Um, yeah, right. The only example you can bring up is in the case where a direct violent encounter would have resulted in nuclear annihilation of the planet. Um, okay, I'll give you that one. I think both sides understood the concept of mutually assured destruction enough to realize that negotiations were the only way out of it. But, even in this specific example you cite, wasn't it the US's massive military buildup and subsequent Soviet overextension that led Gorbachev to the bargaining table in the first place, or can you honestly say with a straight face that it was out of the kindness of Gorby's heart and "an appeal from the international community" that START was signed? It was a show of strength, my friend, and a willingness to use it, that led not only to START but to the eventual bankruptcy and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Any act of appeasement would have only egged on the Soviet's to continue annexing more and more satellite countries for their resources. Even more recent history will tell you that before the Madrid bombings, the conservative party was expected to win the elections and Aznar to maintain his position as Prime Minister. In other words, people supported (albeit relucantly) the leadership up to that point....as long as there was no cost to supporting them. As soon as the cost was revealed, the electorate decided to bail on them. I'll say this for Spain -- at least they were willing to step up to the plate in the first place. If France (and you) had their say, Hussein would still be in power, he'd be making billions more on lifted sanctions, he'd still be awarding $20k each to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the Kurds and Shiites would still be an oppressed people, and, subsequently, Libya would still have a hidden nuclear program, Syria would still be openly funding Hezbollah, and weapons inspectors would still be boxed out of Iran. Oh that's right, but you probably believe that there wouldn't have been another major terrorist attack. Keep dreaming my friend. 9/11 should've shattered your belief in peaceful co-existence with terrorists. Add two more for your specious arguments.
All you parlor room Machiavellis make me want to puke. Get out there on the front lines you shithead. m
Strong words from a peace lover. Funny thing is, most (not all) military personnel agree with an aggressive approach. Even though we're fortunate enough to have people who volunteer to do the dirty work to maintain your freedom and keep you safe, you prefer to bitch and moan about it. I prefer to applaud them. Can't expect you to understand, you pussy-boy peacenik. Go back to your fantasy world of moral equivalence and kumbayah.
That doesn't make it any less significant. I think the seriousness of the situation made it the best example - and one everyone would obviously agree to - thereby showing the fallacy of your first statement. The USSR was using 1/3 of GDP on military spending in it's last years. Of course it was stupid, and the US is spending a buckload itself nowadays. Most great nations have shown how they become overconfident and think they're invulnerable to any financial impact of stretching their sticky fingers all over the place. The Soviets weren't bankrupt, they just realized they had been morons, and decided to change. Real change which involves oneself is really hard to do. Just try yourself and see. ;-) Soviet expansion was sure a dangerous possibility, but again - the agreements reached in that era were not of the appeasement kind ? You're repeating the first flawed statement here. ;-) Polls are statistics. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. We will never know what the 90% opposition to the war would mean in the actual election by itself. So your conclusion depends on a range of other assumptions. You're on a roll. ;-) I don't think anyone in their right mind could say Spain is not a great nation with a great history. The rest is of the paragraph is probably mostly true, except that you mean inspectors from the IAEA and the Kurds are still an oppressed people (they're scattered into Turkey etc.), and noone - not even the US - wants to see a Kurdish state. That would trigger massive conflicts in itself. The risk has actually increased significantly with the Kurds in northern Iraq becoming a stronger entity with a reckognized paramilitary "defensive" force, and the chance of civil war greatly increased. Regarding the possibility of continued rule by Saddam - that just illustrates my beliefs in doing the right thing by international law and practices, and your viewpoint which differs from this. I hope you don't have any criminal tendencies. ;-) There are still many oppressive regimes around the world; war don't change a thing as long as you still support other oppressive regimes - e.g. on the African continent - brink full of examples. The solution is positive change. Read on. There will probably be other attacks - even in the US, continued flawed US foreign policies will make sure of this, and John Kerry offers no relief in this respect. The problem is compounded into US trying to exploit the greatness of free market capitalism by introducing bad capitalism in select parts of the world, and the support of oppressive regimes and undermining of democracy with corruption and sanctions wherever it suites selfish profit exploits, instead of contributing with support to social and economic reform in order to actually let the free market capitalistic potential benefits by US investments take place. It's in some respects a attempt to support certain segments of US economy from taking the responsibility of ensuring continued growth and sound capitalism as a benefit of everyone everywhere (fair globalization), but rather let them selfishly take big bonuses and profits from activities involving other countries natural or workforce resources. Most people in the US understands this flawed policy when it comes to corporate politics, but are totally ignorant to international geopolitics and the failed attempt to continue such exploits without a international revolt as the reaction.
You're argument is like saying that the best way to be successful in life is by not going to college and then using Bill Gates as the "best example" to illustrate your point, "thereby showing the fallacy" of the pro-education argument. I think that you're implying here that the USSR decided to change out of deep introspection, and would've done so with or without the financial pressure they were under to stay on par with the US military buildup. How can you possibly make that argument? That's like the people (not you) who say that Qaddafi would've renounced his nuclear weapons program even without the war in Iraq and the capture of Hussein. Every pundit covering the election claimed that the bombings (and its aftermath) was essentially what turned the tide on the election. To attempt to refute the polling data simply by quoting Twain is, well, not an argument at all. This statement makes no sense at all. International law and practices, as you call it, left Saddam in power for 13 years, allowed him to thumb his nose at the UN with no retribution, enrich himself and his cronies even more through the corrupt oil-for-food program, and freed him to violently repress his political foes. Is this your idea of doing the "right thing"? The all-or-nothing argument makes no sense either. The reason we are trying to forcibly introduce democracy into the Middle East (of which no country has enjoyed due to entrenched dictators) is because it's of strategic importance to the US as a breeding ground for organized international terrorist groups. After 9/11, we decided that the best way to neutralize them is by introducing democracy (and the consequent prosperity) Ahh, one thing we can agree on!
