User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 73

  1. #51
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Your 'argument' isn't even an argument - sensing at its finest.
    Correct - it was an informative statement, not an argument. I did not intend to construe the entire implications of my thought through one unsolicited comment. Three quarters of the people I intend to engage on the forums do not write back, so alas, here we are.

    The free market is not for them - it's for the invaders.
    You could argue this, surely as you would towards my thoughts on the establishment of an export for the Iraqis like oil, but what of our work with countries prior? Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, what we attempted with Vietnam? I believe it is a facile way of looking at it, to state we simply do this to establish US markets inside the perimeter of the countries we defend. Of course, that is one of its benefits. But it is more one of the many beneficial factors of having a capitalist democratic republic instilled over allowing communistic totalitarian regimes to remain in power.

    Che Guevara's autobiographical works detail the most difficult part of establishing a republic was finding a sustainable export capable of financially backing the civil institutions they intended to erect. I view Iraqi oil in much of the same light, only with a far simpler fix than what the Cubans had to go through.

    Besides, it's wrong to assume that people would want that so much that they wouldn't mind having their countries invaded and bombed (and let's not overlook the rape incidents) for it to happen.
    This is just a hunch, but I would posit that the ratio of US soldiers to Iraqi citizens committing rape is in stark contrast of each other. I am not able to find any data on the subject, though.

    I view it as unavoidable happenstance. I should be glad we have far greater capability of control now than we did through even the Korean and Vietnam wars.

  2. #52
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    I don't see what's so wrong about establishing free markets for those unable to do it for themselves.
    Just a quick point on this (and it's rhetorical, so you don't have to answer).

    Do you really believe that one can force freedom onto another person or nation in any manner? That seems to redefine the word "free" in free markets. Additionally, can I also force someone to have free will?

    Hint: yes to both questions would be consistant yet incorrect.
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  3. #53
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    Just a quick point on this (and it's rhetorical, so you don't have to answer).

    Do you really believe that one can force freedom onto another person or nation in any manner? That seems to redefine the word "free" in free markets. Additionally, can I also force someone to have free will?

    Hint: yes to both questions would be consistant yet incorrect.




    Also,


    http://www.toriesfightingfortheking.com/WhoTories.htm


    So the answer (incorrectly of course) to both is yes.

  4. #54
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    I have two thoughts: (1) I have only read three or four of posts on politics, but I would not have guessed that you would hold this position. I guess I just assumed you were a Republican rather than a Libertarian; (2) You could have just quoted Chomsky rather than some racist like Buchanan who falls asleep dreaming about the White Party every night.

    This is just my way of saying that I agree with Chomsky on this as well.
    On what grounds do you call Pat Buchanan a racist.

    I just did a brief perusal of the allegedly racist statements and non of them struck me as racist.

    Here are a brief collection of statements from his most recent book that MSNBC decided to let him go over:

    From the Preface:

    When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian summer of our civilization.

    From the chapter, “The Death Of Christian America”:

    Obama’s White House thus enlisted in the long and successful campaign to expel Christianity from the public square, diminish its presence in our public life, and reduce its role to that of just another religion.

    From the chapter, “The End Of White America”:

    The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear. Hispanics already comprise 42 percent of New Mexico’s population, 37 percent of California’s, 38 percent of Texas’s, and over half the population of Arizona under the age of twenty. ……. Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being overturned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution—to “insure domestic tranquility” and “make us a more perfect union”? Or has our passivity in the face of this invasion imperiled our union?

    On the group UNITY: Journalists of Color, Inc. pushing for more diversity in journalism:

    Half a century after Martin Luther King envisioned a day when his children would be judged ‘not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character,’ journalists of color are demanding the hiring and promotion of journalists based on the color of their skin. Jim Crow is back. Only the color of the beneficiaries and the color of the victims have been reversed.

    Also from the chapter, “The End Of White America”:

    Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.

    From the chapter, “Equality or Freedom?”:

    Not until the 1960s did courts begin to use the Fourteenth Amendment to impose a concept of equality that the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, and the Gettysburg Address never believed in. Before the 1960s, equality meant every citizen enjoyed the same constitutional rights and the equal protection of existing laws. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law mandated social, racial, or gender equality.

    From the chapter “The Diversity Cult”:

    Americans who seek stricter immigration control have been charged with many social sins: racism, xenophobia, nativism. Yet none has sought to expel any fellow American based on color or creed. We have only sought to preserve the country we grew up in. Do not people everywhere do that, without being reviled? What motivates people who insist that America’s doors be held open wide until the European majority has disappeared?

    What is their grudge against the old America that eats at their heart?

    On crime:

    If [conservative political commentator Heather] Mac Donald’s statistics are accurate, 49 of every 50 muggings and murders in New York are the work of minorities. That might explain why black folks have trouble getting a cab. Every New York cabby must know the odds, should he pick up a man of color at night.

    From the chapter “‘The White Party’”:

    What the above points to is a strategy from which Republicans will recoil, a strategy to increase the GOP share of the white Christian vote and increase the turnout of that vote by specific appeals to social, cultural, and moral issues, and for equal justice for the emerging white minority. If the GOP is not the party of New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci and Cambridge cop James Crowley, it has no future. And although Howard Dean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?

    From the chapter “The Last Chance”:

    Our intellectual, cultural, and political elites are today engaged in one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments in history. They are trying to transform a Western Christian republic into an egalitarian democracy made up of all the tribes, races, creeds, and cultures of planet Earth. They have dethroned our God, purged our cradle faith from public life, and repudiated the Judeo-Christian moral code by which previous generations sought to live.

    From the same chapter:

    For the Left to concede that white anger is a legitimate response to racial injustices done to white people would be to concede that the Left is guilty of the very sin of which it accuses the right.

