Post #17,326
11/8/01 11:58:00 AM
|
The point you don't get...
...is that suddenly, somebody is treating us like our government has been treating the rest of the world.
And you're surprised, nay, SHOCKED, that such a thing could happen. Why, we've got the constitution, a document that enshrines the right to Life, Liberty, and Freedom from Terrorism. And of course, anything who says something negative about your beloved country (which does happen to be my beloved country as well - I'm just willing to entertain the thought that we have done wrong in the past, which is not something unique to the U.S., or any other country in the world.) is automatically marginalized in your opinion.
Hate to break it to you bub, but the U.S. has been pulling the same shit that Bin Laden has been trying to pull - and we've been a hell of a lot more successful at it, to the point where we've even got OURSELVES fooled into believing that the "massive destabilization" of other countries has nothing to do with the "military aid" we give to psychotic drug-dealing mass murderers in those countries.
All in the name of the almighty greenback. One corporation, with profits and benefits for the stockholders.
I am loyal to the ideals of this country. I am not loyal to the schmucks who are running over those ideals in a baldfaced power grab thinly veiled as a "righteous attack" against "true evil." (the Great Satan? How ironic that we use the same langauge against each other...)
I do see Bin Laden as a threat to society - but I see our own drunken rage as almost as large of a threat. And I see you as part of that threat - the blind acceptance of The One Righteous Way To Truth, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness... On the backs of others.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #17,339
11/8/01 12:58:49 PM
|
Close enough, Thane-san.. close enough.
Before we smite the mote in Others' Eyes\ufffd - we have to remove the log stuck in our own - through years of Jingoism and intentional ignorance about how the rest of the planet tries to cope.. (Never mind.. how much of the world also views US)
Maybe the present madness will cause a few to ponder such things as: just How Many? Salvador Allendes have we been directly responsible for assassinating: via the School for Terrorizing the Americas at Fort Benning. Still there, but with a newly sanitized / euphemized Name, natch: we have a strong tendency to believe especially - even our most transparent spin. For comfort and convenience.
This isn't even the end of the beginning; we are in full denial - and may remain so kicking and screaming as usual. But.. there's always that Chance that we shall also grow up faster than most expect. That hope I'll latch onto.. We could indeed remember what the founding Mothers had in mind, and start cleaning up our rhetoric and de-Despotizing our Corps.
It will be the hardest thing we've faced since - the failure of Prohibition (the Last time - before the War on Drugs, the Non-War on Poverty feel-good fantasies).
Ashton
|
Post #17,344
11/8/01 1:24:20 PM
|
I'm not betting on it.
Look how we're handling the current situation.
Bomb someone.
Like I said before, we need to completely change our stratagy if we're going to win this.
No more bombing, no more killing, no more making new generations of suicide bombers.
We're not going to do that. It's so much easier to buy more bombs to drop on them and pretend we're doing something good.
|
Post #17,398
11/8/01 5:29:05 PM
|
Just what would you suggest be done?
You write:
"Like I said before, we need to completely change our stratagy if we're going to win this.
No more bombing, no more killing, no more making new generations of suicide bombers."
You think if we EDUCATE or some other such bullshit, that the have nots of the world will hate us any less? Why don't we just FEED them? Then they'll surely love us... No long speech here, but pacifism sucks historically for preserving nations. The place where the World Trade Centers once stood is still smoldering. Quoting communists and socialists has never really been all that popular in the States to boot (since the 1920's).
You say you want a revolution, well, we'd all love to see the plan, etc...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #17,401
11/8/01 6:10:27 PM
|
Covered in another thread.
#1. Destroy their fanaticism. Export Disney'fied versions of their religion.
#2. Fill the void we just created with consumer goods.
#3. Ensure that the AVERAGE person in that country can purchase those goods.
Bombing is the quick answer.
I mean, it worked in the past. We've bombed or subverted just about every country over there. We've even provided training to bin Laden himself. And we've never regretted those actions.
Realize that the average person in Afghanistan doesn't have a FRACTION of what we have. And s/he has NO HOPE of ever getting it.
Which leaves many of them with nothing to live for and makes them vulnerable to whatever fundamentalists they run into ("It sucks now, kid, but you'll be in paradise if you carry this bomb. Besides, you're family will be proud to have a martyr. What else do you have to live for?")
Without the hope that they can do better, we will always have the suicide bombers.
Give them that hope.
Show them how much better it can be.
Destroy their current culture.
We have the skills. We've done it in the past.
We can bomb civilians, but we can't organize to replace their culture.
|
Post #17,411
11/8/01 7:56:18 PM
11/8/01 9:32:33 PM
|
But when we try >that<...
#1. Destroy their fanaticism. Export Disney'fied versions of their religion.
#2. Fill the void we just created with consumer goods.
#3. Ensure that the AVERAGE person in that country can purchase those goods. ...through guaranteed loan programs and "technology assistance" programs to these nations...we get thousands of summer vacationers chasing down World Bank and WTO meetings and tearing up Seattle and Philadelphia...as examples. Farakhan is doing a pretty good job of creating an Islam completely unrelated to that practiced in the region. Are you suggesting good, old fashioned imperialism? That didn't work historically. A huge part of problem in this area of the world is our inconsistency of policy. The sheer amount of western money that goes into this region should have brought them out of poverty long ago...except their leadership will NEVER stand for the wealth actually being distributed. That cycle has to be broken. To do >that<...we need to be able to support our own energy needs...because if we can't...we have no leg to stand on...so theres a huge amount that we need to do domestically that our own people won't support. Conservation, nukes, little tiny cars, further exploitation of our own Alaskan reserves, exploitation of Rocky Mtn shale, WV coal. Bush mentioned about 2 of those things and the Green Party, Greenpeace and all the other "Society"s had a freakin bird. 55 years ago we created a state for the jews...yet we don't do the same for the Palestinians. We raise cries of anguish when children die in Jerusalem...yet we're silent when the same happens in Gaza. Its not simple...and elements of your position can and should be used...as well as the current action...which is more aimed at deterring other countries from supporting terror than actually catching terrorists. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Nov. 8, 2001, 09:32:33 PM EST
|
Post #17,421
11/8/01 9:28:39 PM
|
No quarrel with that list
A few angles to your -why do they Do that?- response.
WTO functioning to date aka NAFTA locally - has produced the Machiladores, encouraged the disregard of all environmental considerations - in the name of cheapest possible prices.
Mexico (for just one) has little idea of sane safeguards, little funds and merely token interest. (Book-length - to detail Mexico's traditional problems, of course, and the New exploitations at border)
These poorly planned WTO 'rules' have had the effect of enouraging that we do likewise; scrap most environmental concern, and join in this endless creation of consumer toys - worldwide race to the bottom.
Heh - a Billion lines of code? in those agreements - all about maximizing Corp profits / ignoring as much as possible the consequences to *all* but: the Corporate bottom line(s). Have I missed something important in that simplification?
Muricans don't save much (except the minority who can fund a retirement 'instrument') - surely not the millions at McDs, the growing army of Temps, incl IT? more&more - surely a growth- and also perk-free- 'industry'. Maxed-out CCs is now an epidemic - and many have no choice:
Remember the story/book by the NYorker (?) writer who tried to live as a waitress, maid, etc. for some weeks - motels only option, or the street. Lots of etcs. A microcosm for how many millions of Muricans merely try to get by. Think this was ref'd in a thread..
Agree about 'what we *might* do, in your list. But first we'd have to kick the maxed-CC habit, the automatic shopping for recreation (on those CCs) and lots more: we could live quite well on much less energy usage, begin rebuilding our infrastructure -- much of that neglected since WPA in the Thirties !! Pay 'em! to Fix Us.
Food, shelter, clothing, schools first? -- while less.. of $3K digital Tee Vees, $28K 'family UAVs' and 5000 sq. ft. 'starter homes' - to name just 3 specifics of 'lifestyle' we could live with quite less-of, and live well. We could learn to make things again - not just import them (!)
These trends alone (if started, despite the buy! buy! messages 24/7) would force a restructuring of {shudder} Economists'! thinking / calculating - in search of a viable means for living [again] -- and not merely living-to-buy.
Our entire economy has been based, since I could spell the word - upon not merely constant consumption for its own sake, but: ever increasing consumption. No?
Think that the two categories above - WTO and US habits - might (alone) be related to a 'fix' we made for ourselves and could.. unmake, if we had the will and the smarts?
(My simple mind can't handle a billion lines of NAFTA code, but I can count to 3) I also believe I know what an exponential is, and that More.. as a life principle: describes the exact same philosophy as a cancer cell.
So.. are we ready to look for radical change?
ie that word derived from radix = 'root', as in root causes of our discontent?
Naaah - didn't think so ;-) It ain't quite Dire enough. Yet.
Ashton
PS - then the Afgh and related problems would decrease as.. our need to support the Saudis who despise us - would also decrease >>> as we waste less and less. (Ever read The Waste Makers in your Econ 101 days?)
|
Post #17,520
11/9/01 2:00:20 PM
|
WTO?
WTO isn't about improving the life in that country.
It's about exploiting the worker resources in that country so WE can get even cheaper goods.
Or to make it a little clearer, they want to allow the corporations to move production to the cheapest countries.
When the average Afghanistan citizen is complaining about the fools driving SUV's, then we'll be safe.
When the average Afghanistan citizen cannot afford a computer, then we'll still have to worry.
|
Post #17,524
11/9/01 2:16:08 PM
|
Exploitation vs. Protectionism
Or to make it a little clearer, they want to allow the corporations to move production to the cheapest countries. Well there's two alternatives to this. First, we could stop these companies from moving their production facilities out of the rich countries. Problem with this is that it means no jobs or economic development for the cheapest countries (which happen to be in the third world). Second, we could require these countries to pay the same wages and have the same labor and environmental standards as the rich countries. Which basically removes any economic incentive for corporations to move production to the cheapest countries - i.e. they are no longer cheap. Again, it basically amounts to keeping production and wealth inside the rich countries and denying the third world. I suppose there's some alternatives for developing the third world. But I wonder sometimes whether most people are really more concerned with protectionism than they are about exploitation. They seem to be conveniently intertwined.
|
Post #17,527
11/9/01 2:28:21 PM
|
Well said.
|
Post #17,588
11/9/01 5:28:52 PM
|
Develop local businesses.
