Depends on who did what, doesn't it? Whichever one the US did is bad, whichever a member of Old Europe did is good.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Is essentialism needed in democracy?
Of course, it is. Not only it is, but it is vital.
Through the democratic conception of the individuals and the interactions between individuals, essentialising is one of the most effective way of protecting democracy from any constructive criticism.
Democracy has it that people are the same all over the world except for some differences. While this might sound weird, still it is the one of the democratic hard core beliefs. Everywhere the same needs, the same dreams, the same wishes etc..., a thought that leads democratic people to design those famous democratic values and rights everyone on earth is entitled to.
Now this explains their leaning to find and put in front the differences that might appear to explain any distortion between the expected result of democracy and the real result.
If they cant assess to liberty, it is because they are black. If they cant have the possibility of vote, it is because they are women. If they are acting this way, it is because they are this nationality or that nationality etc... The examples are so numerous since the birth of democracy and such a common use today that being exhaustive is impossible.
Again, democratic people recognize that the identity of a person is a composite of many things. Yet each time, democracy leads them to blame the differences to explain a malfunction.
Indeed another approach would be to consider that if there is something to essentialise, it might be not what people have different but what they have in common.
Of course, such a way of thinking leads to put into light democracy which is the only common trait each time essentialism appears, an alternative which is naturally excluded.

Well, maybe this "little kid" can teach you a few things.

You've been arguing that a "science project" cannot be construed as "foreign affairs" (despite the fact that any time foreign countries discuss anything they are having international relations, but I'm sure you have a specific and narrow definition for "international" as well). I've long since accepted your ridiculously narrow definition in order to demonstrate your clear hypocrisy.

I'm not sure why you're zeroing in on "foreign affairs". Do you mean to say that all "foreign affairs" are unilateral? If so, then the most important part of your definition is "foreign affairs", the superfluous other words need to be deleted, and you may be the most linguistically challenged adult I've ever met (if you are an adult).

No, dear student, those other words mean something and they are there for a reason. They serve to qualify a certain type of foreign affairs - the type where ONE country acts "individualistically" and with "minimal consultation and involvement with other nations". If either of these qualifications are absent, if the country in question acts with others or consults extensively with others, then the qualification fails and the definition does not apply.

Though the Iraq invasion does qualify as "foreign affairs", it fails as a "unilateral action".

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Maybe an example of a unilateral action could help to understand?

@fatboy

I'm sorry to have to tell you that, but you seem to be the only one here who cares whether the invasion of Iraq was a unilateral, or not. It was a violation of international law, the same that Saddam Hussein comitted in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. A gang bang is worse than a simple rape, you know...

Sigh. Evidently, I'm also the only one here who can follow multiple threads of conversation. Take some time, go back through the posts, concentrate real, real hard on only the debate between Bond and I and see if you can come up with a response to your own ludicrous post.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Okay. probably more more interesting debate that way, you need to eat more vitamins.

@fatboy
You accused EU of unilateralism (already flawed since EU is made of several countries). I said sience cant be an excuse to accuse other countries of unilateralism and provided dictionary definition of unilateralism. You provided your own definition...
I zeroed on "foreing affairs" pard because without foreing affairs, there is no unilateralism.
"A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies."
Please ignore bolded part again...
Now definition of foreing affairs: "Affairs concerning international relations and national interests in foreign countries."
Not my definition...
Thats unilateralism. Now what is foreing affairs?Hint

@Bond369 - As I've said, repeatedly, I've accepted your limited definition (would you prefer "application" instead?) of "unilateral". Now, would you agree that the US has never acted unilaterally?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

As much as some would agree that Clinton "never had sex with that woman", probably.

Of course, later, that meant that the general definition on sex had to be changed permanently. Groping for a sufficcient substitute, people seems to have come up with "this thing people do". The usage of that is of course inevitably related to the fact that sex now only refers to how Clinton has sex, or perhaps how Clinton defines sex...(*shudder*) It is a dilemma that will live through the centuries, no doubt. Humanity mourns the loss of the word from their vocabulary, even as some fear for our continued survival on the planet. This is also the explanation for how many guys cannot find the right words when talking to women. Obviously.