 |
| |
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
Well if this CIA report is even close to the truth, then i dont think people in the US should get too freaked out.
Look at my country now - we kinda doing ok, not as powerfull as we once were when we were the world super power, but it hasn't turned out too badly. In fact i think our 'fall' has bought about an inner understanding of the evils inherent in being a super power.
My sympathy for poorer countries and my empathy(which gets me into disagreements with some folks here) for other peoples situations, has come about probably due to the cultural shifts in my country over the last century.
Sometimes a little humility is good for the soul, so infact if this is a reasonable projection, then maybe once you've learnt to live with not being 'number 1' etc - you may find your lives the richer for it?
Last edited by child of Thor on 19-02-2005 at 16:49
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
Not that i was alive when it happend, but from reading the history books for me it was after we messed around in India and Africa(mainly how we treated the people). That was the begining of the end of it i feel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
Not that i was alive when it happend, but from reading the history books for me it was after we messed around in India and Africa(mainly how we treated the people). That was the begining of the end of it i feel. |
We're reaping the whirlwind we sewed during the Cold War. That's when we really solidified our image as being manipulators and bullies. Another side bonus is that our actions in the Cold War also hjelped spawn our Islamic Fundamentlist friends.
Some like to label people like me "Isolationist." However, I'd prefer the label "anti-Interventionist." Our country would be in a better position had we not used other nations like chess pieces during the Cold War. Supporting thugs, murderers, and drug dealers in their quest to oppress the citizens of their countries didn't do much good for the American image.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote:
Add to this most american's clinging to quaint 20th century ideas of the 'sovereignty' of nations |
The nations of the EU kept some sovereignty, so they must be "clinging to quaint 20th century ideas" of sovereingnty too. I see nothing from the EU or Europeans wanting complete sovereignty of their nations pooled in the future.
quote:
one of the main reasons that the EU works is that no one nation can dominate it whereas in NAFTA or event FTZotA the US would easily be far more powerful than anyone else. |
quote:
Europe's pooling of sovereignty relies on persuasion, changing the views of your partners is harder and takes more time than coercion |
The EU is not immune to coercion.
But I guess we can only hope a nation of the EU never becomes a superpower in the future. Perhaps the EU will put things in place to prevent that.
quote:
I believe the current coming-together is different as it is not based on nationalism but on cooperation, and thus represents something new in systems of international governance. |
Cooperation was involved when many nations and organizations came together, that does not mean cooperation was the basis for the "coming-together", including for the EU. The roots of the EU come from history, politics and economics. The idea of European integration was conceived to prevent the killing and destruction like those in WW2 from ever happening again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The United States and France fought an undeclared naval war in the 1790s.
The United States went to war with Great Britain in 1812.
The United States and Mexico fought in the 1840s.
I'll over look the U.S. versus itself in the 1860s. I'll also over look the Indians wars, because those were less democracies and more anarchies.
The United States invaded numerous democracies during the 19th and 20th Centuries, but these don't rise to the level of war.
In 1900, the United States and Great Britain almost went to war over Somoa, however, a taiphun hit the island and sank the Biritsh fleet (Germany was also [resent, three way fight, but they sank also).
The United States fought Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Do you see a pattern here?
|
Yes, but not what you see. If I should use your examples, then South Africa under apartheid was also a democracy - in some ways even better because white women had the right to wote.
France in the 1790's a democracy ??? You must be kidding.
US in the 18' century a democracy ??? how many women, blacks and indians had the right to wote ?
GB same century a democracy ??? No, they didn't have slaves who couldn't vote, but if I'm not wrong, lots of common people didn't either have that right.
Now, understand me right, I don't think that women are more sane than men, but I don't call it democracy if half of the population doesn't have the right to vote.
Neither do I think that a country where slavery was legal are to be considered a democracy.
quote:
If one considers parlimentary monarchies to be democracies, then WWI was the biggest war between democracies. |
I don't - the simple fact that women didn't have the rigth to vote says that it wasn't democracies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alva
Then you'll never have a democracy. In 200 years they will say the same thing 'bout us.
What Europe/US a democracy??? No way, animals weren't even allowed to vote.
If they called it a demo during their days and it was in line with the morality of the time, then for all purposes, it was a democracy. |
If that should be a fact, then I'll suggest that we get rid of the word democracy and invent some new words that covers certain periods view upon it. What you actually are saying is that even the Saddam regime in Iraq was democratic because that was how it was defined in that time and under those circumstances.
Please try to be serious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by el freako
You sort of make my point for me 
If nothing can be accomplished without the US's approval then what you have is not a pooling of sovereignty by nations but the surrender of sovereignty by weaker nations to more powerful ones - the name for that is hegemony.
Hegemony relies on coercion, the hegemon gets what they want either through the application of force or through buying others off with resources - as such this system of international relations is similar to monarchy and as the strength of the hegemon is reliant on their relative power the system is unstable in the long run.
Europe's pooling of sovereignty relies on persuasion, changing the views of your partners is harder and takes more time than coercion (and it requires the buildup of trust), but the effect is far more durable as it does not require the constant application of power or bribery. This system is like the more representative governments that sprang up in western europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. |
It seems that way when you skip over the part where I said we've had EU like priviledges between Canada and the US for 60 years or more. 
As far as the hegemon is concerned, there is some of that perhaps. However, it is more the relative sizes in the relationship. Something like 30% of Canada's GDP is tied to trade with the US. When our politicians talked about legalising pot, the Yanks made noises about tightening up controls at the border. Our politicians decided that they would rather not have trade effected by delays. The cops still ignore simple possession and the Yanks don't care.
The relationship does cut two ways though. They need us as well. The auto industry is integrated beyond any ability to seperate it without substantial upheaval. They are highly dependant on Canaidan energy in the form of natural gas and hydro, not to mention other raw materials.
Hegemon or biggest customer? You tell me. We've had the level of trust that the Euros are looking for and we've had it for 60 or 70 years. Just that not many here would find an integration like that of the European Parliament at all desirable, and it isn't necessary since we are talking two or three states that have lived in peace for well over a century.
In short, we don't need a say in American domestic policy to have a fully integrated economy and an integrated military, and we wouldn't want it. We sure as hell wouldn't want 300,000,000 Americans having a say in our social policy. Just as I'm sure many Americans would not want 30,000,000 more Democrats.
An EU solution would not be an option for NA. We don't need it, and not many would want it.
quote:
I would say that the coming-together of the US states in the late 18th & early 19th century was more akin to other states that came together under the idea of nationalism - like my own Britian did in 1603-1707 or France after the hundred years war and Germany and Italy during the 19th century.
I believe the current coming-together is different as it is not based on nationalism but on cooperation, and thus represents something new in systems of international governance. |
The Yanks came together for cooperation as well. It was easy for them, sharing the same language and many other things, but there were differences between New England and Sourthern cultures.
The 'one nation, damn all else' came later, didn't it?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2005 15:38
|