Thank you catmango. I really couldn't be bothered replying to Gringinho's post, but since I was almost made to vomit reading it I thought I'd better. Luckily you already did and I doubt I could have said it any better. Not that it will make any difference -- liberals just don't get it -- but what the hell.
The US is indeed the greatest nation in the world today, it's not perfect, but it's the best there is. The problem for the continued position of the US as the greatest nation in every respect, is the fact that overly-conservative policies and the military or international bully-tactics undermines this future. That's also why we see so much opposition to US foreign policies - which are flawed on many important areas. The US should influence by showing benefits of the old free market capitalism like it was practiced thousands of years ago by most (nomadic merchants etc.), not exploitation and protecionism. China has been the greatest nation in military and economic terms for thousands of years, except for some centuries. The US has a rather compact history, and China is the fastest growing economy in the world, with the best conditions for capitalist growth ideals during the last few years. They're impressive, hard-working and there are so many of them. They could perhaps become the worlds largest economy, as well as the largest holder of US debt (currently second - after Japan). Scary, isn't it. They're going to send a mission to the moon as well in a few years. I can hardly tell one Kanji from another nowadays, only if I count the strokes and look them up perhaps, but I guess I may have take it up again - from my studies of Japanese language. Perhaps it won't matter who's "top dog" - if China would change for the better. I guess the US would continue to counterbalance, along with select allies - on international matters. That is why the US well-being is rather important for all of us, and it's irrational to squander the good opportunities it has for gaining international support and admiration. The US is a big target by many around the world, and they certainly don't all have our best interests in mind. I don't identify with any political group at all, and would only regard the qualification of leaders based on their personal merits and traits, not by collectionist following of any ideology of others. I'm no Ayn Rand follower of objectivism, either. Nor the rulebooks of the libertarian, humanist, rationalist, socialist or any other -ism. I believe in my own fairly simple findings, and the rest are rationales of consequences etc. I won't say any of the ideologies are wrong, although they might have logical flaws. I don't succumb to any of their ideas mindlessly as so many do, although I agree with some of the actions they proclaim - although based on my own rationales. In some ways I could be (wrongly) believed as an individualist, or perhaps anarchist - but I don't limit myself to ideological constraints imposed by others. In general I don't give too much attention to what others do, as long as it doesn't affect me in some way. If it does, I do react in some way - I guess that's just logical in my viewpoint. Some links on others views: http://www.rationalist.org.uk/ - "New Humanist" magazine. http://experts.about.com/q/2512/819436.htm - Libertarian beliefs explained. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2865 - "How the democrats lost power" (in the US senate), Capitalism Magazine. http://www.infidels.org/org/ar/ - American Rationalist - gotta love their URL. http://www.gateway2russia.com/art.p...496&parent=Interview+and+Opinion&grandparent= - "Liberals in Russia and in America", should we worry after Putin ? http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6057 - "Can Liberals Save Capitalism (Again)?" http://www.oicu2.com/afc/index.html and http://www.oicu2.com/afc/wealth.html - the strange US "multicapitalist" party. There are a lot of things out there - strange to many of us - with their unifying t-shirts, propaganda, bibles, manuals etc. I prefer my own way - and it works for me. This is almost turning into a (philosophical) psychology-thread, so I guess it's better to call it quits, but perhaps you better understand my position now, and don't have to try to generalize it into some streamlined party politics.
No, it's not. The current North Korea crisis is another example, and I could show you many more. It still makes your statement "I've asked this question before -- When has appeasement ever been successful at ending conflict? Every conflict in history has required some violent resolution with a clear victor." ridicoulously wrong. Period. Or do you really want some "violent resolution with a clear victor" to resolve the crisis between North-Korea and the US ? Have you lost your marbles (i.e mind) ? You also stated before: "It was a show of strength, my friend, and a willingness to use it, that led not only to START but to the eventual bankruptcy and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Any act of appeasement would have only egged on the Soviet's to continue annexing more and more satellite countries for their resources." I still find that statment logically wrong, becuase you already admitted that appeasement worked in avoiding global nuclear conflict. And exactly who are these people you claim are saying those things about Qaddafi ? The advanced nuclear program there was recently discovered, and was a surprise to most people, so the statements you claim must have been quite recent. I'm glad however, that you don't contribute that statement to me - only use it against me - as if I said it. (ironic) Sure it was the most likely outcome, but we'll never know with 100% certainty, because we were predicting. Do you claim 100% prediction ? I was bickering about the logical failure - you were claiming certainty that the spanish voters "decided to bail on them" (sic) because of high human cost. I'm just saying: we'll never know for sure, will we. One of the things adding to the uncertainty of the pre-election polls is the fact that the opposition to war made many youngsters and people who normally didn't vote - take part and show their opposition. After the election - the huge hike in participation was an evidence of this.