7th May 2003, 7:56 PM
I waited too long... now there's about half a page of huge posts to reply to... I did get those two shorter posts done, but now there's another one... THREE to reply to! Ack!
Well, I'll try to put all of them in one post. Be prepared... record-breaking? Who knows! Maybe... :)
First Weltall's third of those three successive posts (I've already replied to the second one).
So you deny that it makes a very clear point? What are you, blind? It VERY clearly shows STRONG support early on that eroded away as the months passed... pretty obvious to me -- if it'd been a one or two year war it'd have been a success domestically. Its only because of how long and bogged down it was that it wasn't...
I don't really understand where this involves capitalism... but anyway, I can't see how ANY sane person can remotely say that Reganomics were good for this nation. Sure, it bankrupted the USSR, but we were bankrupted too... and as I said Regan's main legacy -- trillions in the debt -- is a extremely bad one. Not to mention that trickle-down economics has never worked and will never work... meaning the fundamental basis of his policies was badly flawed...
Oh, and you know that about half of Americans are AGAINST a tax cut on the massive scale Bush wants? Including some Republicans... because they know that Republican tax cuts don't stimulate anything except the richest of the rich. And it doesn't trickle down. Never did. Never will. The whole idea is just so strange that I can't understand how anyone ever thought it'd work...
Bush is to blame for horrible tax cut of '01 that helped send the economy into steeper decline. And for doing nothing to solve this problem that would actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM. And cutting government programs to fit in unnecessary military programs and bad tax cuts is not good policy.
Oh, and the military did better under Clinton than you will EVER give credit for. Unneeded extra military spending is a Republican trait that we can live without. A certain amount sure... but not excessive amounts...
Military rule and rule by puppet states (like Afghanistan) is a very fine line that really doesn't have much difference on each side. And we WILL make sure that an acceptable, not overly religious person wins. Since we just can't let the will of the 'people' decide things if those people want a religious government... its just not something we'd allow. The government didn't "free" them only to let them fall to the clutches of the evil clerics... (anyone not seeing ghosts of our many Communist interventions where we surpressed elections because the "wrong" side would have won can open their eyes now...)
Forced democracy fails a lot. Chosen democracy often works. Just look at more recent democracies... as we've said already the forced democracies in Africa all failed to be true democracies. Same with most new democracies founded this century... as I already said, Germany's failed in its first recession. Japan's did work, but mostly because years of US help and the retention of the royal family... Eastern Europe didn't have a chance really until recently (when it did fine)... when they got out of communism... on their own choice. Last, the Middle East. Interesting question... I'm really not sure. Turkey did great, but it made itsself a democracy (all on the will of Kemal Ataturk) -- it wasn't made one. Major point there. Qatar's new democracy is also from inside... and implemented by the Sheik... but what about Iraq? I don't know. They do have no history of democracy, but that doesn't mean it'll fail. It makes it likely that they will have significant problems for a while, though...
Sure, it'd hurt other people. And its a moot point anyway -- no one is going to raise gas taxes much. It is true Americans have to drive more than Europeans. But it should go up some... to encourage use of public transportation and more energy efficent cars, etc...
And what cars people drive IS my business! All those people driving SUVs who should have small cars are polluting the envrionment many times more than they would be... which is bad for EVERYONE... even people like you who won't even admit that global warming is a real issue that we should try to solve...
HAPPY NOW?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1374/3...html?term=
The rest of that article is good, by the way. You should read it... :)
Just not true. Sure they will be hapy for a little while but it won't take long for dislike to really settle in... since the Iraqis aren't exactly a people friendly to us and they have on their borders several strongly anti-American states... Their happiness will in the end lose out to dislike. Lots of them already have protested... and they are Arabs so I very much doubt that they will disagree much from other Arabs... most of whom hate or at least dislike us...
Sure the result was nice but you delude yourself if you think its anything other than a PR and campaign bonus for Bush. Just like Afghanistan.
