Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Without the US and its diplomatic, economic and military supremacy backing it up, the United Nations and NATO would be basically powerless.

NATO is hardly relevant here, but as for the UN - Well, that's a bold statement. I wonder what do you base it on. It would be powerless to do what for example?

[Kogan Loloklam]

Dude, what's with this insistence on arguing from nationalistic viewpoint? How and why knowing from which one country a person is weighs here at all? Why must this be a "whose country is better" competition? Would webber being Pakistani or Eritrean add or dertact from the merits of his argumentation? Would him being American help condemn or justify USA?

That is the point exactly. It doesn't.

I should have gone to sleep long ago, but amounts of "LOL WE HEROICALLY DEFEATED ANOTHER SUPERVILLAIN" shit in this thread were too much to ignore.

This is an example in his criteria in determining what to reply to. He isn't choosing things on the merits of the argument, but on his perceptions that it's some uppity individual expressing a thought process he disagrees with. It's not even about the topic to him.

If I were to ask you what country you were from, I would probably instantly get it. It has no bearing on the argument, and you'd probably point that out, but it'd be provided. An American can disagree with America's foreign policy just as easily as a Argentinean. The thing is, he finds anything anyone says in defense of any American foreign policy as something worthy of discussion, and nothing outside that. He discounts any statements that are not related to NATO or the United States. Capitulates, ignores, or minimizes them. He does this while saying he's only acting on personal opinion and that nationality doesn't matter. He tiptoes around the question of declaring his own nationality quite cleverly. He's been careful to avoid saying so in other places as well. In the end, it shows the same level of nationalism that he declares he hates. He would not be able to stand an examination of his nation in the global leadership position. I admit that me pressing for the information was a little trollish, since I guessed this was probable and pressed him to try to get him to cease picking people who spoke up in support of a NATO or American action as targets for his collateral damage figures. Nation of origin actually doesn't have any bearing on this discussion at all. So yes, webber being Pakistani or Eritrean would add or detract from the merits of his argumentation, mostly detract since it is likely if he knew his country would be put under the same Microscope as the USA then he wouldn't have made the statements.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE:
1)You can agree with a decision made by another nation and not be a part of that nation, as well as have opinions for and against other nations besides your own.
2)Agreeing with the actions of another nation does not make you automatically wrong because another person disagrees with that nation on general principle
I will argue that #2 does not exist as it should often for America (Not Americans, America. To further eliminate any confusion here I am referring to the country, not the people in it. My Exact statement is along the lines of "If you say something nice about a Decision America has made, people often will assume you are automatically wrong on general principle.") and that is most of the "nationalistic" speech you see from me. I agree with some things my government does, and disagree with others that it does. I don't view America as inherently superior or inferior. I do feel it has a very good system of governance, and a very good strategic position. I also think it's in a world leader role, and is the #1 "police officer" on the global scale, encouraging local disputes to remain very local. You can say "America Sucks" all you want. I'll disagree because I don't personally feel it sucks, but I'd disagree if you said the same thing about many different countries. Just because you personally don't like America doesn't mean what I am saying is Nationalistic statements. I understand how it is easily confused as such, but it isn't true. Most of my statements would not change even if I was from a different nation. The key here is to leave my nationality out of things, as well as the nation I am choosing to defend out of things, and actually view the content of the discussion.

((Top half))

This deserves discussion and my attention, unfortunately I wasted a larger amount of time dealing with the bottom half than I wished to.
I do intend to address this, and my primary argument regarding this will be based on the instability caused by the Cold War, and how it was Churchill's policy to setup fighting against the Communist threat while it was Roosevelt's policy to return to the Isolationist Attitude America had adopted pre-World War 2. I will be back in about 4-5 hours to make these statements.

[Il Palazzo]

Fair enough. I'll be sure to read it.

[Montague]

Without the US and its diplomatic, economic and military supremacy backing it up, the United Nations and NATO would be basically powerless.

NATO is hardly relevant here, but as for the UN - Well, that's a bold statement. I wonder what do you base it on. It would be powerless to do what for example?

Ok, I threw NATO in just because the USA is the only member state that isn't constantly underfunding their military and the USA is still the only member state that has the capcity for waging a major expedient war. It had the carrier groups, over-the-shoreline logistics, aerial refueling, munitions production, ship repair, electronic warfare, training of pilots and other military specialists and dozen other things other NATO members simply cannot do or cannot effectively do. So the other states in NATO rely heavily on the US to form the backbone of the alliance and to fill gaps in their own nation's capabilities. Not to sound like I'm beating up too much on them though, if the USA withdrew with NATO or imploded or something, the other member states would probably scramble to make up these deficiencies though. Their leadership and their militaries are still highly competant and well trained, they are just not diverse or well funded enough to run the show on their own.

