I’ll answer, pick me, pick me!
C A N A D A
Heh, what did you expect?
At least one guys has the balls to answer a question. As for Prof X, he tries to put a ‘cosmopolitan’ spin on his ramblings, to which we can attach the words of Nietzsche: “They vomit their gall and call it a newspaper.” Put in ‘Prof X’s nonsense’ for ‘a newspaper’ and there you go.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
At least one guys has the balls to answer a question. As for Prof X, he tries to put a ‘cosmopolitan’ spin on his ramblings, to which we can attach the words of Nietzsche: “They vomit their gall and call it a newspaper.” Put in ‘Prof X’s nonsense’ for ‘a newspaper’ and there you go.[/quote]
Right. I can’t help but notice that you didn’t point out what was “nonsense”. Then again, to you, nearly everything must come across as “nonsense”. I’ll use the big crayons next time.
We bask in the turbulence of your mastery.
[quote]vroom wrote:
…
Anyway, it is funny to see that a country founded because of revolt from the British Empire – arguably the best or most advanced and powerful civilization at the time – now has citizens that effectively want to become the new Empire.
…[/quote]
We still have a good bit of the spirit of the British Empire. If they would have treated the colonies more fairly and allowed us to elect our own representation to Parliament we would probably would have pictures of the Queen on our money too.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
At least one guys has the balls to answer a question. As for Prof X, he tries to put a ‘cosmopolitan’ spin on his ramblings, to which we can attach the words of Nietzsche: “They vomit their gall and call it a newspaper.” Put in ‘Prof X’s nonsense’ for ‘a newspaper’ and there you go.
Right. I can’t help but notice that you didn’t point out what was “nonsense”. Then again, to you, nearly everything must come across as “nonsense”. I’ll use the big crayons next time.[/quote]
LOL. I’m glad I’m not the only one that thinks this. Arguing with headhunter is like arguing with a six year old; the only response is: “NO!”
Vroom- Nice post up top. Very true. A nation should not “lead” by using the point of a bayonet- it should lead by setting an example. Which I do not believe we are.
Zap, I think eventually, like all colonies, we would have fought for independence eventually.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And none of you libs will answer the damn question: if we have to have a leading nation, who would you choose? It’s that simple. Just answer, no weaseling out.[/quote]
I have posted quite a few questions that were in the longer posts. You have answered none. Why should I answer yours, when you let Thunderbolt attempt to “rip me a new asshole”?
You are great at hiding behind skirts, but never come to your own defense with either facts or historical information. And quoting Nietzsche and trying to switch the meaning so insults Prof.x is not exactly a valid argument.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…
Zap, I think eventually, like all colonies, we would have fought for independence eventually. [/quote]
India was granted indepenence when they quit fighting and took the non-violent route.
Canada still has the Queen on their money, but they are really the 51st state.
Northern Ireland is still under the thumb because they keep fighting.
Who knows what would have happened if the colonies would have had real representation. Perhaps Spain and France would still have New World colonies.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…
Zap, I think eventually, like all colonies, we would have fought for independence eventually.
India was granted indepenence when they quit fighting and took the non-violent route.
Canada still has the Queen on their money, but they are really the 51st state.
Northern Ireland is still under the thumb because they keep fighting.
Who knows what would have happened if the colonies would have had real representation. Perhaps Spain and France would still have New World colonies.[/quote]
Interesting question.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have posted quite a few questions that were in the longer posts. You have answered none. Why should I answer yours, when you let Thunderbolt attempt to “rip me a new asshole”?[/quote]
Um…in case you were not paying attention-He did more than just “attempt.”
I started this thread under the following premises: Historically, the world is significantly influenced by a hegemonic power. In the 19th century, Britain held this role, while the latter half of the 20th century was dominated by the United States. The United States has the world’s largest economy and the most powerful military. It plays a dominant role in world affairs.
I then contended that this is a good thing, because the United States is a country of laws, civil liberties, and so forth. It is my belief that, if someone is to have this power, the United States is the best choice. The other alternatives are not as desireable. If a rogue nation flouts these generally good rules, they must be dealt with, or all hell breaks loose. This is the way of history and it is the same today.
For this, I was insulted as ‘retarded’ by Prof X, who’s response was, “Your not the best simply because you say so!” How or what this has to do with anything of the thread is beyond me. Apparently, the Prof can’t accept historical fact. Another guy went ballistic because he thought I was praising British imperialism. He went so far as to say that burning women alive was acceptable, because it’s part of Hindu culture, which we must not judge (talk about the logical extremes of political correctness!). I leave both of these gentlemen to the judgment of anyone else reading this.
For those other readers I say: the world is based upon power. Who do you want to have this power? Do you want to give this power to the UN? To China? What would the world be like if one of these entities was the hegemonic power?
