWI begin? One year after Germany equaled British industrial output. That’s your balance of power? Maybe this is just beyond your comprehension.
[quote]vroom wrote:
No. My point is that SOMEONE has to be in charge, or all hell breaks loose.
History will support a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is the one I have to accept.
All hell breaks loose when people assume a dictatorial position also. Societies work because an agreed upon set of rules are enforced. There is a bargain made.
Imposing “your” will on the world is not a bargain – no matter how right you think your vision of the world may be.
Stalin had a view of the world, he’d have been happy to be in charge, but he didn’t want to bother asking for permission and living up to a bargain either.
Hell breaks loose whenever people are treated poorly… regardless of whether or not somebody is in charge. Sure, for a time it might be suppressed, but I don’t see much of a British Empire these days either.[/quote]
My point exactly. Would you want Stalin as hegemon? No. Then support the US effort to keep order.
Of course, one problem is that the hegemon exhausts itself. Rivals do not incur the same level of military expenditures. This was one reason the US founded the UN, attempting to avoid bankruptcy and the fate of Britain. Its not working.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Every historian on this planet concedes the ideas about hegemony, about bringing order to the world. This was one reason for the battle for colonies and markets. When did WWI begin? One year after Germany equaled British industrial output. That’s your balance of power? Maybe this is just beyond your comprehension.
[/quote]
J?s Elsner, in Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (1998), wrote:
“Power is very rarely limited to the pure exercise of brute force… The Roman state bolstered its authority and legitimacy with the trappings of ceremonial ? cloaking the actualities of power beneath a display of wealth, the sanction of tradition, and the spectacle of insuperable resources… Power is a far more complex and mysterious quality than any apparently simple manifestation of it would appear. It is as much a matter of impression, of theatre, of persuading those over whom authority is wielded to collude in their subjugation. Insofar as power is a matter of presentation, its cultural currency in antiquity (and still today) was the creation, manipulation, and display of images. In the propagation of the imperial office, at any rate, art was power.”
You seem to believe that our power is in our ability to force others to do what we want them to do through military authority. This only lasts until the people overthrow the power that they view as oppression. I hate to break this to you, but everyone in the world doesn’t view the way you live as the goal to reach. That is why there is a need for diplomacy as well as a need to respect other countries as seperate entities instead of playing your hand as if you can “Police the world”. It isn’t our place to play world police. I am amazed that you even think we have anywhere near the resources to play that game with an entire globe of people. Even further, who is next on our crusade and why haven’t we engaged them yet?