Big difference between protectionism and exploitation.
One example: Environmental regulations.
Exploitation is when we polute their country.
Protectionism isn't covered under that.
I don't see the problem with companies paying similar benefits to other workers as they do to workers here. Medical/Dental/etc.
Sure, that will raise the cost of moving production overseas.
But, so what?
That isn't Protectionism. Although the end result might be that fewer companies would move their production overseas.
If the only reason for moving production is to avoid our labour laws and environmental regulations, how can applying them be Protectionism?
|
Post #17,599
11/9/01 5:48:55 PM
|
Catch 22
Because when we move our production overseas with the kind of strings you are attaching...we are "dictating" how those operations are to be run and the laws that they must be run under. That is generally met with a "who the hell do you think you are" attitude.
While you may think that its done "just for the money"...in many cases its not. Sometimes its done to provide access to local markets. Sometimes its done to put manufacturing in closer proximity to the raw materials. And yes...sometimes its done to save labor costs.
Supporting >their< businesses does NOT guarantee that they will automatically follow our regulations. The Chinese have a huge chemical industry...and they can sell in the US at drastically lower prices. They can do this because the Chinese do NOT require their industries to follow the same environmental regulations as we do. These are very expensive regulations to follow. They also have nowhere near the same safety requirements for the workers.
So...if we were to support local business in the Far East...the chem industry is one of those...and we would be supporting companies with worse environmental records than our own...and supporting companies that show a complete disregard for worker safety.
This is one case where US owned companies operating overseas are often operated at much higher standards than the local regulations require.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,604
11/9/01 6:06:39 PM
|
Easy answer.
"That is generally met with a "who the hell do you think you are" attitude."
Well, that would be the country that made your business possible. Wouldn't it be?
"While you may think that its done "just for the money"...in many cases its not."
That is true. Would you care to estimate how often it is done for any of the reasons you've mentioned as opposed to just for the money?
In other words, how many times are the regulations of the US followed by the company when shifting production?
As for China, I don't see them needing our help.
"So...if we were to support local business in the Far East...the chem industry is one of those...and we would be supporting companies with worse environmental records than our own...and supporting companies that show a complete disregard for worker safety."
If we were supporting the chemical industry in China. Which I don't seem to recall advocating.
Remember, we're looking for ways to develop the country.
Not ways to rape their resources.
|
Post #17,634
11/9/01 11:30:26 PM
|
Re: Easy answer.
You wish it were so easy.
Lets utilize >their< businesses...care to ask Cathy Lee how well that works out?
And in multinational business..my guess is at least half if not more of the time...business is shifted oversees to be nearer the market and nearer the resources. Both reduce cost.
Of course...the obvious choices would be to point the finger across the border to Mexico...but those businesses are a very small fraction of what gets invested overseas.
We built a factory in Singapore. It had nothing to do with wage levels. WE built a factory in China. It had nothing to do with labor cost. We built refining capacity in Iran...it had nothing to do with labor cost.
Just a couple of real examples of something I'm sure you think could never...ever happen. Our last 3 major international investments. Not 1 was done to reduce labor...and all are operated to US/EU specifications for emissions.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,814
11/11/01 11:02:53 PM
|
Exploitation vs development.
"Lets utilize >their< businesses...care to ask Cathy Lee how well that works out?"
So, child labour is okay?
If it isn't okay, then why was she doing business with a company that utilized it?
Again, this is REALLY easy.
Do NOT do business with businesses that violate the regulations that businesses in the US operate under.
"And in multinational business..my guess is at least half if not more of the time...business is shifted oversees to be nearer the market and nearer the resources. Both reduce cost."
You're right. That is your guess.
My experience has been otherwise.
"Of course...the obvious choices would be to point the finger across the border to Mexico...but those businesses are a very small fraction of what gets invested overseas."
Yet they seem to be representative of the process.
"We built a factory in Singapore."
I'm glad you did. Why?
"Just a couple of real examples of something I'm sure you think could never...ever happen."
Whatever. Live in your fantasy land if it makes you feel better. I'm sure you know exactly what I believe and know.
|
Post #17,862
11/12/01 10:20:39 AM
|
Re: Exploitation vs development.
And your experience is the absolute...while mine is the fantasy world?
Great way to continue a discussion.
Have you...perhaps...lived and worked in other countries?
Have you...perhaps...been involved in investment decisions that involve building large scale facilities in countries other than the US.
Or do you read about Nike and decide that should be your world view?
