This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Weekly Debate #2: Cuba Queue Bad?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Latin America reversed their support for Israel, not because they hate Israel but as a protest against our involvement in their own internal politics. Guyana, Peru, Chile, Columbia, Venezuela, Haiti... Regardless of our own justifications and our own reasons, and sometimes they were actually legitimate, the propensity of the United States to stir someone else's stew is what causes the vast majority of international resentment. These nations have absolutely zero capacity to work against the United States in military or economic theaters, so they use the political theater instead. As Israel is our pet project, they cast their votes against her at almost every given opportunity. All I see is the elephant in the room, which is, the USSR's economic involvement. You're care in avoiding that topic screams of historical ignorance, or politically motivated opinions.And let me point out a flaw in your own argument, namely that there are no other nuclear powers other than the US, Russia, and China. Does France not exist anymore? For after the United States and Russia, the third largest nuclear arsenal is sitting on French launch vehicles, all of them in a sea-launch second-strike-capable posture. For that matter, the United Kingdom has approximately six times the entire Chinese strategic arsenal. And, if you want to be perfectly blunt, Pakistan is projected to have the same amount of strategic weapons, as well as Israel and India combining to match the Chinese non-strategic arsenal.I was really hopeing you would point this out. What I said was nuclear SUPERPOWER. This was meant to take into account thier economic might as well. France is a dwarf against China and the USSR. Sure, nuclear power is something to consider, but you just can't put Pakistan in the category of superpower. In a political forum, such as a UN devoid of the US, communist superpowers would end up dominating it. Namely, not Pakistan. Dude....To say that the planet would devolve into chaos without the might of the US nuclear deterrence is yet another example of our institutional arrogance.
(And I would respond to the Nancy Pelosi insult, but that would be petty of me. Yet it does mesh directly with how both conservatives and economic Libertarians argue, so I would have been ultimately shocked if one wasn't included.)I didn't say chaos. I said that it would start WW3 to have a worldwide political entity come together, and not to have the major capatlistic superpower of the US to hold thier voice. And you hammering constantly about how bad the US is, and how we are just 'arrogant', and keep painting us as bullies, instead of speaking from unbiased historical fact is just as bad as me bringing up Nancy Pelosi. Don't try to paint me as the bully too. You've much too busy shaking your finger at the entire United States.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Where does your bias come from?
Fact. You are trying to say that US taught history vs USSR taught history is a game of he said/she said. I think the US holds credibility over the Stalin rigeme any day. I think 8 million political murdered gouloug victems would agree, if they could.
Anyway, you are getting off of our main arguement:
1) Soviet involvment caused the strife in Latin America... ZOMG cuban missile crisis, etc.
2) US pulling out of UN would destabalize the UN. To which I say 'der'.
Both of the above points should be cut and dry history in the first case, and common sense in the second. Your arguement against the second is that South Africa would hold out against China? What? I don't seem to understand your brand of lunacy. And what kind of superpower did you think I meant?
Wiki
FTW!
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Riiight.. .all the little countries would band together. I see that happening. It'll all just work out. Quite an imagination you have there.
1) FOUNDED suspicion of USSR involvement in latin america, which were mostly proven to be true. Not perfect, but almost always true. Do I agree with all our Latin american policies? no. But we certainly aren't the catalyst factor of disfunction there.
2) The removal of the US would strengthen the UN... sort of. Imagine a football game in which there are two teams. We will call them the 'Communists' and the 'Capitalists'. Imagine if the quarterback just decided to stop playing for the capitalists. The Communists would certainly gain yards, and strength. They would make great progress toward thier goals. You might say that this is a good thing, and they would make a lot of good resolutions. Then again, you also might die in a fiery nuclear weapon. You're argueing in favor of something that will likely cause your death. This is what I like to call being an 'idiot'. Your playing the part nicely.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
1) No I don't believe that we are the catalyst of the latin american problems. No i dont believe our policies there are perfect. How can these two thoughts not co exist?
2) Ugh... Some situations are dual natured. Not the whole picture, but there is a reality that the USSR and the US are at odds. There is also the reality of a nuclear standoff. To deny this dual nature is naive. Also, I am an Ayn Rand fan, but that has nothing to do with the cold war. I am a fan of looking past doom and gloom at constructive solutions, outside of my 'fortress of duality' that you describe, but I'm not willing to do it stupidly. You propose that everything is the US fortresses' fault, and that we should drop our walls, drop out of the UN, and accept our enemy's instruction. We might as well draw targets on our foreheads. You see everything without the US as this rosy fascade and say that it is just ME seeing everything as terrible. What I am saying is that the US is responsible for some blame, and so is the USSR/Russia. I am saying we need measured caution coupled with sincere intentions. I am the moderately conservative common sense voice here. You are the hate america first neo-leftist.
