Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
It can be a sign of nationalism to call someone un-American, but it isn't necessarily so. [...] If the concept exists, then it seems that there's a direct comparison. [...] It's fair game to express your ideas in America, too. Sometimes it results in being called names, though (un-American, racist, socialist, xenophobe, homophobe, anti-semite, Zionist, selfish, etc.). I have a hard time believing that this never, ever happens in Canada. [...] I don't see much difference between calling someone "un-Canadian" because their views allegedly aren't in the best interests of Canadians and simply saying their views aren't in the best interests of Canadians. If they mean the same thing, then it's nothing but semantics.
|
Calling someone un-American is inherently nationalistic. What else could it be? Assuming that you may only call one who is an American un-American, such an act uses the very idea of nation as its basis of attack. It suggests that you aren't of and/or for the nation. What else can it mean?
And in reference to the expression of ideas, I was referring to it being done in the media or in the political arena. So if you consider those, then racist, xenophobic, and homophobic ideas aren't tolerated very well, especially in Canada. And there is a difference between calling a Canadian un-Canadian and accusing the same Canadian of not acting in the best interests of Canadians. The latter argues that there is a need for a change of perspective or action, and the former fallaciously claims that you aren't a member of the nation. And I would refrain from bringing up semantics unless you know something about it. (Your idea that something can be "nothing but semantics" sounds unintentionally ironic.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
No country ever attacks another?
|
I didn't write that countries didn't attack one another, I wrote that the way wars are waged has changed. An attack on America wouldn't likely come in the form of F-16 air superiority. The example you used of Japan's conventional attack is too dated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
Just because things supposedly "work well together" doesn't mean that one will necessarily lead to the other. Taking a unilateral approach to a specific problem, in and of itself, doesn't automatically result in nationalism any more than public education, in and of itself, automatically results in fascism.
|
No, it doesn't automatically result in nationalism, but political unilateral approaches often disregard the opinion of others--as in those outside of the nation. In these cases, it is based on nationalism. By enabling, I mean that a strongly nationalistic society will find a mode such as unilateralism appealing, if not essential to carrying out their aims. You used a poor comparison here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
If the Russians marched into Finland, the Finns would be acting UNILATERALLY if they immediately began defending themselves without first asking for approval from the global community. That doesn't mean that other nations wouldn't offer to help, but a decision by Finland to immediately mobilize its troops and defend itself would be a unilateral one.
|
Actually, no, they would be acting multilaterally because Finland's allies would be of the opinion that it would need to defend itself from the Russian threat. A marching army doesn't come out of nowhere; there would be enough advance notice that the global community would be aware of a Russian mobilization. Finland's allies would offer all reasonable support in the matter. That's how conventional warfare works, but warfare isn't so conventional anymore. This is why such a traditional view of being attacked is an oversimplification of the issue at hand. Consider the concept of pre-emptive invasions. Unilateralism is justified as a way to carry out such an invasion in response to a perceived threat in the form of a deadly (and possibly unconventional) attack. Even when no standing armies are mobilizing, the pre-emptive strike is considered. It is a complex issue, especially if you consider Afghanistan and Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
A credible threat is one from an entity that is able and, as far as we know, willing to commit an attack.
|
You've further revealed its quaintness. Do you realize how many entities fit this criteria in some capacity?