And...you decide to miss the point again...Cathy Lee did business with a company outside of the US. She supported >their< business...as you tell her she should. Just so happens, their child labor laws are quite different than ours. So...in supporting >their< businesses...she offended >our< sensibilities.
You want your cake and the ability to eat it too. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to say..."We will only support businesses who do it >our< way...then you might as well just give them >our< businesses.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,943
11/12/01 5:28:46 PM
|
Pattern recognition time, again..
You want your cake and the ability to eat it too. It doesn't work that
way. If you are going to say..."We will only support businesses who do
it >our< way...then you might as well just give them >our<
businesses. I don't doubt your assertion that, any decision to make business investment *anywhere* - is not exactly.. a simplistic process involving *only* the bottom line. But see little evidence that the bottom line is Not the #1 consideration in any bizness proposal. That IS the veritable mantra! of Econ - divorced as the numbers game is, from most all societal consequences except one: Will they let us get away with this, if we do ___ and seem to do ___ at least until - they get used to our presence and dependent upon it?I am sure there are exceptions - as with the N.E. owner of a mill: rebuilt so as to keep the jobs alive. This instead of the usual and expected EZ out: take the insurance money; screw any local effects - move offshore for lower costs and pay lip-service only, to env. consequences on all scales. I don't know what evidence you'd ever settle for re the 'motivations of bizness'; numbers are so malleable and divorced from the universe of consequences a Corp decision ever creates - and you are a proponent of the numerical, if not an obsessive (?) Certainly workers are rarely consulted nor are even a factor in Corp Am. They are a liability in the mentation of those who have stated this as a principle. What could such a principle mean except ~ the desire for increased roboticization: more muman-replacing robots + a corporate aim to robiticize the necessary humans awaiting later redundancy? Would you deny that Corp-speak already has homogenized many topics into rote scripts? The mill story was big news for obvious reasons - as a rare aberration. Why Else? You appear to consistently accept the role of Corp as a substitute for Government, unwilling to address the purchase of legislat -ion -ors, via the patently sustained election loopholes (by these 'representatives' allegedly.. of us all). Shall the 'blame' be apportioned not only among the ovine electorate - but shared also by those who cynically exploit the weakness of the society? Or is that just smart bizness too? Where IS this vaunted Responsibility, so beloved of a notoriouly vociferous set. What IS the 'Ethics of Bizness 2000+' ? (I know I know - M$ has an Integrity \ufffd on its site too! if one can imagine such a travesty.) What about the Others' travesties, then? Your field - right? I'll keep calling you on the neatness of your paradigm, and what the sociopathic effects are seen to be, of reducing life to the mere equations of Econ. Your Market Forces are as chimerical, as flawed a measure of "what life might be for" as was Phlogiston a flawed concept of "how things burn" IMhO. Ashton Nemesis of Nattering Nabobs of Noisome Nostrums
|
Post #17,952
11/12/01 7:05:56 PM
11/12/01 8:12:42 PM
|
Keep up...
Never did I say that the bottom line was ignored in these investment decisions. Just that the decision to build overseas was not a simple matter of "finding cheap labor". And it is interesting that you appear to think that every corporation regards its employees as a liability. That would be a tad difficult, imo...considering that without employees...there would be no corporations. But then it must be those >bad bad< MBA types...they don't really count as employees...no "management" person can qualify as an employee...the employees are the ones holding the broom...and none of those >liabilities< mean anything to their employer, right? (No need to answer...I know yours already) You appear to consistently accept the role of Corp as a substitute for Government, unwilling to address the purchase of legislat -ion -ors, via the patently sustained election loopholes Where? Never have I been unwilling to accept the corporate lobby for what it is. And...just to blow your tidy view...I support campaign finance reform...because I don't like the fact that big money has the type of influence you seem to >think< I'd like them to have. HOWEVER having people with just a >little< business sense in charge of this country's finances does make a little sense, no? Or should we continue to allow legislators who don't have to (and are likely incapable) of balancing their own checkbook be responsible for the disposition of >trillions< of dollars of our money? I have no problem accepting that there are things that the "market" and "bizness" are not prepared to handle. However, I also have no problem accepting that there are certain things that they >are< prepared to handle..and handle responsibly. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Nov. 12, 2001, 08:12:42 PM EST
|
Post #17,956
11/12/01 7:30:59 PM
|
OK I think we have a platform here
1) (Actually) reform campaign financing - even in the face of massively financed lobbying against any such thing.
2) Elect new folks, soon as possible - preferably of the sort for whom #1 would have been redundant; no Sales Price tag on the new group (except for the inevitable practiced scum as will slip through).
3) Ensure that 2) possess minimal business comprehension.
4) Employ 2) to ferret out practitioners of that sleazy bizness behavior as also proves to be illegal activity: after overhaul and *enforcement* of anti-trust and other business regulations, undertaken after 1) made the rules more conducive to overall social survival.
5) Live happier ever after - with a fresh agenda of problems to keep us busy solving - replacing the sleaze problems formerly untouchable.
