Nationalism...how much is too much?

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

We are going to be instituting a MacArthurian Regency; and it shall likely work. I have explained the reasons why it work in Iraq before, and they still stand.

That it worked to a degree in Japan does not follow that it will work in Iraq, you cannot prove a negative.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is more likely then any other previously executed alternative and has shown the most promising results. Therefore it is the most likely to succeed option. You can't prove it, but it seems better then nominating some local general for rulership like we did in Latin America during the Cold War.

[Enlightenment]

Hell, the government subsidized "poems" by black racists that decreed the death of cops and Americans and mocking Christ

Sorry, but anti-heresy laws went out of style--even in the United States--quite some years ago. You can't have people silenced or locked up for mocking religious figures.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm impressed with your ability to ignore the verb in the quoted sentence. Fucking idiot. You quoted my sentence but edited it to suggest I thought punishment was earned by those who insulted Christ. I also said subsidize. I never, ever supported locking up people like that. I, however, do not feel that the American people should help front the bill for such horseshit. Don't misrepresent what I say again.

[Enlightenment]

Define "unAmerican."

Anything the American polity refuses to participate in. International cooperation, nation building, communism, social justice, and respect for the rule of law would all be good examples.

Define "you people."

Americans.

Explain how military governing ship is not actually denounced by the holier-then-thou "international community," and not American planners. The Soviets displayed why occupying Afghanistan was not wise, and we never invaded to begin with. The Taliban was a foriegn force dominating that country composed of Pakistani Islamic students. We crushed them for harboring Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda was ground to powder for good old national defense/retaliation. I mean damn, where's the American grudge for the Canadians retaliating against America by marching to DC and burning the White House for trying to invade their country in 1812?

Please stop frothing at the mouth and repost the above in English.

And it is prosperity. Lawlessness, yes, but that's better than outright war, which they previously "enjoyed". Their country is recovering, aide is pouring in, and the end result may yet be good, though I am concerned with the course we took there (Namely in regard to the King). However, in Afghanistan it was probably the best.

Prior to the disposal of the Taliban the only outright war in Afganistan was on the front with the Northern Alliance. Within Taliban-controlled areas the only problem was the Taliban; war was not an issue.

Aid is not pouring into Afghanistan. Pledges of aid did pour into Afganistan around the time of the Taliban's dismemberment but very, very little of the funds pledged have actually made it into the country. Virtually all of the major contributors (not just the US, it must be said) have been delinquent in converting their pledges of money into actual money.

The destruction of the Taliban did not lead to the creation of a unified Afghanistan overnight. It is not much of an understatement to say that the 'Afgan government' in Kabul has no power outside of the capital city. With the Taliban gone the country (with the exception of Kabul) has reverted almost entirely to tribal rule and all the abuses incorrectly associated with the Taliban--such as the imposition of sharia law--continue under local tribal direction. Very little of Afganistan's infrastructure has been rebuilt and the lot of the average Afghan outside of Kabul has hardly improved.

We are going to be instituting a MacArthurian Regency; and it shall likely work. I have explained the reasons why it work in Iraq before, and they still stand.

If you think 250,000 troops (taking the number of troops you think Shrubby has decided to use in the Iraqi conquest) is enough to occupy a hostile country and impose a regency, then you're smoking something strong enough that it's probably illegal.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Anything the American polity refuses to participate in. International cooperation, nation building, communism, social justice, and respect for the rule of law would all be good examples.

I see. Don't support the Kyoto Treaty and your reputation is shot to hell.

Please stop frothing at the mouth and repost the above in English.

Please learn some fucking debate honesty and misrepresenting my statements.

Prior to the disposal of the Taliban the only outright war in Afganistan was on the front with the Northern Alliance. Within Taliban-controlled areas the only problem was the Taliban; war was not an issue.

The civil war has not restarted. Thank you for proving our point.

If you think 250,000 troops (taking the number of troops you think Shrubby has decided to use in the Iraqi conquest) is enough to occupy a hostile country and impose a regency, then you're smoking something strong enough that it's probably illegal.

