Out having a taco . . .


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 am

Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:What % of the people of the world have no feelings about their race, none, completely neutral, 1%, 5%. 0%????

To be alive in the 21st Century is to be proud of ethnicity (nationality, etc.), but not race. I am not 'proud' to be 'white', are you? What is Obama proud of? If anything, that he is 'mixed' and successful, which some Justices of the Peace think is impossible! :wink:


This is a very interesting discussion. btw. I'm an idiot but im not completely stoopid. I know it's not politically correct to say your proud of your white race,( The KKK comes to mind in a nano second) but this is not true for any other race. I'm i wrong?

If someone in your class says they are proud of their Japanese heritage, what do you say to them?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:56 am

SQUACKEE wrote:If someone in your class says they are proud of their Japanese heritage, what do you say to them?


What is to be proud about the accident of birth? How exactly has anybody contributed to the past history of his/her race/ethnicity/nationality?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:03 am

Marlow wrote:If you take 'imperialism' to mean what the 1960s radicals defined it as, then yes, we have been and are right now 'imperialistic'. But as far as the original (and 'best') definition, empire-building, then no, we have not sought to build our empire for many decades now (Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawai'i, etc.).

This is the defintion of imperialism that I use:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imperialism
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:05 am

Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:If someone in your class says they are proud of their Japanese heritage, what do you say to them?

What is to be proud about the accident of birth? How exactly has anybody contributed to the past history of his/her race/ethnicity/nationality?

And heritage is not race. Proud to be Asiatic? Negroid? Caucasian (sic)? That makes no sense.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:This is the defintion of imperialism that I use:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations

Oh! In that case most 1st world countries are imperialistic! Certainly China and Japan are!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:13 am

SQUACKEE wrote:This is a very interesting discussion. btw. I'm an idiot but im not completely stoopid. I know it's not politically correct to say your proud of your white race,( The KKK comes to mind in a nano second) but this is not true for any other race. I'm i wrong?

I don't think anyone would take offense if you said you were proud of your English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, Belgian, or etc. . . . . heritage. But you're right, saying you're proud of the White race would ring the alarm bells. The difference is that Blacks don't have the luxury of being as specific with their motherland for reasons that are self-evident. Also, in the U.S., all of those hyphenated ethnic groups that I refered to are minority groups while the White race is a majority group. Hence, Blacks don't feel threatened by Irish-Americans on St. Patrick's Day or Italian-Americans on Columbus Day.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:14 am

Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:If someone in your class says they are proud of their Japanese heritage, what do you say to them?


What is to be proud about the accident of birth? How exactly has anybody contributed to the past history of his/her race/ethnicity/nationality?

Good point!
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:14 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:If someone in your class says they are proud of their Japanese heritage, what do you say to them?

What is to be proud about the accident of birth? How exactly has anybody contributed to the past history of his/her race/ethnicity/nationality?

And heritage is not race. Proud to be Asiatic? Negroid? Caucasian (sic)? That makes no sense.


Am not suggesting what should be, im asking about what is. In a perfect world the word race doesnt even exist.

Again what % of the world's people have no feeling one way or the other about their race? Completely neutral. No pride, no shame, no feelings at all.

10%, 100% What do you think it is?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:16 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Again what % of the world's people have no feeling one way or the other about their race? Completely neutral. No pride, no shame, no feelings at all.

10%, 100% What do you think it is?

If you define race strictly by skin color, it's probably larger than you think.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:21 am

jazzcyclist wrote:If you define race strictly by skin color, it's probably larger than you think.

With the advent of the Black Power movement in the 60s, many 'blacks' went from lamenting their plight to reveling in their newly empowered position. Affirmative Action certainly enhanced that by giving minorities preferential treatment in some cases. During much of American history most 'whites' thanked their lucky stars to be born in the Power Class. I think in 2009, most of that is becoming irrelevant. Meritocracy is the name of the game on many (most?) fronts and we are all, of course, better off for it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:56 am

lonewolf wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Terrorism is the price of imperialism and interventionism

Wrong, its the price we all must pay for Religious fanatics who worship death

I tried to stay out of this but my blood pressure is getting dangerously high.
I'm with Squak. . The idea that the US is responsible for terrorism because of foreign policy is right out of the fanatical jihadists talking points.
We are the most generous nation in the history of the world. Unfortunately, the "have not " nations who beg for our money as they lambast us in the UN and those we rescue from aggression have short memories and inevitably it becomes, "Yeah, but what have you done for me lately."
If the US is such a terrible place, why is the rest of the world trying to get in?
The US is not and has never been an imperialist nation. As to intervention, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
True, we have troops all over the world but we are there for valid reasons and I am not aware of any place where we remain in defiance of the wishes of the legitimate government. On the contrary, they are damned glad, for security and financial reasons, to have us there.
Cue Merle Haggard, "When you're running down my country, Hoss, you're walking on the fighting side of me."


