Print

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

[Helgoland]

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

But why would America need a larger projection power over the world? Why is secession a problem

If you accept a certain (quite reasonable) way of viewing history: Because it's a step in the wrong direction. Since the stone age, larger administrative structures have evolved to deal with larger-scale problems; and in a time when global problems are becoming a pressing matter you wish to go back?

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures, in my opinion. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

Ah yes, the good ol' times, when men were men, women were women and you had to pay tolls twice when going from one town to the next in some parts of Germany. Believe me, there's a reason that Europe started uniting after WWII.

in my opinion

You may find this insulting, and that's a good thing: You're an idiot. Stuff can't get worse "in your opinion". Stuff either gets worse or it doesn't. It's a common mistake, but I RAEG every time I see it - so please, think of the children and don't use those crappy phrases.

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures [...]. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

You actually think Al-Quaida's a serious problem? They killed, what, 10.000 people all in all. A million is a statistc, but on the grand scale, ten thousand's a joke. That's not to belittle all those that have suffered because of terrorism; but the great problems of our day are pollution, climate change, the switch to renewable energies and the negative effects of globalization - and these are not issues you can resolve on a state or even a federal level.

And just FIY the actual reason for islamic terrorism is the perceived 'cultural imperialism' of the west - rising life standards, that is

Any "world police" or "world government" made to deal with these global problems should be a coalition of countries, not any singular entity. It's not the US's job to police the world; if you think there's a power vacuum and that something needs to fill it, I suggest pushing for the UN to get increased capacities and/or a new thing to take its place.

The US is not a good candidate because it is the government of the USA and not the world; ultimately we do need a new global entity. A New World Order, for all you conspiracy theorists out there

[Lord Shonus]

No, we haven't. Outside of selling them obsolete military equipment, which we also sold to Iran and other countries in the region, the US tone toward Israel was lukewarm at best until Reagan. That's why so much of their equipment is based on British designs, as it was the UK that bent over backwards whenever Israel asked. Carter very nearly classified the nation as a rogue state due to their nuclear program, and one of the reasons for the support given to Iran was to provide a counterweight to the fortress-state of Israel. Regan began to throw wholesale support at them because most of the Arab states were Soviet-backed.

[misko27]

The problem with Al-Qaeda isn't really about Israel at all. The group's original goal was replacing moderate Muslim governments with Taliban-style hardliners, and elimination of "Western" influence in Islamic affairs. Hard-line American support of Israel is a fairly recent development, post-dating the terrorist group.

But Al-Qaeda was formed in the late 1980s. America's been supporting Israel wholeheartedly since its creation.

During the Invasion of Afghanistan! By the Hyper-Secularist Communists. Now I wonder how they could have gotten the idea about invaders taking religion away.

[SealyStar]

The problem with Al-Qaeda isn't really about Israel at all. The group's original goal was replacing moderate Muslim governments with Taliban-style hardliners, and elimination of "Western" influence in Islamic affairs. Hard-line American support of Israel is a fairly recent development, post-dating the terrorist group.

On the topic of "replacing moderate Muslim governments", is anyone else worried about how Turkey seems to be turning less and less... secular? It's like the regional bastion of rational government is getting sapped from within.

[Helgoland]

A Turkish friend of mine complained about this some time ago - when even the Turkish themselves start worrying, we should too.

EDIT: Friend, not fiend.

[SealyStar]

A Turkish fiend of mine complained about this some time ago - when even the Turkish themselves start worrying, we should too.

The military academy's starting courses in Islamic literature or something. Thanks, Newsweek... even though you've been going downhill since 2009.

I don't want Turkey to see this fate- you made a great Star Wars ripoff, dammit!

[Owlbread]

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures, in my opinion. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

Ah yes, the good ol' times, when men were men, women were women and you had to pay tolls twice when going from one town to the next in some parts of Germany. Believe me, there's a reason that Europe started uniting after WWII.

in my opinion

You may find this insulting, and that's a good thing: You're an idiot. Stuff can't get worse "in your opinion". Stuff either gets worse or it doesn't. It's a common mistake, but I RAEG every time I see it - so please, think of the children and don't use those crappy phrases.