6) Eventually die - opening up new spots.
The Reformat Reload and Reconfigure Party ? R\ufffd fer ads.
May we expect a generous Founders donation from you?
Ashton Party Creators Ltd.
Tell us how you want to live.
We'll write the Code.
|
Post #17,964
11/12/01 8:08:43 PM
|
Wow...
except for the R3 tag...cause who needs a Republican raised to the 3rd power...but you could end up as the MS Tech Support Party (except there's no reboot on the platform...just >the boot<...so you would be the "boot, reformat, reload and reconfigure party."
Make my check payable to you I'd imagine ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,977
11/12/01 8:54:35 PM
|
Yes, bad association: *The Nothing Party* it is!
After all:
Nothing lasts forever.
Nothing will eliminate war, famine, plague, pestilence, even graft, corruption and Government waste in a New York minute.
Nothing will enable you to double your IQ in the time it takes to brush your teeth.
Nothing will endow politicians with the ability to answer a yes or no question with a "yes" or "no".
In a Nutshell, NOTHING is Perfect!
[\ufffd 1992 by Franko Toth] - the Nothing Party is Nothing if not Principled.
Now which PR Corp do we hire for recruitment? (Wagg Edd has a Good Bizness credential there - successful, pervasive, predictable - unencumbered by ethical quandary or by any substantive factual content within any 'Product')
Could that be Fluffy Bunny ^h^h er Nothing's first representative? Nothing could better represent the Murican Corporate Ethic better than Wagg-Edd. No?
Operators are standing by for your Pay-Pal contribution.
Nothing matters more than this!
Sartre Productions Ltd.
Being and Nothingness - what Else ya got?
|
Post #17,993
11/12/01 11:35:22 PM
|
Re: OK I think we have a platform here
>1) (Actually) reform campaign financing - even in the face of massively financed lobbying against any such thing.
One thing that I never could understand is folks are totally pissed off when there's financing from corps/countries over US's politics, but no one really speaks out abt US arbituarily selecting who should rule other countries.
Witness Afghanistan right now. Because the current ruling government refuses to turn over OBL without any proof (that's another thread), the US is assisting the NA to take over the country.
???
|
Post #17,999
11/13/01 12:17:49 AM
|
reread the treaty of the high seas
as well as the history of war against the pirates (afgans landlock is no excuse) and the history of the indonesians, malays moros, Japan vs Korea, China vs British (HONG CONG) china vs mongols etc.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,002
11/13/01 12:32:24 AM
|
Correction...
...we do not want the NA to take power.
And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course.
Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,015
11/13/01 8:34:03 AM
|
Re: Correction...
>...we do not want the NA to take power
That's not how it appeared, and it appears now that the NA has taken power.
>And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course.
Like I said, that's another thread... don't want to get into that... but it seems quite a number of folks share the opinion that the US should have "conceded" to the Taliban's request to produce proofs and THEN will the US have the moral high ground when it then went ahead to attack the Taliben. I share that opinion too.
>Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt.
That's relatively easy. It's NOT them that's at the receiving end, no? :)
|
Post #18,048
11/13/01 11:15:26 AM
|
I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
And neither are the Taliban. And if, by chance, the Taliban were shown proof (the debate over its existence aside), they would have rejected it (naturally) and the intelligence sources used to gather that proof would have been forever compromised.
Sorry...in war...which this is...I don't think trading strategic info for moral high ground is a very good idea.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,518
11/16/01 3:58:05 AM
|
Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
BP, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get here.
I've never defended the terrorists' action. Nor do I support any nation that "harbour" terrorists and "support" terrorism KNOWINGLY. I believe folks with sanity will probably have the same stance.
What we differ in is the way things are being handled, or rather mishandled.
9/11 was a tragedy.
However, a little introspective will reveal that such a tragedy was one that was waiting to happen in view of US foreign policy, past and present. Justifiable, no. To be expected, yes.
After the 9/11, the US could have had a legitimate WAR against terrorism. Instead, it has become a "hand over OBL or we'll bomb you, fuck the proofs" "terrorist action" in the eyes of many. Almost every nation denounced terrorism. Whether they are paying lips service or not, we won't know. Is the US really against terrorism itself if it wasn't the victim?
Nevertheless, many "allies" in this war are allies because they can't afford to be in the "against US" category, economically and militarily. So are they victims of terrorism? "You're with us, or you are with the terrorists" (and you know what we will do to the terrorists, don't you?)
And then, the biggest irony of all, the US "ally" itself with the NA, a bunch of looters and rapists no less, which is at war with the then-ruling regime in their civil war, thus again ignoring the sovereignty of another nation and propping up the US-preferred faction.
So does the end justify the means? How really different is the US from the terrorists of 9/11?
|
Post #17,961
11/12/01 8:01:05 PM
11/12/01 8:22:50 PM
|
Re: Keep up...
