Starfleet Jedi

I don't think, that my questions belong in a thread concerning the bailout in the current financial crisis.

That's why I have started a new thread concerning the American "diplomacy" and "foreign politic".

2046 wrote:

• Such is the danger of democracy, but democracy is still a superior goal.

Why?

Why is it the superior goal for all peoples and ethnic groups, regardless their history and culture?

And if democracy is indeed the superior form of government, shouldn't those, who are supposed to live in a democratic nations, aren't be those, who choose, if they are wanting democracy? Is it democratic to foist democracy on other nations? Is maybe the toleration of an autocrat not also a democracy decision? If peoples are really wanting another government, wouldn't they fight for it?

2046 wrote:

• Nuclear power is not a right of any nation.

Why not?

If in the law of nations all nations are having equal rights, why is it not the right of each nation to have, what other nations have - as long as they have not contracted themselves to not have it? And even if they have contracted themselves to not have it, aren't they allowed to abrogate such a contract?

2046 wrote:

• The Star Trekkish naivete and doe-eyed ignorance inherent in such thinking has a certain nobility, after a fashion, but is based largely on a cultivated ignorance of how things work. It is childish emotionalism in the place of reason, the hope that everyone shares your worldview and will behave like totally rational actors . . . which seldom happens.

And surly you can show us, that the American way of international "diplomatics" works?

Is the world a better and more secured place for all - or even for the USA?

Are there more or less people, who are hating the USA?

Are there more or less terrorists?

Are there more or less victims, among American citizens and citizens of the nations, that were attacked by the USA?

Please explain it to me: What exactly has become better or why shall I assume, that anything will become better in the long run?

I explicitly stated that I did not have time to engage in the topic when I posted the quickie you reply to, and thus you open up a whole new thread challenging me?

Ass.

Here's a five-minute-or-less reply:

1. You think freedom and self-determination are "American delusions"?

I do not think racial or cultural considerations are relevant in regards to democracy, as you do. It is possible to move too quickly to it in the case of a brainwashed unfree society, but still.

2. I don't even know what the concept of national rights means. Sounds like "states' rights", the rallying cry of modern-day Confederate States of America apologists.

The rights rest with the people. There are no technological rights that I am aware of.

Technological wants exist, and in some cases these could even be needs. But especially for rogue nations, you can't claim that their desire is a right for nuclear power, any moreso than you can claim that their desire for nuclear weapons is a right.

3. People love to claim that America is now shunned by the international community, but it just isn't so. If anything, the major democracies of Europe have moved more toward us. Merkel, Sarkozy, and so on are more right-wing and pro-American . . . and hence, to some commentators, more evil . . . than those they replaced. But such facts are dismissed.

Not sure about Tony Blair's replacement . . . he's about the same as Tony, as far as I know. But Tony was an odd case anyway.

Okay, here we extend past five, dammit. (I hate you.):

The United States is more secure. There have been no attacks. Is the world more secure? No. Russia's ascendant and threatening her neighbors, thanks in part to high oil revenues which were themselves contributed to by American environmentalism slowing domestic production (for prices fell 10% when we threatened to drill (executive ban removal)), there are assholes that could be taken care of were it not for internal resistance, the economic policies of the American left have helped produce a worldwide problem, et cetera.

As for people who hate the United States, they are irrational and can kiss my ass. There are valid criticisms of the US that can be made, but once you go into bonkers-hatred territory you're just too wrong-headed to worry about.

I do not have a terrorist census. But what I can say is that there seem to be fewer attacks worldwide right now than there have been.

"Victims attacked by the USA"? What are you talking about?

A question for you . . . do you really think it's okay for Iran and North Korea to have the bomb?

2046 wrote:People love to claim that America is now shunned by the international community, but it just isn't so. If anything, the major democracies of Europe have moved more toward us. Merkel, Sarkozy, and so on are more right-wing and pro-American . . . and hence, to some commentators, more evil . . . than those they replaced. But such facts are dismissed.

Sarkozy is shunned by many French as well. Do you know that him and his pals had a bill to allow loans' interest to become as variable as they were in the US? Fortunately, the bubble burst before this became a law!
I won't hammer the point on the increase of police regulation, the attempt to pass laws which would make standard and rather trivial the invasion of your own private sphere up to the point of listing your illnesses, who your friends are and what your sexual preferences are.
Courts are closing, schools are being reworked to favour elites and many teachers are fired. Hospitals get choked, more taxes are put in place, while the richest stratas are legally protected by measures relieving them from paying as much as the middle class and lower class, the industries hardly get the tax lifts which were promised to boost the economy and increase the interests of funders, and Sarkozy certainly does his best to help his millionaire pals to earn more money, notably through several golden parachutes (while they were a prime target of his campaign), but that's a load of details I won't get into.
Last but not least, his government has been cranking up the military advertising for further recruitment, featuring video game cute faces leading squads and using state of the art tech, convincing more people than joining the army is fucking cool, yet people don't know that the soldiers sent in Afghanistan barely have access to three helicopters as a whole, no satellite support and limited ammo (!) in certain cases, which pisses off a couple of generals who can't understand why soldiers are sent to fight in a country where they are not given the means to win, and are not allowed to attack strategic assets which would both directly and indirectly weaken the enemy, both on the short and long term.
Basically, the point is that there's certainly no example to make by saying that France is going pro-American, because Sarkozy is probably the worst thing France ever had as far as the Fifth Republic is concerned.

Not sure about Tony Blair's replacement . . . he's about the same as Tony, as far as I know. But Tony was an odd case anyway.

Brown has done much shit.
I notably love how he sold gold reserves at a bargain.
A most typical move in favor of the central banks.

I do not have a terrorist census. But what I can say is that there seem to be fewer attacks worldwide right now than there have been.

The question is, what cases are you comparing?
Africa still has its regular load of conflicts. The typical conflicts which more than often involved, in a way or another, the secret agencies of occidental countries, or countries such as Israel, are pretty much happening right now. No wonder why there aren't new ones on the rise, although Israel is clearly doing its best to push the US and its allies to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
What the hell do you think Iran will do, even if they have nukes?
Wage a war? For what purpose, what's the interest? the people at the top of the hierarchy have too much power and money to loose by waging a war.
They'd rather let their country fall into a civil war than start slinging their nukes onto other countries.