In a perfect world, sure. But this world is far from perfect and when we go around killing people without regard to what anyone thinks we show how much we care about others -- and they respond the same way. Not a good way to do business. It only makes the rest angrier with us... and if we do it too much and go too far and alienate ourselves too much, the vision I spelled out several times earlier could very easily come true in the future. Other people don't appreciate being told "we know what is best for you"... not for long.
Sure. That is correct. And if it had been left at that we'd have had a succcess eventually inthe Middle East -- enough US forces to keep Sadaam not doing much... but not attacking when we have NO reason to. Since sanctions and inspections were doing their job as well as could ever be expected.
Now his reply to Nintendarse.
That's for sure...
That's exactly the narcissism he is talking about... and you can't see it... "we know best because we are best"... sure, we are most powerful. And have the oldest currently functioning democracy. But that doesn't mean we know best... it means we should be listened to, but it doesn't mean we know best by any means. Telling other people "We are the best so do what we do and follow our model and orders and you'll do better" isn't nice... or effective... all they'll do is resent you... working WITH them will be both more effective and more successful in the long term. And working with people means not destroying their governments unless they are far out of line and not alienating the rest of the people when you do something... the way we are doing things now is the WRONG way to do things that last long term.
Ususally history follows the victor... not always, but usually. The Hebrews of course are the biggest exception in history... losers who had more influence by far than most of their conquerors...
Does anyone know the Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc. sides of those defeats the Hebrews suffered? Not nearly as well. mBut other than them most losers are discredited except in the hearts of the devoted (such as Southerners who for some bizarre reason can't get over the Civil War... even though it ended 140 years ago...).
Anyway... you sure are sure of yourself in our supremacy... most empires do fall by the sword, sure. But not all. the British Empire didn't fall apart because of defeats, but because of wear and the dislike of the governed... sure at this point no one can defeat us. But decades or a century or more down the road its WAY WAY too far ahead and unpredictable to say ANYTHING.
And as long as major nuclear wars continue to be avoided the world as we know it should survive to see that time...
Oh, and yes, internal collapse is a major part in failed empires. And as empires get older they get weaker and more prone to just that... we still in a height of power, but in the future who knows... I don't know if we'll be able to do what no one ever has and not had internal decay and collapse, but it seems doubtful.
Napoleon vaguely tried to do some stuff... but it did end up as emulating the previous system, that is true. But that isn't the point at all. The point is that those people could have said those things with as much conviction, and as much contemporary proof behind them, as you can now. And you can't really deny that...
As for what you say (not really related to Nintendarse's point, but interesting all the same)... and it is true. There is no better (in terms of fairness) government known than democracy. We are of course a republic, not a democracy, though... but a democracy of more than a few thousand people really becomes quite unworkable... as evidenced by how as towns grow larger into 5 figures they usually drop their town meetings and have a mayor or town council instead (well here in New England were most all the small towns have town meetings, anyway...).
As for the rest. Uhh... wrong. Bush's whole policy is based on forcing our views on others, for good or ill. Sure republics are better than what they had, but even so they will resent being treated as children... as all nations treated that way have. And while it COULD end up with a stable democratic state, its very doubtful based on both our and the region's track record... "adapt it to suit their needs"? I would say, rather, "adapt them to suit our needs"... in this case Bush's re-election campaign.
And we are also forcing our way of life on them, but not by any fault of the government... American culture has become super-popular everywhere from Minneapolis to Tehran...
You... conceed a point... :)
And all it took was a list of 12 nations, and you understanding what he'd said...
Yes, it would have mostly been our troops. But that isn't the point. The point is that involving them and doing what the international community supports isn't just about who fights! Its about how we pay for it. Its about how we get political support for it. Its about how we get other nations, after it, to still support us. Its how we keep international support of the US high in the wake of 9/11.
Its not doing what we did.