I think if we really are an imperialistic nation than we really suck at it. With our military power we could compleletly rule 60 percent of the world. The first thing we should do is make up a reason to take over Saudi Arabia, then Canada and South America. After what we did for France in ww2 we have every right to take them over. Japan and South Korea- ours. ect ect ect.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:08 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:This is the defintion of imperialism that I use:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations

Oh! In that case most 1st world countries are imperialistic! Certainly China and Japan are!

There's no doubt that China is in the business of economic and political hegemony, but I don't know about Japan. However, Chinese hegemony over other nations is restricted to its part of the world, unlike the American hegemony which is world-wide.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:17 am

jazzcyclist wrote:American hegemony which is world-wide.

Being a large capitalistic entity, that comes with the territory. I don't think anyone with the big picture of how the world works faults the USA for this or considers it 'imperialism'! It's the business of business.

Without getting into a thread-killing discussion of whether our involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan constitutes Imperialism by someone's standards, the way we conduct our foreign policy is in concert with our economic impact in the world. We are neither 'overly' nor 'underly' imperialistic for out position in the world's economy.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:43 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:American hegemony which is world-wide.

Being a large capitalistic entity, that comes with the territory. I don't think anyone with the big picture of how the world works faults the USA for this or considers it 'imperialism'! It's the business of business.

Without getting into a thread-killing discussion of whether our involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan constitutes Imperialism by someone's standards, the way we conduct our foreign policy is in concert with our economic impact in the world. We are neither 'overly' nor 'underly' imperialistic for out position in the world's economy.
I don't think the invasion of Afghanistan was done with economic or political hegemony in mind. Over 90% of the American people supported that war. How imperialistic could it have been if Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney all voted for it? Hell, even Louis Farrakhan spoke out in support of it at the time.

Now Iraq is a different matter all togher. Does any thinking person not think that economic or political hegemony played a role in W's decision to invade Iraq? Bush himself conceded that Saddam had no role in 9/11 and even neocon Bill Kristol admitted on NPR that the war was fought for "geopolitical strategic reasons".
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:05 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Without getting into a thread-killing discussion
Does any thinking person not think that economic or political hegemony played a role in W's decision to invade Iraq? Bush himself conceded that Saddam had no role in 9/11 and even neocon Bill Kristol admitted on NPR that the war was fought for "geopolitical strategic reasons".

I said, withOUT getting into a thread-killing discussion!
Because BK concedes that point, does NOT mean other conservatives do.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:17 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Without getting into a thread-killing discussion
Does any thinking person not think that economic or political hegemony played a role in W's decision to invade Iraq? Bush himself conceded that Saddam had no role in 9/11 and even neocon Bill Kristol admitted on NPR that the war was fought for "geopolitical strategic reasons".

I said, withOUT getting into a thread-killing discussion!
Because BK concedes that point, does NOT mean other conservatives do.

On the flip side of the coin, do you know anyone who didn't support the Afghanistan invasion eight years ago when it took place?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:19 am

jazzcyclist wrote:On the flip side of the coin, do you know anyone who didn't support the Afghanistan invasion eight years ago when it took place?

Yes, actually MANY.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:28 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:On the flip side of the coin, do you know anyone who didn't support the Afghanistan invasion eight years ago when it took place?

Yes, actually MANY.

Really? Can I assume that you knew these individuals eight years ago, and remember them making comments about the war at the time? I only ask because just recently Dennis Kucinich was on TV criticizing the Afghanistan War, until someone reminded him of his vote in Congress, and then he got quiet.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Really? Can I assume that you knew these individuals eight years ago, and remember them making comments about the war at the time?

Yes, you may. I am with most of the same folks I was with 8 years ago, and most of us feared entanglements that wouldn't easily be unentangled. Nation-building (or rooting out the enemy or democratization or whatever we call it) is a slippery slope, on which the USA has fallen down several times already.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:16 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Really? Can I assume that you knew these individuals eight years ago, and remember them making comments about the war at the time?

Yes, you may. I am with most of the same folks I was with 8 years ago, and most of us feared entanglements that wouldn't easily be unentangled. Nation-building (or rooting out the enemy or democratization or whatever we call it) is a slippery slope, on which the USA has fallen down several times already.

Your friends are prophets, but I'm not so sure that would have been the case if one year into the war, W hadn't started diverting resources to Iraq. Whenever one nation invades another nation, there's only a finite window of opportunity for the invaders to accomplosh their mission before the invadees start to resent the presence of foreign troops on its soil. For the U.S., that window has closed in Afghanistan.

