|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 26 2012 22:42 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 21:55 bahaa wrote:
Yes because you know too much more than everyone right? Not just the west, the whole world should interfere, especially the Arab Countries. What do you think will happen? Hot-headed thinking doesn't solve anything. A lot more people will die if you start bombing and arm the rebels. Probably many more than have died so far. 30000 civilians died in Libya because of the NATO intervention. There is also no guarantee that the rebels won't commit atrocities against the parts of the civilian population that is seen as regime supporters. This happened to a large degree in Libya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forces
It's so predictable and so wrong to blame the West for all casualties in a conflict the West is involved in, it's like some people think no one else has any responsibility, it all goes to the West. Get out of that biased thinking. Non-Westerners really are responsible for their own actions too.
|
On April 26 2012 22:11 Diks wrote: I'll let this video here, if you want to see and hear a syrian talking about her country, because seriously this disturbs me to see europeans and americans talking about a country they've never been into and don't really know the population, history or culture. + Show Spoiler +
That video is absolute garbage. The fact that Assad is good to a (small) part of the population, which is his own sect, doesn't in any way negate the fact that Assad is blowing up another part of the population. When you drag someone from the 'favored' class in front of a microphone this is obviously what you're gonna get.
|
On April 26 2012 22:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 22:42 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 21:55 bahaa wrote:
Yes because you know too much more than everyone right? Not just the west, the whole world should interfere, especially the Arab Countries. What do you think will happen? Hot-headed thinking doesn't solve anything. A lot more people will die if you start bombing and arm the rebels. Probably many more than have died so far. 30000 civilians died in Libya because of the NATO intervention. There is also no guarantee that the rebels won't commit atrocities against the parts of the civilian population that is seen as regime supporters. This happened to a large degree in Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forcesIt's so predictable and so wrong to blame the West for all casualties in a conflict the West is involved in, it's like some people think no one else has any responsibility, it all goes to the West. Get out of that biased thinking. Non-Westerners really are responsible for their own actions too.
Yes, a lot of the casualties were directly due to Libyans, but the conflict would not have escalated to that degree if they had not been supported by NATO. The Libyans rebels were responsible for their actions, but by supporting them, NATO is responsible too.
Edit: the point wasn't to place blame. The point is that a violent intervention will most likely make things worse, not better.
|
On April 26 2012 23:02 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 22:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 26 2012 22:42 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 21:55 bahaa wrote:
Yes because you know too much more than everyone right? Not just the west, the whole world should interfere, especially the Arab Countries. What do you think will happen? Hot-headed thinking doesn't solve anything. A lot more people will die if you start bombing and arm the rebels. Probably many more than have died so far. 30000 civilians died in Libya because of the NATO intervention. There is also no guarantee that the rebels won't commit atrocities against the parts of the civilian population that is seen as regime supporters. This happened to a large degree in Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forcesIt's so predictable and so wrong to blame the West for all casualties in a conflict the West is involved in, it's like some people think no one else has any responsibility, it all goes to the West. Get out of that biased thinking. Non-Westerners really are responsible for their own actions too. Yes, a lot of the casualties were directly due to Libyans, but the conflict would not have escalated to that degree if they had not been supported by NATO. The Libyans rebels were responsible for their actions, but by supporting them, NATO is responsible too.
And by not intervening we would have been responsible too for Ghadaffi slaughtering anyone that ever even shook hands with a 'suspected' rebel. Let's not pretend like Ghadaffi wouldn't have retalliated harshly. It's always a choice between two evils, and in both cases people will die, and I think you're better off supporting a group that at least wants to try and establish some kind of democratic government instead of staying quiet and helping a dictator maintain his grip on society.
That said, an intervention in Libya was possible because there was a relatively organized resistance in control of a certain territory. It's not the same in Syria, where an intervention would require troops on the ground, which can't be done by any western nation for obvious reasons.
|
If you do nothing you aren't responsible for anything. At first, do no harm.
