do you want unilateralism, or multilateralism

Makros_01 · 09-26-2009, 02:36 PM

we've all been too'ing and fro'ing about the state of the world and how obama has a muslim name, or how iran should go to ashes, or even that a world where america isnt the top dog is dangerous..
JFK. ive read your stuff enough to know you are far right wing, quick to lay blame, and short on evidence.
fast shootin when youre ready to tell others they have 'no idea what theyre talking about' yet offer no alternative (kinda like the last republican team for the white house)....
my question is simple it's easy to see there at the top.

so im going to simplify it (and im ready for people to tell me you cant simplify it. i think i can)..
and here we go

zerodown · 09-26-2009, 02:41 PM

neither.

Makros_01 · 09-26-2009, 02:43 PM

sorry zero.. sposed to be a poll

zerodown · 09-26-2009, 02:49 PM

The lesser of two devils then...

Makros_01 · 09-26-2009, 02:52 PM

the way the world IS my friend, always a choice between two undesirables.. if youve got a third way.. lets here it

JcP · 09-26-2009, 03:14 PM

multilateralism.

Ego Tripping · 09-26-2009, 04:28 PM

Multi.

And Makros, I like the cut of your jib. Hope you post more often. We need more Aussie energy around these parts.

flappy · 09-27-2009, 12:56 AM

What's lateralism ?

Makros_01 · 09-29-2009, 11:16 AM

lateral as in a branch.. a prong.. to the side. from many angles.
un being single, lateral being the prongs of diplomacy

so single minded diplomacy ( the association also infers, in its popular usage, an arbitrary approach to diplomatic wrangling)i think ive said enough

and thank ego.. you will/perhaps already have.. see(n) me kicking round pissing up the wall with opine fresh ...jib. a friend of mine who smashes me at chess is particular to that word.

verklingen · 09-29-2009, 12:05 PM

ever since the age of discovery -- when european powers became intrinsically dependent on resources from across the globe to provide revenue to build their empires as well as sustain their populations -- our world has been tip-toeing toward a global system of resource management. our problem is that the age of discovery was itself driven by greed, and this gave birth to a greedy system. you might say greed was the original unilateral approach, and we've stuck with it through various manifestations and incarnations: from racism to jingoism and everything in between. but all the while the livelihood of all nations has been stitched ever closer, and today we have a strong, global commercial structure wherein the shortcomings of some are supported by the abundance of others.

this is a natural order that arose from greed (selling goods to meet a demand), but greed can only take us so far. it was never the best way to go about things, but given the scale of this system (which has grown to encompass the entire globe) it's becoming glaringly obvious to anyone with a history book and news source that this same greedy, unilateral paradigm has all along been yielding diminishing returns. . . and now threatens to topple the system entirely. we fumbled into this remarkable gift, and imo we'd better get as many ideas about what to do with it as possible.

Makros_01 · 09-29-2009, 02:29 PM

'mans despotic relationship with nature' verklingen? is that the sort of greed? I agree. sustainable economics as opposed to col. inflatory economics is IMO worht serious consideration as the logical stepping stone to fascilitate another paradigm.
And, once again IMO, really....that's what its all about is'nt it. Our greed isn't really borne of an ill will, or an evil, or anything negative. It is merely the instinctual drive that motivates ambition. Not bad things. We want to be better. Awesome!
I thin it will be soon. We will be able to help each other independantly of money. I mean, really. Imagine being able to fix a man/woman who is dying right there in front of you on the street and not doing it out of a fear of monetry concern..
wowee!
ok...im dont now..*deep breathes*