User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 73

  1. #61
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    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.
    Agreed. Chomsky has written about this for YEARS, so I don't think I would have needed to hear it from Pat fucking Buchanan.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #62
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Your point?
    That establishing a source of income is essential for a free republic to operate. Iraq just so happens to have only two primary exports that I'm aware of, opium and oil. It is plainly obvious opening the latter to foreign investment will skyrocket the funding available for the people involved with the democratic process, making oil a primary asset, in turn provoking facile assessments like 'we want cheap oil'. I would accept the argument that we are protecting China's interests. Or maybe a theory involving lobbyists for oil companies. But not the fact that we do it to retain the cost of low oil. We get only thirteen percent of our oil from the middle east excluding Saudi Arabia, you know - that's Iraq divided among some six or so other countries, from what I remember.

    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.
    I respect your philosophy. I am of a far off opinion. My revolutionary spirit is strong.

  3. #63
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    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.
    If necessary, most Americans would accept an equivalent cost in their own citizen's blood in order to get rid of a regime like that of Saddam Hussein, if they were somehow transplanted into that situation with their current identities intact. What you perceive as callous disregard of Iraqi lives (as a means of explaining American acceptance of the risk of collateral damage in such an endeavor) is rooted in American's subconsciously projecting that same 'live free or die' mind-set onto Iraqis.

  4. #64
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Agreed. Chomsky has written about this for YEARS, so I don't think I would have needed to hear it from Pat fucking Buchanan.
    Yes please continue to try to stifle debate.

    Given how much you complain about how bad conservatives are, one would think conservatives espousing these views would excite you.

    Although that would only happen if you cared about positive reform of the GOP.


    Unless you would actually prefer a system dominated by liberals with no room for opposition. Meaning you care more about your side winning than having a functional two party system where differing viewpoints are given credence.

    As long as you aren't debating in good faith on that front, its a waste of time to engage you.

  5. #65
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    If necessary, most Americans would accept an equivalent cost in their own citizen's blood in order to get rid of a regime like that of Saddam Hussein, if they were somehow transplanted into that situation with their current identities intact. What you perceive as callous disregard of Iraqi lives (as a means of explaining American acceptance of the risk of collateral damage in such an endeavor) is rooted in American's subconsciously projecting that same 'live free or die' mind-set onto Iraqis.
    -----------------

    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... '


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

  6. #66
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    Life in the New Iraq: Are Iraqis Better Off?

    Zainab Salbi is an Iraqi-American writer and a women’s rights activist. Her new book, If You Knew Me You Would Care, was released in March. She is the founder of Women for Women International, and has written this piece from Baghdad, where she is currently working on a new book on Iraq.

    The question everyone asks — whether things are better or worse in Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s time — is an unfair one.

    For Iraqis, this is a question that requires them to choose between two evils.It’s been 10 years since the invasion of Iraq, and talk of explosions, lack of basic infrastructure, corruption, and sectarian violence still dominate daily discussions during family meals and on TV talk shows.

    Recently in Baghdad, after we’d discussed the the latest explosion in the city, an old friend asked, “Do you also talk about such daily misery in America?” When I shook my head, he looked down. “It is sad what has happened to our Iraq,” he said. “I don’t know how will we ever go back to normal life.”

    “America may have gotten rid of Saddam,” another friend added. “But it threw out the baby with the bath water by destroying the country in the process.” When asked about the good things America and its allies brought with the invasion, Iraqis quickly respond with the same list: They got rid of Saddam, brought us the internet, cell phones, freedom of political expressions and satellite TV.

    But there was a tradeoff. As Duha, a 37-year-old woman, told me recently: “We gained the freedom of expression, but we lost our security.” Iraqis worry not just about the loss of security. They also talk about food, infrastructure, electricity, fuel and jobs. What was once provided at a subsidized price by the government under Saddam — clean water and electricity for example — now costs extra, and comes at a lower quality, leaving many in an endless struggle to keep up with life’s daily demands.

    “It is sad what has happened to our Iraq,” an old friend told me. “I don’t know how will we ever go back to normal life.”
    After the war, the country moved from producing its own food and light manufacturing to importing everything. Factories have been closed and farms have been abandoned for the same reason: lack of infrastructure and security. Limited job opportunities are available for men — mostly in the army and the police. Employment opportunities for women have nearly disappeared.

    Women may have gained some political power in securing 25 percent representation in the Iraqi parliament, but they have regressed socially and economically since the invasion.

    Amid the rise of religious conservatism in the new Iraq, violence against women by their husbands is often considered a right. Women have few legal repercussions for such abuse, and in many cases, it is even justified by religious authorities.

