DukeNukeEm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/2...an-negotiations He's following through on that one quickly. I think it's funny that Bush wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East but the largest democracy in the region is Iran and well... uhh... yeah.

$. And I think this one of the biggest actual policies issues that are killing the Republican party right now. They're trying to make the discussion on alternative energy sources about global warming and framing the debate around that. But really this issue is so much bigger than just climate change and I dont think the party ever distanced themselves enough from Bush's policies there.

I really cant differentiate between Bush, Carter, Nixon and Reagan. There's reasons you can say each one of those guys was worse than the others.

Documentaries are separate like Fog of War. But yeah, Moore and Gore don't really hold much more water than Matthew Broderick. They are entertainers.

well his name does sound pretty elitist.

Yeah but the people with that Bush bumper sticker haven't been programmed to hate William Henry Harrison.

Bill Clinton did a better job.

Well, the US very well could have bombed the s*** out of Manchuria and whopped the Chinese but they didn't. McArthur was a total war hero and Truman fired him for his insistence on attacking China. It would be unfair to say there were no instances of conflict between global powers since 1946, even though I would really call Korea more a crisis than a war. I really hate to say this, but I think nukes are overrated. Sure both sides had a lot of nukes but the primary targets for both sides were usually the other countries installations. A few civilian centers would probably have been hit but I mean the 2nd wave strikes would've been horribly disorganized and there would be probably be no silos left for a round 3. Nuclear war would've been bad but I doubt it would've been any worse than World War 2 or resulted in any countries getting wiped off the map in a matter of hours.

I feel bad for all those people with the 1-20-09 bumper stickers.

Honestly not trying to make an issue of it, but it's f***ing insulting to say I should watch a Hollywood movie to learn something. Call me arrogant or one of those pesky "know it all college kids" but there are certain things I really dont like. I mean really, dont correct somebody with wrong information after a quick glimpse of the Wikipedia page on the UN.

But I'm totally not a freshman! WIN! Unlike former colonies (Korea, Vietnam) or countries so poor there's barely a currency (Afghanistan) China was definitely worth the Soviets getting really angry about. A war between the US and China could easily have escalated into a nuclear war. Before you mention that little island south of Florida, the Cuban Missile Crisis got bad because the United States didn't know the Soviets had warheads on the island and we way overestimated our leverage. The same way states are reluctant to get into convention wars (typically) they are scared to launch ICBM's at each other. Reasonable countries dont like war in general regardless of whether nukes are involved.

I think it's pretty absurd to suggest I watch a Matthew Broderick movie to learn more about this. Maybe if I wanted to learn something new about dog racing I could watch a dog racing movie... but I mean come on it's pretty bogus to expect Hollywood to teach anything worthwhile on politics. A great film for those looking to understand that big election thing everyone is talking about!

World War 2 started for a lot of reasons. Probably #1 is the global balance of power was shifting. The formation of the German Confederation in the 1800's and German victory in the Franco-Prussian war which brought about this massive swing in the balance of power in Europe. In Asia Japan had beaten Russia in a war around the turn of the century but was still treated much like a 2nd class country. Lots of things contributed to what made the conflict so large, and most of it is the economic sanctions in the interwar period. Germany resorted to a man they didn't fully understand in Hitler and Japan was forced into acquiring resources through force in the Pacific because of trade impediments. A global economic collapse led to a global war, I hardly see that as a stretch.

The principles are identical, it's just a mushroom cloud is more dramatic. Conventional warfare can be equally devastating to the world as nuclear war, nukes were not used in World War 1 but it still caused the Great Depression. Even World War 2 had no consequences as far-reaching a global economic collapse, with or without the atomic bombs. The Maginot Line is actually a terrific metaphor for the way states interacted in the interwar period. Globalization was still very young and while countries were very eager to reap the benefits of a global economy they had reservations about sacrificing domestic gain for global welfare. Consequently after World War 1 when debt was piled onto every country involved except the United States countries became very withdrawn and discriminating when it came to trade partners. The Maginot Line is probably the least important of the barriers that I'm referring to, think tariffs that made it difficult for European countries to trade with the United States to help repay their debt. I dont use Hollywood to formulate thoughts on this topic. My major is international relations, I play on going to Grad school for it. But the US and USSR never had any reason to wipe each other the map, and the institutions like the UNSC ensured that regional conflicts like Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea would not escalate into a global war between superpowers. There was a war between great powers since WW2: China and the United States in Korea. McArthur went crazy and wanted to invade China and Truman had to fire him...

With no governments there is no currency, people would be bartering constantly. - Mad Max is a fairly accurate depiction of what with no government looks like.

You wont let go of mutually assured destruction as being the primary reason for the lack of conflict in the post-war era, because that's pretty much what all your points are reverting back to. Mutually assured destruction relies on the belief that the costs of modern war will never outweigh the benefits, and that great powers will never engage each other because of that fact. Well it is probably true that modern war is never economical, that was not a reason to avoid conflict in the 20th century. World War 1 ravaged Europe, every country on the continent was put into unfathomable debt and went through unprecedented human suffering. They called it the war to end all wars for a reason. So why was World War 2 allowed to occur? Shouldn't the destruction of WW1 been enough to prevent any other conflict especially if mutually assured destruction is actually applicable in international relations? World War 2 started because of war debts not being forgiven between the United States and European nations, in particular France. Part of this was due to the lack of any forum for France to make it's case as the United States backed out of the League of Nations. After the US refused to ignore the war debts of France, France cranked up pressure on the Germans for reparations and it led to a global economic collapse that was completely unprecedented. Germany nor France could appeal to the United States for relief due to the absence of the US at the League of Nations. International Relations 101: When modern countries are reduced to nothing and are ignored in the international system the likelihood of irrational behavior by that country increases exponentially. America was naughty, isolationist and selfish... so we got Hitler in our stocking for Christmas. There is a common misconception that globalization is inevitable when in fact it's a product of policy decisions being made by individual nations to stimulate economic growth. For instance you can't be against the UN and for MNC's, that's a glaring contradiction. You're only concerned with the economic aspect of globalization under a ridiculous notion that economics and diplomacy are two separate arenas of the international system. You might have been able to make the argument you are trying to make in 1922, but World War 2 proved everything you are saying completely wrong. Isolationism doesn't work anymore, the last time we were dumb enough to try it we caused the worst economic collapse and deadliest war in human history.

Anarchy. It's the nature of Int'l Relations.

Have you read what Robert McNamara said about the Cuban Missile Crisis? We didn't even know there were warheads in Cuba until after the crisis, quite a few US generals were advocating a military strike on Cuba and that would've been the end of the world. If you dont count that giant nuclear standoff that lasted almost 50 years. I would say increased free trade is a direct result of globalization and the UN. That's an extension of decolonization which has been one of the UN's largest platforms.

Can you go into these variables? btw- mutually assured destruction doesn't count. Both sides had their fingers on the button multiple times and were fully willing to go all the way.

General Assembly didn't convene until 1946. I swear to god guys, read a f***in book.

I like the $100,000 TV's. It's cool just to look at them. -it's just called Abt, its the last name of the people who own it.

This isn't true at all. There has been one instance of conflict between great powers since 1946. Before the UN there was the Russo-Japanese War, World War 1, World War 2 and plenty others. The UN has been extremely effective at preserving world peace, it's actually exceeded any realistic expectations they could've had at it's inception.

I'd like to hear some rationale behind this.

I really like the snowflakes.

Well Israel did shell the UN building in Gaza....