1
   

Ann Coulter: Liberal Arguments: Still A Quagmire

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2003 11:56 am
nimh summed it up well. I am not trying to romanticize the status quo. But there is no denying that it's different.

We have seen the era of alliances fade. Alliances still exist but there are rarely the nonsensical ones that the League of Nations sought to curb.

With the U.N. (despite all it's shortcomings) we have seen the relationships between nations change DRASTICALLY.

With the WTO we have seen a taste of and will see more of a different way to resolve trade disputes.

With the increase in global economic contagion we have seen (and will see more of) nations putting aside theological differences with their eyes on their wallets.

The question of whether the romantic ideal of a peaceful world exists or can exist is a valid one. I never suggested that this is a possibility.

But there is simply no denying that the status quo is not the same as it was in the past and that dipute resolution between states has been evolving.

Simply put, kings are not communicating by pigeon. The change is undeniable.

I did include the caveat that change does not mean all old paradigims are to be tossed out. Some things don't change. But to deny that change has occured is, IMO, factually incorrect.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2003 12:18 pm
The world is not nearly as homogeneous as is Western Europe. The states of economic, political, and legal development in the world vary a great deal. The leat common international denominator of judicial process is quite low indeed. While their history, both ancient and recent, may accustom Europeans to making laws for all mankind, and the recent processes of the EU may make it all feel quite natural to them, these do not constitute reasons for others to accept their foolish hubris.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 01:54 am
It's counter productive, says nimh.

What is counterproductive?

Well. Realpolitik- The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


Why did Roosevelt give Stalin much of what he wanted?

A bad mistake some said.

Others said: what could he do? He didn't know the Bomb would finish off the Japanese so soon. He thought millions of Americans might die in an invasion of Japan.

Well. if Roosevelt had lived, he would have seen his "friend" which he thought he needed in 1945 to finish off Japan, blockade Berlin.

Did Roosevelt think that would happen so soon?

Then, nimh tells us that the US foreign policy was idiotic in 1983 since it sent Rumsfeld to deal with our "enemy".

But Iraq was fighting "our" enemy- Iran.

But nimh says- Realpoltik is bad, never productive, should not be used, etc. etc.

The fact is that it has been used and will continue to be used because it means- POLITICAL REALISM.

But when I was young and foolish, I did not believe in Political Realism. I read books like Thomas More's "Utopia"- A society based on economic communism and primitive Christian Ethics- and I believed- Until some one pointed out to me that U Topia was from the Greek and meant

NO PLACE.

I do not know whether nimh knows that there is NO PLACE that does not use Realpolitik in its foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 02:20 am
Craven tells us that we have entered a "New Era"

George OB says he does not believe the world has entered a "new era" UTTERLY UNLIKE ALL THAT HAS PRECEDED IT"

Craven hedges his bets by saying: Which of the old paradigms remain is another question.

It is my opinion that both George OB and Craven have a slice of the truth.

Craven, unfortunately, has tried to bit off too big a slice.

Perhaps Craven is thinking in terms of Fukuyama's the end of history or, he agrees with Matt Ridley who says, in his book, Genome, that we are living through the greatest intellectual moment in history( because of the discoveries that have come out of the Human Genome Project.


But to say that the future will be utterly unlike anything that has preceded it, is meaningless insofar as the future is never like the past unless Craven means that we will be in an unrecognizable world- UTTERLY UNLIKE!!!

Here, and Craven has given himself an escape hatch--Remaining paradigms, I must part company with Craven and say that George OB is much closer to the truth.

A recent book entitled- "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker points out that there has been a modern denial of Human Nature and that our basic human nature cannot be denied. Pinker says that the Marxian notions that

"All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature" is demonstrably false since the human genome has been evolving for thousands of years.

Pinker would doubtlessly side with George OB.


Pniker says:
"Hobbes was right and Rosseau was wrong"

The doctrine of the peaceful Noble Savage has been debunked. As Pinker says, and as I am sure George OB would agree- "A thouroughly noble anything is an unlikely product of natural selection, because in the competition among genes for representation, NOBLE GUYS TEND TO FINISH LAST"

The nobel guys, I am sure, don't believe in Realpolitik.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 09:01 am
Italgo,

You read too much into my post. What I assert is simple. Do you dispute that there are elements of the era in which we live that are unique?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 09:57 am
The terrorism and guerilla warfare are not unique to our era despite the 9/11 success (yes, it was a success for them) making it suddenly more important to the U.S. -- I'm not sure what is different.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:30 am
nimh- do you really honestly think I am going to answer your disorganized half-literate screed on Coulter.

Let's start at the beginning. I asked you a straight question which you either could not answer or decided it was too dangerous to answer-

You said "War Opponents" I asked you to define "war opponents".

The reasons I am asking you that question is that some of you left wingers are very very simplistic.

You say "War Opponents" said or did......

Not so fast.

I can show that the Universe of War Opponents not as similar as your simplistic universe would have it.

With your twisted Procrustian logic, you would stuff all War Opponents into the same bag.


I have a suggestion for you, nimh.

Instead of cluttering up your posts with comments that may or may not be true, try to get some evidence. Unless you are a noted political scientist, I just don't accept the veracity of the so-called facts you give.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:37 am
No, Craven, I do not dispute that there are elements of the era in which we live that are unique. In fact, you will note that I listed two "Unique" elements that would verify your statement, namely Fukayama's thesis and the Human Genome.

What I did say is that your statement, Utterly unlike, was over the top, since "Human Nature" is still operative. That would, I feel, moderate your statement to "Unlike" but not "utterly unlke"

After all, One of the paradigms that can't be erased, not in a hurry anyway, is Human Nature.

For elaboration on this point, see Steven Pinker's sublime book- "The Blank Slate".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 04:22 am
Italgato wrote:
I have a suggestion for you, nimh.

Instead of cluttering up your posts with comments that may or may not be true, try to get some evidence. Unless you are a noted political scientist, I just don't accept the veracity of the so-called facts you give. [..]

I can show that the Universe of War Opponents not as similar as your simplistic universe would have it.


Good.

(Italgato was responding to this and this post by the way).

So show me. You have stated or called "unassailable" the following statements - for example:

- The US has been "uncovering [..] colonies of terrorists", "now that we've taken the country.
- Saddam Hussein was the liberals' "favorite world leader behind Jacques Chirac". That's the "liberals", generally.
- The liberals "said Saddam Hussein [..] was not a threat to America's interests in the region".

Can you give any evidence, whatsoever, of the kind you require to take someone's post seriously, to back up any of these statements?

Thus far, you have not offered more than "I vaguely seem to recall some "war opponents" who did", on count three, and nothing on count 1 or 2. Of course you did write, back then, "I will do some research on this question. I do hope that you will not feel aggrieved if you have to wait a while", so perhaps we should wait a little longer still?

I have explained why I disagree with them or consider them fallacies. You reproach me for not giving sufficient "facts" to disprove them - but shouldn't you start out by suggesting any shred of "evidence" to underbuild your case in the first place?

Except for, Ann Coulter said so, so it must be true?

Quote:
nimh- do you really honestly think I am going to answer your disorganized half-literate screed on Coulter.


In your own words: "Cute but not even in the area of Opinion( see guidelines)--more of a 'non-sequitur'".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 01:08:50