Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Ethnic cleansing in Croatia.

Not dismissed, I heard them. I simply supported Bush and how he was handling the situation at the time. In addition he was re-elected based on "staying the course".

I am not an industry insider, if I am wrong, I am willing to change my view.

 

Wow. That is a massive white wash of history right there. I hope you have enough paint.

 

I believe in treaties and various agreements like trade agreements. These are more like contracts rather than law. Otherwise there is no authority to enforce international law without the threat of military force behind it.

You boarder on calling most human history as it has been recorded a farce. In my view the singlular purposes of recording history is embedded in the concept of "exceptionalism".

In America you can live for five seconds without someone putting some emphasis on exeptioanlism. It is so much a part of our culture that you can not escape it. Being in NC, a basketball state, people are divided between Duke and UNC, some people who can not even spell Duke take vicarious pride in being the most exceptional Duke Blue Devil supporter - when babies are born the colors are not pink or blue - they are North Carolina Blue!



It is all about exceptionalism, baby!
--- merged: Nov 29, 2012 at 6:21 PM ---

Don't be a tease, elaborate.

 

ace--i dont respond to your attempts to call me out because i don't respect the way you operate.

in a political argument, typically there are two basic components: political framework (usually an analytic frame) and information about the actually existing world. actual claims are typically the latter processed through the former. so debate can happen at three levels, but the basic stuff happens either about the information you bring or the frame you use to work with it.

you appear to neither know nor care much about the actually-existing historical world. so there's no reason to attempt to argue your points on the basis of data because you don't have command of much in that regard----and you are rarely consistent in your arguments when you do muster some infotainment from investor's business daily or wall st journal editorial pages. for example, your claim that there is no american empire is simply laughable. it's based on a ridiculous notion of colonialism shaped by the world as it was before 1960. it's yet another arbitary assertion. it would be relatively simple to demonstrate the myriad reasons the assertion is laughable, but, because i don't respect the way you operate, there's no point.

your conceptual approach is entirely rooted in rudimentary micro-economics. you can't elaborate the basis for the positions, and certainly can't defend them---all you do is try to apply them to situations that typically you make up and then move on to another one when the first is no longer tenable. so there's no argument to be had about the framework you bring into play because you can't defend it. you operate as a Believer. that leaves you no choice but to repeat the things you believe. it's like trying to argue with a fundamentalist baptist about the problems with a literal interpretation of the english bible. you seem mostly interested in rotating through articles of faith.

because there's this problem of how you operate, there are only two choices in interaction: either folk accept your goofy premises and try to show on their own grounds the problems that you create for yourself---baraka has chosen that route in thread after thread. dux has done so as well. i got tired of it long ago. the other is to stay outside that game and make statements that seek to undermine your position entirely, to go after the position you speak from as a whole. i tried that for a while. the problem with it is simply that the tone gets misconstrued. and it's not interesting to me.

i enjoy political debate. but this isn't debate. this is a waste of time.

 

The USA played its role as part of NATO. The conflict was complex and mistakes were made, but it may qualify. Any examples that are specifically American as you are claiming these things on the part of the USA?

Situation? What "situation"?

 

And this is related to the topic? If you are in the academic world I can appreciate the natural inclination to grade me, but this is not an academic institution, I am not looking for a grade, and this is not an academic peer review forum. Do you think anyone cares about your critique of my style, approach, abilities or lack of abilities or do you think people are drawn to the topic being discussed?
--- merged: Nov 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM ---

You don't like my example? You asked for one, I gave one. Seems like the start of going around in circles until the focus on the original point is totally lost. Perhaps you can tell me what you think about America trying to dominate and coerce as opposed to taking stands for freedom and liberty.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. SH was not cooperating with inspectors. SH was violating UN resolutions. Bush stated SH was a threat. Bush said he was willing to use the military to remove the threat. Bush asked for military authority to take out the threat. Bush used the military to take out the threat. I supported Bush each step of the way. My only disagreement came with the "occupation" and the strategy used initially. Towards the end of the conflict I supported withdrawal of all military before Bush's timeline.

 

If this is the best you can do to highlight American exceptionalism it explains why America falls short in the categories that matter.

But I agree that Americans have an image of themselves as greater than other nationalities. In the absence of real exceptionalism, sports via the armchair fills the void.
--- merged: Nov 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM ---

So you had no problem with the deceptive claim used by his administration to get the support of Congress, the American people, and the rest of the Western world for invading Iraq? The claim that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks? The claim that swayed a good deal of the American public?