But in fact western countries stacked Gaddafi with weapons and equipment. One can make the case that less people would have died if Gaddafi had been allowed to clean up. if you want to limit number of deaths it is probably best to let dictators like them kill freely until order is restored.
|
On April 26 2012 23:07 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 23:02 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 22:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 26 2012 22:42 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 21:55 bahaa wrote:
Yes because you know too much more than everyone right? Not just the west, the whole world should interfere, especially the Arab Countries. What do you think will happen? Hot-headed thinking doesn't solve anything. A lot more people will die if you start bombing and arm the rebels. Probably many more than have died so far. 30000 civilians died in Libya because of the NATO intervention. There is also no guarantee that the rebels won't commit atrocities against the parts of the civilian population that is seen as regime supporters. This happened to a large degree in Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forcesIt's so predictable and so wrong to blame the West for all casualties in a conflict the West is involved in, it's like some people think no one else has any responsibility, it all goes to the West. Get out of that biased thinking. Non-Westerners really are responsible for their own actions too. Yes, a lot of the casualties were directly due to Libyans, but the conflict would not have escalated to that degree if they had not been supported by NATO. The Libyans rebels were responsible for their actions, but by supporting them, NATO is responsible too. And by not intervening we would have been responsible too for Ghadaffi slaughtering anyone that ever even shook hands with a 'suspected' rebel. Let's not pretend like Ghadaffi wouldn't have retalliated harshly. That said, an intervention in Libya was possible because there was a relatively organized resistance in control of a certain territory. It's not the same in Syria, where an intervention would require troops on the ground, which can't be done by any western nation for obvious reasons.
But there was no point in siding with the rebels when they were also responsible for atrocities commited against the civilian population and when the war caused more deaths than Gadaffi did.
What one could have done (which was also the original plan) would for instance be to just shoot down Gadaffi's air force whenever it was used against civilians.
Edit: it is also a fact that one are very selective about which dictatorships are targeted. Is NATO responsible for all the deaths caused by the Burman or North Korean dictatorships just because one have not invaded them? What about Saudi Arabia or Jordan?
|
On April 26 2012 23:10 Miyoshino wrote:
If you do nothing you aren't responsible for anything. At first, do no harm.
But in fact western countries stacked Gaddafi with weapons and equipment. One can make the case that less people would have died if Gaddafi had been allowed to clean up. if you want to limit number of deaths it is probably best to let dictators like them kill freely until order is restored.
No, not doing anything is as much of a choice as doing something, and you are as responsible for that choice as you are for any choice you make. It's pretty basic ethics..
|
On April 26 2012 23:14 helvete wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 23:10 Miyoshino wrote:
If you do nothing you aren't responsible for anything. At first, do no harm.
But in fact western countries stacked Gaddafi with weapons and equipment. One can make the case that less people would have died if Gaddafi had been allowed to clean up. if you want to limit number of deaths it is probably best to let dictators like them kill freely until order is restored. No, not doing anything is as much of a choice as doing something, and you are as responsible for that choice as you are for any choice you make. It's pretty basic ethics..
Merely a play on words. If you have AIDS and I cant cure you, should I amputate your leg so at least I decided to do something to try to help?
At first, do no harm. It's the moral thing to do. Often any thing you will do will harm or you can't be sure it won't do harm. So you are forced to do nothing anyway.
|
So funny people are naive enough to think this is just some normal unrest.
This is nothing but US policy of replacing the puppets that he no longer has a need of. Saddam, Mubarek, Gaddafi, and now it's Esad's turn.
|
On April 26 2012 23:11 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 23:07 Derez wrote:On April 26 2012 23:02 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 22:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 26 2012 22:42 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 21:55 bahaa wrote:
Yes because you know too much more than everyone right? Not just the west, the whole world should interfere, especially the Arab Countries. What do you think will happen? Hot-headed thinking doesn't solve anything. A lot more people will die if you start bombing and arm the rebels. Probably many more than have died so far. 30000 civilians died in Libya because of the NATO intervention. There is also no guarantee that the rebels won't commit atrocities against the parts of the civilian population that is seen as regime supporters. This happened to a large degree in Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forcesIt's so predictable and so wrong to blame the West for all casualties in a conflict the West is involved in, it's like some people think no one else has any responsibility, it all goes to the West. Get out of that biased thinking. Non-Westerners really are responsible for their own actions too. Yes, a lot of the casualties were directly due to Libyans, but the conflict would not have escalated to that degree if they had not been supported by NATO. The Libyans rebels were responsible for their actions, but by supporting them, NATO is responsible too. And by not intervening we would have been responsible too for Ghadaffi slaughtering anyone that ever even shook hands with a 'suspected' rebel. Let's not pretend like Ghadaffi wouldn't have retalliated harshly. That said, an intervention in Libya was possible because there was a relatively organized resistance in control of a certain territory. It's not the same in Syria, where an intervention would require troops on the ground, which can't be done by any western nation for obvious reasons. But there was no point in siding with the rebels when they were also responsible for atrocities commited against the civilian population and when the war caused more deaths than Gadaffi did. What one could have done (which was also the original plan) would for instance be to just shoot down Gadaffi's air force whenever it was used against civilians. Edit: it is also a fact that one are very selective about which dictatorships are targeted. Is NATO responsible for all the deaths caused by the Burman or North Korean dictatorships just because one have not invaded them? What about Saudi Arabia or Jordan?
