Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
In the context of our earlier conversations, I was referring to Americans who call others un-American. Even so, as a Canadian, my calling an American un-American would be nationalistic of me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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."
|
How do you mean?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
"Un-Canadian" and "non-Canadian" mean the same thing. In either case, it means "not Canadian." So since that is cleared up, there is little need for an explanation other than that I believe there are better ways of conversing with others you disagree with. To oppose the status quo within society should not inspire someone to suggest you are not a part of that society.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
You're missing the point. This example was meant to illustrate that your idea of "war" seemed dated (i.e. you have yet to convince me otherwise).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
Although it is a sign of sovereignty, a blatant disregard of international opinion, especially when its nearly unanimous, is a dangerous thing. When millions (or billions) disagree with you, there is often good reason--usually moral and/or political. To go it alone and think it necessary isn't necessarily nationalistic, but to do so when it is evident that the intentions are selfish or immoral is another story.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
In this case, Finland defending itself would not be a unilateral decision, it would be multilateral. This is because many others would expect it and even support it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
Don't worry, I never assumed that about you. However, the problem with pre-emptive strikes is that they can easily be carried out under questionable circumstances. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of pre-emptiven strategies either, but unilateral pre-emptive strikes are dangerous in a number of ways.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
How many entities 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.
|
This wasn't exclusively attributed to nations. Militant groups, as we know, pose as threats to varying degrees.