Even under the best of circumstances, nations can overstay their welcome in other countries. For example, despite the fact that we were invited by the Saudis to defend the kingdom in 1991, by 2003, they said it was time for us to go. Similarly, Syria was invited by Lebanon to help it end its civil war, which it did, but 15 years after the war ended, it was also asked to leave after the Lebanese began to resent the presence of the same troops who had saved them.

Another thing that's exacerbating the situation in Afghanistan is the ever-increasing number of innocent Afghans that we've killed. Folks don't like it when you kill their friends and family members. Unfortunately, we'll never know how Afghanistan would have turned out if the Iraq War had never happened.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:45 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Your friends are prophets

Nah, just students of history. If people weren't dying it would be funny how often we make the same mistakes over and over again, mistakes that when other nations commit them, we are very critical of.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:48 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Your friends are prophets

Nah, just students of history. If people weren't dying it would be funny how often we make the same mistakes over and over again, mistakes that when other nations commit them, we are very critical of.

Did they say how they would have responded to 9/11?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:52 pm

I was among those that advocated military action in Afghanistan as a necessity. What I expected was to bomb the living shit out of Al-Qaida camps, Taliban establishments, remove Taliban from power, install a pro-western government, liquidate (or at least severely hurt Al-Qaida) and then get the hell out of there. I truly did not expect us to be still there 8 years later.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:28 pm

Pego wrote:I was among those that advocated military action in Afghanistan as a necessity. What I expected was to bomb the living shit out of Al-Qaida camps, Taliban establishments, remove Taliban from power, install a pro-western government, liquidate (or at least severely hurt Al-Qaida) and then get the hell out of there. I truly did not expect us to be still there 8 years later.
That's what I thought would happen too, especially with W having two of his Dad's men (Powell and Cheney) in his administration. But unlike Desert Storm back in 1991, when Poppa Bush painstakingly put together a Dream Team war coalition, W never seemed to be fully committed in Afghanistan.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:32 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Did they say how they would have responded to 9/11?

Actually we did. The hardest thing for anyone to swallow was that there was NO overt response possible that didn't involve punishing the innocent. The only logical response was through covert ops. But then the administration would have looked 'weak', so THAT political option was out. So instead we flexed our big muscles and talked threateningly, and then charged into a fight with people only marginally associated with the real enemy.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:58 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Did they say how they would have responded to 9/11?

Actually we did. The hardest thing for anyone to swallow was that there was NO overt response possible that didn't involve punishing the innocent. .


Thats true of every conflict. If the future is, and i fear it is, that we will leave after more American kids are dead and having achieved very little then we should get out now, monitor the situation with satelites and bomb when neccesary. I dont consider this the high road as thousands of innocents will also suffer from our leaving, woman mostly.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:22 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Did they say how they would have responded to 9/11?

Actually we did. The hardest thing for anyone to swallow was that there was NO overt response possible that didn't involve punishing the innocent. The only logical response was through covert ops. But then the administration would have looked 'weak', so THAT political option was out. So instead we flexed our big muscles and talked threateningly, and then charged into a fight with people only marginally associated with the real enemy.

When you use the phrase "covert ops", do you mean lethal action involving CIA spooks and/or military special forces? If so, I would count that as a military response that would have also needed congressional approval/oversight, and your friends are no different than the rest of us. Personally, I wasn't tactically married to a large scale military invasion, and if the Taliban had handed over bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates like W demanded before the war, I would have opposed any military action at all, including covert action. But when the Taliban refused to hand them over, I felt that a violent response was appropriate, and it was up to W to decide what that response would be.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:26 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:when the Taliban refused to hand them over, I felt that a violent response was appropriate.

If you mean the overt response we gave, I cannot agree.
(and if we get into why, this thread is getting yanked)
(and yes, the covert ops would have had the authority to terminate AQ associates with extreme prejudice)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:49 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:when the Taliban refused to hand them over, I felt that a violent response was appropriate.

If you mean the overt response we gave, I cannot agree.
(and if we get into why, this thread is getting yanked)
(and yes, the covert ops would have had the authority to terminate AQ associates with extreme prejudice)

So you also were in favor of a violent response. Your only problem with Bush was tactical, not ideological.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:57 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Your only problem with Bush was tactical, not ideological.

No . . . covert ops are much more 'clean & precise'. It's laser surgery on a tumor, rather than the chemo/radiation route that destroys most of the body along with the tumor. Iraq and/or Afghanistan did not cause 9/11. AQ did.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:30 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Your only problem with Bush was tactical, not ideological.
No . . . covert ops are much more 'clean & precise'. It's laser surgery on a tumor, rather than the chemo/radiation route that destroys most of the body along with the tumor..
I agree with you on that point, but the covert ops that you've described are still violent in nature. For me it didn't matter how Al Qaeda got their clocks cleaned as long as it happened. Tactics were irrelevant to me, and civilians would have inevitably died no matter how we responded since mistakes are made even when covert units are employed.
Marlow wrote:Iraq and/or Afghanistan did not cause 9/11. AQ did.