Anyways, the UN is really the issue. Its useless because it cannot accomplish a damned thing so long as any member of the security council decides to veto any motion to enforce any world-police-type action.

Case in point, the US intervention in Grenada. Everyone in the UN was absolutely appalled, yet, they couldn't do a damn thing because the US just vetoed their complaints and went right along smashing tyrants and commies like the real world police it has become. What if Russia or China or someone else decided to do something worse then pick on Cuba or decided to stubbornly support some other malignant actor?

Anyways, the whole idea of the UN is intellectually bankrupt. Democracies and tyrannies getting together to figure out how to best solve the world's problems and promote world peace? Why should dictatorships even get a say to a democratic process or have influence against democratic nations? The whole idea seems ridiculous to me.

[Il Palazzo]

Anyways, the whole idea of the UN is intellectually bankrupt. Democracies and tyrannies getting together to figure out how to best solve the world's problems and promote world peace? Why should dictatorships even get a say to a democratic process or have influence against democratic nations? The whole idea seems ridiculous to me.

Well, it does appear to be a better idea than ceding the sheriff's badge to any one politically non-neutral entity. Even worse if said entitiy decides to take the badge itself and promote its own brand of justice.

[Montague]

I'm not sure it is better. The UN is like a city council staffed with mafia thugs, whoever they elect for sheriff probably isn't in anybody else's best interest, either.

There could be worse candidates for world police then the USA. Rather have Russia or China shaping the world instead? I'll admit I'd REALLY rather the USA get its own shit together before trying its hand at nation-building or meddling in the domestic policy of other nations, but I don't think handing the world over to dictatorships or thinking Europeans can agree on anything important are great alternatives either.

So, not sure what a better solution might be. Self-determination of nations seemed like a good idea until WWII. Genocides and small wars might just have to be the norm if nobody feels like playing policeman anymore.

[Aqizzar]

There could be worse candidates for world police then the USA. Rather have Russia or China shaping the world instead? I'll admit I'd REALLY rather the USA get its own shit together before trying its hand at nation-building or meddling in the domestic policy of other nations, but I don't think handing the world over to dictatorships or thinking Europeans can agree on anything important are great alternatives either.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that the UN has the power to do anything, and is intended to do anything.  All of the things you worry about are manifestations of diplomacy, regardless of the outlet.  The UN functions as a diplomatic clearing house; without it, all the same things would still be happening, just much more chaotically.

[Il Palazzo]

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that the UN has the power to do anything, and is intended to do anything.  All of the things you worry about are manifestations of diplomacy, regardless of the outlet.  The UN functions as a diplomatic clearing house; without it, all the same things would still be happening, just much more chaotically.

What about the UN peacekeeping missions? Surely there's some value in them? Some lives saved and stability increased?

[Montague]

I understand what the UN does in it's current state, although I'm not sure that's entirely what it was originally intended to do. It was formed with the notion that it could prevent wars and actively intervene in peace-keeping missions and what have you.

It does provide a nice stage for nations to voice complaints and saber-rattle at each other, which is fine, but its ability to do much of anything else is suspect even if there is some intent for a broader scope of purposes.

Needless to say, the UN isn't going to take over as being the world police.

[Aqizzar]

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that the UN has the power to do anything, and is intended to do anything.  All of the things you worry about are manifestations of diplomacy, regardless of the outlet.  The UN functions as a diplomatic clearing house; without it, all the same things would still be happening, just much more chaotically.

What about the UN peacekeeping missions? Surely there's some value in them? Some lives saved and stability increased?

What did I say?  All the same things would still happen, just in a more ad hoc, nation-oriented way.  There have been plenty of non-UN peacekeeping missions, the African Union hosts them fairly frequently, and the United States is doing a few right now in places like Uganda and the Philippines.  I'm saying the UN provides a more cohesive and efficient outlet for the same actions.  I like that, by the way.

And for anyone saying "Efficient? The Hell, you say." as ramshackle and ponderous as the UN appears, and nobody is a bigger critic of the Security Council's Permanent Vetoes than me, you'd miss it when it's gone.

[Phmcw]

Hu? Excuse me if I'm late but since when did anyone act as a world police?
Isn't it clear for everyone that every country act for the best interest of the person governing it and never give the least shit about the well being of anyone else?

Now, claiming that the war in Iraq has any kind of justification is laughable, and the reasons why George W Bush hasn't been arrested for his various crime can be summed up by "he was the fucking president of the United states". Actually, the sole reason why the US haven't been condemned for the war in Iraq is that "they are the fucking United States". Pretty much just like Russia have no problem with the UN for Tchetchenia, or China for whatever shit they pull on their population is that they are too powerful to be held accountable.