    Most women have embraced the headscarf simply to avoid harassment. Many have retreated to their homes, abandoned jobs, and taken their daughters out of school. There are more illiterate girls and women in the country than 25 years ago. The average marriage age — once 18 — has fallen to 15, with even some 13-year-old girls becoming brides.

    The few Christians who have chosen to remain in Iraq despite harassment from both Sunni and Shia religious zealots have given up hoping their status will improve. Sectarianism no longer only impacts their safety, but also their ability to get jobs.

    They are not the only ones who have started to sound resigned to this new life. “We have given up on hope,” one 30-year-old women’s activist told me. “It has been 10 years now, and every time we leave our home, we still don’t know if we will come back or make it by the end of the day.”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...now-what/#seg2
    -----------------

    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. #67
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ESI None
    Posts
    3,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Resources may have played a role in the decision to invade Iraq, but the results don't hold up.

    We didn't lower the price of fuel for the US and we haven't economically benefited from the conflict in any way except insofar as the conflict has funded defense industry products and they have hired to meet the demand.

    The resources may have played a role in going there, but the heart of the ideological foundation much like Vietnam was to bring democracy.

    If we can kill the notion that it is good to push democracy everywhere, we will do more to improve our foreign policy.

    The resource pillaging you refer to is a somewhat facile understanding of the motivations behind our foreign policy excursions.

    Pushing democracy has been the core of our foreign policy since the start of the cold war. Unfortunately we still have the cold war mindset of "if we don't push democracy, the bad guys will push their political system and win the battle for the world."

    Our leaders should be smart enough to know that the costs of invading and fighting overseas exceed the value of any resources one is hopeful to gain.
    You are partly correct in that the US government administrations during the cold war had as an agenda the ending of communism and the promotion of capitalism(not to be cofused with democracy). From what I know and understand, it was the US government who created the taliban and other Islamist organizations during the cold war to prevent the spead of communism into Afghanistan. It was also the US govenrment who put Saddam Hussien in a postion of power in order to make war against Iran. Its basically a process of "put person X in a postiton of power, in order to help us, but when person X becomes too powerful and wants to have their own, remove person X from power."The motive behind starting war and "exporting democracy" into these parts of the world goes beyond the resources that lie there, the latter being merely a question of not letting "wrong idealogies" get their hands on them. Its a game the US is playing like playing with fire, just trying to control idealogies and such that others have. I believe it has little to do with economics directly, more a question of making sure "the good boys" control the resoucres.

  8. #68
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    You are partly correct in that the US government administrations during the cold war had as an agenda the ending of communism and the promotion of capitalism(not to be cofused with democracy). From what I know and understand, it was the US government who created the taliban and other Islamist organizations during the cold war to prevent the spead of communism into Afghanistan. It was also the US govenrment who put Saddam Hussien in a postion of power in order to make war against Iran. Its basically a process of "put person X in a postiton of power, in order to help us, but when person X becomes too powerful and wants to have their own, remove person X from power."The motive behind starting war and "exporting democracy" into these parts of the world goes beyond the resources that lie there, the latter being merely a question of not letting "wrong idealogies" get their hands on them. Its a game the US is playing like playing with fire, just trying to control idealogies and such that others have. I believe it has little to do with economics directly, more a question of making sure "the good boys" control the resoucres.
    Much of our foreign policy outlook never moved beyond a bipolar dual superpower model.

    The fall of the USSR combined with the shifting nature of warfare have necessitated a ground up rethink of both our strategic military and diplomatic outlooks globally, but alas we are just getting to that conversation regarding foreign policy changes now.

    The old saying that army's train to fight the last war not this one applies.

    The military industrial complex supports too many jobs for any real sort of draw down on spending without a huge fight over it.

    Sure there was a draw down in the 90's, but not really any sort of strategic rethink.

  9. #69
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Wow. Iraq sounds like what I imagine a one party Republican USA would be like.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #70
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Yes please continue to try to stifle debate.

    Given how much you complain about how bad conservatives are, one would think conservatives espousing these views would excite you.

    Although that would only happen if you cared about positive reform of the GOP.


    Unless you would actually prefer a system dominated by liberals with no room for opposition. Meaning you care more about your side winning than having a functional two party system where differing viewpoints are given credence.

    As long as you aren't debating in good faith on that front, its a waste of time to engage you.
    Calm down. I agree with Buchanan, and I'm not on any "side." I don't vote democrat, FYI. It's just that Buchanan is a Johnny-come-lately and I wanted to point out that there is extensive literature on this topic to be found if you read Chomsky (and others) that goes further back than recent events.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

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