That's all speculation, you can't claim that 'the war caused more deaths than Ghadaffi did', because there's no way to predict what would have happened had the rebels lost it. In the end, Ghadaffi himself bears the responsibility for the war and all the deaths that resulted from it; if you oppress (parts of) your population long enough, you'll eventually have to face some kind of uprising, which is what was happening all over the arab world and is still happening in Syria.
As for intervening in one country, but not the other: Interventions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Libya was cheap, relatively low risk, short term and with an easy exit option; that wouldn't be the case for any of the other countries you listed, where an intervention would most likely only lead to further instability. This category includes Syria as well, which is why, in my opinion, we won't see an intervention there, aside from the geo-political constraints.
|
On April 26 2012 23:34 Bleak wrote:
So funny people are naive enough to think this is just some normal unrest.
This is nothing but US policy of replacing the puppets that he no longer has a need of. Saddam, Mubarek, Gaddafi, and now it's Esad's turn.
Really? this is a weak baseless argument and the mention of Mubarak makes it invalid.
|
On April 26 2012 23:34 Bleak wrote:
So funny people are naive enough to think this is just some normal unrest.
This is nothing but US policy of replacing the puppets that he no longer has a need of. Saddam, Mubarek, Gaddafi, and now it's Esad's turn.
Must be hard to live in a world where everyone is a US puppet. How could the US ever not get what it wants in such a world, the US has never ever not gotten what it wanted from Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddhafi, and Assad.
So funny people are indoctrinated enough to think that the US is the ultimate puppetmaster and all these countries that are always doing stuff the US does not like are actually controlled by the US.
|
On April 26 2012 23:38 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 23:11 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 23:07 Derez wrote:On April 26 2012 23:02 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 22:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 26 2012 22:42 Maginor wrote:On April 26 2012 21:55 bahaa wrote:
Yes because you know too much more than everyone right? Not just the west, the whole world should interfere, especially the Arab Countries. What do you think will happen? Hot-headed thinking doesn't solve anything. A lot more people will die if you start bombing and arm the rebels. Probably many more than have died so far. 30000 civilians died in Libya because of the NATO intervention. There is also no guarantee that the rebels won't commit atrocities against the parts of the civilian population that is seen as regime supporters. This happened to a large degree in Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forcesIt's so predictable and so wrong to blame the West for all casualties in a conflict the West is involved in, it's like some people think no one else has any responsibility, it all goes to the West. Get out of that biased thinking. Non-Westerners really are responsible for their own actions too. Yes, a lot of the casualties were directly due to Libyans, but the conflict would not have escalated to that degree if they had not been supported by NATO. The Libyans rebels were responsible for their actions, but by supporting them, NATO is responsible too. And by not intervening we would have been responsible too for Ghadaffi slaughtering anyone that ever even shook hands with a 'suspected' rebel. Let's not pretend like Ghadaffi wouldn't have retalliated harshly. That said, an intervention in Libya was possible because there was a relatively organized resistance in control of a certain territory. It's not the same in Syria, where an intervention would require troops on the ground, which can't be done by any western nation for obvious reasons. But there was no point in siding with the rebels when they were also responsible for atrocities commited against the civilian population and when the war caused more deaths than Gadaffi did. What one could have done (which was also the original plan) would for instance be to just shoot down Gadaffi's air force whenever it was used against civilians. Edit: it is also a fact that one are very selective about which dictatorships are targeted. Is NATO responsible for all the deaths caused by the Burman or North Korean dictatorships just because one have not invaded them? What about Saudi Arabia or Jordan? That's all speculation, you can't claim that 'the war caused more deaths than Ghadaffi did', because there's no way to predict what would have happened had the rebels lost it. In the end, Ghadaffi himself bears the responsibility for the war and all the deaths that resulted from it; if you oppress (parts of) your population long enough, you'll eventually have to face some kind of uprising, which is what was happening all over the arab world and is still happening in Syria. As for intervening in one country, but not the other: Interventions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Libya was cheap, relatively low risk, short term and with an easy exit option; that wouldn't be the case for any of the other countries you listed, where an intervention would most likely only lead to further instability. This category includes Syria as well, which is why, in my opinion, we won't see an intervention there, aside from the geo-political constraints.