Or should we continue to allow legislators who don't have to (and are likely incapable) of balancing their own checkbook be responsible for the disposition of >trillions< of dollars of our money? cite: House checking scandal of (?late 80's early 90's?) Dozens and hundreds of other examples of course. Ah, if I were Czar for four years.... (ashton, stop looking so green at the gills, it's not likely to happen. I'd actually rescind multiple Ashcroft decrees.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
Edited by wharris2
Nov. 12, 2001, 08:22:50 PM EST
|
Post #17,965
11/12/01 8:11:16 PM
|
Great....
I can't edit >your< post to fix >my< typo.
Damn
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,968
11/12/01 8:23:31 PM
11/12/01 8:23:52 PM
|
I was kind.
I actually didn't notice it myself until you pointed it out.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
Edited by wharris2
Nov. 12, 2001, 08:23:52 PM EST
|
Post #17,973
11/12/01 8:36:34 PM
|
Thanks
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #17,998
11/13/01 12:09:29 AM
|
point of order
If an American Company uses offshore labor to produce finished items for the American domestic market, are they charged the same income tax on profit as an American Company purchasing 3rd party manufactured goods in the third world? They are not, multinationals claim that the spread is non taxable by the US. That is the difference on wht the american worker is getting fscked by low labor rates outside.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #17,556
11/9/01 4:05:38 PM
|
I think it's dangerous...
to assume that this is purely a financial problem. (Just as it's dangerous to assume that this is a 'jealousy' problem.)
First, the Afghans didn't attack us. They may be poor, they may be playing host to bin Ladin and the Taliban, but they weren't on the planes.
Those were (for the most part) Saudias...and the Saudias Royal family has the money to buy SUV's and computers and whatnot.
|
Post #17,567
11/9/01 4:39:40 PM
|
Thanks UK for the term, 'sticky wicket' :(
|
Post #17,423
11/8/01 9:48:48 PM
|
You'll get no argument here...
with those objectives... after we take care of the business at hand the old fashioned way. I'm still stuck on the "or else" factor that needs be established in the next few years for humankind to function as a "civilized" global world. I would argue that the reason that religion (monotheism as currently practiced) exists is because man's laws were not enough of an "or else" to go from hunter/gatherers to agricultural civilizations. People still would rob, steal, adulter and blow up buildings. The every present "eye in the sky" that is watching you when the soldiers and police weren't seems much more effective in conjunction... Like Santa Claus...
I digress, your points are well taken and I agree. Hopefully, we won't lose track of the necessity of the "civilized" world to rain fire upon the infidels in this current situation for the possible deterrent effect.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #17,418
11/8/01 8:49:00 PM
|
Re: Just what would you suggest be done?
>Quoting communists and socialists has never really been all that popular in the States to boot (since the 1920's). Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US bombing WILL kill more innocents than the 9/11 tragedy and serves no real purpose. [link|http://www.zmag.org/monbiotbackyard.htm|If some people are "confused" about this war, it may be because they remember the rationale for it: Killing thousands of civilians is unconscionable.
Though you wouldn't know much about it from watching TV news or skimming the front pages, large numbers of Afghans -- many of them children and
elderly -- are facing the likelihood of starvation because the bombing has forced recurrent halts to the movement of food-aid trucks from Pakistan into
Afghanistan. Concern is growing among humanitarian aid workers that about 100,000 people are now in imminent peril. By winter, the number could
be in the millions.
Meanwhile, on television, we see footage of air-dropped meals that amount to no more than 1 percent of what's needed to prevent people from
starving. That's called good PR.
]
Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US is indeed EXcluding CIA and the US of A as a "terrorist training camp/sponsor state" as per the US war Against Terrorism's definition. [link|http://www.zmag.org/monbiotbackyard.htm|For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHISC. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government. ]
Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US attack on Afghanistan is unlawful and violates the rule of law because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is not willing to handover OBL without any proof which the US and UK claimed they have (anyone seen any?) [link|http://www.zmag.org/whatssocomples.htm|And what is Washington\ufffds agenda? Remarkably the stated aim is to get bin Laden and to try him or perhaps just execute him ourselves.
We could stop the bombing and have him tried in a third country, the Taliban has noted, but that\ufffds not acceptable. So for this
minuscule gradation of difference, we are told that Washington is willing to risk 7 million people. Behind the rhetoric, to me the real
goals appear to be to delegitimate international law, to establish that Washington will get its way regardless of impediments and that
we can and will act unilaterally whenever it suits us \ufffd the technical term for which is to ensure that our threats remain \ufffdcredible\ufffd --and
to propel a long-term war on terrorism to entrench the most reactionary policies in the U.S. and around the globe, and, along with all
that, to terminate bin Laden and others. Risking seven million people\ufffds lives for these aims is worse than doing it only for the minuscule
gradation of trying bin Laden ourselves rather than having a third country do it, because the additional reasons are all grotesquely
negative, supposing such calculus is even manageable by a sane mind. ]
|
Post #17,424
11/8/01 10:08:48 PM
11/9/01 12:16:27 PM
|
Simple...
You write:
"Point out any flaw in their perspectives/analysis that the US bombing WILL kill more innocents than the 9/11 tragedy and serves no real purpose."
Is this a competition? Bin Laden probably didn't hate any ONE person in the Trade Centers or the African embassies or the Kohl either. He disliked our country. And our country sure as hell should dislike the shit out of any country that harbors this man...
Serves no real purpose? And a life sentence does nothing to deter drug dealers or rapists? How about the death penalty? How about the good old-fashioned Mafioso blood vengeance? There has to be an "or else" established or every other Charlie Manson wannabe will come crawling out of their collective rocks to bomb the Eiffel Tower or the Louvre or Big Ben. You don't blow up buildings with civilian jets during peacetime and expect the nation to sit on its collective ass and "rationalize" with terrorists do you? How naive can you be?
Issue 2
What the CIA does is irrelevant at this point. Going forward, we need to get some kind of accountability for what they do. No problem with most of that issue as written. Should add that the CIA, KGB, etc... are all assholes and every country has them... They do serve a function though it's just not pretty or kind.
Issue 3
The Taliban are not a recognized government by the United Nations. Even the Arab League doesn't recognize them... at this point all the rest becomes irrelevant but I'll still bite. International law only applies to Governments who abide by international law. The Taliban do not. To defend a group with such a terrible civil rights record is asinine, that allows Al Quaida to train terrorists is ridiculous, and one that has done nothing to alleviate the suffering of it's own people... I'm at a total loss... What's to defend? I wish I were more eloquent but I'll leave it at that...
I have no problem with Socialism or Communism except that they haven't worked anywhere... They are merely more Utopian ideas that sound very good on paper... the devil is in the details. They deny a human beings fundamental biological need for territorialism. Soon, some animals are more equal than others... I'm not trying to insult you personally, but it's pretty hard not to load up on a statements like your last post. I commend you for trying to take an opposing view, but sometimes the majority is dead on right, as is the case now.
Note - edited to get rid of late night spelling errors...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
Edited by screamer
Nov. 9, 2001, 12:16:27 PM EST
|
Post #17,428
11/8/01 10:37:42 PM
|
Your country shrugs at massive civvy deaths ]:->
What is the worlds preocupation with who we kill? A couple of million here a couple of million there while the rest of the world is massacreeing its own populations in the name of me right you wrong. Aside from the euro's who in the last 15 yrs got tired of 700 years of killing the shit out of each other the rest of ya are still hard at it. Why begrudge us a few? (not you personally but in general). We are new and still have a few lessons to learn like foreign policy is not a short term program. What do you expect of a nation whose fortune rides on the quartly report?
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #17,438
11/8/01 11:36:46 PM
|
Right to Life, Bill.. Sacredness of Life.
The sacredness of life from zygote ---> onwards (Or was that just til birth? then the death penalty applies?)
I'm sure there are thousands of our fellow citizens with these high moral standards and all - who wish no harm to come to any er aging zygote. Shouldn't we poll some of these spiritually advanced ones re our plans?
Can anyone doubt that they will vote as a bloc - to preserve that Right to Life? Not murder these folk in their wombs ^h^h caves.
Aren' you ashamed. Now?
Ashton
I was a zygote too!
(Remember: third-quarter - that zygote's life merely changes local address)
Consistency. Don't leave a bunker without it.
|
Post #17,445
11/9/01 12:07:11 AM
|
Fundamental flaw here.
Ideas roughly lumped as 'socialism' and 'communism' have never been tried - though elements of socialism are welcomed (if we rename them suitably) - most Muricans [??] love welfare, but just not for the undeserving. (That of course cannot be the case re any 'me'.) You do appreciate that those are advanced ideas - [like say: sharing?] - for some advanced, evolved culture we might imagine someday to develop - don't you?
(Let's not even start on what happened in the USSR. None of the above, at any time.)
Absent an actual world government with teeth - we all behave according to our species' alt. designation, Man: the lying animal.
*THIS* is not the time for examining our assumptions and behavior since 1776; it is War Time. See? Those analyses we reserve for Peace Time. That is when we examine our behavior for lucidity, inconsistency and other errors - and labor to correct those aberrations - as we strive to improve conditions for all humans, not just for our Office-tribe or Sibling-tribe. Clear?
Except, being human, I lied:
There is No Time when we do that last. We just tell our children that story - as we understand that they are innocent enough to see how ugly it could get: if we didn't actually question our assumptions periodically. What else Could we tell them? Eventually they get it and stop asking those questions, the little bastards.
{sigh}
HTH.
(You didn't expect an actual explanation for the hypocritical crap we export <--> that comes back to bite us on collective asses.. now did you? Euphemism is our crutch; Sanctimony our stick for whacking, and the Ostrich is the Real National Bird. Our God is [$] except during some Holiday gift exchanging days. Is it much different over there?)
Ashton
Lying homo-sap
|
Post #18,262
11/14/01 12:44:47 PM
|
You say that as if it were SO OBVIOUSLY a good thing.