The decision is yours.
Order is never spontaneous.
As such, there will always be an overarching power that serves as de facto leader.
Should it be the UN? I don’t think so - the entire premise of the UN is flawed. It was never meant to be a global democratic regime, but over time, many have tried to turn it into one. But a system that is essentially democratic - a voting system in both the GA and the UNSC - includes nations that do not even use a democratic system in their homeland. How can a nation that sneers at democracy for its own people get to participate in a democratic process at the UN?
And many believe that because of the UN, each country is somewhat ‘equal’. Nonsense. They aren’t, never have been, and never will be. Lesser countries like international law as a way of punching above their weight - the rest of the time the UN could be damned. The greater countries like the UN format when it serves their needs, otherwise they don’t care.
Countries are not equal - not in size, power, or, most importantly, values.
Which brings me to the most important point, in my view - I do not want a global leadership that is essentially value neutral. Some ideas are better than others, some values are better than others, and in a world system - which has no viable overarching authority - the best we can do is desire a leadership, wherever it comes from, to have the right kind of values.
The UN is not such an institution. It mollycoddles dictators in the name of pacifism, and thinks that every world problem can be fixed if only the rich countries would pony up some more cash in a sort of global socialism nonsense. This thinking ignores the pathology of human nature and the interaction of states ever since the Pelopponesian war.
The UN is not prepared to handle the world as it is - it merely lectures and has summits on how the world should be. Fine for academia, but not for practical results.
So, should the UN be this de facto leader? I say no - unless it changes its very institutional nature.
Now, every two weeks or so, we are entreated to a rant that says the US wants to make the world like the US and will essentially stop at nothing to achieve this deadening hegemony.
Baloney. There is a world of difference between standing in the position of leader and trying to ‘take over’ - either through hard or soft means - the world. Do the math. If the US truly wanted to accomplish this goal of uncompromising hegemony, it would have already been done, or at least attempted.
As for the whining over the lack of a perfect solution that solves all the problems of the world without offending anyone anywhere - an 800 pound gorilla will always knock some of the furniture around. But stop moaning about the lack of a perfect solution, there are none - what is the best solution among all the choices? What is the least worst?
Armchair utopian nigglers are of no use for achieving pragmatic results - and the UN and its Lemmings are certainly of that brand.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
For this, I was insulted as ‘retarded’ by Prof X, who’s response was, “Your not the best simply because you say so!” How or what this has to do with anything of the thread is beyond me. Apparently, the Prof can’t accept historical fact. Another guy went ballistic because he thought I was praising British imperialism. He went so far as to say that burning women alive was acceptable, because it’s part of Hindu culture, which we must not judge (talk about the logical extremes of political correctness!). I leave both of these gentlemen to the judgment of anyone else reading this.
[/quote]
First, if you quote me, don’t change my quote in any way to make it appear the way you want. There was no exclamation point after that statement and you were called “retarded” for not understanding a simple concept. It is very basically the difference between understanding that there may be a country that leads in terms of power, education and technology, but to claim this country as the “leader of the world” sets you up for failure. This is so because of the very fact that no other country will bow down to another country that they feel is trying to impose a will against their own. This was explained to you several times, and instead of even debating the points made, you made one word quips as insults…now you cry because you were insulted back? Sad.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Which brings me to the most important point, in my view - I do not want a global leadership that is essentially value neutral. Some ideas are better than others, some values are better than others, and in a world system - which has no viable overarching authority - the best we can do is desire a leadership, wherever it comes from, to have the right kind of values.
The UN is not such an institution. It mollycoddles dictators in the name of pacifism, and thinks that every world problem can be fixed if only the rich countries would pony up some more cash in a sort of global socialism nonsense. This thinking ignores the pathology of human nature and the interaction of states ever since the Pelopponesian war. [/quote]
While the UN may not be an answer for world order, it is still the bandaid needed to prevent any one country from running around acting like it owns the world. It isn’t our place to decide for every other country what is best for them as if their opinion matters not at all. Often, perception is reality. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why is it so many pretend as if this doesn’t apply to them?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
While the UN may not be an answer for world order, it is still the bandaid needed to prevent any one country from running around acting like it owns the world.[/quote]
But it doesn’t do this. Did the UN stop NATO from invading Bosnia, even though it wasn’t UN-approved? Did the UN stop the US from invading Iraq, even though the act was not UN-approved.
You can’t distinguish the difference between what you want to be the case and what really is the case. The UN doesn’t stop anyone from ‘running around like it owns the world’ unless the powerful countries let it.
You’re right, and the US does not do this. This is a fantasy you have concocted. Is the US powerful, Yes. Influential? Yes. Trying to decide for every other country what is best for them? Nope. What you charge simply isn’t happening.
Profound. This is a meaningless statement here.
Trying to drown me in trite cliches isn’t going to work. Lord Acton’s rule would apply to the UN just as well as it would the US or any other ‘leader’.
And as discussed earlier, the UN doesn’t take power away from any of the greater countries. China invaded Tibet - where is the UN? Turkey invaded Cyrpus - where is the UN? NATO countries invade Bosnia - where is the UN? The US invaded Iraq - where is the UN?
If you support the UN because you think that the UN prevents ‘absolute power’ in the hands of one big, bad nation - think again.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There was no exclamation point after that statement and you were called “retarded” for not understanding a simple concept. It is very basically the difference between understanding that there may be a country that leads in terms of power, education and technology, but to claim this country as the “leader of the world” sets you up for failure.
[/quote]
LMAO! Talk about someone who doesn’t understand simple concepts!! Someone who won’t even acknowledge simple history!! Keep it up, Prof!! Best laughs I’ve had in a long time!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
… Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why is it so many pretend as if this doesn’t apply to them?
[/quote]
Because I don’t have absolute power.
Yet.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The UN doesn’t stop anyone from ‘running around like it owns the world’ unless the powerful countries let it.[/quote]
Well then, instead of acting as if the US should become the new dictator for the world, why not shine light on the point of view of us needing to HELP KEEP unity in the world as far as a common goal, not trying to decide that goal for them?
[quote]
You’re right, and the US does not do this. This is a fantasy you have concocted. Is the US powerful, Yes. Influential? Yes. Trying to decide for every other country what is best for them? Nope. What you charge simply isn’t happening.[/quote]
Then what are you arguing? There needs to be a UN so that those smaller countries have a voice. Why imply that the UN needs to be disbanded as if we will now control their decisions?
[quote]
Profound. This is a meaningless statement here.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. You just needed to ask what I was getting at. There needs to be the perception that there is a voice heard from smaller countries. Therefore, perception can very often be reality. Whether we step to the forefront from time to time doesn’t erase the need for that open forum.
[quote]
Trying to drown me in trite cliches isn’t going to work. Lord Acton’s rule would apply to the UN just as well as it would the US or any other ‘leader’.[/quote]
So how is my use of it trite? It applies. Why ignore it?
[quote]
And as discussed earlier, the UN doesn’t take power away from any of the greater countries. China invaded Tibet - where is the UN? Turkey invaded Cyrpus - where is the UN? NATO countries invade Bosnia - where is the UN? The US invaded Iraq - where is the UN? [/quote]
No one has written that the UN is error free, just that there is a need for one. Do you understand now or will you pretend as if I wasn’t clear?
[quote]
If you support the UN because you think that the UN prevents ‘absolute power’ in the hands of one big, bad nation - think again.[/quote]
No, what will prevent that is the understanding that no one country needs to act like it runs everything. In effect, there needs to be a concept of a BALANCE of power, not a dictatorship. When you typed out your last response, how stupid did you think I was?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There was no exclamation point after that statement and you were called “retarded” for not understanding a simple concept. It is very basically the difference between understanding that there may be a country that leads in terms of power, education and technology, but to claim this country as the “leader of the world” sets you up for failure.
LMAO! Talk about someone who doesn’t understand simple concepts!! Someone who won’t even acknowledge simple history!! Keep it up, Prof!! Best laughs I’ve had in a long time!![/quote]
One more time for the dummies, you have yet to actually respond to the points made to you before. You just keep making posts throwing insults. What good are you in a debate? Either go back and respond to those points directly, or shut the fuck up and troll elsewhere.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There was no exclamation point after that statement and you were called “retarded” for not understanding a simple concept. It is very basically the difference between understanding that there may be a country that leads in terms of power, education and technology, but to claim this country as the “leader of the world” sets you up for failure.
LMAO! Talk about someone who doesn’t understand simple concepts!! Someone who won’t even acknowledge simple history!! Keep it up, Prof!! Best laughs I’ve had in a long time!!
One more time for the dummies, you have yet to actually respond to the points made to you before. You just keep making posts throwing insults. What good are you in a debate? Either go back and respond to those points directly, or shut the fuck up and troll elsewhere.[/quote]
My post about the purpose of the thread should answer any of your questions, Prof…Please point out exactly where it didn’t answer any of your inanities.
Honestly, Prof, and I don’t mean this as an insult: You need to go down the hall in your med building and find a psychiatrist. You are in such refusal-to-see-reality mode that I can’t help you. You seem also to have this either-or fixation, that a leading nation must be something like the Empire of the Star Wars movies. You do not understand the meaning of hegemony. What a pathetic case!
Now I will insult you: You are a troll, arguing simply for arguing sake. Add something meaninful, or just stfu.