It is also speculation that Gadaffi would have caused many more deaths if he stayed in power. He probably would have caused some, but nothing near what happened because of the intervention. The fact is that one evil was replaced by another (and many people died in the process). See for instance this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure
The NTC does also not have support in large groups of the population, so further conflict is almost guaranteed. Instead of addressing the unrest, they say that any attack against them is an attack on the 'glorious revolution'.
I agree that part of the reason Nato committed to the war was that it was low risk from their point of view.
|
On April 26 2012 23:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 23:34 Bleak wrote:
So funny people are naive enough to think this is just some normal unrest.
This is nothing but US policy of replacing the puppets that he no longer has a need of. Saddam, Mubarek, Gaddafi, and now it's Esad's turn. Must be hard to live in a world where everyone is a US puppet. How could the US ever not get what it wants in such a world, the US has never ever not gotten what it wanted from Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddhafi, and Assad. So funny people are indoctrinated enough to think that the US is the ultimate puppetmaster and all these countries that are always doing stuff the US does not like are actually controlled by the US.
The greatest trick that devil ever pulled was convincing the world that it does not exist.
U.S is our current era's Roman Empire. It's just that the methods are much more subtle now instead of predominantly resorting to use of force (which admittedly US doesn't shy from if you look at its history)
|
If they're puppets it'd be nice if they acted like it more often. Or at all, really. Aren't puppets supposed to do that?
Just as an example, if Assad is a US puppet, shouldn't he have not allowed Syria to be the main transit route for terrorists to move weapons, money and men through into Iraq?
Shouldn't he have stopped his father's decades-long support of Hamas, including allowing the top Hamas leadership to live and operate in Syria?
Shouldn't he have stopped his father's (again) decades-long support for Hezbollah, including making Syria (again) the main route to get money, weapons and men into Lebanon? Shouldn't he have not allowed Iranian military operatives to train Hezbollah fighters in Syria?
I think it goes without saying that the US is very interested in getting Israel what Israel wants when it comes to military security, Syria being removed as a backer of Hamas and Hezbollah is very high on Israel's list of security priorities. And if we accept your idea that the puppets are being removed because they are no longer useful, was it really the best strategy to allow the puppet Syria to help Hezbollah in particular become a major organization that it is now very hard for Israel to contain?
|
On April 27 2012 00:52 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 23:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 26 2012 23:34 Bleak wrote:
So funny people are naive enough to think this is just some normal unrest.
This is nothing but US policy of replacing the puppets that he no longer has a need of. Saddam, Mubarek, Gaddafi, and now it's Esad's turn. Must be hard to live in a world where everyone is a US puppet. How could the US ever not get what it wants in such a world, the US has never ever not gotten what it wanted from Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddhafi, and Assad. So funny people are indoctrinated enough to think that the US is the ultimate puppetmaster and all these countries that are always doing stuff the US does not like are actually controlled by the US. The greatest trick that devil ever pulled was convincing the world that it does not exist. U.S is our current era's Roman Empire. It's just that the methods are much more subtle now instead of predominantly resorting to use of force (which admittedly US doesn't shy from if you look at its history)
Well, im sure the US intelligence and military leaders who have been horribly fucking up for a decade + will be happy to know there's still at least one person out there who thinks they are good at what they do.
|
On April 27 2012 00:58 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:52 Bleak wrote:On April 26 2012 23:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 26 2012 23:34 Bleak wrote:
So funny people are naive enough to think this is just some normal unrest.
This is nothing but US policy of replacing the puppets that he no longer has a need of. Saddam, Mubarek, Gaddafi, and now it's Esad's turn. Must be hard to live in a world where everyone is a US puppet. How could the US ever not get what it wants in such a world, the US has never ever not gotten what it wanted from Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddhafi, and Assad. So funny people are indoctrinated enough to think that the US is the ultimate puppetmaster and all these countries that are always doing stuff the US does not like are actually controlled by the US. The greatest trick that devil ever pulled was convincing the world that it does not exist. U.S is our current era's Roman Empire. It's just that the methods are much more subtle now instead of predominantly resorting to use of force (which admittedly US doesn't shy from if you look at its history) Well, im sure the US intelligence and military leaders who have been horribly fucking up for a decade + will be happy to know there's still at least one person out there who thinks they are good at what they do.