    On the segregation era:

    Perhaps some of us misremember the past. But the racial, religious, cultural, social, political, and economic divides today seem greater than they seemed even in the segregation cities some of us grew up in.

    Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans.
    None of that smacks of, I think black folks, or brown folks or whoever are naturally inferior to white people.

    They just seem like statements that MSNBC couldn't abide one of their employees making.

  5. #55
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    It just seems like its easier to call people that disagree with you racist, than actually deal with the facts on the ground (sometimes).

  6. #56
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    but what of our work with countries prior? Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, what we attempted with Vietnam? I believe it is a facile way of looking at it, to state we simply do this to establish US markets inside the perimeter of the countries we defend. Of course, that is one of its benefits. But it is more one of the many beneficial factors of having a capitalist democratic republic instilled over allowing communistic totalitarian regimes to remain in power.
    That was a matter of geopolitics - US had to do that to prevent an enemy (USSR) of growing too strong. Same motivation to invade Germany on both world wars. Otoh, they didn't have any motivation to do that in African countries, so, predictably, no intervention was made.

    "A person usually has two reasons for doing something: a good reason and the real reason."

    Che Guevara's autobiographical works detail the most difficult part of establishing a republic was finding a sustainable export capable of financially backing the civil institutions they intended to erect. I view Iraqi oil in much of the same light, only with a far simpler fix than what the Cubans had to go through.
    Your point?

    This is just a hunch, but I would posit that the ratio of US soldiers to Iraqi citizens committing rape is in stark contrast of each other. I am not able to find any data on the subject, though.
    Fair enough.

    I view it as unavoidable happenstance. I should be glad we have far greater capability of control now than we did through even the Korean and Vietnam wars.
    It can be avoided - by respecting other State's sovereignty and not invading them. The idea that they are better off with a "democracy" (heavily influenced by the invader's interests) that costs thousand of human lives is, to say the least, very ethnocentric.

    And once you take an ethnocentric route, you have a justification for pretty much anything - from slavery holocaust.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  7. #57
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    That was a matter of geopolitics
    As was the primary motivation for the second gulf war (the first one was the one primarily about oil).

    Anyway, self-interest and idealism are not mutually exclusive goals; (perceived) national interests is necessary to justify the expenditure of blood and treasure, but it also gives opportunity to practically pursue more idealistic goals-the salience of which I believe you may underestimate when it comes to the self-image Americans have of themselves, and the role which that plays in initiating and maintaining support for war efforts. For that matter, such idealism constrains the methods and aims of the United States when its interests conflict with that of other liberal democracies (as it tends to do in all liberal democracies, though its unclear to what extent the 'democratic peace' is simply a function of hegemonic stability-I'm estimating that constructivism and liberal institutionalism are more correct than 'realism' on this issue).

  8. #58
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    It can be avoided - by respecting other State's sovereignty and not invading them. The idea that they are better off with a "democracy" (heavily influenced by the invader's interests) that costs thousand of human lives is, to say the least, very ethnocentric.

    And once you take an ethnocentric route, you have a justification for pretty much anything - from slavery holocaust.
    Not exactly-the assumption that Iraqis are better off with democracy is a form of 'ethnocentrism' that assumes Iraqis and Americans are fundamentally the same in terms of our 'common humanity', and therefore in terms of our rights and enlightened self-interests (and without due regard for the effects of differing patterns of socialization, institutions, and conditions on assumed human characteristics); slavery and genocide would pretty much be excluded as extreme manifestations of that form of liberal ethnocentrism. Slavery and genocide are extreme manifestations of not fully respecting the common humanity of others.

  9. #59
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Anyway, self-interest and idealism are not mutually exclusive goals; (perceived) national interests is necessary to justify the expenditure of blood and treasure, but it also gives opportunity to practically pursue more idealistic goals-the salience of which I believe you may underestimate when it comes to the self-image Americans have of themselves, and the role which that plays in initiating and maintaining support for war efforts.
    Well put. I realize that.

    Not exactly-the assumption that Iraqis are better off with democracy is a form of 'ethnocentrism' that assumes Iraqis and Americans are fundamentally the same in terms of our 'common humanity', and therefore in terms of our rights and enlightened self-interests; slavery and holocaust would pretty much be excluded as extreme manifestations of that form of ethnocentrism.
    Except for the fact that Iraq citizens' lives don't mean much in the grand scheme of things - as long as they get to elect their representatives in the end.

    Even then, is their population wise enough to choose their leaders? Somehow I doubt. A Sadam Hussein 2.0 could easily pop up within some years (back to square one).
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  10. #60
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    As was the primary motivation for the second gulf war (the first one was the one primarily about oil).

    Anyway, self-interest and idealism are not mutually exclusive goals; (perceived) national interests is necessary to justify the expenditure of blood and treasure, but it also gives opportunity to practically pursue more idealistic goals-the salience of which I believe you may underestimate when it comes to the self-image Americans have of themselves, and the role which that plays in initiating and maintaining support for war efforts. For that matter, such idealism constrains the methods and aims of the United States when its interests conflict with that of other liberal democracies (as it tends to do in all liberal democracies, though its unclear to what extent the 'democratic peace' is simply a function of hegemonic stability-I'm estimating that constructivism and liberal institutionalism are more correct than 'realism' on this issue).
    Very impressive.

Similar Threads

  1. Why are we pessmistic when the world is getting better?
    By Typh0n in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 05:50 PM
  2. Why is there hatred in the world?
    By danseen in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 06:07 AM
  3. Why the World is Doomed!
    By Orangey in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-07-2012, 05:43 AM
  4. [NT] Why I think that the world as we know it is doomed.
    By Virtual ghost in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 02:11 PM
  5. why is taking semester off the end of the world?
    By prplchknz in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 01:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO