Dems: Demand a Recount!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Alright, let’s do it this way: name an extensive period of time in the world when the world was basically at peace, everyone was fairly happy and prosperous, and no one country was the hegemon. Name ONE! You won’t be able to. When there are lots of splinter groups setting up rules, barriers, and so forth, the world is chaotic. Economies suffer and so do people. This is simply historical record. You can’t argue established fact. (At least I won’t.)

So, you have a choice of (1) US is the hegemon; (2) someone else is; (3) no one is. Of the 3, pick one.

I’d rather have a liberal, lawful country be in charge. Why is that even a debatable point?

82

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alright, let’s do it this way: name an extensive period of time in the world when the world was basically at peace, everyone was fairly happy and prosperous, and no one country was the hegemon. Name ONE! You won’t be able to. When there are lots of splinter groups setting up rules, barriers, and so forth, the world is chaotic. Economies suffer and so do people. This is simply historical record. You can’t argue established fact. (At least I won’t.)

So, you have a choice of (1) US is the hegemon; (2) someone else is; (3) no one is. Of the 3, pick one.

I’d rather have a liberal, lawful country be in charge. Why is that even a debatable point?[/quote]

Are you insane? I seriously doubt the world will ever be at peace. That is the fault of human nature, not whether someone has been named “ruler of the world”. Why do you believe it is anyone’s right to be “in charge” of the world? We don’t even have everlasting peace in our own country so what the hell are you talking about?

83

Someone will exercise power. That’s historical fact, whether that be the British Empire, Pax Americana, whatever. What do you think WWII was fought for? Hitler wanted Germany as hegemon.

You assume that power is something like Darth Vader or something. That’s why you should favor the USA being the hegemonic power. If you must live in a society of rules, do you want the Third Reich? No.

Now its my turn to swear: Goddamit, the world runs on raw power. We finally have had 2 good countries, Britain and then US as the hegmon. Support them!! The alternative is dissolution and chaos. People cannot live peacfully without someone in charge, as a ‘police’. If you believe they can, then you are being unrealistic (at best).

84

I don’t want anyone as hegemon! The fact that the US is benevolent (if you happen to live in a democratic country) today, does not mean that I trust it to remain so forever.

No sovereign country will ever accept that from the US, just as the US will never accept that from another country. How can you expect any country to “submit” to the US when the US won’t event submit to something like the UN?

I’m not saying the US should submit, don’t take that wrong, but at least the UN pretends to be an organization in which the parties have a voice and a chance to influence decisions and policies.

What country would prefer another country to simply dictate to it, instead of at least pretending that the veto capabilities of the superpowers don’t entirely negate their voice within the UN?

Your argument is the embodiment of might makes right.

Consider this… if you felt that knowledge, and the ability to adapt, think and communicate made you suitable for leadership, you’d be called an elitist.

What makes strength a better criteria?

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are you insane? I seriously doubt the world will ever be at peace. That is the fault of human nature, not whether someone has been named “ruler of the world”. Why do you believe it is anyone’s right to be “in charge” of the world? We don’t even have everlasting peace in our own country so what the hell are you talking about?[/quote]

What planet are you living on? You won’t accept historical facts? Prof, you are in serious danger of entering Trolldom.

Goodbye. I’ll talk to a wall now, it makes more sense than you.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Are you insane? I seriously doubt the world will ever be at peace. That is the fault of human nature, not whether someone has been named “ruler of the world”. Why do you believe it is anyone’s right to be “in charge” of the world? We don’t even have everlasting peace in our own country so what the hell are you talking about?

What planet are you living on? You won’t accept historical facts? Prof, you are in serious danger of entering Trolldom.

Goodbye. I’ll talk to a wall now, it makes more sense than you.

[/quote]

No historical facts you have listed imply that attempting to control the world is a good thing. Do you think Nazi Germany considered itself evil? Of course not. They felt their crusade was worthy. It isn’t your place or anyone else’s to imply that the US should stake its claim as ruler of the world. If anyone is trolling, it is you.

87

Prof X, quick question for you, do you think the US should send resources into africa to help stop the spread of AIDS in that geographical region? This does pertain to the current discussion also so please stay with me here.

V

88

There is always someone in charge whether it is a pack of wolves or a pack of countries.

89

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There is always someone in charge whether it is a pack of wolves or a pack of countries.[/quote]

The difference between creating a world of enemies and a world of followers may just be the act of proclaiming who the leader is.

90

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Prof X, quick question for you, do you think the US should send resources into africa to help stop the spread of AIDS in that geographical region? This does pertain to the current discussion also so please stay with me here.

V[/quote]

Do you realize the humanitarian aid we provide to other countries? If we can give medical aid to Venezuela, we can help those in Africa.

91

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

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.

[/quote]

First of all, what the fuck do you care about that caravan? Or any caravan? Get off your high horse…or camel.