Well, since 9/11 occurred before Iraq and Afghanistan, how can anyone disagree with this statement?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby ndamix » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:46 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:This is a very interesting discussion. btw. I'm an idiot but im not completely stoopid. I know it's not politically correct to say your proud of your white race,( The KKK comes to mind in a nano second) but this is not true for any other race. I'm i wrong?

I don't think anyone would take offense if you said you were proud of your English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, Belgian, or etc. . . . . heritage. But you're right, saying you're proud of the White race would ring the alarm bells. The difference is that Blacks don't have the luxury of being as specific with their motherland for reasons that are self-evident. Also, in the U.S., all of those hyphenated ethnic groups that I refered to are minority groups while the White race is a majority group. Hence, Blacks don't feel threatened by Irish-Americans on St. Patrick's Day or Italian-Americans on Columbus Day.


Blacks aren't threaten'd by St. Paddy's or Columbus Day due to the fact they have a month to celebrate their accomplishments. Personally, I don't have a problem with Whites saying they're White & proud even if it comes to the point of sounding offensive.
ndamix
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Where I Have My Eye On You

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:12 am

I'm scotch/irish and Norweign so im basically a drunken viking, must be something there to be proud of?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby IanS_Liv » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:05 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:I'm scotch/irish and Norweign so im basically a drunken viking, must be something there to be proud of?


The amount of beer and whisky you can consume in a night?

Well, the Vikings settled in Ireland, creating the town of Dublin. They also settled in France, Italy and crossed Europe from the Baltic to eventually have their descendants settle in Kiev and create the country that became Russia. They reached the North American mainland a long time before Columbus and were a lot less bloodthirsty than the Spanish about it. If there'd been no Vikings there'd've been no Lord of the Rings so we have that to be thankful for!

Between about 550AD and 1000 AD the Irish monks kept literacy going and copied many of the old Greek and Latin texts which kept the knowledge of them alive in Europe, eventually to help contribute to the Renaissance. The Irish kept Western culture alive in the period between the end of the Western Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance when everyone else was busy either fighting each other or fighting the Saracens in the Holy Land.

Plus the Irish know how to have a really, really good party! :lol:

I was trying to work cheese into this answer but I couldn't. Irish cheese isn't my favourite and I know nothing of Reindeer cheese.
IanS_Liv
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:33 am

lonewolf wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Terrorism is the price of imperialism and interventionism

Wrong, its the price we all must pay for Religious fanatics who worship death
The idea that the US is responsible for terrorism because of foreign policy is right out of the fanatical jihadists talking points.
We are the most generous nation in the history of the world. . . . .

Cue Merle Haggard, "When you're running down my country, Hoss, you're walking on the fighting side of me."

After giving it some thought, I think we all fit into one of two categories when it comes to foreign policy:
1) Those who believe in "American Exceptionalism", which I would assume includes folks like lonewolf and SQUACKEE
2) And those who believe in "Cosmopolitanism", which includes folks like me who believe that some of the "fanatical jihadists talking points" actually make sense.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby TrakFan » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:50 pm

The danger in exceptionalism is the possibility of it leading to arrogance.

Exceptional = Unique = Good (Nation of immigrants)
Exceptional = Better than others = Not so good (We're simply the best)
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:02 pm

TrakFan wrote:The danger in exceptionalism is the possibility of it leading to arrogance.

Exceptional = Unique = Good (Nation of immigrants)
Exceptional = Better than others = Not so good (We're simply the best)

I recently heard neocon Frank Gaffney say that American Exceptionalism entitled the U.S. military to a pass on the Geneva Convention rules regarding torture.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I recently heard neocon Frank Gaffney say that American Exceptionalism entitled the U.S. military to a pass on the Geneva Convention rules regarding torture.


This justification is really ugly but it does make me wonder how Al Qaeda justifies beheading its prisoners?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:08 am

Exceptionalism is behind ALL the great evils of history, in terms of empires, nations, institutions and individuals. As soon as you decide the rules don't apply to you, you are worthless as a member of any collective, and we're all part of the human global collective.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Cooter Brown » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:35 am

SQUACKEE wrote:I'm scotch/irish and Norweign so im basically a drunken viking, must be something there to be proud of?


My wife and I were trying to figure out our daughter's heritage. The best we could come up with was:
Persian 25%
Swedish 13%
Irish 13%
French 13%
Spanish 13%
German 13%
English 6%
Czech 6%

That's just what we're aware of. Neither of us lays claim to any ancestral roots since we both consider ourselves mutts. So, I said our daughter could at least be proud of the fact that our ancestors didn't discriminate when it came to sex.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests