Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
America can't open its mouth on this issue as we pushed for world laws ever since we elected Woodrow Wilson. It's our brainchild more or less, so when we sow the wind we shall reap the whirlwind.
Thats the great thing about being sovereign. We can always change our position in light of our own self-interest. Nations have license to be like the proverbial woman in this respect.I have always thought Wilson was an internationalist flake anyway. ;D
A fellow pessimist. I too, think that America is a power in decline. I think a better model for Americas position is the turn of the 20th century British Empire, say between the Boer War and World War I. We are still the premier power in the world but we are beginning to be challenged by nations in the ascendant. In our case, China and India, but more China.
What's the difference between apples and oranges? Same difference, in my opinion.
Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to say. What apples and oranges?
The Hebrews definitely. Their influence is still with us today whereas Persia's has been lost in the pages of history. The Torah eclipses anything that came from the Persians.
I had not thought of the Hebrews. You are right here, I got stuck on powerful, the Hebrews have definitely had a huge impact on western society.
I don't place my vote for who I think has a realistic chance of winning. I vote for who I think best represents me....if everyone would do the same, the best candidates would win every time.
I do that in the primaries. What I refuse to do is vote for someone with no realistic chance of winning in the general election. I did that for Perot in 92 and 96 and got Clinton instead. That is a mistake I will never make again. I would rather vote for an electable person that shares most of views than an unelectable person who shares all of them. I too, am on the political fringe in my opinions and I hope to one day see a like-minded person in the position where they can get elected but ubtil then I will do everything I can to ensure that someone completely opposite my views like and Obama or Clinton does not get elected because I petulantly vote on a forlorn hope.This does not mean that anyone else is not free to vote their conscience, I simply choose pragmatism over idealism.
If we want to avoid a pseudo-communist Obama presidency we will have to hold our noses and vote for McCain. He is an imperfect candidate but far superior to what the Democrats are offering this year. Unfortunately, whoever, is elected all we can hope for is that things don't get worse, which I am afraid they will do. We will still be mired in Iraq, unless Obama runs away, and the government will still be running huge deficits.I wish I could get away with deficit spending. I have said for years that if I balanced my checkbook like the federal Government, I would be in jail for fraud. Some amount of public debt is warranted, even necessary, but the current public debt is obscene and unsustainable in the long run. I don't see either major party talking sense about that and neither does Ron Paul for that matter.
I have to agree with Ski and go with the Persians here. I would say the Chinese, but they had little influence on the west until the late Middle Ages. I am assuming you want the pre-Greek civilization that influenced the west the most?
I swear it was the Hittites who invaded and overthrew the Babylonian Empire in the 13th or 14th century BC armed with Iron tipped spears and swords. I now have to research it. I will refrain from citing my source until you make your claim known. I am fully ready to concede if proven wrong though.
While I'm at it, pop question (no cheating): What was the first civilization to begin using iron weaponry?
Wasn't it the Hittites? It took me twenty minutes of thought and doing something else to remember the name.
Just because the government has the technical and technological capability to do something does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. For every great sounding idea or tool people can think of to foil crimes or hunt people down there are several reasons why it is not a good idea for the government to do it.I read yesterday where a bill just passed the house that requires the federal government to maintain a database of the fingerprints of the holders of federally-backed mortgages. Luckily, it has not completed the legislative process and become law yet. I wonder what is the purpose of a database of this sort? What need does the government have to maintain a database of mortgage holders fingerprints? This king of stuff it what I am talking about when I talk about government limits on freedoms. The bill itself is innocuous, but what is the need? We are on a slippery slope towards a total surveillance society, does safety demand this?Lawmakers should ask themselves what the founding fathers would think before they write every bill.
You can always move into the woods, grow your own food etc. You still have satillites that can put you on Googlearth.
I shouldn't have to do that, I should feel confident that my government truly does have my best interests at heart. Sadly, I do not.
