OT: Election 2004

[Perrin]

Well you got me there...

OK how about in modern times then? Although I thought that the Philippines had their own government.

Edit: There is also this:

Because your Government thinks it can establish a new world order.

Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none.

[ March 25, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Perrin ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by alarikf:
RE: (Originally posted by Perrin)

"Never in its history has America conquered another nation. Is Japan or your Germany under our rule?

Flag on the play. Ever been to the Phllipines? And, heck, depending on how far back you want to go, you could call all of "Manifest Destiny" colonialism pure and simple. Ever been to Hawai'i? How about Puerto Rico?

Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest.

[tesco samoa]

perrin these thoughts and feelings about america are quite common though out the world. I think it is an important issue that one in your country should ponder before they vote for a or b. As it is an important issue.

And no one is out to get your freedoms...

Its about the money. Either you control it or some one else does. Some call this self rule or self government. And until the middle east is controled by the middle east the attacks though out the world will continue.


P.S. I disagree on the concept of a military leader is a better leader. I think that civilians should run the country... To keep an eye on the military.

[Combat Wombat]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest.

That land wasn't exactly taken at the demand of the US goverment, mexico let US citizens settle in their territory then the settlers decided they didn't lke being part of mexico so they revolted and broke away, Texas was even its own country for awhile before they applied to join the Union.

The Phllipines have their own goverment now, the downfall of Hawaiis native goverment was far from the fault of the US goverment it was mostly rich business men who did this. I am not the slighest bit familar with what happened with Puerto Rico.

The US trying to create a "New World Order", that is almost laughable take a look at the UN now there is an attempt for a new world order.
Also the UN in their great wisdom are trying to regulate and control the internet.

Europeans please don't preach about manifest destiny unless you are prepared to discuss, Germany and its world wars, England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places, Spain with the Inqusistion, and destruction of a large part of South Americas native population and culture in its crazed quest for gold, Frances constant wars with England, and Napolean trying to take over europe, a very violent Revolutionary war(though done for the right reasons was incredibly violent)

And about Iraq and the whole war on terrorism I will offer this.
Someone said once, something like, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." In this day of relative good and evil, pacifism is the 'way that seemeth right.'


Very good points Perrin now I don't have to make them

[AMF]

There are many differences between a "world order" of the US's doing and a world order of the UN's doing. There are a lot, but the most fundamental one is that rule by the UN is, by it's nature, more democratic becuase it involves input from the ruled. No matter HOW benevolent another power, would you want to live in a world that was effectively ruled by it if you weren't a citizen of it?

There is (was) a strong argument that the dominance of America as a unipole in the post-WWII order was due to the fact that they benevolently and presciently limited their own power by devolving it partly upon others. ie: America limited its own power (via the UN, various multilateral agreements, international laws, etc...and agreeing and acting as if if too was bound by them). In this way, a sort of "constitutional" arrangement was set up that gave the "ruled" a voice and even, in some cases, a veto over actions that affected them. See "After Victory" by John Ikenberry for a good enunciation of this argument.

I say this argument WAS effective and rang true but it does no longer.

I fault the Bush administration for a whole lot of things. (and I have street cred for doing so, but that we can get into later)...but one of the MOST damning things he has done is, in the course of two short years, overturned and effectively destroyed the entire post-war system of alliances and constitutional/law-like rule. By "going it alone" and excersing raw power (rather than simply convincing others of the rightness of a given action) he is returning us to a Hobbessian world of all against all.

And the conservatives NEVER get this. They rail against the UN and international law, spotuing off that "why should we be bound by some intangible thing like international law when it doesn't suit OUR interests?" Well, that's just about as stupid as I can imagine. International Laws, international agreements, coaltions built on convincing arguments rather than bribes or arm-twisting serve VERY important functions that, in the end, benefit EVERYONE. There is a very good reason the US has, up until now, abided by internaitonal laws AND, beleive it or not, been a strong proponent of many of them: becuase it helps us and everyone else. It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to things like that. By increasing transparency, reducing uncertainty, lowering transaction costs, and doing a whole host of other stuff, we and everyone else benefits.

The alternative, where we "go it alone" and say "the UN be damned" is a world of all against all. And in that world, inevitably, danger increases and, eventually, there will arise a balancing against the unipolar power.

WE live in a much more dangerous world today than we did three years ago. NOT becuase of Al Qaeda (hell, we've had terrorists for thousands of years) but becuase Bush is destroying the international system that the US built up since the second world war and which was perhaps the only example of it's kind in world history: we HAD a world in which there was a unipolar power but one which limited its own power to extend peace and prosperity across the world.

Now, we just care about ourselves.

I've gone on long enough. I try to make it a point to stay out of political discussions on game forums, but sometimes people just need to be educated. Sorry if I have offended, it was not my intention in any way. I am just passionate.

thanks,

Alarik

Originally posted by Perrin:
Well you got me there...

OK how about in modern times then? Although I thought that the Philippines had their own government.

Edit: There is also this:

quote:

---

Because your Government thinks it can establish a new world order.

Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none.

---

[Combat Wombat]

The Bush administration isn't sitting on its as watching evil spread. They realize its not the most popular posistion but it doesn't matter because it needs to be done whether the rest of the world realizes it yet or not. If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Heres another quote(its probly not exact):T
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Very good point. Try to remember it next time you defend the current US politics with:

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Germany and its world wars, England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places, Spain with the Inqusistion

Also, these are issues of the past and there is no one defending them. But you are defending what your country is doing currently, even if you recognize that it can be brought in line with these events?

[AMF]

I don' think you were responding to my (too long) post below yours, for I don't think I ever stated that "sitting on one's ***" was related to the discussion about world orders. But I'll repsond anyways, since I am avoiding work.

I don't think anyone has advocated that the US just "sit on it's ***" and, if you are suggesting that the former administrations did that, you are either being intellecutally dishonest, egnaging in pure rhetoric, or exhibiting willful ignorance. (remember missile strikes into the heart of afghanistan in 92 (IIRC) to get Bin Laden? Remember all the times we dropped bombs on Iraq during the sanctions?)

Fact of the matter is, to eradicate any internationally-organized terrorist organization, you have to work with *other nations.* Getting rid of terorrists is not just a matter of dropping bombs on them. Where are they? Who are they? What resources/plans/ideas/bases do they possess?

To answer questions such as that and to address these with solutions, you have to work with other nations. So, when the US does things unilaterally, -- like it pretty much has since Bush came into office and which is entirely in keeping with what the NeoCons *always* said they would do --- it is counter productive. So we have to resort to bribes or coercion to get people to help us. And that works reallll well. Remember the 4th Infantry Division? How we bribed the Turkish government to let them in to open up a northern front? Well, funny thing, we twisted the Turkish arms behind their backs...and their people (through their reps in parliament) voted it down. And the war plans got screwed up. It was a real pain in the a** for the planners and operators in Iraq, I can tell you that...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
The Bush administration isn't sitting on its as watching evil spread. They realize its not the most popular posistion but it doesn't matter because it needs to be done whether the rest of the world realizes it yet or not. If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Heres another quote(its probly not exact):T
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

[primitive]

I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here

[AMF]

And, well, debate by sound bites ("those who ignore history...") is not really useful. I can just as easily say "History never repeats itself" and we have advanced the discussion no further.