Well, I'm real sorry that I'm not living up to your strict rules in this thread, but I'm actually under no obligation to. I simply agreed with what he said. I didn't have any more to say. What if you stopped trying to dictate what and how we post??
is it just me or is there a pattern? ... don't want to engage in the discussion? ... let's make it about personality ...
i'm pretty sure you know that i know that i can't control what you say or don't say ... why even bother accusing someone of this?
post whatever you like ... just don't get upset when someone says they are annoyed by something and you do exactly that and they respond ...
No, you can't control what we say - that's why I said you're trying to. Not that you are succeeding. It's not about your personality at all. I like you just fine. It's about what you're talking about in this thread. I'm not upset. You're just talking in circles and it's getting boring.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think there is a good chance that it would be. Certainly no guarantee, but a strong possibility.
so, all i'm asking for is why? ... what is your reasoning? ... if you think it's a strong possibility - you obviously didn't just randomly come to that conclusion ...
No, I didn't. I don't believe China, Russia or India would be any better and may be worse. I know an Islamic republic would be much, much worse. I don't believe it would be a European or South American nation. So I don't know who to point to and think things would be better.
Not to side track or anything but, at least as interesting as who is the most threatening to world peace I'd like to know who is the most promising for world peace!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
No, I didn't. I don't believe China, Russia or India would be any better and may be worse. I know an Islamic republic would be much, much worse. I don't believe it would be a European or South American nation. So I don't know who to point to and think things would be better.
ok ... so, you don't have a rationale or reason ... you just don't think it would be better ... fair enough ...
the crux then is whether there is an hierarchy now and if so, whether there would be one in the absence of an american state ... the US is a very powerful country but right now only in so much as they have a lot of guns ... outside of that - it is a weakened state ... massive debt, decreasing innovation, no manufacturing and very little resources ... as other world economies continue to grow - the influence the US once had is slowly slipping away ...
if the US were to no longer engage in their current foreign policy strategy of economic imperialism - there would be no other country able to do so ... at least countries that would be willing ... china is expanding globally - but they are doing it the old fashioned way - buying everything ... using cold hard us dollars ...
Not to side track or anything but, at least as interesting as who is the most threatening to world peace I'd like to know who is the most promising for world peace!
Why don't you speculate, Brian? Get the ball rolling.
the crux then is whether there is an hierarchy now and if so, whether there would be one in the absence of an american state ... the US is a very powerful country but right now only in so much as they have a lot of guns ... outside of that - it is a weakened state ... massive debt, decreasing innovation, no manufacturing and very little resources ... as other world economies continue to grow - the influence the US once had is slowly slipping away ...
if the US were to no longer engage in their current foreign policy strategy of economic imperialism - there would be no other country able to do so ... at least countries that would be willing ... china is expanding globally - but they are doing it the old fashioned way - buying everything ... using cold hard us dollars ...
Really not the crux, just what you chose to focus on. The question was what the world would look like if the US disappeared tomorrow and would it be more or less safe.
I am curious, if America is the greatest threat to world peace what do people think the world would look like if the US disappeared tomorrow? Would the world be more or less safe? What nation or nations would fill the vacuum left by the US? Would that nation or nations be better or worse? Would the Middle East find peace?
Your litany of complaints about the state of the US, all of them would be washed away. By continuing to rehash them you are missing the point of the question.
You think it is a sure thing that a Russia, Chinese or Indian dominated world would be better and safer. I don't believe that to be anywhere close to a sure thing, although perhaps it would be. I do think it is naive to just assume that countries rushing to fill the void by left the US would really act benevolently. Wouldn't it be the first time in human history such behavior by world powers would have occurred?
ok ... so, you don't have a rationale or reason ... you just don't think it would be better ... fair enough ...
Again...whatever dude.
are you really that sensitive that you can't even see what is evident? ... i asked for a reason why and you didn't give me any ... read what you wrote ... you offered an opinion without any rationale or reasoning ... that is a fact ... you don't owe it to me to give me one or have to but i'm not sure why you get into a hissy when that is the case ...
Your litany of complaints about the state of the US, all of them would be washed away. By continuing to rehash them you are missing the point of the question.