The US and it's allies pulled pretty nasty tricks, and anyone doubting it should learn a bit about Chile, war crime in Korea, history of Al quaida, Rwanda (though no one seems to be sure if the US or France are to blame for the genocide) ....

Basically I deny that anyone ever tried to be the world police.

[Urist Mcinternetuser]

When did anti-Americanism become unpopular all the sudden, anyways? It used to be that you couldn't talk to a person outside North America in a pub or whatever without them condemning the USA about Iraq, gun violence, Bush, WWII or 9-11 Truth or whatever. All the same talking points, too, like everybody in Europe had memorized a pamphlet.

Did it become passe all the sudden? I see one non-American trying to hate like a normal non-American and people are actually siding against him.

I'm half tempted to start launching into leftist arguments against the USA just for the sake of argument now.

It's not cool to hate the U.S. because of the uneducated/corrupt people there. I for one am from the U.S., but I was born with a bigger view of the world.

Actually yes, I agree with you now. I was writing that up and then thought, "Well maybe I care about things going in the world, but the majority of USAians are uneducated and deep down inside only care about things that affect them.

[Montague]

Hu? Excuse me if I'm late but since when did anyone act as a world police?
Isn't it clear for everyone that every country act for the best interest of the person governing it and never give the least shit about the well being of anyone else?

Now, claiming that the war in Iraq has any kind of justification is laughable, and the reasons why George W Bush hasn't been arrested for his various crime can be summed up by "he was the fucking president of the United states". Actually, the sole reason why the US haven't been condemned for the war in Iraq is that "they are the fucking United States". Pretty much just like Russia have no problem with the UN for Tchetchenia, or China for whatever shit they pull on their population is that they are too powerful to be held accountable.

The US and it's allies pulled pretty nasty tricks, and anyone doubting it should learn a bit about Chile, war crime in Korea, history of Al quaida, Rwanda (though no one seems to be sure if the US or France are to blame for the genocide) ....

Basically I deny that anyone ever tried to be the world police.

Just to argue, I'd like to assert that the war in Iraq was really only justified because the US made the mistake of invading in the first place. I don't believe in the whole idea that it was about oil, simply because the US gets the vast majority of its oil supply domestically and from Canada and Mexico. The remainder the US get from more exotic places, Iraq only made up around 2% of that supply before the invasion and the US gets even less from Iraq now. The USA has no special claim to the oil in that country as its entirely owned by the Iraqi government. The US stayed and occupied Iraq because the invasion (under the pretense of finding WMDs) massively destabilized the country and if they'd simply left, the country would have imploded in civil war, genocide and the rise of some theocratic Islamic fascist shit in the aftermath. It pretty much did that anyways I see it as being a consequence of initial incompetence, sudden national self-interest and a urge to at least help fix what we fucked up.

The other nastiness can be attributed to the fact that it was indeed a war and nasty stuff happens in wars. Not every peon can be completely controlled or monitored, not all corruption can be weeded out and not every bomb or bullet is going to find its mark 100% of the time.

As for Bush being arrested for crimes, what crimes? A nation has the right to pursue its own self interests and to wage war. Especially against illegitimate reigns like Saddam's and the pretenders that rose up after his downfall.

The idea that the USA's leadership or government is evil basically implies that the USA's leadership or government is competent. Or 100% competent anyways. It makes mistakes and will try to deal with them as they make them.

[Aqizzar]

As for Bush being arrested for crimes, what crimes? A nation has the right to pursue its own self interests and to wage war. Especially against illegitimate reigns like Saddam's and the pretenders that rose up after his downfall.

This is for things like the Guantanamo Bay memos, and such, what by all indications was a top down authorization of government agents violating human rights treaties to which the United States is a signatory.  Those things do count for stuff, it's what people like Slobodan Milosevic were jailed on, for the sake of making a legal argument.

Beyond Bush himself, there's also the effective immunity people like Dick Cheney have gotten from foreign prosecution for charges levied against them as private citizens, stemming from his days as a oil drilling CEO.  It wasn't the government committing a crime in that case, it's that his position then and now as a major American politician blocking a legitimate legal case.

[Phmcw]

Well there is legal ground to arrest him : the use of mercenaries, attack of a sovereign country under false pretences, torture, unlawful arrestation...
My interpretation of that war is that it was conducted to settle old scores, and possibly to enrich the president's entourage, to the detriment of the citizens themselves who will pay thousands of time what the conspirators will earn.

It is proved that they knew they had no ground for an invasion, and seriously they never pretended very hard, which is why there was such opposition everywhere else. Worse, everyone knew it was going to fail.