Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't agree.
|
Are you referring to the native populations? If so, they're basically gone now. Otherwise, we were only under a monarchy for a short time and it's been 100% republic since then. We're not tribal at all, we do not have a tribal society in any way, shape or form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In your view what is the progression? what comes before and after "tribalism"?
|
Nothing really comes before tribalism, we've been tribal in one way or another for a good 100,000 years. After that came agrarian monarchism, then imperialism, then industrialism. Republics popped up along the way, but really only became wide-spread recently, within the past few hundred years. Anyway, for Iran the eventual move is probably going to be from Islamic tribalism to secularization and democracy via revolution. The US is actually the interesting one because at this point it could go any number of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In one of my previous posts I make it clear that I am deferring to Obama as our "top dog". I accept that he is in charge. I accept that he is President. I accept that he is what "we", as Americans want. Problems get created when people do not accept these things. Even Hilary Clinton has accepted this "order", after the primaries and even now she could be acting in a manner in defiance of that order and causing chaos. She is not, she accepted her role, she accepted Obama's role. By the way Hilary Clinton is not what i have been told is an "intellectual", I don't agree with her on many issues - but I clearly understand her.
|
I suspect you're comforted by the concept of a top-dog. Am I correct in this assumption? Do you feel that a more parliamentary-style of rule would make you less comfortable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Europe is a collection of nations, and on many issues they don't even agree with each other. Leadership by committee is not leadership. The "buck" has to stop somewhere. On virtually all world issues, it stops with the US.
|
Oh, that kinda answers my questions. Still, Europe often acts as a whole, each country acting as a state. It's served them fairly well in recent history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
It will never happen.
|
Comon, think bigger. There's no way in hell population restrictions will ever work which means eventually, even if we go through several collapses, we will reach a peak production of resources on the planet and will have to expand. Do you really think petty disputes between countries on earth will matter when we've colonized the solar system? Of course not. Eventually the planet will likely operate the way Europe does now. They will remain sovereign, but collectively will have governmental systems in place to deal with global or even multi-global issues. On these issues, there will need to be a consensus in order to get something done, and the odds are this will be done democratically.
Admittedly, this is getting really far off the track of the thread topic. If you want to continue this line, I'd be glad to make a thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Is this some kind of an oxymoron? The inspection program is a success because they successfully inspected the knowns to be inspected. Or the inspection program is successful until it fails or is proven to have failed.
|
Scott Ritter correctly determined that we would not find any WMDs in Iraq because he did the inspecting himself. How could you not characterize that as a success on his part? He went in there himself and did his job, and the results he returned with were verified later. Had he and other inspectors like him not been ignored, the US would have about $686b more and the lives of some 4,262 brave soldiers would have been spared, not to mention countless Iraqi citizens (as the rate at which Iraqi citizens died since 2001 dwarfs the rates at which Saddam was having people killed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What is Obama's ideology? Your Ideology is clear. Obama has taken positions consistent with your ideology and in direct contradiction to your ideology and on some issues it appears that he takes both sides. For example he is against "torture", but supports a document that would allow it. He thinks torture is criminal, but he doesn't support the prosecution of those he thinks violated the law. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
|
His ideology is one of moderate progressivism, generally speaking. He knows torture is wrong, but is anxious to compromise with hard-liners. In fact, I'd say a better description of his ideology would be the that of compromised progressivism. Still, he's not a conservative. You're a conservative. I'm a progressive. Imagine I were elected, but every decision I made was done bearing in mind that I have to earn your vote. It'd be a mess of contradictions and half-measures, right?