Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
How would it be nationalist?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
How do you mean?
|
I mean that Canada is hardly the land of respect for ideas if certain ideas aren't tolerated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
"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.
|
That's not quite how I meant it. I mean that there's a difference between calling someone's ideas "un-American/Canadian/etc." and saying that person isn't even a citizen of that country.
One thing I think is worth mentioning: for every person I've seen accused of being "un-American" I've seen someone on the other side of the political spectrum accused of being a "fascist". I guess it goes both ways.
Anyway; I agree that there are better ways to debate issues than with name-calling.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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).
|
I think you may be missing the point. Here is how that part of the conversation played out:
Me:
"Anyway; I think non-interventionism is the right way to go (and isn't the same thing as isolationism or nationalism). Thomas Jefferson had the right idea when he said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Our role as the world's policeman hasn't done much for Americans except cost us lives and money."
You:
"This would be the wrong way to go, considering the United States has been mucking up existing alliances already. They've also been pushing the definitions of "intervention" and "self-defense" into political and philosophical grey areas for years. Would an example of your "non-interventionism" include a "go it alone" strategy into Iran?"
Me:
"I'm not convinced that it's necessary to invade or otherwise attack Iran at this point. But if it became necessary from the standpoint of self defense, I'd "go it alone" if we had to. If our choices were to fight alone or do nothing while being attacked, it would be foolish to do nothing."
You:
"Just like how Iraq was going to attack?"
Me:
"No. More like how Japan did attack on December 7th, 1941."
You used an extreme example. I responded with one of my own. I'm well aware that war often isn't as clear-cut as the attack on Pearl Harbor, nor is it always as screwed up and possibly corrupt as the war in Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Although it is a sign of sovereignty, a blatant disregard of international opinion, especially when its nearly unanimous, is a dangerous thing.
|
Agreed. Though I would point out that being "dangerous" isn't necessarily the same thing as being "wrong".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Agreed...with a "but". Just because something is unpopular for political reasons doesn't mean it's wrong. And it would hard to make the argument on moral grounds since not all people go by the same code of ethics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
It would only be multilateral after the other nations of the world were made aware of the situation, all its details, and were able to make a decision on it. Anything Finland did before that - and I'm fairly certain they would be preparing/mobilizing/responding - would be very unilateral.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Pre-emptive strikes are risky, period. Unilateral or not. There's always the possibility that you're wrong. Having allies just means you dragged others into your mistake.
I'd also like to mention multilateral agreements to do nothing in the face of danger are also risky, as with the attempts to appease Hitler before WWII. I believe that sometimes action is necessary, even if you have to "go it alone" (as was the case with Hitler). Other times action is wrong, even if you have allies (as was the case with Iraq).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This wasn't exclusively attributed to nations. Militant groups, as we know, pose as threats to varying degrees.
|
Nor was attributed to entities that "fit this criteria in some capacity", as you stated. It applies to entities that fit both criteria, period.