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures [...]. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

You actually think Al-Quaida's a serious problem? They killed, what, 10.000 people all in all. A million is a statistc, but on the grand scale, ten thousand's a joke. That's not to belittle all those that have suffered because of terrorism; but the great problems of our day are pollution, climate change, the switch to renewable energies and the negative effects of globalization - and these are not issues you can resolve on a state or even a federal level.

And just FIY the actual reason for islamic terrorism is the perceived 'cultural imperialism' of the west - rising life standards, that is

Any "world police" or "world government" made to deal with these global problems should be a coalition of countries, not any singular entity. It's not the US's job to police the world; if you think there's a power vacuum and that something needs to fill it, I suggest pushing for the UN to get increased capacities and/or a new thing to take its place.

The US is not a good candidate because it is the government of the USA and not the world; ultimately we do need a new global entity. A New World Order, for all you conspiracy theorists out there

Now now sir, I know you're just a bit hyped up and that so I won't take your comments too seriously, but I'm going to have to pull you up about it. I haven't insulted a single person in this thread at any point, even if I disagree with them. I don't think me expressing my opinion like everyone else required you calling me an idiot and shitting on my opinions in the way that you did, no matter how many smiley faces you send me. Hell I don't even know you. That was just nasty, and it's the kind of stuff that Toady would have to get involved in if I started flaming you back. Calm down mate.

But I do see several thousand people dying as a tragedy. It's not a joke. A million people dying on the other hand is an unthinkable horror. Al-Qaeda were also the main focus for American foreign intervention for the initial stages of the "War on Terror", and they basically embody the kind of sketchy, badly planned NATO globetrotting shennanigans that I was criticising. Along with the Taliban and Ba'ath Party-governed Iraq. I'm trying to use these conflicts as examples of why countries like the USA, Russia or China should not have larger projections of power. It would be very nice if they did deal with such important issues as climate change, globalization and so forth, but guess what - they're struggling, even with all this power, and they're not giving it their 100% for all sorts of reasons. The whole thing is rotten to the core.

If you'd given me the chance to express myself properly, instead of being like that, you would have found that I too believe in the merits of world government, like you. I advocate fracturing the superstates of the world (including the USA) into small nations with autonomous regions and no nuclear bombs, with armies only large enough to defend themselves, governed by a multinational entity like an expanded UN.

I am sorry for the huge quote.

[mainiac]

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

[Owlbread]

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

What is Rick Perry's record on personal freedom?

[kaijyuu]

What is Rick Perry's record on personal freedom?

Not good.

[mainiac]

Not to mention that he wants to repeal the voting rights act, y'know that pesky thing that keeps southern governors like him from disenfranchising blacks.

[Owlbread]

What is Rick Perry's record on personal freedom?

Not good.

See now, surely a weaker federal government doesn't always mean that it would be weak in areas such as controlling gay marriage and such. Surely states can have other rights.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ex-republicans-claim-fla-gop-suppressed-democratic-vote-194121956--election.html

So yea. Obviously they didn't suppress it quite enough.

[GlyphGryph]

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

Or that you trust, say, Christine Gregoire or Gary Johnson or someone over Obama.

And I could see people of that opinion.

[Helgoland]

Calm down mate.

Alright, sorry about that stuff - really was inappropriate; if you want to I can edit it away.

The main point, though: You can't start splitting nations without first having established the bigger entity. Once you've done that, it's not a big deal and will be done at some point if it hasn't even become unnecessary by then.
Once again Germany is a good example on a smaller scale: Lots of small entities become fewer medium-sized entities with Napoleon, then become a single nation with Bismarck. Then comes along the first half of the 20th century, and after that the states of Germany are redrawn massively baż the allies - and that was no problem, although it had been unthinkable a few decades ago.

The problems don't come from too much centralization; they come from too little. If the mightiest man in the world is elected by only about a fifteenth (is that about right?) of the global population, something's quite wrong.

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

Or that you trust, say, Christine Gregoire or Gary Johnson or someone over Obama.

And I could see people of that opinion.

You can't be sure which one, though. That's what subsidiarity is for: In principle the states do everything, but the federal government has a right to meddle.