There's no reason to suggest more troops wouldn't be sent in for the occupation, and there's this thing known as an international coalition. Because half the SC and Europe bitches doesn't mean there isn't other countries willing to help out.

[Enlightenment]

I'm impressed with your ability to ignore the verb in the quoted sentence. Fucking asshole. You quoted my sentence but edited it to suggest I thought punishment was earned by those who insulted Christ.

Where you born that stupid or have you taken training?

Read what I quoted, not what you 'think' (although in your case 'think' is more a figure of speech than a description of a mental process that you are clearly incapable of performing) I quoted. The only bit I edited out was "and praising 3rd world hell holes." This portion of text was not relevant and had no effect on the meaning of the specific issue I raised.

The only one here who's engaging in 'shoddy debate tactics' here is YOU, 'backhanded lying motherfucker.'

[Illuminatus Primus]

Excuse my mistake at three in the morning. I apologize. However, you still purposely misrepresented what I said, implying I thought people should be locked up for mocking Christ when I purposely said "subsidize" to emphasize the bull of American fascism when we pay those who decry our downfall.

[Nick]

Gotta love stereotypes. . . and the omnipresent CNN which shapes them.

As far as I am concerned, the USA is just like most other Western democracies - its populace has a broad range of views on many issues (including the appropriate level of patriotism), and the view of the current government usually aims for a middle ground, but may sometimes veer off in a certain direction that doesn't match the wishes of the general populace (usually depending on how vocal, influential or cashed up a particular lobby group is). Their social infrastructure mostly works, but has logistical issues, fairness issues, and so on and so forth. Like any Western nation, the points where the system is most broken are the points which get the most attention - and the hope is that attention will eventually lead to problems being addressed.

The big difference is that America is more public about it. They are the world's only remaining superpower, and, in theory, a large part of the steel inside the UN's velvet glove - so people all over the world have a vested interest in the attitude of the current US administration. The US media obliges - massive amounts of American television and film is seen all over the world. The debates which happen in every country also happen in America - but the USA have a huge audience, who are watching because they know the outcome may have an impact on them.

This can lead to a couple of problems. Firstly, people all over the world have opinions on the American domestic situation. Some Americans resent this, and tell such people to "mind your own damn business". Sorry guys - American domestic politics is our business, because of the dominant role the US plays in the current global situation. US domestic politics can affect the way the US government and corporations see their positions in the world, and hence is a major concern for most nations of the world.

Consider the difference between "Australia becomes a fascist state, and tries to annex New Zealand and Indonesia" and "the US becomes a fascist state, and decides to annex Canada and Mexico". It is not so much that the US is more likely to do such a thing - just that the consequences are far worse for everyone else if it does. The image of the US as 'protective older brother' is comforting. The image of the US as 'domineering older brother' is concerning. The image of the US as 'outright bully', is flatout terrifying (fortunately, the US is not actually self-sufficient - so that final scenario is incredibly unlikely).

The second problem is this perception of America as having more or worse problems than everywhere else. We only get to see the more vocal parts of the US political scene - like many countries, the 'silent majority' don't show up in the media very much. These moderate influences exist in America as much as they do anywhere else - it is just that the activities of these forces are often not seen as particularly 'newsworthy' by the mainstream press (controversial = interesting, non-controversial = dull). Similarly, it is easy to look at America and say "Well, we do this better than them", or "Our laws relating to that aren't as silly as theirs" - but how often do people sit back and say "Hey, the things that show up in the media are the things that Americans think are broken, too. What are the things that don't show up in the media? What are the things that America is doing better than us?"

This second problem can actually be exacerbated by local media in other countries. When the US is being reasonable, the local media will usually shrug and say "Ah well, nothing interesting about that." If, on the other hand, Shrub makes a few ill-considered remarks, then "US declares war on UN" makes the front page.