Not if we do what we're doing, it sure won't... you delude yourself with our current power and extend it into the distant future. Just like a Roman in the last half of the first century BC would have... the empire will last forever! It is the most powerful empire ever! No one can stop us!
At the time it sure seems so. But future events change that. As the Romans, British, and all the other great empires found out.
There is one other thing to consider -- technology. Technology is changing at its fastest pace in history... we don't know what is coming next. Sure, for now we are on top of that too... but in the future it is so questionable that we really can't and shouldn't predict very far into it... I mean, in 1100 AD a peasant could have said "this farm will be in our family five hundred years from now" and, if he were lucky, maybe be right... but today things are changing so fast that things like that just aren't possible. Don't assume too much... you will at some point be dissapointed...
Do I think we will be defeated, or have a opponent as strong as us, anytime soon? No. But it IS possible someday... especially if China ever gets its act together... I do doubt that we'll have a huge world war in this day and age of so much connection but we really never know. Given some future of antagonism and hatred and it could happen... unlikely as it sure seems.
With no history of democracy or freedom and almost no impetus in their culture to change that I really wouldn't put ANYTHING past them... including falling to the promises of the clerics. They are, after all, already used to listening to them...
Failed twice? But its never been tried...
As for the UN and unified command they are more useful than you think, and are not just for military purposes. Sure, we would be most of the army. BUT there are major differences. We would get some troops from other nations. More importantly, we would get MONEY. MONEY is the most important part. After the Gulf War, or other UN-led endeavors, large amounts of the international community pay the bill. It saves us LOTS of money... billions. After wars like this one we pay pretty much every penny... and especially in a bad economy like this we just can't afford to do much of that...
It also gets access to lots of UN help in reconstruction and peacekeeping -- things that we very, very badly need in Iraq right now...
Oh, and there are other uses for more world unity -- better coordination of chasing and persecuting criminals (world courts, etc), maybe more ways to fix disputes like this spiraling tarriff war we are having with the EU, etc...
And last, N-Man's latest post. *whew*... this has almost taken several hours already... no scrolling dow half the page for quotes now, though. :) *tries to finish before 2-hour winamp playlist started a little while before this post runs out in 10 minuites* *will fail*
They have a government... but just like all American possessions are under the main one in Washington.
As Nintendarse said in his last post, a world government would work just like a national one over the states was in the early years of the republic -- it wouldn't replace them, it'd be a layer over them that helps coordinate them and eventually get them to see closer to eye to eye so they could agree to coordinate more.
Yeah, sure, but the point is it would last LONGER. And be, overall, more effective. And it would.
Representing the UN as people like that is idiotic. And as any sane person knows completely innacurate... people like that do NOT have control over the UN in any way...
American, Canadian... the point's the same and you know it..
Oh, and it is very sad that you can't see that history is a important part of who we are.
Maybe it's the history lover in me speaking, but oh well. :)
But the governments AS HE RAN THEM were essentially identical to the ones he replaced! That's what is most important...
And most empires don't crumble THAT fast. Some... but not most.
Uhh... where was there no genocide? Not India...
And Britain had LOTS of problems with the fact that those silly natives actually wanted their own nations... silly them, not appreciating the benefits of being dominated... we are seeing the same problem in our attempts to show the silly natives how to really do things -- they often don't appreciate it.
If we leave soon we can minimize the damage... but if we leave soon we'll leave behind a mess and leave it ripe for some new dictator. Its a real problem that we've created for ourselves... and we make it many times worse by refusing the help of the international community. With their help we could be able to convince the Iraqis that this is truly a thing done to help them and is for the best. But alone it just looks like us taking over and doing as we want. Of course, it IS, but they shouldn't make it so obvious that it angers the population of the country. They've already failed at THAT, though.
Done. Took a LONG, LONG time. And (including quotes, of course) its a total of 26,240 characters long... wow.