It is true that the Constitution enshrines treaties as “the Law of the Land”. But as is famously said,
“the constitution is not a suicide pact”
, and I wish I knew the author of that quote. The Congress also has the ability to withdraw from treaties.I think Phid has it right in that many young people seem to think that there is some code of International Laws that trump US law. So, before we can truly debate this we must define what International Law is. Then, and only then, can we get down to the brass tacks of arguing about whether they outweigh domestic laws.I know a guy who claims the UN Charter outweighs the Constitution and he is dead serious, to my complete and utter dismay. I have to admit that I am one who believes that the US should only agree to and abide by international agreements that are in our own self-interest. There are many treaties that on the face of them seem to go against US interests, but often second and third order effects must be taken into account in determining self-interest. This is one of the reasons I support President Bush's stance on the International Criminal Tribunal. We should steadfastly refuse to sign it because it reduces American sovereignty by legitimizing a foreign authority usurping legitimate American police authority. Therefore, it is patently not in our self-interest to agree to such a pact.In the same manner, I support our participation in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have no need of further nuclear testing because we can use computer modeling in the design of new warheads. Additionally, a worldwide moratorium on testing makes cheaters easier to detect. An obvious case of our self-interest being served.
I chose iron weapons/tools as the single most significant human invention. Mastering the process of smelting and working with iron ore opened up a vast new range of possibilities that bronze implements simply were not capable of. Steel, like oil, is still at the heart of the modern industrial economy. Just take a moment and think about all the things steel and iron are used for. Without iron and its derivatives the modern world would not be possible.
Basically I think the UK, and even the EU for that sake, are becoming more like the US in the fact that the individual countries have become like our States, part of a single greater government but having some autonomy.
You may have hit on something here. I know I think of myself as an Oklahoman as well as an American. My Great-Grandfather was an original Sooner having staked his claim that is now the family farm about a week before the 1889 Land Rush. Living in Texas I see this tendency taken to extremes. I also like to take the air out of Texans whenever possible of course! Boomer Sooner!!
Isn't the rise of social conservatism a recent development in party history? It is my understanding that the traditional Republican base is not social conservative but traditional liberal democrats from before when liberal was a dirty word. I am talking advocates of liberal democracy in the 19th century mold. Remember, it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and led reconstruction as well as the final conquest of the west. Republicans also are not traditionally isolationist like the Libertarians.My biggest problem with Ron Paul, among many, is his isolationist streak. I fail to see how isolationism helps American security. I also don't like his tax ideas.Sadly, there was not a good candidate among the entire bunch this go round. I will literally hold my nose and vote for McCain simply because the big government position of the Democrats scares the wits out of me. Every time Obama or Hillary talk about their social engineering proposals I hear Big Brother in the background, same goes for supposed Republican security initiatives.I want Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan or hell, even U.S. Grant back.
World War II simplified the world geo-political power structure from one of multi-polar powers (Germany, France, Britain, Russia, USA, and Japan) to basically two major powers (USA and Russia). America's political power would never have been as strong if it had to compete with that many world powers, but it's economic might would have grown regardless due to the thrift and Puritanical work ethic of its citizenry. World War II basically accelerated the trend that had already been established after the Civil War.
Even during the Cold War era the traditional European powers played a major role if nothing else as place counters like chips in poker. The countries of Europe played a vital role in determining the lines of the cold War and absent their consent to basing rights for US forces where would the confrontation have occurred? I don't think America was ever the 500 pound gorilla that traditionally she has been thought of. It is not simply preference that we prefer coalitions, it is necessity. America may have been the leader but democratic allies have always been crucial to American foreign policy.I agree that our economic might would have grown. But I don't know whether that could be translated into real political power the way that military might has been.The more I think about it, the more I begin to doubt whether the US could have defeated Russia immediately after WWII without going nuclear. Russia had all the advantages of being able to coercively mobilize their people that the US does not have.