The trick is for Americans to recognise that, yes, the rest of the world does have a legitimate interest in the internal workings of your nation - both to learn from it, and to prepare for the fallout if it ever starts to go seriously wrong. If there is something that appears to be going wrong, or to have the potential to go wrong, we're going to comment on it - we have a vested interest in making sure your country works as smoothly as possible.

The trick for non-Americans is to recognise that the view we get through the mainstream media (either US, or local) reflects biases and attitudes of the media regarding what is 'newsworthy', or what constitutes 'good television', in addition to any trends which are actually present in the US. Think about the diverse opinions people in your own country have about the quality & objectivity of the your own mainstream media, and I suspect you might get an idea of how many Americans feel about their media representation.

The US government & media do seem to aim to have an extremely strong sense of national identity - possibly traceable back to the fact that the original coalition of states actually had to fight for their indepencence from England, rather than, say, being granted it by an Act of the British Parliament in response to colonial lobbying. It may also be bit of a reaction to the international criticism they have to handle. Regardless, no matter what anyone might think, the lunatics are not running the asylum (yet, and hopefully never).

In order to avoid complacency, however, the following quote needs to be remembered:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing."

[Nick]

You seem uncharacteristically incoherent here Ando.

I'm not. Nationalism, if allowed to continue expanding will inevitably lead to facism.

If it has to be allowed, then it isn't inevitable.

France at the moment is a VERY nationalistic state. They have a strong democracy, but the nation is still right-wing simply because of the nationalism.

And this supports the idea that nationalism inevitably leads to fascism, how? You seem to be giving us an example where nationalism has not lead to fascism. Or are you inserting an unfalsifiable 'yet' into your argument?

Some nations that have experienced nationalism have moved back towards the centre before it got out of hand.

If they could move back to the centre, then the transition to fascism was hardly inevitable, was it?

But the fact remains that nationalism is a mere step away from facism. Look up the definitions of facism. This is a good paper to start with: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/facism.htm

Hmm, your link seems to indicate that strong nationalism constitues, at most, one part of a very fuzzy definition.

Other parts of the definition, depending on who you ask, would seem to include transition to a totalitarian model of control, adoption of ideas of competition and superiority that go far beyond "us before them" and severe repression of dissenting points of view.

That's a pretty impressive list of requirements for a 'mere step'.

Yes, excessive nationalism is a problem, but this is because of its potential to skew moral judgments. Fallacious slippery slope arguments linking it to fascism are entirely unnecessary.

[MKSheppard]

Nope...Nationalism...look at our government and at what its doing...its thumbing its nose on the Worlds Government...or at least its closest appox. the UN.

Who the hell elected a World Government while I was asleep! Oh that's right,
the UN was never a World Government, it was just a US puppet during the Cold
War....

[Admiral Piett]

Steve, I see that you have swallowed the Azeron propaganda about the mythical US nation rebuilding capabilities.Quite frankly I am starting to get tired of this bullshit.The japanese were simply sick of the war and turned the energies that they had previously spent into the war into the economy.That is all. To have an appreciation of what really are these much vaunted american capabilities of turning a hellhole into a working prosperous democracy give a look to the Philippines,one of your former "succesful" colonies,like Azeron loved to repeat.If a country does not have the potential your help, assuming that it comes in meaningful quantity, it will not become an other one working western democracy.That assuming that the substantial help actually arrives,like for example is not happening and is not going to happen in Afghanistan.
Normally I would not care too much about this historical misconception but since you are starting to use it as a moral alibi "let's bomb them,we will rebuild them later" I think it is time to clarify this piece of propaganda.
While american help played an important role you are simply taking for yourself the credit that should go to the japanese people.

[MKSheppard]

To have an appreciation of what really are these much vaunted american capabilities of turning a hellhole into a working prosperous democracy give a look to the Philippines,one of your former "succesful" colonies,

*Looks at Phillipines*

Seems to me it's a working democracy, and all that....and also it seems
to have a problem with Islamic Fundie Militants killing people.....

Lets talk about EUROPEAN colonies.....with the exception of Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and a couple of "crown jewel colonies" like India, it seems
that your colonization efforts have FAILED....

[Admiral Piett]

Seems to me it's a working democracy, and all that....and also it seems
to have a problem with Islamic Fundie Militants killing people.....

Lets talk about EUROPEAN colonies.....with the exception of Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and a couple of "crown jewel colonies" like India, it seems
that your colonization efforts have FAILED....

Sure,like the fact that there was a dictatorship until not many years ago,and that it is a third world country...

[MKSheppard]

Sure,like the fact that there was a dictatorship until not many years ago,and that it is a third world country...

What about your efforts in AFRICA, huh? I don't see any successful colonies
there, other than Rhodesia and South Africa....and they've both gone down
the drain..

[Admiral Piett]

Sheppard,if you really believe that the Philippines are an example of working, prosperous,western style democracy you must have really smoked some weird stuff.

[MKSheppard]

Sheppard,if you really believe that the Philippines are an example of working, prosperous,western style democracy you must have really smoked some weird stuff.

Take a look at the area......compared to the other countries in that region of
the world, the Phillipines is a functioning democracy....

[Admiral Piett]

What about your efforts in AFRICA, huh? I don't see any successful colonies
there, other than Rhodesia and South Africa....and they've both gone down
the drain..

I am not saying that european colonialism is better. I am simply saying that the US does not have the magic ability to turn an hellhole into a working western style democracy.Thus any strategy based on this non existent capabilty is doomed to failure.

[Admiral Piett]

Take a look at the area......compared to the other countries in that region of
the world, the Phillipines is a functioning democracy....

Are you referring to Australia,Japan,Taiwan etc ?
Besides the funny thing is that things in the Philippines have started to improve only after you definitively left the place.

[MKSheppard]

Are you referring to Australia,Japan,Taiwan etc ?
Besides the funny thing is that things in the Philippines have started to improve only after you definitively left the place.

Southeast Asia, man......

Until recently, South Korea and Taiwan were military dictatorships....

Singapore and Indonesia are repressive regimes, etc etc

Pretty much the whole of SE Asia is one regime after another.

[Admiral Piett]

Until recently, South Korea and Taiwan were military dictatorships....

Precisely like the Philippines were.

[kheegster]

Anything the American polity refuses to participate in. International cooperation, nation building, communism, social justice, and respect for the rule of law would all be good examples.

I see. Don't support the Kyoto Treaty and your reputation is shot to hell.

...and the Biological Warfare treaty, Anti-Mine treaty, ABM treaty, etc...hell, when was the last time the US actually agreed to sign a treaty without having to pout for ages and changing half of the contents?

KG

[Admiral Piett]

...and the Biological Warfare treaty, Anti-Mine treaty, ABM treaty, etc...hell, when was the last time the US actually agreed to sign a treaty without having to pout for ages and changing half of the contents?
KG

The break of the ABM treaty is not in my opinion a bad thing.Essentially it was a convenient pact with the russians.If for them it is Ok to scrap it,then it is fine for me.
The funny thing is that they refuse to sing a treaty to ban a weapon that they are not going to use (anti-mine treaty).

[MKSheppard]

...and the Biological Warfare treaty, Anti-Mine treaty, ABM treaty, etc...hell, when was the last time the US actually agreed to sign a treaty without having to pout for ages and changing half of the contents?
KG

Fuck the Anti-Mine treaty.....We NEED land mines to keep the damn
North Koreans from swarming down and wiping out South Korea in a massive
blitz....

IIRC, the Chinese and Russians are with us too, and refuse to sign that
treaty....

Also, the Russians violated the ABM treaty so many times it isn't even funny,
with many of their SAMs having secret ABM roles when equipped with
a nuclear warhead....

[Mr Bean]

The funny thing is that they refuse to sing a treaty to ban a weapon that they are not going to use (anti-mine treaty).

Know why? Treates and Bans are Worthless, Non-Profilieration? Brokena week after it was ratfied, Anti-Mine? Broken by every signer excet the UK

There are increably few Treties that acutal stick, if you don't sign a treaty that does not stick does it make you a bad person?(Or Country?)