 

Sure. I think nations act in their own best interest. Always have and always will. Sometimes this works well for other nations as well, sometimes very badly. I don't buy that America simply takes stands for freedom and equality. I believe I am in the majority there. Sometimes, nations act in what they perceive as their best interest over the short-term but things come back and bite them in the ass. My nation has done that, as has yours.

In what way was Saddam a threat? To who? Why did the UN inspectors want to continue and why was it suddenly so urgent to invade? I think I know - and it has nothing to do with the rationale for the invasion that was paraded out.

 

Useful pawns on occasion.

 

Hey, dont you know it is part of the vast left wing "one world government" conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty!

 

I can do better.

I think it not possible for you to understand my point of view on this issue. To me a belief in exceptionalism is related the pride one would have for their uniqueness in the world. It is not a question of feeling superior. I would enjoy arguing TFP poster's exceptionalism in the context of what makes this community unique or special - if I did not feel this way about TFP why would I participate? I wouldn't, perhaps you would - and that is o.k.

How many times do i have to state that I do not believe there was deception on the part of the Bush administration?
--- merged: Dec 2, 2012 2:53 AM ---

Yes, I tend agree. But, a bi-lateral agreement does require force when both parties contribute equally. If party A agrees to do X and party B agrees to do Y in a true bi-lateral agreement - they both have the option of opting out without the threat of violence on the threat of the other party not doing what they agreed to do - however either party could eventually revert to violence. Most violent outcome have resulted from one party trying to impose conditions (unwillingly) on another. The best agreements are truly voluntary - like a marriage.
--- merged: Dec 2, 2012 2:59 AM ---

It is often in our best interest to take stands for freedom and equality. For example free people with the freedom of choice make good customers. Another example is somewhat philosophical - for example if your freedom is under threat, indirectly so is mine and I have an interest in protecting your freedom.

I agree. Occasionally good intentions are not enough.

He has a history that I will not try to recap here - ultimately it is a question of perception. If you did not perceive him as a threat, fine - I did.
--- merged: Dec 2, 2012 3:02 AM ---

I thought the UN resolutions were a joke, but the Bush administration intially wanted to work through the UN - it was a waste of time. I brought it up to illustrate that Bush went through a process and was on record both in the US with Congress and with the UN. Bush was clear that if SH did not comply with the UN resolutions, he was prepared to act. All this is documented history.
--- merged: Dec 2, 2012 3:05 AM ---

Not my view - but it is not clear how you perceive the role of the UN relative to US sovereignty. In my mind it is clear the UN and whatever they do is of no importance to what the US does or does not do. If anything the UN gives powerless countries the illusion of having some power. I am not big on illusion.
--- merged: Dec 2, 2012 3:09 AM ---

Why don't we address an argument actual on the table and an argument that will be supported by a poster. Why discuss positions not actually held by anyone here? Again, my argument is the UN servs no useful purpose and has no real independent power. If a US President violated a UN resolution or international law, what would the UN do? Nothing!

 

So let me get this straight. American exceptionalism is based on its uniqueness and the pride its citizens possess because of that uniquenes?
I can buy that America is unique. But so is England, China, Sweden, South Africa, India, Thailand, Japan, Brazil and every other nation on the face of the earth. So if all nations are unique in their own right and share a national pride, doesn't it follow that all nations harbor a feeling of exceptionalism? So why are we discussing American exceptionalism if exceptionalism itself is as common as rain?

How about stubborn ignorance, then.

So which is it, Ace. Freedom and equality or capitalist colonialism? You can't have it both ways.

It was a waste of time because Bush never had any intention of abiding by the investigative findings into WMD's. Hans Blix informed the Bush administration that Saddam had none, nada, zilch WMD's. Bush did one better than choosing to merely deny and ignore the report. He jerry-rigged his own evidence. Lo and behold, Hans Blix was correct. No WMD's. Bush used the UN resolution as justification to invade Iraq even though no proof existed that there was any violation. Sorry Ace, you don't get to rewrite history.

So which is the illusion? The fact that a majority of nations voted to give Palestine observer statehood or the fact that the US couldn't stop it?

 

please.

"american exceptionalism" is predicated on an ridiculous teleological fantasy loosely based on the history of the united states. no-one at this point takes it seriously except some backwater reactionaries who decide to channel their neo-fascist politics through this particular mythological trope. it's stupid and it always has been. are we seriously even discussing this? what's the fucking point?

 

America is exceptional in many ways...and certainly not in others.

It is no "better" than other countries in many ways...yet quite a bit "Better" in others.

All in all are we exceptional in the world? Probably not.

But, this is a pretty nice place to live.