Secondly, you call them barabaric processes. They called it, “culture”. You, Great Britain, or America, have no right to decide what cultures are barabaric and which aren’t.

Although, from all your previous posts, I can tell that you have no concept of a “different culture” outside of your little section of America. We call this “ignorance” where I come from.

And then, we reach that point: You are saying Imperialism is good for everybody. This comes from a descendant of Erin’s Isle: FUCK YOU. You have no idea what it is like to live under an oppressive government that does not care about you or your countrymen, only how you can benefit the home country.

More blood was spilled under the Harp’s green flag for Ireland’s freedom from this wonderful British Empire than you could imagine. Long ago, a cousin of mine was in the ill fated Easter Rising, fighting to free themselves from the happy go lucky British rule. Yay imperialism. Destroying national identity one day at a time.

You need to read more history, or stop posting on this board. Gather the remaining brain cells you have left and try to get them to “read” instead of “talk”

92

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Prof X, quick question for you, do you think the US should send resources into africa to help stop the spread of AIDS in that geographical region? This does pertain to the current discussion also so please stay with me here.

V

Do you realize the humanitarian aid we provide to other countries? If we can give medical aid to Venezuela, we can help those in Africa. [/quote]

So our responsibility is to write checks, help heal the sick, and sit in a corner and shut up if we think we have any right to protect our interests. Is that about right?

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
There is always someone in charge whether it is a pack of wolves or a pack of countries.

The difference between creating a world of enemies and a world of followers may just be the act of proclaiming who the leader is.[/quote]

Acting like a leader is a far cry from proclaiming yourself as one.

94

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
There is always someone in charge whether it is a pack of wolves or a pack of countries.

The difference between creating a world of enemies and a world of followers may just be the act of proclaiming who the leader is.

Acting like a leader is a far cry from proclaiming yourself as one. [/quote]

I agree completely with that…which is what we are arguing.

95

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Prof X, quick question for you, do you think the US should send resources into africa to help stop the spread of AIDS in that geographical region? This does pertain to the current discussion also so please stay with me here.

V

Do you realize the humanitarian aid we provide to other countries? If we can give medical aid to Venezuela, we can help those in Africa.

So our responsibility is to write checks, help heal the sick, and sit in a corner and shut up if we think we have any right to protect our interests. Is that about right?
[/quote]

No, our responsibility is to help those we can if we are to expect any type of loyalty from all of the smaller less powerful governments. That is simply the way things work. Please don’t pretend as if we don’t have a goal of diplomacy and relations between countries. No one has argued otherwise. Telling those countries what to do, unless they are in full agreement with that tactic, is what we should not be doing unless the goal is complete rebuilding of a nation.

How did you go from helping a country with an AIDs epidemic to sitting in a corner and shutting up? Africa isn’t an American country. It is its own.

96

There is a continuum of difference between dictating to the world and essentially wearing the ‘Daddy Pants’ in a world context.

The US aspires to the latter, not the former.

Moreover, it is nothing short of nihilism to think that every ‘hegemon’ is the same regardless of values.

As for the rest of the world, they can’t make up their mind whether they want the US to be the leader or not.

The US is routinely chastised as defeating global warming measures because the US won’t be a leader in this field.

When the slaughter of Bosnians was taking place and the US was slow to act, other world leaders chastised the US for not being the leader in using its force for humanitarian values.

When the US suggested that North Korea be handled by a regional group of nations, the US got chided for punting to the responsibility to other countries.

Bottom line: lesser countries are going to whine when the US gets active internationally, and they are going to whine in equal amounts when the US acts more isolationist. Either the US does too much or it does too little. The US is either arrogantly imposing its will on the world, or it is arrogantly being aloof to global concerns because of an innate self-centered attitude.

There is no middle ground, because lesser countries don’t act consistently in their wants for a superpower’s role. I was in Europe when the US swooped into the Balkans. There were protests in several places - protestors wanting the US war machine out of a place it didn’t belong. The UN did not approve the acts in Bosnia. Was the US right to go in? Here is the answer - it depends on whether or not the answer is convenient at the time.

I think the problem is that many other countries want the US to have the international role of a very rich silent partner to a business - keep sending the big checks, hands off the management, and we’ll call you when we run out of money.

97

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Secondly, you call them barabaric processes. They called it, “culture”. You, Great Britain, or America, have no right to decide what cultures are barabaric and which aren’t.[/quote]

Sure we do.

A culture puts homosexuals to death by way of burning them alive. You refuse to judge that practice as immoral or barbaric in the name of cultural relativism?

I have a concept outside of my little slice of America and I can tell you that the very different cultures you think you are protecting with your cultural relativism do not share your precious sensibilities on global tolerance.

“Enlightened” liberals are the freakishly small minority that actually buys into the idea that one culture cannot judge another.

Want to get a ‘global’ perspective? Go ask a Maori tribesman or a !Kung native if they share your relativism. There certainly live outside of the little section of America.

