American Exceptionalism

Joshua Ford · August 27, 2008, 04:16:53 PM

Quote from: CavScout;240734Only when it got tough. When everyone thought it was going to be Gulf War '91 Redux the support was like 70%+. In any case, you'll be hard pressed to argue it is not in the US's self-interest to maintain influence in that part of the world. You may not like it, which is not the same thing.

Who was talking about approval? I was talking about government acting in the interests of its people. Maintaining a presence is one thing, draining your resources whilst radicalising people against your country something very different.

Quote from: CavScout;240734Simply, as was stated, to show uniqueness. Then again, the American Constitution isn't about earning the government the loyalty of the people. It is meant to limit the power the government can acquire.

What's that Pledge of Allegiance thing again?

CavScout · August 27, 2008, 04:17:29 PM

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240729The person who wrote that is unfamiliar with the actual processes by which HRCs function. They also seem unaware that they exist as an adjunct to the civil courts, not the criminal ones.

Let us guess, anyone who critiques the HRC is simply "unfamiliar with the actual process".

Quote"Mark Steyn, my friend, colleague, and arguably the most talented political writer working today, is on trial for thought crimes.
Steyn -- a one-man media empire based in New Hampshire -- was published a few years ago in Maclean's. Now the magazine and its editors are in the dock before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on the charge that they violated a provincial hate-speech law by running the work of a hate-monger, namely Mark Steyn. A similar prosecution is pending before the national version of this kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Not that the facts are relevant to the charges, but here's what happened. Maclean's ran an excerpt from Steyn's bestseller, America Alone.
The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense. It charged in its complaint that the magazine was "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt." It was particularly scandalized by Steyn's argument that rising birthrates among Muslims in Europe will force non-Muslims there to come to "an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots."[1]

or

Quote"This is a point worth recalling, as we head into a period in Canada when, owing to malice from an ideological camp, to cowardice on the part of our elected representatives, and to indifference on the part of the people, free speech and freedom of the press will disappear in Canada."[2]

or

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission [3]

CavScout · August 27, 2008, 04:21:51 PM

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240742Who was talking about approval? I was talking about government acting in the interests of its people. Maintaining a presence is one thing, draining your resources whilst radicalising people against your country something very different.

Folks were plenty "radicalized" prior to the Iraq War.

QuoteWhat's that Pledge of Allegiance thing again?

It's not the Constitution and hold zero legal binding.

CavScout · August 27, 2008, 04:23:45 PM

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240738You seem to be under the impression that I am some sort of state-loving socialist.

You are the one confused. I think you are a jealous and envious non-American who wishes his country wielded the power and influence to act in its own interests with little regard to the rest of the world.

Pseudoephedrine · August 27, 2008, 04:27:12 PM

Quote from: CavScout;240744Let us guess, anyone who critiques the HRC is simply "unfamiliar with the actual process".

No, not at all. The HRCs have many problems with them. The article you linked to, though, said that they were identical to Maoist re-education tribunals and the like. Watch the stupid rhetoric in the articles you link to.

Quote"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission [3]

Dean Steacy is currently under investigation by the RCMP for his unethical behaviour. That is, the Canadian state, for all its faults, does not condone his behaviour and is punishing him in due accord with the laws.

Joshua Ford · August 27, 2008, 04:27:49 PM

Quote from: CavScout;240746Folks were plenty "radicalized" prior to the Iraq War.

Although ironically enough, not taking pot shots and blowing up your troops on a regular basis. Keeping people in prison without charge and torturing them of course hasn't made things worse at all, right? Was invading a country without a proper pretext and poor medium to long-term planning REALLY in the best in interests of the citizens a country already committed to Afghanistan?

Quote from: CavScout;240746It's not the Constitution and hold zero legal binding.

I talked of a commitment to the state. Let's stick to that, shall we?

Pseudoephedrine · August 27, 2008, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: CavScout;240749You are the one confused. I think you are a jealous and envious non-American who wishes his country wielded the power and influence to act in its own interests with little regard to the rest of the world.

