powerclown

In America, nothing is irreversible. We're talking about a place where Arnold Schwarzenegger can become governor of California.

Willravel

Case in point: Twenty Second Amendment

Walking Shadow

Bwahuh??!!

What does a white girl being kidnapped at Disney World have to do with the rest of your incoherent post, let alone with Shrub declaring martial law over the entire country?

But to tease out the only part of your post that I can even vaguely comprehend, no it isn't possible in this day and age of 24 hour news networks for Shrub and his cronies to establish a short term dictatorship without ANY media personnel noticing and not reporting it.

Wouldn't happen.

Even FAUXNews would report it, even if they were just gloating about it.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a limited or short term dictatorship, the very idea of a dictatorship is that it lasts a long, long, long time.

pan6467

Here is the full "law" signed by ...... well.... what ever you want to call him, I personally after this refuse to call him my President.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

...anyone disagree that that this is now a possibility....unless this "presidential directive" is successfully challenged?

Sen. Leahy is.....at least...... trying to roll back <a href="http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_145124155.html">"birdshit cuff's"</a> new "authority", described in this thread's post #2:
Vietnam, Watergate, and the 9/11 attacks are beginning to seem trivial, compared to this lonnnnnggggggg thug infestation, in the executive branch, and in the congressional minority.......

Telluride

America has been on the slow-but-sure path to socialist dictatorship for quite some time. Might as well make it official, assuming this is actually true.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Baraka_Guru

After contemplating this for a while, it seems to me that America isn't ready for the new millennium. Is this progressing into a new kind of isolationism? Is globalization to America what the barbarians were to Rome?

Nationalism is dead. America is looking a little old-fashioned these days. It's amazing what is up for debate there... many of which would be scandalous in places like Canada.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Telluride

I don't think that nationalism is dead, nor would I consider America to be nationalist. Although I do think that ethnic/racial politics are becoming more common than nationalism.

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.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Baraka_Guru

The fact that there is such a term as "Un-American" and that it is well known, even outside of America, suggests to me that America has at least a nationalist leaning. This could, of course, be an understatement.

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Telluride

And it could, of course, be an overstatement. One could refer to something as "un-Christian" without being a Bible-thumping theocrat. I've done it, and I'm not even a Christian much less an evangelical, extremist Christian.

I'd say it's more like "friendships", for lack of a better term, than alliances. And we probably wouldn't be screwing up so many of these "friendships" if we minded our own business more often.

I agree that such a policy would have to be based on rational, objective definitions of terms like "intervention" and "self defense". But I think this can be done.

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.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Baraka_Guru

I don't think I've actually heard the term "un-Christian" before. "Un-American," on the other hand, seems to have entered common parlance in the American media. And sure enough, Google searches will turn up hundreds of thousands more hits of the latter term than they will the former. Moreover, I can't think of another country off the top of my head where they have a similar use of such a term. (i.e. "un-Canadian," "un-British," "un-French" (non-Francaise?), "un-Iraqi," you get the point.)

While I agree that it could be an overstatement, I doubt it's the case. I would be a bit surprised to find someone I know who would disagree with me if I told them that I think America is a nationalist country.

Just like how Iraq was going to attack?

Of course it's only natural to fight while being attacked, but this pre-emptive, with-you-or-without-you, with-us-or-against-us mode of handling things smacks of nationalism.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Telluride

I don't know how long that term has been around or who invented it, but searching for "unchristian" on Google gave me about 346,000 hits.

When someone is accused of being "un-American" it's usually because the accuser believes the accused is acting against American interests or values. I'm pretty sure that such a concept exists in some other countries, even if it doesn't go by the name of "un-[insert name of country here]".

If true, that could say as much (or more) about the political views of the people you know as it does about the current political climate in America.

No. More like how Japan did attack on December 7th, 1941.

It's more like unilateralism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't synonymous with nationalism. If somebody is attacking a nation or making credible threats to attack, it's silly to expect that nation to wait until others give the thumbs up before it defends itself.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Baraka_Guru

Yes, but "un-American" is much more prevalent. "Un-Christian" is, perhaps, related to "un-American" in that it seems to make the assumption that the object of it is at fault if they do not act within the boundaries of the characteristics of the identity concerned. For example, to call one "un-Christian" assumes that things would be made right if this person would only act Christian. The same goes for one who is being "un-American." Again, this smacks of nationalism, and, in the case of "un-Christian," zealotry.

I'm sure it does. But in many cases, there isn't a direct comparison. For example, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to get away with calling a Canadian "un-Canadian." There are several reasons for this: first, there are more than one "Canadas." Second, it is fair game to express your ideas whether they be from the left or the right, from national to international interests. At worst, one might be accused of "not thinking in the best interests of Canadians." This is a far cry from being labelled "un-Canadian" 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.

Yes, what it tells me is that I know some observant people, open to understanding what is happening and willing to discuss it.

This would be an acceptable answer except that such a scenario is unlikely. The way wars are waged changed permanently after August 6, 1945.

This is an oversimplification. For starters, unilateralism and nationalism easily go hand in hand, just as fascism and collectivism do. Neither of these pairs are considered synonymous, but they do work well together. They are enabling, as it were. I call your argument an oversimplification because it assumes a traditional view of being attacked. For example, there would be no need for unilateralism if Russian soldiers marched an invasion into Finland. I'm certain Finland wouldn't have to go it alone.

Also, you use an all-too-quaint word: credible. You will need to expand on this before we can continue.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

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.

That's one possibility.

No country ever attacks another?

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.

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 immediatly mobilize its troops and defend itself would be a unilateral one.

A credible threat is one from an entity that is able and, as far as we know, willing to commit an attack.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

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?

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.)


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.

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.

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.

You've further revealed its quaintness. Do you realize how many entities fit this criteria in some capacity?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

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 do you mean?


"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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

This wasn't exclusively attributed to nations. Militant groups, as we know, pose as threats to varying degrees.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Telluride

How would it be nationalist?

I mean that Canada is hardly the land of respect for ideas if certain ideas aren't tolerated.

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.

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.

Agreed. Though I would point out that being "dangerous" isn't necessarily the same thing as being "wrong".

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.

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.

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).

Nor was attributed to entities that "fit this criteria in some capacity", as you stated. It applies to entities that fit both criteria, period.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

mr_alleycat

Actually it was Nixon that started the ball rolling, and every pres since has add another brick or two.