Oh I did not say they are super good at that. Sure they do fuck up. That's my point though, once your puppets can no longer do your bidding, you replace them and reinstate those who are willing to. Every man has a price after all.
|
On April 27 2012 00:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If they're puppets it'd be nice if they acted like it more often. Or at all, really. Aren't puppets supposed to do that?
Just as an example, if Assad is a US puppet, shouldn't he have not allowed Syria to be the main transit route for terrorists to move weapons, money and men through into Iraq?
Shouldn't he have stopped his father's decades-long support of Hamas, including allowing the top Hamas leadership to live and operate in Syria?
Shouldn't he have stopped his father's (again) decades-long support for Hezbollah, including making Syria (again) the main route to get money, weapons and men into Lebanon? Shouldn't he have not allowed Iranian military operatives to train Hezbollah fighters in Syria?
I think it goes without saying that the US is very interested in getting Israel what Israel wants when it comes to military security, Syria being removed as a backer of Hamas and Hezbollah is very high on Israel's list of security priorities. And if we accept your idea that the puppets are being removed because they are no longer useful, was it really the best strategy to allow the puppet Syria to help Hezbollah in particular become a major organization that it is now very hard for Israel to contain?
Put a whole bunch of terrorists and guns into Iraq -> shit we have to invade iraq look at all the terrorists -> oh hey! look at all this oil, have at it halliburton et al. man its a good thing you guys were here to help out -> rinse, repeat.
I think that's the puppet idea.
Edit:
Conspiracy theory level Roswell: Computers now do more with less and technology is starting to combine. Soon people will need LESS stuff. Inflation needs people to need MORE stuff. All this debt has built up with future-money so the US owes fucking buckets of it. But people aren't buying as much so there isn't as much money so we need to find some -> oh hey look at all those resources Middle-East (Africa next? dun dun dun). Keep our slave-powered military machine in action grabbing us those precious resources from China or hot damn they may stomp us come soon. Keep drugs illegal cause potheads just want to sit around loving each other and WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Put them in jail for LIFE (3 strikes - fucking joke much?) so they can work for free to keep our buildings furnished and our troops ready for battle. Keep fighting, gotta keep fighting. Put weapons everywhere and keep heavily religious people in power to dumb the masses. Fill TV with brain-numbing bullshit and anti-intellectualism, a dumb population doesn't know any better. A lot easier when there is like 8 companies. Free market my ass. Shit food laws to get everyone fat, that should pair well with a FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. How the fuck is that an ok idea?
Keep as much of everything the same as you can. Intellectual property to limit innovation. The same movie every year. The same video games. The same sitcom. The same reality show. The same kid stuck in a well. The same murders and accidents. Isn't it comfortable? Doesn't time just FLY?
|
Put a whole bunch of terrorists and guns into Iraq -> shit we have to invade iraq look at all the terrorists -> oh hey! look at all this oil, have at it halliburton et al. man its a good thing you guys were here to help out -> rinse, repeat.
I think that's the puppet idea.
They didn't start doing that until after we'd invaded though.
And Halliburton was the only company in the world capable of doing the reconstruction work, that puts a little crimp in the conspiracy theory.
And why did American oil companies get mostly shut out of Iraqi oil contracts? It was European companies and the Chinese state oil company that got the lion's share of the contracts, again, if these countries are our puppets the least we could expect is for them to actually act like it.
Soon people will need LESS stuff.
But that isn't the result of more computers and more automation in production, consumption increases with that. The service economy has created more middle-class jobs and consumption as compared to the industrial economy.
But people aren't buying as much so there isn't as much money so we need to find some -> oh hey look at all those resources Middle-East (Africa next? dun dun dun). Keep our slave-powered military machine in action grabbing us those precious resources from China or hot damn they may stomp us come soon.
But China has been investing more money in foreign sources of resources than the US has over the last ten years, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, the US has invested more in domestic production.
And a volunteer military doesn't quite fit the "slave-powered" contention.
Keep drugs illegal cause potheads just want to sit around loving each other and WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.