And cultural relativism is always a contradictory joke - a school of thought that claims there cannot be one culture better than another but then goes on to disprove its own thesis by advocating that a tolerant egalitarian society is better than a intolerant, unequal one.

Idiocy.

Let’s play a little Imperialism game: before your Irish ancestors settled in America, the land you currently enjoy was once owned by Native American/Indians.

Does your righteous indignation against the absolute evil of imperialism go far enough to give back the property under your feet back to its ‘rightful’ owner?

I mean, and I’ll quote you: Yay imperialism. Destroying national identity one day at a time.

But your proud Irish heritage is complicit in this awful, unforgiveable crime - are you going to restore what your ancestors wrongfully took?

What you are so quick to always call ‘imperialism’ is nothing more than the unavoidable tragic engine of history.

98

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Secondly, you call them barabaric processes. They called it, “culture”. You, Great Britain, or America, have no right to decide what cultures are barabaric and which aren’t.

Sure we do.

A culture puts homosexuals to death by way of burning them alive. You refuse to judge that practice as immoral or barbaric in the name of cultural relativism?

Although, from all your previous posts, I can tell that you have no concept of a “different culture” outside of your little section of America. We call this “ignorance” where I come from.

I have a concept outside of my little slice of America and I can tell you that the very different cultures you think you are protecting with your cultural relativism do not share your precious sensibilities on global tolerance.

“Enlightened” liberals are the freakishly small minority that actually buys into the idea that one culture cannot judge another.

Want to get a ‘global’ perspective? Go ask a Maori tribesman or a !Kung native if they share your relativism. There certainly live outside of the little section of America.

And cultural relativism is always a contradictory joke - a school of thought that claims there cannot be one culture better than another but then goes on to disprove its own thesis by advocating that a tolerant egalitarian society is better than a intolerant, unequal one.

Idiocy.

And then, we reach that point: You are saying Imperialism is good for everybody.

Let’s play a little Imperialism game: before your Irish ancestors settled in America, the land you currently enjoy was once owned by Native American/Indians.

Does your righteous indignation against the absolute evil of imperialism go far enough to give back the property under your feet back to its ‘rightful’ owner?

I mean, and I’ll quote you: Yay imperialism. Destroying national identity one day at a time.

But your proud Irish heritage is complicit in this awful, unforgiveable crime - are you going to restore what your ancestors wrongfully took?

What you are so quick to always call ‘imperialism’ is nothing more than the unavoidable tragic engine of history.
[/quote]

Hm. I thought Headhunter and his 114493393 IQ could defend himself. Guess not.

Yea thats cute, I am a hypocrite for wanting society to progress. Right. Sure. What’s the matter Thunder? “Relativism” the only word you can put me down with nowadays?

The fact is, other countries look at us as immoral, between the corporations running things, the blatant sex and violence, etc. They have not tried to invade the US (say what you want about 9/11, but it occurred because of foreign policy).

And maybe if we had a time machine, we could go back and change the Indian’s raw deal. But being as mine broke, and you don’t give a fuck either way, I guess they’re out of luck. And you know very little of my Irish heritage (ahem. Pric). As a matter of fact, my brethern didn’t come over “complicitly”.

They came over because of the famine…rememeber that thing? That famine that England ignored, while leaving the Irish to die? So my family’s being here had directly to do with English Imperialism and the brutality with which they treated their “subjects”.

Taking a historic precedent and just saying, “Oh well its human nature. Sorry” is ridiculous. Yes, British imperialism counts among its casualties many Native Americans, Irishmen, Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians, and countless others.

Why repeat British or Roman mistakes? Why do terrible acts like this time and again, when there is no reason or justification? How can you argue for that? At one time, people said the same thing about slavery in the US; “Oh, there was always slaves in history. Its just human nature”. Yea well I see that we managed to change that.

There is nothing wrong with striving for a world where you can’t just walk in to another soverign state because you think they might…hurt you…someday…maybe…with some weapons that uh, we think are there…

99

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

“Enlightened” liberals are the freakishly small minority that actually buys into the idea that one culture cannot judge another.[/quote]

Brilliant statement!

[quote]Does your righteous indignation against the absolute evil of imperialism go far enough to give back the property under your feet back to its ‘rightful’ owner?

I mean, and I’ll quote you: Yay imperialism. Destroying national identity one day at a time.

But your proud Irish heritage is complicit in this awful, unforgiveable crime - are you going to restore what your ancestors wrongfully took?

What you are so quick to always call ‘imperialism’ is nothing more than the unavoidable tragic engine of history.
[/quote]

I so want to read irish’s response to this question.

100

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Yea thats cute, I am a hypocrite for wanting society to progress. Right. Sure. What’s the matter Thunder? “Relativism” the only word you can put me down with nowadays?[/quote]

That you consider that word a “put down” cannot be so pleasing to your liberal brothers.

Excuse me but we have a republic.

Oh come on, that answer is disappointing.