You think it is a sure thing that a Russia, Chinese or Indian dominated world would be better and safer. I don't believe that to be anywhere close to a sure thing, although perhaps it would be. I do think it is naive to just assume that countries rushing to fill the void by left the US would really act benevolently. Wouldn't it be the first time in human history such behavior by world powers would have occurred?
where did i say my opinion was a sure thing? ... i've reiterated numerous times that it is my belief based on my aforementioned reasons ... you call me naive but yet you provide absolutely no rationale for your beliefs ...
and ultimately it is the crux ... if there is no hiearchy - there there is no such thing as a power vacuum ... i would argue there isn't such ... however, if you want to say there is ... i still contend that the world would be safer for the reasons i've stated ...
i engaged in your discussion - if you don't like the things i've pointed out ... that's fine but they were to support my reasoning ... if we are to have a discussion - you kind of need to have your own ...
let me know when you want to have that discussion ... but right now - it's definitely not going anywhere ...
Not to side track or anything but, at least as interesting as who is the most threatening to world peace I'd like to know who is the most promising for world peace!
Why don't you speculate, Brian? Get the ball rolling.
...........:think:........ I don't know about Brian, but I can't think of anyone.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i've reiterated numerous times that it is my belief based on my aforementioned reasons ... you call me naive but yet you provide absolutely no rationale for your beliefs ...
and ultimately it is the crux ... if there is no hiearchy - there there is no such thing as a power vacuum ... i would argue there isn't such ... however, if you want to say there is ... i still contend that the world would be safer for the reasons i've stated ...
i engaged in your discussion - if you don't like the things i've pointed out ... that's fine but they were to support my reasoning ... if we are to have a discussion - you kind of need to have your own ...
let me know when you want to have that discussion ... but right now - it's definitely not going anywhere ...
My contention is that there would indeed be a power vacuum, that certain nations would indeed rush to fill it, and that there is no historical precedent that points to those nations acting benevolently or in any manner other than that which serves their own best interests. If that does not fit your guidelines for reasoning that is no one's problem other than your own.
ok ... so, you don't have a rationale or reason ... you just don't think it would be better ... fair enough ...
Again...whatever dude.
are you really that sensitive that you can't even see what is evident? ... i asked for a reason why and you didn't give me any ... read what you wrote ... you offered an opinion without any rationale or reasoning ... that is a fact ... you don't owe it to me to give me one or have to but i'm not sure why you get into a hissy when that is the case ...
Not to side track or anything but, at least as interesting as who is the most threatening to world peace I'd like to know who is the most promising for world peace!
Why don't you speculate, Brian? Get the ball rolling.
...........:think:........ I don't know about Brian, but I can't think of anyone.
This is a bit utopian but I think the best hope for world peace is some sort of world government rather than any national government. Only when we all start thinking of ourselves as citizens of Earth, rather than citizens of a tiny nation on Earth, will peace come.
Why don't you speculate, Brian? Get the ball rolling.
...........:think:........ I don't know about Brian, but I can't think of anyone.
This is a bit utopian but I think the best hope for world peace is some sort of world government rather than any national government. Only when we all start thinking of ourselves as citizens of Earth, rather than citizens of a tiny nation on Earth, will peace come.
Yeah.... Like The Federation on Star Trek. Really, Star Trek world is the direction we should be going in. The one from The Next Generation. :geek:
However, I have NO expectations of people ever becoming that enlightened. At least not until religion goes away. Anyone see that happening in the next few thousand years? I don't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i've reiterated numerous times that it is my belief based on my aforementioned reasons ... you call me naive but yet you provide absolutely no rationale for your beliefs ...
and ultimately it is the crux ... if there is no hiearchy - there there is no such thing as a power vacuum ... i would argue there isn't such ... however, if you want to say there is ... i still contend that the world would be safer for the reasons i've stated ...
i engaged in your discussion - if you don't like the things i've pointed out ... that's fine but they were to support my reasoning ... if we are to have a discussion - you kind of need to have your own ...
let me know when you want to have that discussion ... but right now - it's definitely not going anywhere ...
My contention is that there would indeed be a power vacuum, that certain nations would indeed rush to fill it, and that there is no historical precedent that points to those nations acting benevolently or in any manner other than that which serves their own best interests. If that does not fit your guidelines for reasoning that is no one's problem other than your own.
uhhh ... that's my opinion ... it doesn't make it so ...
you missed my point ... i asked if there is indeed an hierarchy now ... obviously you believe the US to be the most powerful country ... i would disagree but if you believe so, i can see why you would think there would be a power vacuum ... what i was asking for is why you think whoever would replace that vacuum would make the world less safe or worse ...
you didn't mention anything about historical nor benevolence until now ... even then i would say that without responding to the issues raised about US actions - i'm not sure how you can say it would be worse ... unless i assume you think that everything the current countries are doing are worse than what the US is ... and if you won't address the points on the US then it's really hard to argue that ...
are you really that sensitive that you can't even see what is evident? ... i asked for a reason why and you didn't give me any ... read what you wrote ... you offered an opinion without any rationale or reasoning ... that is a fact ... you don't owe it to me to give me one or have to but i'm not sure why you get into a hissy when that is the case ...
