European Hypocracy

[Sprayber]

Chris: Sorry for the threadjack.

[chequita guevara]

We could probably unify the world against the threat of another Paulie Shore or Carrot Top movie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Arrian, seriously, I think within 300 years, we'll have, at the UN be the United State of Earth (kinda). I don't mean like what the USA is, but rather like the EU is. An overarching structure that has minor power. Or better yet, like the Articles of Confederation.

[Kropotkin]

So Imran. Your Utopia for the human race is a huge inefficient bureaucracy controlled by the french that think out strange laws that no one obey?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We could probably unify the world against the threat of another Paulie Shore or Carrot Top movie.

That is a cause that I can get behind

[Ned]

In and "idealized" stable world, the great powers would stay at peace with each other, take care of local eruptions within their sphere of influence and not interfere in the affairs of other powers spheres. During the cold war, the US left the courtries behind the Iron Curtain to the mercies of the USSR. Except for some skirmishes in Berlin and Greece, the USSR left Western Europe alone.

Post-cold war, Clinton tried to let the Europeans take the lead in the chaos surrounding the collapse of Yugoslavia. After Sebrenicia, we were forced to act on humanitarian grounds. Once we got involved, we were able to help impose peace, and even "liberated" Kosovo with our air power.

But I personally believe it is time for the Euro's to take charge of affairs of Europe and pull their own weight.

In other areas of the world, I fundamentally agree that we should not get involved unless our interests are threatened. The al Qaida war on us has forced us to get more actively involved in both the ME and in the Pakistan-India disputes. But if a war breaks out in Africa or South America, I would prefer just to stay out of it.

As for spreading our "doctrine," I still am surprised that not one single nation has adopted our constitutional structure despite its obvious merits. Why?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We could probably unify the world against the threat of another Paulie Shore or Carrot Top movie.

Movie fans of the world unite!



-Arrian
what's goin' on buuuuuuuuuudy?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So Imran. Your Utopia for the human race is a huge inefficient bureaucracy controlled by the french that think out strange laws that no one obey?

Yeah, sounds about right, actually. If the government is ineffectual, they can't screw things up. And governments seem to always figure out how to screw things up.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Imran. Your Utopia for the human race is a huge inefficient bureaucracy controlled by the french that think out strange laws that no one obey?

Controlled by the French? Sacre Bleu!

Of course it is going to be controlled by Americans, who know a little something about bureaucracy of our own .

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Ned
As for spreading our "doctrine," I still am surprised that not one single nation has adopted our constitutional structure despite its obvious merits. Why?

Well there has been a few iirc. consitutional structures are often chosen because of a historical process or certain unique conditions. At the state of the states of today there's hardly a "perfect" system.

Many former English colonies for example adopted a british model that turned out pretty bad due to so called clientism (they voted for their "chief" not out of political positions per se). Not to say that the **** wouldn't have hit the fan anyhow.

I'm not finding the US structure to be better than many others. It has worked pretty well but it's all down to personal leanings and probably old habit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for spreading our "doctrine," I still am surprised that not one single nation has adopted our constitutional structure despite its obvious merits. Why?

Is this a case of forced blindness or what? Many African nations have constitutions that are somewhat based on our own. They also have constitutions that are influenced by the European system for the simple reason that proportional representation is easier in countries where many are illiterate (they can recognize party symbols).

Most new Latin American democracies also have the US's model in mind as well, so I don't know where you get your statement from.

[Ned]

As far as I know, Imran, most of the countries that have adopted the US model have not adopted the whole it, including the amendments. Do other nations with a US model, for example, have state's rights like the US? Do they have an electoral college?

But, for the sake of argument, why don't you cite the country that has the closest comparison to the US constitution. I'll take a look at it and report back.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As far as I know, Imran, most of the countries that have adopted the US model have not adopted the whole it, including the amendments. Do other nations with a US model, for example, have state's rights like the US? Do they have an electoral college?

Why would they want a carbon copy of the US government? No country has an exact copy of any government, even British colonies don't have exactly British governments.

It's ludicrous to think that they should adopt all of our amendments or have states' rights, when they don't even have states.

I mean seriously, do you actually think that your post made any sense in this discussion?

[Kropotkin]

State's right? Correct me if I have missed the meaning of the word but isn't that kind of pointless if the country isn't a federation?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Chris 62


Reds4Ever, another "genius" who likes to attack me, did I hurt your feelings sweetums? I hope so.

You told me I'd made your 'ignore' list? Am I too interesting for you to stick to it? I'm flattered!


And as for 'attacking' you, wouldn't you wipe dog **** off YOUR shoe?