Ayn Rand indeed...
Edit: Have you read anything on post 1945 Soviet history... ever?
Post by
Skyfire
Someone disagree with me.
K.
True. This doesn't have to be a federal government though. Instead, let local governments that we can control against beurocratic expansion, control policy. I think I addressed this in my earlier blueprint for government overhaul, which you broadly ignored.
So you would call for the same type of government (or worse!) that could be found in the South during the Civil War or during the time after the Articles of Confederation but before the Constitution? You know how those two governments did then. Or rather, how they didn't.
Nothing
would get done, and there's proof in the history. Federacy works. Or monarchy, if that's your thing (I'm personally of the feeling that a benevolent dictatorship is the most effective type of government, but that's just my opinion).
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
We are talking about the history of latin american communistic influences, not 5 minutes ago. We are also talking about the US pulling out of the UN hypothetically, which would create another cold war. This has nothing to do with the last 8 years.
You keep repeating that I have my blinders on and am only willing to see this capitalistic vs communistic mentality.... for the sake of repeating myself... I am a fan of looking past doom and gloom at constructive solutions, outside of my 'fortress of duality' that you describe, but I'm not willing to do it stupidly. You propose that everything is the US fortresses' fault, and that we should drop our walls, drop out of the UN, and accept our enemy's instruction. We might as well draw targets on our foreheads. You see everything without the US as this rosy fascade and say that it is just ME seeing everything as terrible. What I am saying is that the US is responsible for some blame, and so is the USSR/Russia. I am saying we need measured caution coupled with sincere intentions.So... I'm expecting you'll post something that kind of agrees with what I said, AGAIN, and again I'll try to explain that I'm not all hate. Instead of trying to paint me as the person with blinders on because of my ideas, try addressing my ideas themselves. Tell me why Russia and China wouldn't overpower the UN if the US pulled out. Don't tell me that everyone would band together against them, because it wouldn't happen like that.
Perhaps you'd just like to attack me personally some more. Call me a looney ultra conservative living in the past out of nuclear fear.... or something silly like that. My and my crazy ideas that maybe the US isn't bad, which you agreed with in your posts, but since they are coming from me they have to be crazy. You know, I'm getting tired of running in circles. I'm going to have to wrap this up briefly here. Expect one or two more posts from me, and then I'm done. Allow me to summarize my views in easy to read points below. I suggest you stick to addressing those. Also, bring an arguement that isn't full of dreamy ideas like "The idea of America makes us great", but actual common sense arguements:
1) USSR involvement in Latin America was the main cause of initial strife between the US and Latin America.
2) The UN would have a stronger anti-US shift if the US were to pull out of the UN. This may not lead to WW3, but would at least cause a more polorized political world.
3) A weaker federal government and stronger local government would lead to greater hands on control of the voting population.
Post by
MyTie
So you would call for the same type of government (or worse!) that could be found in the South during the Civil War or during the time after the Articles of Confederation but before the Constitution? You know how those two governments did then. Or rather, how they didn't.
Nothing
would get done, and there's proof in the history. Federacy works. Or monarchy, if that's your thing (I'm personally of the feeling that a benevolent dictatorship is the most effective type of government, but that's just my opinion).
Pretty flimsy. I can't tell if it is sarcasm or not. I'll treat it as if you were being serious:
If you want to pick out one example of one government that utilized similar ideals to what I would suggest we use, and blame that government's collapse on my ideals, while at the same time ignoring the civil war that was going on, then you might benefit from a government class. I can think of an example where local government succeeded... early Rome flourished under local run government, and fell when a gigantic federal government was running things. ZOMG 'proof in history'. You can't cite a broad historical era to one specific ideal to give credit or discredit to that ideal. If you want to attack the idea of local run governments, the best way to argue against it is to utilize historical data from one or more era AND financial theory, social theory, and political theory.
Wrong:
Communism will never work because the USSR failed.
Correct:
Communism will never work on a broad scale because of the lack of accountability inherint in great masses of people, as well as the lack of ability to compete with raw capitalism, and the likelihood of a state run government becoming corrupt. This has been made evident many times in history, most notibly in the USSR.
Edit: Sorry for massive double posting, but I was addressing two people.
Post by
Skyfire
Did you mean to ignore the Articles of Confederacy?
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
1) The US wasn't perfect, no. But saying that it was our response more than thier influence is rediculous. What could we have done better? What should the USSR have done differently? Answer those, instead of just pointing your finger.
2) Polarization - This is true, it is there. Even if every single country disagreed with us, that wouldn't make us wrong. I also disagree with this 'voteing' and 'international law' that we keep bringing up. Everyone is very eagar to say how the US shouldn't meddle with others, but regulating the US is perfectly acceptible.
3) I wasn't baiting you. I was including this because it was one of my main points I brought up earlier. This was more directed at Skyfire, though your welcome to discuss it if you like.
Concerning patriotism: It is low because the media really does a good job of pounding on about how terrible we are doing whenever a republican is in power. We need a democrat to be doing 'good'. Personally, democrat or republican, I don't care. The patriotic 'measure' that you are using, as well as predicting the fall of China, is all arbitrary and riddled with opinions, faults, and biases.
How do you feel about the US? If you are a citizen, do you feel patriotic? Why or why not?
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sagramor
Now, I'm not from the United States, so I won't argue over patriotism.
Communism isn't a failing governmental system. The USSR didn't fall because it was communist, the USSR fell because they lost the polarity war. And with the USSR(the main source of supplies for other communist countries)gone, their allies soon or turned to capitalism, or fell into misery. Now, Cuba and China are different. Cuba because, they're well, geniuses I must say. "Alone" in the world, with basically every country embargoing them, they still managed to survive well and stand by their beliefs. And China because it isn't completely communist. They've opened themselves up to many characteristics of capitalism, and, because of that, were able to keep trades with all other countries. Now, China won't collapse within itself, much to the contrary; sure, the rural population lives in misery, but that doesn't change the fact that the country is the largest and fastest growing nation in the world. It has the largest army and it's on the way to improve that army, thus making China the biggest threat to, first, Russia and Japan in Asia, and then the US when fighting over the position of "leader" of the world. Sometime ago I read an article, don't remember where, it was called: The Reign of the Risings. It basically said that, in the coming decades, the growing third world countries, like China, Brazil, India and such will find their place in the top 5 economies in the world. There was a prediction and they made some graphics showing that in 2030-2050 the sovereignty of the world will look something like this: First: China, Second: India, Third: The US, Fourth: Brazil, Fifth: Germany. Of course, that was before the economical crisis so the place of the US might go even lower.
"The Red Dragon awakens!"
- Klaus Heissler, American Dad!
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
1) I agree with you over and over on this one. It is dead. I just want you to acknowledge the reality of the Soviet offenses in Latin America. Since we are not going to agree on Red vs Blue, let's leave it alone.
2) No. I am just saying that we do need to leave other countries alone, but at the same time protect from foreign laws disguised as 'international law'.
Ok
: laws against crimes against humanity.
Not ok
:
Regulatory laws
on our waterways.
3) The control of issues by the Federal Government is authorized directly by the Constitution. I love how unspecific you are with that word 'issues'. Let's look at
this
for a moment. Now let's take 'healthcare', for example. Where, pray tell, is the authority to pass laws on that?
4) Your analysis of China is that it will collapse. I say that you cannot see into the future. You want my references for this? I don't have any. However, if you do have some crazy time scope into the world of tommorrow, send me some lottery numbers please.
5) Odd that you should reference Franklin, who is known for his value in small government, and frugal spending. If he were to tell you his views today you would label him as a radical conservative. Personally, I found his views not conservative enough, and his religion a little to calvinistic for my liking. I usually look to Thomas Jefferson.
@Sagramor - What are living conditions like in any Communist state? Also the USSR died because of Gorbechov's social liberal policies. Once people had the freedom of speech, the iron hold on them died. The break up was unavoidable. Which begs to reason: Is a stifleing of social liberties needed for complete control of economic liberties to be gained?
Post by
Sagramor
@Sagramor - What are living conditions like in any Communist state? Also the USSR died because of Gorbechov's social liberal policies. Once people had the freedom of speech, the iron hold on them died. The break up was unavoidable. Which begs to reason: Is a stifleing of social liberties needed for complete control of economic liberties to be gained?
In Cuba, for instance, everyone has access to food, to water, to education, to basically everything. Now, those things may not be the best, but that's because Cuba is communist, but because of the embargo.
Now, as for the Gorbechov deal, I don't know enough in that area to discuss it with you yet, but maybe when I get a bit older ^^.
Post by
MyTie
In Cuba, for instance, everyone has access to food, to water, to education, to basically everything. Now, those things may not be the best, but that's because Cuba is communist, but because of the embargo.
Now, as for the Gorbechov deal, I don't know enough in that area to discuss it with you yet, but maybe when I get a bit older ^^.
From the horse's mouth.
Interesting that he distinguishes between those living an inhospitible life of poverty, and those who have money coming in from... guess where... the US.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.