A hissy, eh? :roll:
you got a better word for it when you try and have a conversation with someone and they respond with "whatever dude"?
uhhh ... that's my opinion ... it doesn't make it so ...
So it isn't "most definite?" It is just that you believe it to be. Saying that you think something is true is not the same as saying something is most definitely true.
you missed my point ... i asked if there is indeed an hierarchy now ... obviously you believe the US to be the most powerful country ... i would disagree but if you believe so, i can see why you would think there would be a power vacuum ... what i was asking for is why you think whoever would replace that vacuum would make the world less safe or worse ...
you didn't mention anything about historical nor benevolence until now ... even then i would say that without responding to the issues raised about US actions - i'm not sure how you can say it would be worse ... unless i assume you think that everything the current countries are doing are worse than what the US is ... and if you won't address the points on the US then it's really hard to argue that ...
I the US is definitely the most powerful nation currently. Not indefinitely and that power may indeed be waning. I think it highly unlikely that a power vacuum would not be created if the US were to disappear tomorrow. We disagree on that and that is fine.
However, it is not at all true that I have not mentioned history or benevolence until now. This is from an earlier response to you.
I do think it is naive to just assume that countries rushing to fill the void by left the US would really act benevolently. Wouldn't it be the first time in human history such behavior by world powers would have occurred?
There is no historical precedent to indicate future world powers would behave in some new magical happy way. This is completely above and beyond any of the many complaints you have about the US. Debating whether the US is good or bad or dangerous in no way answers the question I asked. I understand you want to have the same conversation we have had in the past about the US but that is not this conversation.
are you really that sensitive that you can't even see what is evident? ... i asked for a reason why and you didn't give me any ... read what you wrote ... you offered an opinion without any rationale or reasoning ... that is a fact ... you don't owe it to me to give me one or have to but i'm not sure why you get into a hissy when that is the case ...
A hissy, eh? :roll:
you got a better word for it when you try and have a conversation with someone and they respond with "whatever dude"?
I think "whatever dude" was the perfect response to a snide comment.
No, I didn't. I don't believe China, Russia or India would be any better and may be worse. I know an Islamic republic would be much, much worse. I don't believe it would be a European or South American nation. So I don't know who to point to and think things would be better.
ok ... so, you don't have a rationale or reason ... you just don't think it would be better ... fair enough ...
in asking for your rationale as to why you think the world will be less safe if the US were to disappear - this is what you wrote ... is it not a FACT that you did not provide any rationale or reason? ...
so, i'm not sure how you can call my comment snide ... show me anything in your response that resembles a rationale or reasoning for your beliefs ...
No, I didn't. I don't believe China, Russia or India would be any better and may be worse. I know an Islamic republic would be much, much worse. I don't believe it would be a European or South American nation. So I don't know who to point to and think things would be better.
ok ... so, you don't have a rationale or reason ... you just don't think it would be better ... fair enough ...
in asking for your rationale as to why you think the world will be less safe if the US were to disappear - this is what you wrote ... is it not a FACT that you did not provide any rationale or reason? ...
so, i'm not sure how you can call my comment snide ... show me anything in your response that resembles a rationale or reasoning for your beliefs ...
Listen, you want to claim it was not a snide remark, that is fine. Know that I don't believe you. Just one more thing we can disagree on.
It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple. I tend to agree and have no desire to be part of that dynamic, so I really have no more to say on this particular part of the argument. You say it wasn't, I say it was. So be it.
Listen, you want to claim it was not a snide remark, that is fine. Know that I don't believe you. Just one more thing we can disagree on.
It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple. I tend to agree and have no desire to be part of that dynamic, so I really have no more to say on this particular part of the argument. You say it wasn't, I say it was. So be it.
you're right ... normally i wouldn't engage in this futility but i find your post disingenuous and feel compelled to respond ... you're quick at accusing people of things but the evidence is in the text ... i could walk away but i'm simply not going to allow you to play victim and me bully when it's simply not the case ... you've called me a lot of things on here - all of which are false and that's definitely playing a role in me responding to your accusations ...
edit: it's really simple here ... did you or did you not provide any reasoning or rationale? ... it's pretty clear you did not ...
Listen, you want to claim it was not a snide remark, that is fine. Know that I don't believe you. Just one more thing we can disagree on.
