Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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?
|
I guess here is where we differ. I don't think you have to be an American to support something that might be labelled "un-American" any more than you have to be American to promote something considered "pro-American". And the same goes for other countries. I'm not Canadian, for example, but I can think of some political policies that I would consider harmful to Canada's national interests - or "un-Canadian" if you will - regardless of who is championing them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Then I guess it wasn't very accurate when you said, "
...because in Canada, we respect the concept of the idea, even if the ideas are bad. This is the process by which we determine what is a good idea and what is bad. It's not only called a discussion, or a debate, it's also considered a healthy environment by which they can be exercised."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Wrong. Calling someone "un-Canadian" doesn't mean they aren't a member of the nation. That would be "non-Canadian".
Now that that's cleared up, please explain why accusing someone of opposing the interests of his or her nation is okay (or less bad, at least), but referring to someone with a term used to describe one who opposes the interests of his or her nation is bad.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
An attack on America probably wouldn't come in the form of fighter jet superiority or an actual invading army...for now. Who knows what things will be like in the future? And I think that an attack in any form can result in the potential for unilateralism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Disregarding the opinions of other nations isn't necessarily wrong. I don't think America should thumb its nose at other nations just for the sake of doing it, but we shouldn't refuse to "go it alone" if it becomes necessary to do so. I think this is a sign of sovereignty, not nationalism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
If Finland was the first to learn of the invasion (maybe even finding out ahead of time by using spies), they would certainly begin preparing to defend itself rather than waiting for the thumbs-up from other nations. That doesn't mean that the situation wouldn't become multilateral - perhaps very quickly - but the potential for unilateral action would be present. And there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
And, if it helps, think of the attack by Russia against Finland as something other than a marching army. It could be an attack with fighter jets. It could be a nuclear submarine. Or anything that would give the Finns less time to prepare/react.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
I'm not a huge fan of pre-emptive strikes, either. But, in fairness, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of using them in certain situations. And keep in mind that my position on unilateralism has never been that it's always right, but just that it's not always wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You've further revealed its quaintness. Do you realize how many entities fit this criteria in some capacity?
|
How many entities fit truly fit this criteria in BOTH capacities? I can't think of too many nations that want to attack us AND are capable of posing a real threat at this point in time.