Well, I'll try to put all of them in one post. Be prepared... record-breaking? Who knows! Maybe... :)
First Weltall's third of those three successive posts (I've already replied to the second one).
Quote:I can't. That chart stops either before Tet or right near it, too close to call either way.
So you deny that it makes a very clear point? What are you, blind? It VERY clearly shows STRONG support early on that eroded away as the months passed... pretty obvious to me -- if it'd been a one or two year war it'd have been a success domestically. Its only because of how long and bogged down it was that it wasn't...
Quote:And why is it so evil for them to get a return if we are too? Do you really hate capitalism that much!?
And Reaganomics worked beautifully, it not only defeated Communism where the military could not, it ushered in the most prosperous economic era in our history.
I don't really understand where this involves capitalism... but anyway, I can't see how ANY sane person can remotely say that Reganomics were good for this nation. Sure, it bankrupted the USSR, but we were bankrupted too... and as I said Regan's main legacy -- trillions in the debt -- is a extremely bad one. Not to mention that trickle-down economics has never worked and will never work... meaning the fundamental basis of his policies was badly flawed...
Oh, and you know that about half of Americans are AGAINST a tax cut on the massive scale Bush wants? Including some Republicans... because they know that Republican tax cuts don't stimulate anything except the richest of the rich. And it doesn't trickle down. Never did. Never will. The whole idea is just so strange that I can't understand how anyone ever thought it'd work...
Quote:The rise out of deficit spending came with consequences too, foremost being a gutted intelligence force and a decapitated military, the restoration of both being a huge factor in the deficit now. The recession had begun at the end of the Clinton term, and only fell more because Bush took over as soon as the dotcom bubble truly burst, then 9-11 followed on it's heels. Bush is to blame for neither.
There are many government programs that could be cut to reduce spending. Welfare is a good start.
Bush is to blame for horrible tax cut of '01 that helped send the economy into steeper decline. And for doing nothing to solve this problem that would actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM. And cutting government programs to fit in unnecessary military programs and bad tax cuts is not good policy.
Oh, and the military did better under Clinton than you will EVER give credit for. Unneeded extra military spending is a Republican trait that we can live without. A certain amount sure... but not excessive amounts...
Quote:We did use force to eliminate Saddam, but we aren't conquering Iraq to keep for ourselves. THAT is the difference. We will rule there only until we can get their new government jumpstarted. Then we back off. The mere use of force in a conflict alone cannot equate us with empires who defeated their enemies and kept the land.
Military rule and rule by puppet states (like Afghanistan) is a very fine line that really doesn't have much difference on each side. And we WILL make sure that an acceptable, not overly religious person wins. Since we just can't let the will of the 'people' decide things if those people want a religious government... its just not something we'd allow. The government didn't "free" them only to let them fall to the clutches of the evil clerics... (anyone not seeing ghosts of our many Communist interventions where we surpressed elections because the "wrong" side would have won can open their eyes now...)
Forced democracy fails a lot. Chosen democracy often works. Just look at more recent democracies... as we've said already the forced democracies in Africa all failed to be true democracies. Same with most new democracies founded this century... as I already said, Germany's failed in its first recession. Japan's did work, but mostly because years of US help and the retention of the royal family... Eastern Europe didn't have a chance really until recently (when it did fine)... when they got out of communism... on their own choice. Last, the Middle East. Interesting question... I'm really not sure. Turkey did great, but it made itsself a democracy (all on the will of Kemal Ataturk) -- it wasn't made one. Major point there. Qatar's new democracy is also from inside... and implemented by the Sheik... but what about Iraq? I don't know. They do have no history of democracy, but that doesn't mean it'll fail. It makes it likely that they will have significant problems for a while, though...