It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple. I tend to agree and have no desire to be part of that dynamic, so I really have no more to say on this particular part of the argument. You say it wasn't, I say it was. So be it.
you're right ... normally i wouldn't engage in this futility but i find your post disingenuous and feel compelled to respond ... you're quick at accusing people of things but the evidence is in the text ... i could walk away but i'm simply not going to allow you to play victim and me bully when it's simply not the case ... you've called me a lot of things on here - all of which are false and that's definitely playing a role in me responding to your accusations ...
edit: it's really simple here ... did you or did you not provide any reasoning or rationale? ... it's pretty clear you did not ...
Do you see the post above where you claimed I had never mentioned benevolence or history in my arguments and I pointed out quite clearly that I had? I see you are ignoring that to continue this.
I am not playing any victim and do not feel victimized. I feel you made a snide comment, one to which I responded with an eye roll and a whatever. My post was not disingenuous. What you wrote was snide. Had you said "No, I don't think you answered my question" I would not have called it snide because it would not have been. What you did, telling me that I don't have a rationale for my beliefs because I don't agree with yours, was snide. Plain and simple. And I do believe that you meant it to be. Not playing the victim - just stating what I believe.
Had I actually felt victimized my response would have been much longer-winded than a whatever and a shrug.
Do you see the post above where you claimed I had never mentioned benevolence or history in my arguments and I pointed out quite clearly that I had? I see you are ignoring that to continue this.
I am not playing any victim and do not feel victimized. I feel you made a snide comment, one to which I responded with an eye roll and a whatever. My post was not disingenuous. What you wrote was snide. Had you said "No, I don't think you answered my question" I would not have called it snide because it would not have been. What you did, telling me that I don't have a rationale for my beliefs because I don't agree with yours, was snide. Plain and simple. And I do believe that you meant it to be. Not playing the victim - just stating what I believe.
Had I actually felt victimized my response would have been much longer-winded than a whatever and a shrug.
i missed that post originally as i read from the bottom up ...
ok ... so you did mention historical benevolence although i'm not sure that really constitutes a rationale or reason ... but for the sake of our discussion - i will say it does ...
you could have said that was your reason when you were asked for one multiple times leading up to that ... instead i got what you posted which, indicates that you did not demonstrate a reasoning ... and then subsequently are now saying that i should have told you that you didn't answer the question ... which i suppose is an admittance that you did not ...
so ... i guess in the end - i can't control how you are gonna interpret stuff here ... for both our sakes - i will try and refrain from engaging with you in a discussion in the future as we can clearly show - it disintegrates quite fast ...
Comments
No, I didn't. I don't believe China, Russia or India would be any better and may be worse. I know an Islamic republic would be much, much worse. I don't believe it would be a European or South American nation. So I don't know who to point to and think things would be better.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
ok ... so, you don't have a rationale or reason ... you just don't think it would be better ... fair enough ...
the crux then is whether there is an hierarchy now and if so, whether there would be one in the absence of an american state ... the US is a very powerful country but right now only in so much as they have a lot of guns ... outside of that - it is a weakened state ... massive debt, decreasing innovation, no manufacturing and very little resources ... as other world economies continue to grow - the influence the US once had is slowly slipping away ...
if the US were to no longer engage in their current foreign policy strategy of economic imperialism - there would be no other country able to do so ... at least countries that would be willing ... china is expanding globally - but they are doing it the old fashioned way - buying everything ... using cold hard us dollars ...
Why don't you speculate, Brian? Get the ball rolling.
Again...whatever dude.
Really not the crux, just what you chose to focus on. The question was what the world would look like if the US disappeared tomorrow and would it be more or less safe.
Your litany of complaints about the state of the US, all of them would be washed away. By continuing to rehash them you are missing the point of the question.
You think it is a sure thing that a Russia, Chinese or Indian dominated world would be better and safer. I don't believe that to be anywhere close to a sure thing, although perhaps it would be. I do think it is naive to just assume that countries rushing to fill the void by left the US would really act benevolently. Wouldn't it be the first time in human history such behavior by world powers would have occurred?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
are you really that sensitive that you can't even see what is evident? ... i asked for a reason why and you didn't give me any ... read what you wrote ... you offered an opinion without any rationale or reasoning ... that is a fact ... you don't owe it to me to give me one or have to but i'm not sure why you get into a hissy when that is the case ...
where did i say my opinion was a sure thing? ... i've reiterated numerous times that it is my belief based on my aforementioned reasons ... you call me naive but yet you provide absolutely no rationale for your beliefs ...
and ultimately it is the crux ... if there is no hiearchy - there there is no such thing as a power vacuum ... i would argue there isn't such ... however, if you want to say there is ... i still contend that the world would be safer for the reasons i've stated ...
i engaged in your discussion - if you don't like the things i've pointed out ... that's fine but they were to support my reasoning ... if we are to have a discussion - you kind of need to have your own ...
let me know when you want to have that discussion ... but right now - it's definitely not going anywhere ...
