<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you be so in favour of supporting a single powerful nation to maintain the status quo if it was Germany? Or Britain? Or China?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course not because at least if it was china, he would be living in the country that would secretly build up a nuclear arsenal to counter the thread the big stabilizing country poses. Then the Chinese people would say, hey, the US has to dismantle all Nukes because we can't have some small country with a twitchy leader have Nukes, they could 'destabilize' the world balance after all. Most important he couldn't deliver many of his punch lines because his personal Jesus Christ (sorry, forgot the name) wouldn't have written that book he likes to quote, "Why America is so great and everyone envies us"(gah, guess that name is wrong too...)
Sorry, nothing against you personally Jammer, but they way you were argumenting lately didn't really... uh... contain any reason. Guess that sounded a little too harsh as well... you get what I'm saying <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Am I the only one that thinks there is a cardinal difference between a democracy having nuclear weapons and a dictatorship having nuclear weapons?
Democracy doesn't guarantee that we'll have good leaders, but it at least helps to ensure that the leaders won't be lunatics. Also, no single person in the US has the power to launch nuclear weapons on his own. Its not just a legal stipulation, its built into the arming codes of the weapons.
It's simply not safe for <i>any</i> single fragile person to have nuclear weapons at his disposal. nuff said.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 29 2003, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 29 2003, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have to say I'm a little worried about what Jammer has been writing. Setting aside the issue of whether the US has a vested interest in altruistic stability, and the moral advancement of the world, I'm concerned that Jammer seems to be setting his nation apart and above the rest of us. Now I'm sure that no-one could argue that the US has a big and scary military, and an equally big and scary population. That doesn't give it the mandate to act the bully. Might doesn't necessarily make right. Neither does it mean that the US is qualified to act as the world's policeman. Erosion of the US's power, doesn't mean an erosion of world stability, on the contrary, it levels the playing field, <i>meaning that a democratic consensus of nations is needed to make policy, and if necessary, war</i>. Would you be so in favour of supporting a single powerful nation to maintain the status quo if it was Germany? Or Britain? Or China? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course not! I'm an American! Duh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm a neoconservative, like Rummy and Cheney. That alone should spell out my opinions on foreign policy. I'm not that extreme, but I do think the US should try to spread capitalist democracies, even if it is against the will of other nations. I see a world wear economic interests between nations make war too costly to wage, and therefor difference have to be solved diplomatically. The only way of creating that world is by removing dictatorships and threats to the current world order. I'm not saying we go into every country guns'a blazing... but in time, we need to use a combination of economic and military power to 'impose' freedom on other countries.
And right about now is when Nem freaks out at my views! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: Yeah, my arguments have been pretty crappy lately. :-/ I don't know whats up. I'm using too much rhetoric and not enough facts. I really killed myself in that Bush discussion. Man, got me a couple new a*holes in that place. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm not really all that great with foreign policy. Domestics my primary arena <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And his name is Dinesh D'Souza, "Whats so Great about America". Its about why America is so great- and it isn't just cause we're America and you're not. I think I'll update my profile with a quote.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Apr 29 2003, 04:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Apr 29 2003, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm a neoconservative, like Rummy and Cheney. That alone should spell out my opinions on foreign policy. I'm not that extreme, but I do think the US should try to spread capitalist democracies, even if it is against the will of other nations. I see a world wear economic interests between nations make war too costly to wage, and therefor difference have to be solved diplomatically. The only way of creating that world is by removing dictatorships and threats to the current world order. I'm not saying we go into every country guns'a blazing... but in time, we need to use a combination of economic and military power to 'impose' freedom on other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've heard this rhetoric a few times before, and I never do understand exactly what anyone saying it could be thinking. the only things I got out of that were: 1)I don't like war, therefore the only way to stop war is to go to war with countries we don't like 2)Democracy should be spread in an extremely un-democratic manner
I don't like war, but I except that sometimes it is the only logical option. I'm not saying we invade right off the bat, or we invade if other methods will take long. If a country is a growing threat, and previous methods to stabilize or democratize it have failed, I'm all for war, aka Iraq.
As for the second part... your logic assumes that war is the only way neocons want regime change. I don't support a war with Iran, for example, despite thier (probably larger) terrorist support. Why? There is already a growing youth-based reform movement and a power struggle between the secular and clerical powers in that country. It will democratize eventually, since once the old gaurd (the coo-coo Mullahs) die out, the liberal youth will take over.
And thats where I'm not sooo extreme as Rummy and Cheney. They wanted a steamroller push though the middle east... Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia... Now THAT scares me. :/
But back on topic.