Quote:Well, for one thing, what cars people own is none of your damn business, as it's their money. EXCEPT in the case of poor people who use my tax money to buy Explorers and Lexuses while they can barely afford to feed their families living in slums. That's liberal programs at work, but I'm getting off on a tangent. A higher gas tax would also go a long way to hurting people who DON'T drive SUVs but still commute a lot, or long distance, and those people are often poor and middle-class. No, instead we need to apply the technology that enables 50MPG carburetors into all sorts of vehicles. The LAST thing we need is to take a cue from socialist Europe, because if you think that SUV manufacturers would be the only ones hurt by a gas tax hike, you're more naive than I give you credit for.
Sure, it'd hurt other people. And its a moot point anyway -- no one is going to raise gas taxes much. It is true Americans have to drive more than Europeans. But it should go up some... to encourage use of public transportation and more energy efficent cars, etc...
And what cars people drive IS my business! All those people driving SUVs who should have small cars are polluting the envrionment many times more than they would be... which is bad for EVERYONE... even people like you who won't even admit that global warming is a real issue that we should try to solve...
Quote:Okay, some proof please? As this pervertedly long series of posts proves, I don't ignore points.
HAPPY NOW?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1374/3...html?term=
Quote: In fact, the United States spends nowhere near these amounts: only 1 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid (and as a percentage of the gross national product, what we provide is the smallest in the industrial world). Moreover, very little of this is actually spent on the poorest or most desperate countries. Instead, our foreign aid practices are overwhelmingly geared to furthering our own interests, not those of others. But it is certainly nice to pretend otherwise.
The rest of that article is good, by the way. You should read it... :)
Quote:They won't hate us when their quality of life improves.
Just not true. Sure they will be hapy for a little while but it won't take long for dislike to really settle in... since the Iraqis aren't exactly a people friendly to us and they have on their borders several strongly anti-American states... Their happiness will in the end lose out to dislike. Lots of them already have protested... and they are Arabs so I very much doubt that they will disagree much from other Arabs... most of whom hate or at least dislike us...
Quote:But you inferred that this result was insignificant since it wasn't the main reason, and that is not true.
Sure the result was nice but you delude yourself if you think its anything other than a PR and campaign bonus for Bush. Just like Afghanistan.
Quote:Only for the dictators.
In a perfect world, sure. But this world is far from perfect and when we go around killing people without regard to what anyone thinks we show how much we care about others -- and they respond the same way. Not a good way to do business. It only makes the rest angrier with us... and if we do it too much and go too far and alienate ourselves too much, the vision I spelled out several times earlier could very easily come true in the future. Other people don't appreciate being told "we know what is best for you"... not for long.
Quote:The only reason Saddam even allowed them to return is because of pressure from us. Left to the UN, it never would have happened. Sometimes the threat of force can achieve results.
Sure. That is correct. And if it had been left at that we'd have had a succcess eventually inthe Middle East -- enough US forces to keep Sadaam not doing much... but not attacking when we have NO reason to. Since sanctions and inspections were doing their job as well as could ever be expected.
Now his reply to Nintendarse.
Quote:First, it's refreshing to see that you can see things from more than one side, it's something that some of us here, myself often included, fail to do.
That's for sure...
Quote:It gave me a greater understanding of how the US has operated in its history. Truth, we have made mistakes. But the fact still stands: There's hardly a nation in the world that has seen success like we have, and I don't just mean our power. I mean our government. We truly have the most successful government in the history of mankind, NOT because it is the oldest or longest-lasting (I'm sure it ranks), but because of the type it is. We were the only democracy in a world of empires and kingdoms, we tested the waters of a true representative system and it has endured for a quarter of a millenium with only one challenge to its dominion, that being a single, and relatively short Civil War. This nation's government is the very model of stability, despite it probably being the one of the least powerful in the world. I don't believe it's narcissistic to claim we know better than everyone else. We do. And the most successful and powerful nations in the world today are this way because they emulated our form of government. Thus, it goes without saying that we know better than those who live under, or rule over regimes that practice archaic and oppressive forms of government.
That's exactly the narcissism he is talking about... and you can't see it... "we know best because we are best"... sure, we are most powerful. And have the oldest currently functioning democracy. But that doesn't mean we know best... it means we should be listened to, but it doesn't mean we know best by any means. Telling other people "We are the best so do what we do and follow our model and orders and you'll do better" isn't nice... or effective... all they'll do is resent you... working WITH them will be both more effective and more successful in the long term. And working with people means not destroying their governments unless they are far out of line and not alienating the rest of the people when you do something... the way we are doing things now is the WRONG way to do things that last long term.
Quote:Keep in mind that history is always written by the victors, and that the defeated are always looked down upon. But the only way the United States can ever fall is by way of internal strife. We are simply too protected and too powerful to fall to someone else's miltary force, which brought down most great empires. I honestly can't see that happening anytime soon. The United States has the chance, more than any empire before it, to perservere forever. Thus, there is a lot that other nations can learn from us, because we truly do know better than they do. As I said, those that are successful today are successful because they saw that we knew better than they did.
Ususally history follows the victor... not always, but usually. The Hebrews of course are the biggest exception in history... losers who had more influence by far than most of their conquerors...
Does anyone know the Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc. sides of those defeats the Hebrews suffered? Not nearly as well. mBut other than them most losers are discredited except in the hearts of the devoted (such as Southerners who for some bizarre reason can't get over the Civil War... even though it ended 140 years ago...).
Anyway... you sure are sure of yourself in our supremacy... most empires do fall by the sword, sure. But not all. the British Empire didn't fall apart because of defeats, but because of wear and the dislike of the governed... sure at this point no one can defeat us. But decades or a century or more down the road its WAY WAY too far ahead and unpredictable to say ANYTHING.
And as long as major nuclear wars continue to be avoided the world as we know it should survive to see that time...
Oh, and yes, internal collapse is a major part in failed empires. And as empires get older they get weaker and more prone to just that... we still in a height of power, but in the future who knows... I don't know if we'll be able to do what no one ever has and not had internal decay and collapse, but it seems doubtful.
Quote:See, the difference between the US and the three nations you mentioned is that those three tried to conquer with military force. Their aim was sheer dominance of those they conquered, and not mere assimilation. They all overextended their military forces and therefore fell repeatedly to threats from without and within. They really did not know better than their neighbors (they often in fact practiced the same government as their neighbors) and that point was driven home in their eventual defeats. We are really not in any similar circumstance to them. We're not trying to force our way of life on people so much as we are trying to get them to adopt it themselves and shape it to their own needs. It's better for people to live free, and it's better to have foreign governments who are friendly to us. But as N-Man said, it's just the way things are. Some ideas truly are superior to others. If there's a better form of government than Democracy, we would today have a nation of roughly equal power to us as a rival, and we don't. We perservere.
Napoleon vaguely tried to do some stuff... but it did end up as emulating the previous system, that is true. But that isn't the point at all. The point is that those people could have said those things with as much conviction, and as much contemporary proof behind them, as you can now. And you can't really deny that...
As for what you say (not really related to Nintendarse's point, but interesting all the same)... and it is true. There is no better (in terms of fairness) government known than democracy. We are of course a republic, not a democracy, though... but a democracy of more than a few thousand people really becomes quite unworkable... as evidenced by how as towns grow larger into 5 figures they usually drop their town meetings and have a mayor or town council instead (well here in New England were most all the small towns have town meetings, anyway...).
As for the rest. Uhh... wrong. Bush's whole policy is based on forcing our views on others, for good or ill. Sure republics are better than what they had, but even so they will resent being treated as children... as all nations treated that way have. And while it COULD end up with a stable democratic state, its very doubtful based on both our and the region's track record... "adapt it to suit their needs"? I would say, rather, "adapt them to suit our needs"... in this case Bush's re-election campaign.
And we are also forcing our way of life on them, but not by any fault of the government... American culture has become super-popular everywhere from Minneapolis to Tehran...
Quote:Alright, I must concede here. You got me.
You... conceed a point... :)
And all it took was a list of 12 nations, and you understanding what he'd said...
Quote:The reason we had to assume that role is because the international community was derelict in it's duty. And even if the UN had gone to war with Iraq instead of just the US, it would have been almost exclusively US and British military involved anyway, as it has in practically every military engagement the UN was ever involved in. So it would have mattered little anyway, except that we would have other nations telling us what to do militarily, and ultimately weakening us (like in Desert Storm). Remember, it's not as though we didn't try to get the UN with us.
Yes, it would have mostly been our troops. But that isn't the point. The point is that involving them and doing what the international community supports isn't just about who fights! Its about how we pay for it. Its about how we get political support for it. Its about how we get other nations, after it, to still support us. Its how we keep international support of the US high in the wake of 9/11.
Its not doing what we did.
Quote:But it is, for reasons I stated above. Chinese culture and arab culture are cultures, but they were also wracked by infighting and dynastic changes repeatedly through history, something we have not experienced except in one instance. We have no threats to our existence. And, it didn't take them the entire length of their existence to become the powers they were. Who knows how long this nation will stand? It could very well be thousands of years and we're just getting started.
Not if we do what we're doing, it sure won't... you delude yourself with our current power and extend it into the distant future. Just like a Roman in the last half of the first century BC would have... the empire will last forever! It is the most powerful empire ever! No one can stop us!
At the time it sure seems so. But future events change that. As the Romans, British, and all the other great empires found out.
There is one other thing to consider -- technology. Technology is changing at its fastest pace in history... we don't know what is coming next. Sure, for now we are on top of that too... but in the future it is so questionable that we really can't and shouldn't predict very far into it... I mean, in 1100 AD a peasant could have said "this farm will be in our family five hundred years from now" and, if he were lucky, maybe be right... but today things are changing so fast that things like that just aren't possible. Don't assume too much... you will at some point be dissapointed...
Do I think we will be defeated, or have a opponent as strong as us, anytime soon? No. But it IS possible someday... especially if China ever gets its act together... I do doubt that we'll have a huge world war in this day and age of so much connection but we really never know. Given some future of antagonism and hatred and it could happen... unlikely as it sure seems.
Quote:Yes, I would. They of course would have to realize that if that theocracy tries anything stupid, we'll be right back in there. I don't think it's likely a theocracy will take hold though. I hope it doesn't. I hope the Iraqi people are smarter than that now that they have a choice.
With no history of democracy or freedom and almost no impetus in their culture to change that I really wouldn't put ANYTHING past them... including falling to the promises of the clerics. They are, after all, already used to listening to them...
Quote:I agree, to a point. We need something that is stronger than the UN, but only for purposes of alliance and peacekeeping, definitely NOT a world government, because that idea has already failed twice. World government can only succeed when it's members can agree on more issues, and when the most powerful member is at odds with most of the rest, it won't work, and there are too many differences between Socialist Europe and us for it to really work yet.
I mean, you have to consider that in the UN, the military force is predominantly American, because we do military better than anyone, and therefore we can make war like no one else. On one hand, it would be fair if every nation contributed equally to military force, but that isn't possible, and would probably do more harm than good. Same deal goes with the economics. We can contribute far more than most nations. When you consider the gap in power, both economic and military, and the differences of opinion, it's probably better for now that either there is no UN, or that we are not a part of it.
Failed twice? But its never been tried...
As for the UN and unified command they are more useful than you think, and are not just for military purposes. Sure, we would be most of the army. BUT there are major differences. We would get some troops from other nations. More importantly, we would get MONEY. MONEY is the most important part. After the Gulf War, or other UN-led endeavors, large amounts of the international community pay the bill. It saves us LOTS of money... billions. After wars like this one we pay pretty much every penny... and especially in a bad economy like this we just can't afford to do much of that...
It also gets access to lots of UN help in reconstruction and peacekeeping -- things that we very, very badly need in Iraq right now...
Oh, and there are other uses for more world unity -- better coordination of chasing and persecuting criminals (world courts, etc), maybe more ways to fix disputes like this spiraling tarriff war we are having with the EU, etc...
And last, N-Man's latest post. *whew*... this has almost taken several hours already... no scrolling dow half the page for quotes now, though. :) *tries to finish before 2-hour winamp playlist started a little while before this post runs out in 10 minuites* *will fail*
Quote:American Samoa has its own government, afaik... I just don't really understand. Okay, suppose we do it like in Samoa, and all the countries under the world government also have a government. This is just adding a layer of bureaucracy. What good does it do?
They have a government... but just like all American possessions are under the main one in Washington.
As Nintendarse said in his last post, a world government would work just like a national one over the states was in the early years of the republic -- it wouldn't replace them, it'd be a layer over them that helps coordinate them and eventually get them to see closer to eye to eye so they could agree to coordinate more.
Quote:Heh... everything dies someday, not to sound morbid
Yeah, sure, but the point is it would last LONGER. And be, overall, more effective. And it would.
Quote:Having delegates of Khadaffi, Assad, Mugabe and the whole damn pantheon tell you something is right does not, repeat does not give it higher moral ground. Who do you trust more:
Bush + Blair
Bush + Blair + Khomeini + Iron-Fist Fujimori, Super President of Peru... okay well he's gone, but you get the idea. Considering that a vast number (possibly a majority) of governments do not even represent the wills of their people, how can you claim their approval is "higher moral ground"?
Representing the UN as people like that is idiotic. And as any sane person knows completely innacurate... people like that do NOT have control over the UN in any way...
Quote:Considering I'm not American, that's pretty appropriate dontcha think? :p
History is too convoluted for pride. Pride about people and acts who under different circumstances wouldn't even be part of your country; I'm of course talking about national pride, I realize I may have been extending that to all sorts of pride in my haste; but once again, political entities are too frail and volatile to feel proud of. I'm proud of the accomplishments of mankind and of mankind itself, but, I'm sorry, the fact that I'm vaguely related to certain groups of people doesn't accentuate my feeling of pride towards them.
American, Canadian... the point's the same and you know it..
Oh, and it is very sad that you can't see that history is a important part of who we are.
Maybe it's the history lover in me speaking, but oh well. :)
Quote:But the nicer law code made all the difference, my good man! And besides, he couldn't have lasted. Remember: the Empire conquers, then crumbles.
But the governments AS HE RAN THEM were essentially identical to the ones he replaced! That's what is most important...
And most empires don't crumble THAT fast. Some... but not most.
Quote:I certainly exaggerated here also, but the fact is that in the end there was no genocide of any sort and everything turned out for the best.
My point about the British empire wasn't really that things turned out well for the conquered peoples, but rather that it did for Britain proper. It's just a way of saying, even if America engages in outright empire-building, it doesn't mean it'll get assaulted from every direction by bloodthirsty freedom fighters.
Uhh... where was there no genocide? Not India...
And Britain had LOTS of problems with the fact that those silly natives actually wanted their own nations... silly them, not appreciating the benefits of being dominated... we are seeing the same problem in our attempts to show the silly natives how to really do things -- they often don't appreciate it.
If we leave soon we can minimize the damage... but if we leave soon we'll leave behind a mess and leave it ripe for some new dictator. Its a real problem that we've created for ourselves... and we make it many times worse by refusing the help of the international community. With their help we could be able to convince the Iraqis that this is truly a thing done to help them and is for the best. But alone it just looks like us taking over and doing as we want. Of course, it IS, but they shouldn't make it so obvious that it angers the population of the country. They've already failed at THAT, though.
Done. Took a LONG, LONG time. And (including quotes, of course) its a total of 26,240 characters long... wow.