Um...
Moving on...
My contention is that there would indeed be a power vacuum, that certain nations would indeed rush to fill it, and that there is no historical precedent that points to those nations acting benevolently or in any manner other than that which serves their own best interests. If that does not fit your guidelines for reasoning that is no one's problem other than your own.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
A hissy, eh? :roll:
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This is a bit utopian but I think the best hope for world peace is some sort of world government rather than any national government. Only when we all start thinking of ourselves as citizens of Earth, rather than citizens of a tiny nation on Earth, will peace come.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
However, I have NO expectations of people ever becoming that enlightened. At least not until religion goes away. Anyone see that happening in the next few thousand years? I don't.
uhhh ... that's my opinion ... it doesn't make it so ...
you missed my point ... i asked if there is indeed an hierarchy now ... obviously you believe the US to be the most powerful country ... i would disagree but if you believe so, i can see why you would think there would be a power vacuum ... what i was asking for is why you think whoever would replace that vacuum would make the world less safe or worse ...
you didn't mention anything about historical nor benevolence until now ... even then i would say that without responding to the issues raised about US actions - i'm not sure how you can say it would be worse ... unless i assume you think that everything the current countries are doing are worse than what the US is ... and if you won't address the points on the US then it's really hard to argue that ...
you got a better word for it when you try and have a conversation with someone and they respond with "whatever dude"?
So it isn't "most definite?" It is just that you believe it to be. Saying that you think something is true is not the same as saying something is most definitely true.
I the US is definitely the most powerful nation currently. Not indefinitely and that power may indeed be waning. I think it highly unlikely that a power vacuum would not be created if the US were to disappear tomorrow. We disagree on that and that is fine.
However, it is not at all true that I have not mentioned history or benevolence until now. This is from an earlier response to you.
There is no historical precedent to indicate future world powers would behave in some new magical happy way. This is completely above and beyond any of the many complaints you have about the US. Debating whether the US is good or bad or dangerous in no way answers the question I asked. I understand you want to have the same conversation we have had in the past about the US but that is not this conversation.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think "whatever dude" was the perfect response to a snide comment.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
..... You two are starting to sound like an old married couple.
in asking for your rationale as to why you think the world will be less safe if the US were to disappear - this is what you wrote ... is it not a FACT that you did not provide any rationale or reason? ...
so, i'm not sure how you can call my comment snide ... show me anything in your response that resembles a rationale or reasoning for your beliefs ...
Listen, you want to claim it was not a snide remark, that is fine. Know that I don't believe you. Just one more thing we can disagree on.
It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple. I tend to agree and have no desire to be part of that dynamic, so I really have no more to say on this particular part of the argument. You say it wasn't, I say it was. So be it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
you're right ... normally i wouldn't engage in this futility but i find your post disingenuous and feel compelled to respond ... you're quick at accusing people of things but the evidence is in the text ... i could walk away but i'm simply not going to allow you to play victim and me bully when it's simply not the case ... you've called me a lot of things on here - all of which are false and that's definitely playing a role in me responding to your accusations ...
edit: it's really simple here ... did you or did you not provide any reasoning or rationale? ... it's pretty clear you did not ...
Do you see the post above where you claimed I had never mentioned benevolence or history in my arguments and I pointed out quite clearly that I had? I see you are ignoring that to continue this.
I am not playing any victim and do not feel victimized. I feel you made a snide comment, one to which I responded with an eye roll and a whatever. My post was not disingenuous. What you wrote was snide. Had you said "No, I don't think you answered my question" I would not have called it snide because it would not have been. What you did, telling me that I don't have a rationale for my beliefs because I don't agree with yours, was snide. Plain and simple. And I do believe that you meant it to be. Not playing the victim - just stating what I believe.
Had I actually felt victimized my response would have been much longer-winded than a whatever and a shrug.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
i missed that post originally as i read from the bottom up ...
ok ... so you did mention historical benevolence although i'm not sure that really constitutes a rationale or reason ... but for the sake of our discussion - i will say it does ...
you could have said that was your reason when you were asked for one multiple times leading up to that ... instead i got what you posted which, indicates that you did not demonstrate a reasoning ... and then subsequently are now saying that i should have told you that you didn't answer the question ... which i suppose is an admittance that you did not ...
so ... i guess in the end - i can't control how you are gonna interpret stuff here ... for both our sakes - i will try and refrain from engaging with you in a discussion in the future as we can clearly show - it disintegrates quite fast ...