Will war result from N. Korea? I don't think so. Bush needs a diplomatic victory, which I think he'll get.
Quite happy you're playing with open cards now Jammer, and although I do not share your views whatsoever I am happy you finally put down a clear line we can argument on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And thats where I'm not sooo extreme as Rummy and Cheney. They wanted a steamroller push though the middle east... Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia... Now THAT scares me. :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay... and now imagine beeing in our place, a more liberal view in mind. Most of the stuff you say already scares me, can you even remotely guess what kinda nightmares those ideas create for me?
The world is headed towards a liberal, capitalist democracy, and its foolish to think we'll get there without a few bumps along the road. Threats to the current powerbase (the US) slow. If the US loses its power, the entire process will derail. Considering that this is (OPINION) one of the most important developments in human history, its important to maintain US power in the interest of humanity. Countries like N. Korea slow and even regress that process, so we need to take them out. Some countries can make the transition relatively peacefully, as Russia, and many South American nations are showing. Some countries are just begining to change over, like Iran and China, but will certainly take time to develop the situation. Other countries are beyond change, such as Iraq. Where does N. Korea fit? Certainly not the first, maybe the second, and, I'm afraid, probably the third.
I beleive a world founded on individual rights and strong, free markets will improve the standard of life across the world. Granted, it will be an inequal increase, but uncoordinated progress is better than no progress (aka Socialism <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). This is a seperate topic, but I'm fine for discussing how N. Korea fits into the picture... or if it shouldn't, or its a hero for standing up to US Imperialism.
And I'm sorry for the nightmares Messiah. 'Planet America' is a wet dream for me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Good god I always thought Amercians like Jammer actually didn't exist. Time to revert to my old views about the US then.
The US's global position has to change. One global hyper-power does not in any way represent balance. The only reason the US has been a pacifying influence as you claim is because major wars are an impossibility in the nuclear age; go to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or Asia and see how much of a "calming influence" the US has been. Nations fear other nations which are vastly more powerful than they are, especially when said nation has a gigantic nuclear arsonal, the capacity to hit anywhere on the planet, and an ultra-conservative government who seems to be saying "what we say is what goes".
This may come as a stunning and shocking surprise for you Americans like Jammer but not everyone on earth wants a Burger King on every street and giant American corperations running all of their industries. America seems to forget that their first experiment in democracy failed: the country was split apart by civil war. This alone should be proof that throwing democracy into many situations is not the answer: religious and cultural differances in much of the world cannot be resolved overnight by forcing a US style government on them, and will in all likelyhood increase the problems. Take purely for example the Iraq situation. Shi'ite and Sunni muslims do NOT get along, this wasn't a creation of Saddam, these two groups genuinely do not like each other. What happens in the new government? If the President is a Sunni, the Shi'ites will be upset. If the President is a Shi'ite, the Sunnis will be upset? Now, let's change some words here so you can understand. In 1860, if the President is a Republican, the South gets upset. If the President is a Democrat, the North gets upset. Of course you know what happened: the South wouldn't stand for an abolitionist as President. THe Union crumbled and the Civil War began.
Demoracy isn't the answer for every culture and society over the planet. Not everyone WANTS to be like America, nor does everyone WANT to be part of a democracy. And why should they? Looking at the US, they see a country with 2 million people in jails, massive numbers of gun deaths, a cowboy leader who wasn't even actually elected and massive corperations ensuring that the government does exactly what they want. You can say all you want that "given a genuine choice" everyone on the planet would opt for democracy, it doesn't make it true. People do not like change, that's why revolutions always end up where they started. (America is no exception, look at the British system of government in the 1780's: King, House of Lords, House of Commons. Then compare that to the US system: President, Senate, House of Representatives. They're extreamly close, and before you say "Wait! THe President isn't a dictator", well neither was the King of England and check out some of the things Andrew Jackson did as President). It is not "inevitable" that democratic capitalist nations will sweep the globe any more than socialist states would one day sweep the globe.
Why asume that everyone in the world want's democracy? Because you Americans happen to like it? I gotta tell you that my government sure as hell doesn't do stuff I like, and on the Iraq issue for example they went into the conflict with 80% public opposition to the conflict. Sounds like democracy in action there. My say in government does absolutly nothing here, the government I don't want will be returned to power next election, in the same way that any liberal or democrat voter in the US knows their vote will be absolutly pointless next US election. Try and satisfy everyone and you end up annoying everyone. Absolutist governments at least can make the choices that, in the greater scheme, are in the nation's intrests, like a solar power plant. Dictatorships have been around every since humanity started to settle down in fertile regions and start up villages, and they are not going to vanish overnight. Nor are they the worst thing for countries to have. RUssia right now for example needs strong leadership and firm central government power to crush their massive criminal problems and end corruption. Democracy and capitalism have brought only pain and hardship for the Russian people; is it any surprise that the Russian people have started to yearn for the governments of the past?
Not everyone will chose freedom over the removal of responsibility. No matter what government is in charge, you, the citizen, WILL pay taxes, WILL be ignored by the government 90% of the time and WILL obey the laws the government sets down OR ELSE. In this respect there really isn't much to chose from, and for people who have been used to working under a dictatorship for generations there's no reason to chose a new strange outside government type. They know the old ways work. Why adopt a new way?
And as a final note, if so many Americans love their great democracy, how come so many of them don't bother to vote?
And after thinking about it more, this last post has pretty much highlighted what the discussion forum seems to be all about these days: making people feel bad. It really has very little discussion at all, just smugness, pretension, condescension, tiresome teenagers, and other things that make me ill. So the forum is closed indefinitely. It is doing nothing for the NS community but bringing it down.
Comments
Of course not because at least if it was china, he would be living in the country that would secretly build up a nuclear arsenal to counter the thread the big stabilizing country poses. Then the Chinese people would say, hey, the US has to dismantle all Nukes because we can't have some small country with a twitchy leader have Nukes, they could 'destabilize' the world balance after all.
Most important he couldn't deliver many of his punch lines because his personal Jesus Christ (sorry, forgot the name) wouldn't have written that book he likes to quote, "Why America is so great and everyone envies us"(gah, guess that name is wrong too...)
Sorry, nothing against you personally Jammer, but they way you were argumenting lately didn't really... uh... contain any reason. Guess that sounded a little too harsh as well... you get what I'm saying <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Democracy doesn't guarantee that we'll have good leaders, but it at least helps to ensure that the leaders won't be lunatics.
Also, no single person in the US has the power to launch nuclear weapons on his own. Its not just a legal stipulation, its built into the arming codes of the weapons.
It's simply not safe for <i>any</i> single fragile person to have nuclear weapons at his disposal. nuff said.
I have to say I'm a little worried about what Jammer has been writing. Setting aside the issue of whether the US has a vested interest in altruistic stability, and the moral advancement of the world, I'm concerned that Jammer seems to be setting his nation apart and above the rest of us. Now I'm sure that no-one could argue that the US has a big and scary military, and an equally big and scary population. That doesn't give it the mandate to act the bully. Might doesn't necessarily make right. Neither does it mean that the US is qualified to act as the world's policeman. Erosion of the US's power, doesn't mean an erosion of world stability, on the contrary, it levels the playing field, <i>meaning that a democratic consensus of nations is needed to make policy, and if necessary, war</i>. Would you be so in favour of supporting a single powerful nation to maintain the status quo if it was Germany? Or Britain? Or China? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course not! I'm an American! Duh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm a neoconservative, like Rummy and Cheney. That alone should spell out my opinions on foreign policy. I'm not that extreme, but I do think the US should try to spread capitalist democracies, even if it is against the will of other nations. I see a world wear economic interests between nations make war too costly to wage, and therefor difference have to be solved diplomatically. The only way of creating that world is by removing dictatorships and threats to the current world order. I'm not saying we go into every country guns'a blazing... but in time, we need to use a combination of economic and military power to 'impose' freedom on other countries.
And right about now is when Nem freaks out at my views! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: Yeah, my arguments have been pretty crappy lately. :-/ I don't know whats up. I'm using too much rhetoric and not enough facts. I really killed myself in that Bush discussion. Man, got me a couple new a*holes in that place. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm not really all that great with foreign policy. Domestics my primary arena <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And his name is Dinesh D'Souza, "Whats so Great about America". Its about why America is so great- and it isn't just cause we're America and you're not. I think I'll update my profile with a quote.
I've heard this rhetoric a few times before, and I never do understand exactly what anyone saying it could be thinking. the only things I got out of that were:
1)I don't like war, therefore the only way to stop war is to go to war with countries we don't like
2)Democracy should be spread in an extremely un-democratic manner
Whu?
As for the second part... your logic assumes that war is the only way neocons want regime change. I don't support a war with Iran, for example, despite thier (probably larger) terrorist support. Why? There is already a growing youth-based reform movement and a power struggle between the secular and clerical powers in that country. It will democratize eventually, since once the old gaurd (the coo-coo Mullahs) die out, the liberal youth will take over.
And thats where I'm not sooo extreme as Rummy and Cheney. They wanted a steamroller push though the middle east... Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia... Now THAT scares me. :/
But back on topic.
Will war result from N. Korea? I don't think so. Bush needs a diplomatic victory, which I think he'll get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And thats where I'm not sooo extreme as Rummy and Cheney. They wanted a steamroller push though the middle east... Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia... Now THAT scares me. :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay... and now imagine beeing in our place, a more liberal view in mind. Most of the stuff you say already scares me, can you even remotely guess what kinda nightmares those ideas create for me?
I beleive a world founded on individual rights and strong, free markets will improve the standard of life across the world. Granted, it will be an inequal increase, but uncoordinated progress is better than no progress (aka Socialism <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). This is a seperate topic, but I'm fine for discussing how N. Korea fits into the picture... or if it shouldn't, or its a hero for standing up to US Imperialism.
And I'm sorry for the nightmares Messiah. 'Planet America' is a wet dream for me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Can I say that? I guess we'll see. heh.
The US's global position has to change. One global hyper-power does not in any way represent balance. The only reason the US has been a pacifying influence as you claim is because major wars are an impossibility in the nuclear age; go to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or Asia and see how much of a "calming influence" the US has been. Nations fear other nations which are vastly more powerful than they are, especially when said nation has a gigantic nuclear arsonal, the capacity to hit anywhere on the planet, and an ultra-conservative government who seems to be saying "what we say is what goes".
This may come as a stunning and shocking surprise for you Americans like Jammer but not everyone on earth wants a Burger King on every street and giant American corperations running all of their industries. America seems to forget that their first experiment in democracy failed: the country was split apart by civil war. This alone should be proof that throwing democracy into many situations is not the answer: religious and cultural differances in much of the world cannot be resolved overnight by forcing a US style government on them, and will in all likelyhood increase the problems. Take purely for example the Iraq situation. Shi'ite and Sunni muslims do NOT get along, this wasn't a creation of Saddam, these two groups genuinely do not like each other. What happens in the new government? If the President is a Sunni, the Shi'ites will be upset. If the President is a Shi'ite, the Sunnis will be upset? Now, let's change some words here so you can understand. In 1860, if the President is a Republican, the South gets upset. If the President is a Democrat, the North gets upset. Of course you know what happened: the South wouldn't stand for an abolitionist as President. THe Union crumbled and the Civil War began.
Demoracy isn't the answer for every culture and society over the planet. Not everyone WANTS to be like America, nor does everyone WANT to be part of a democracy. And why should they? Looking at the US, they see a country with 2 million people in jails, massive numbers of gun deaths, a cowboy leader who wasn't even actually elected and massive corperations ensuring that the government does exactly what they want. You can say all you want that "given a genuine choice" everyone on the planet would opt for democracy, it doesn't make it true. People do not like change, that's why revolutions always end up where they started. (America is no exception, look at the British system of government in the 1780's: King, House of Lords, House of Commons. Then compare that to the US system: President, Senate, House of Representatives. They're extreamly close, and before you say "Wait! THe President isn't a dictator", well neither was the King of England and check out some of the things Andrew Jackson did as President). It is not "inevitable" that democratic capitalist nations will sweep the globe any more than socialist states would one day sweep the globe.
Why asume that everyone in the world want's democracy? Because you Americans happen to like it? I gotta tell you that my government sure as hell doesn't do stuff I like, and on the Iraq issue for example they went into the conflict with 80% public opposition to the conflict. Sounds like democracy in action there. My say in government does absolutly nothing here, the government I don't want will be returned to power next election, in the same way that any liberal or democrat voter in the US knows their vote will be absolutly pointless next US election. Try and satisfy everyone and you end up annoying everyone. Absolutist governments at least can make the choices that, in the greater scheme, are in the nation's intrests, like a solar power plant. Dictatorships have been around every since humanity started to settle down in fertile regions and start up villages, and they are not going to vanish overnight. Nor are they the worst thing for countries to have. RUssia right now for example needs strong leadership and firm central government power to crush their massive criminal problems and end corruption. Democracy and capitalism have brought only pain and hardship for the Russian people; is it any surprise that the Russian people have started to yearn for the governments of the past?
Not everyone will chose freedom over the removal of responsibility. No matter what government is in charge, you, the citizen, WILL pay taxes, WILL be ignored by the government 90% of the time and WILL obey the laws the government sets down OR ELSE. In this respect there really isn't much to chose from, and for people who have been used to working under a dictatorship for generations there's no reason to chose a new strange outside government type. They know the old ways work. Why adopt a new way?
And as a final note, if so many Americans love their great democracy, how come so many of them don't bother to vote?