Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 28, 2011 at 3:13pm

While you may feel frustrated with the direction of the conversation, or with another member and their comments, argumentum ad hominem is explicitly against the debate guidelines.  It is unnecessary.  There are more productive means of handling the situation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3equ3cp1fsw0n on February 28, 2011 at 5:59pm

Hmmm, okay. Pardon my outburst.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 3:21pm

I'll just assume that you've run out of valid counter-points.  The point I'm trying to make is that the US is not the 'knight in shining armour' that so many Americans seem to think of it as being.  It's taken part in it's own imperial expansion and meddled with the stability of foreign governments by covert, underhanded means far more often than it has ever done so by putting boots on the ground.  The USA has never been delegated as the planetary police force, and has never conducted themselves in a manner befitting such a role.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on February 28, 2011 at 3:28pm

You should have just said that instead of going ad hom on the whole U.S.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 3:42pm

In defense of my 'ad hom' on the whole U.S., the very topic of the discussion implied, to me, some moral high ground on the part of the whole U.S.

Most of the replies seemed to be formulated from that high ground, suggesting that the U.S. was in some way going out of its way to defend 'freedom' around the world. It was specifically that perspective which I wished to throw into question, and so the only questions I had to raise were those of the moral grounds of the U.S. as a nation.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 4:29pm

And what is 'idealistic' about disagreeing with the premise that international politics 'requires' at least on superpower. That premise is not objective - there is nothing to back it up.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 4:38pm

Because it clearly does. If you cannot see that, and that your own position is not by the rules of political science, then you either know too little about the subject or fail to apply the knowledge you have correctly.

Look, I have mady ideals for which I have compromises suited to the real world:

I don't like religion, but I accept the fact it exists and than some people, even amongst those I call friends, believe in something i find disgusting. I think that a person born into a position by right is wrong, yet i support my monarchy because I don't see the need to change a tradition which is deeply rooted in our history needs to be changed for a president we would never give any power. I hate mixing state and religion, but I support my country keeping the state church because we have not mixed religion and politics to a great extent, and our church is quite likely the most modern in protestantism.

These are the differencec between beeing purely idealistic and a pragmatist. The world is not perfect, neither are people, and we have to compromize perfection to fit reality.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 3:38pm

I think both most educated Americans and others knows this perfectly well. That is also completely besides the point. Seeing as international politics calls for at least one superpower (we can agree that it is idealistically unpreferred, but at the same time realize that it is neccesary from a real politik standpoint), and the US did earn that by being the foremost economic and military superpower since the end of the cold war, that the country had and has a right.

The other question which begs itself is, if not the US, then who? Europe has certainly lost its right for a while, along with Russia and Japan. And I don't particularly prefer the other obvious choices of Russia, India, Pakistan or Israel (nuclear powers, can't be a superpower without a military). So what do you prefer? The UN which is limp on every difficult subject? G10 or G20, which all are dependant on the US for markets and products anyway?

 

You are not being realistic. Ideology is good, but realism is better. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 3:49pm

I disagree with your premise that 'international politics calls for at least one superpower'.  That may have been the way the situation evolved, but a far more balanced political structure would create far less anxiety around the world.  Honestly, I think that its time for a host of nations to put their differences behind them and stand up to the U.S., especially ensuring that nothing like Iraq happens again.

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 28, 2011 at 4:00pm

The world indeed needs an international political forum, one that is not dictated a self appointed war mongering government! The problem with the present state of international politics is that it boils down to globalised trade policies for multinationals, and bird flipping to citizenry. Honest international politics should function with some degree of similarity to the European union. An international contract addressing corporations, land, rights, and people.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 28, 2011 at 4:18pm

Heather, you are being purely idealistic. It's fine, even admirable, but then you cannot take part in a fact based discussion since you are arguing beliefs while I'm trying to argue interpretation of facts.

History based on ideology.. well, it's like science based on religion.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 28, 2011 at 4:51pm

Well then apparently I am completely ignorant of the subject.  Perhaps you could point me to some resource materials produced by well recognized political science writers which indicate that the function of international politics would be greatly hindered by the absence of at least one super power.  Preferably these works would explain why that is so.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• …
• 26
• Next ›
• Page