You could not be more incorrect. I would no more wish for Canada to wield America's power than I do for America to. Should you someday stop being a moral relativist, you would perhaps even be capable of realising why.

James J Skach · August 27, 2008, 04:37:59 PM

Quote from: Haffrung;240686Where American exceptionalism comes in is the widespread belief among American that their country does not act in the world stage in its own national interests - that it acts to defend universal human ideals.

How widespread is this belief? I wonder. It's complicated because in many cases, the two are not mutually exclusive. IOW, to act on the world stage in defense of universal human ideals is often in the best interests of the US.

Now, whether or not we defend those ideals, or achieve them, is an argument worthy of far more effort than a thread on a forum - it's the overriding question of the day.

However, because those two things coincide but work against the self interest of other players on the world stage does not negate the coincidence of those two things.

James J Skach · August 27, 2008, 04:39:46 PM

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240752Although ironically enough, not taking pot shots and blowing up your troops on a regular basis.

Define "regular". Before 9/11, there were several attempts, some successful, to take "pot shots" at troops - sometimes even civilians.

Joshua Ford · August 27, 2008, 04:42:02 PM

Quote from: James J Skach;240767Define "regular". Before 9/11, there were several attempts, some successful, to take "pot shots" at troops - sometimes even civilians.

There were indeed. On a daily, weekly basis? Not so much.

CavScout · August 27, 2008, 04:50:43 PM

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240752Although ironically enough, not taking pot shots and blowing up your troops on a regular basis. Keeping people in prison without charge and torturing them of course hasn't made things worse at all, right? Was invading a country without a proper pretext and poor medium to long-term planning REALLY in the best in interests of the citizens a country already committed to Afghanistan?

No, instead of soldiers it was embassy workers, naval ships and buildings in New York City. If by "proper pretext" you mean unanimous world approval? Then perhaps not. If you mean technical legal standing, then actually yes.

QuoteI talked of a commitment to the state. Let's stick to that, shall we?

So you dodge then?

CavScout · August 27, 2008, 04:53:49 PM

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240771There were indeed. On a daily, weekly basis? Not so much.

That's basically the definition of war.... arguing against war by saying soldiers will be attacked is rather idiotic.

When all the teeth-mashing and political rhetoric is done with, the Iraq War, in terms of casualties, will likely rank pretty low on our list of conflicts.

Joshua Ford · August 27, 2008, 04:57:28 PM

Quote from: CavScout;240779No, instead of soldiers it was embassy workers, naval ships and buildings in New York City. If by "proper pretext" you mean unanimous world approval? Then perhaps not. If you mean technical legal standing, then actually yes.

So because of Muslim extremists and states, including the Saudis on 9/11, you attack Iraq? That's your pretext? Really?

Quote from: CavScout;240779So you dodge then?

If you say so...just re-read what I wrote in 39. Can you say draft by the way?

Joshua Ford · August 27, 2008, 04:59:56 PM

Quote from: CavScout;240781That's basically the definition of war.... arguing against war by saying soldiers will be attacked is rather idiotic.

When all the teeth-mashing and political rhetoric is done with, the Iraq War, in terms of casualties, will likely rank pretty low on our list of conflicts.

I'm aware of what a war constitutes thanks. I asked was it necessary and in the best interests of its citizens. Just answer the question.

You can dismiss the deaths of your soldiers (and we'll ignore for the purposes of this debate Iraqi civilian deaths), but should a state heading for recession really be pumping money into the bottomless pit that Iraq currently is?

CavScout · August 27, 2008, 05:07:08 PM

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240785So because of Muslim extremists and states, including the Saudis on 9/11, you attack Iraq? That's your pretext? Really?

You forgetting Afganistan?

QuoteIf you say so...just re-read what I wrote in 39. Can you say draft by the way?

I'd say unlikely. Diluting the military professionalism is just asking to get the same army we had in Vietnam. Perhaps a robust military rebuilding to reverse the cuts started by Bush 41. Bet we wish we had a couple of the division we let go in 41 and 42.