Drugs were legal for thousands of years and that didn't stop war from being more frequent and more brutal than it is now in areas where they were easily available like the Middle East and India. Legal or illegal, drug consumption stays pretty much the same. You get 5-10% of the population that does them occasionally and and 1-3% that does them habitually. Alcohol, the drug that has always remained legal in almost every country except for Prohibition in the US, is the only exception. Yeah Muslim countries outlaw alcohol but that doesn't stop them from drinking it as much as everyone else.
Put them in jail for LIFE (3 strikes - fucking joke much?) so they can work for free to keep our buildings furnished and our troops ready for battle.
3 strikes is for felonies, not minor drug possession. And prisoners don't work in factories that create war materiel, those are unionized middle-class factory jobs or high-tech upper-class jobs.
The great majority of the big increase in healthcare costs over the last 30 years hasn't come from overweight people having health problems because they're overweight, it has come from people living much longer and consuming more and more healthcare in their old age.
Etc. etc., the facts don't fit the theories.
|
On April 27 2012 01:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Put a whole bunch of terrorists and guns into Iraq -> shit we have to invade iraq look at all the terrorists -> oh hey! look at all this oil, have at it halliburton et al. man its a good thing you guys were here to help out -> rinse, repeat.
I think that's the puppet idea. They didn't start doing that until after we'd invaded though. And Halliburton was the only company in the world capable of doing the reconstruction work, that puts a little crimp in the conspiracy theory. And why did American oil companies get mostly shut out of Iraqi oil contracts? It was European companies and the Chinese state oil company that got the lion's share of the contracts, again, if these countries are our puppets the least we could expect is for them to actually act like it. But that isn't the result of more computers and more automation in production, consumption increases with that. The service economy has created more middle-class jobs and consumption as compared to the industrial economy. Show nested quote +But people aren't buying as much so there isn't as much money so we need to find some -> oh hey look at all those resources Middle-East (Africa next? dun dun dun). Keep our slave-powered military machine in action grabbing us those precious resources from China or hot damn they may stomp us come soon. But China has been investing more money in foreign sources of resources than the US has over the last ten years, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, the US has invested more in domestic production. And a volunteer military doesn't quite fit the "slave-powered" contention. Show nested quote +Keep drugs illegal cause potheads just want to sit around loving each other and WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Drugs were legal for thousands of years and that didn't stop war from being more frequent and more brutal than it is now in areas where they were easily available like the Middle East and India. Legal or illegal, drug consumption stays pretty much the same. You get 5-10% of the population that does them occasionally and and 1-3% that does them habitually. Alcohol, the drug that has always remained legal in almost every country except for Prohibition in the US, is the only exception. Yeah Muslim countries outlaw alcohol but that doesn't stop them from drinking it as much as everyone else. Show nested quote +Put them in jail for LIFE (3 strikes - fucking joke much?) so they can work for free to keep our buildings furnished and our troops ready for battle. 3 strikes is for felonies, not minor drug possession. And prisoners don't work in factories that create war materiel, those are unionized middle-class factory jobs or high-tech upper-class jobs. The great majority of the big increase in healthcare costs over the last 30 years hasn't come from overweight people having health problems because they're overweight, it has come from people living much longer and consuming more and more healthcare in their old age. Etc. etc., the facts don't fit the theories.
A couple things:
I thought they help put Saddam into power?
Why Halliburton after the Gulf War?
No shit the service industry will grow, what does that have to do with a phone that is a palm pilot/gps/game boy/walkman?
Of course China has been doing it, the States does it with guns.
The "slave" part was all the workers in UNICOR, a subjective thing I suppose - not the soldiers.
My comment nothing to do with CONSUMPTION of drugs, just INCARCERATION of drug-users - "wanna get high and drop out of the system -> fuck you pseudo-forced labour.
3 strikes is stupid. Like, I have no idea why you have that.
UNICOR has 109 factories in federal prisons, producing about 175 different types of products and services, including clothing and textiles, electronics, fleet management and vehicular components, industrial products, office furniture, recycling activities; and services including data entry and encoding.
That sounds pretty military, I dunno.
It wasn't a cost thing. It was a system set up to make people sick designed by a for-profit health care system thing. Big pharma (oooOOOoooOO!) and all that. You said it yourself - "consuming more and more health care". Why else does shitty pizza 'sauce' count as a vegetable, contrary to scientific pressure? Healthy people don't buy pharma drugs.
Think a little more sideways - you weren't even close. It's a CONSPIRACY after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