Screamin' at the top of his lungs, someone Reck-lessly posted: Quoting communists and socialists has never really been all that popular in the States to boot (since the 1920's). And that's why American politics are so peculiarly lopsided, with one party just to the right of Genghis Khan... And another much farther to the right than that, accusing the first of being Bleeding Pinko Librul Commie Scum. If Big Capital *hadn't* managed to suborn the law-enforcement and judicial branches of society to crush organized labour like they did -- and, above all, if they hadn't managed to somehow sell this to the populace as being in *their* best interest, a view which you seem to be unthinkingly regurgitating here -- then maybe you guys would actually be, on the whole, *better* off than you are now. Funny how even the *idea* seems to never have occurred to most of you. Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,274
11/14/01 1:39:06 PM
|
What are *you* babbling about?
One of the conflicts of the early 20th century in the U.S. was union organization and Big Capitol, as you put it - and the rise of organized labor as a result. The U.S. was quite heavily unionized until the rise of the service society.
Or am I misunderstanding what you're calling organized labor?
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #18,275
11/14/01 1:49:18 PM
|
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot
(since it's so particularly particular to America): And above all, their crowning glory (reminiscent of the GPL as an example of "Intellectual Judo"), getting organized labour to discredit *itself* by becoming a close copy of the mediaeval Guilds system; pretty much the antithesis of what modern unions are supposed to be.
There, make better sense now?
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,281
11/14/01 2:42:15 PM
|
CRC - My European nemesis...
Sir Red,
If you'll quote just a tad further down in same post, I say that I don't necessarily have anything against Socialism or Communism, except that it hasn't worked anywhere (okay, any country larger than 10 in population...) because it denies human biology - specifically the notion of territorialism. Lions mark their ground with urine, humans put walls and fences around their turf...
I also stated that it's basically a good idea (Utopian in fact), but the devil is in the details... NOW. Did I mention that I speak a certain foreign language and have actually read ProLinina in said language? Read Marx (yeah, Groucho) in English (nicht Deutsch)... Having said that, the *idea* has occurred to this one American. As well, the Socialist Party of America was very popular in the 20's and early 30's in this country. Until, as you say, the people with most of the wealth in this here country got nervous and crushed it (about the same time Stalin was having his way with the Armenians I think...)
There still are liberals in this country, just not many socialists. This "experiment" in democracy, with all of its flaws, still seems to work most of the time. If we weren't a culture obsessed with money, we'd be just another country obsessed with religion and historic hatreds - like the rest of the world...
May I remind you, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow..."
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,333
11/14/01 7:34:41 PM
|
"Quote just a tad further down in same post"? No effing fun!
I mean, hey, if I were to quote the wise and sensible bits of everybody else's posts, it would just become so much the harder for me to show off how wise and sensible *I* am in comparison. Sheesh, isn't that obvious?!? Seems you know *nothing* about debating... Anyway, a certain unabashed Eevul Smouker writes: There still are liberals in this country, just not many socialists. Yeah, but the problem I was getting at, with the liberals being the left-most there is, is this: They inevitably come off looking like "left-wing extremists", and thus automatically suspect. OTOH, *if* you had a good healthy dollop of "Socalists" -- semi-sensible "Social Demorats" or raving commie loonies, it doesn't really matter -- to balance out your Attila-the-huns, *they* would be the "fringe left", and the Libruls would look more like the sensible middle-of-the-road alternative they actually are. Now do you see what I mean? The problem with a lack of socialists isn't actually the socialists themselves, at all, but their (or their lack's) effect on how *others* are perceived! Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,348
11/14/01 8:36:00 PM
|
Stop it! Stop it!
Look, Christian - er sorry -
(Not sorry it's Your Name, just sorry that in calling you Your Name, I might seem to be umm sarcastic or saying, Look, You Christians..or uhh - Damn, how do I get Outta this? ;-)
Gotta cease coming up with these blindingly Clear explanations in detail of: just how Fucked IS all political nondialogue here in the Land o' The Free and Stuff [lots of Stuff! fershure] (= Valley Girl idiom that last, but I betcha knew that, too.)
I mean - that just makes it Sooo much harder to ID all those Other niggling consequences as follow from this Prime Misdirective, y'know?
{Sheesh!}
Ashton
National Security by Obscurantism R'Us
ie. er Kudos! creep
|
Post #18,371
11/14/01 10:34:44 PM
|
Well Da was a shop steward UAW, Eddie Burns his left hand
man, listening to long talks in the night about wobblies, socialists etc. The old man argueing that we came he for a chance at a better life, and Eddie in full cry oer the noble ways of social Glasgow always ending with the "If Glasgow was so fscking good why dont ya go back!" We lived in a house Mr. Burns beside us, food on the table and my father acheived his dream of owning a small farm while working 60-80 hrs a week to get there. The dream is different now.
American Left is about using the downtrodden as automatic voters because they support the welfare state which is a joke unto itself. The down trodden get bupkus except a ride to the polling station and a pack of smokes for voting. We spend a tremendous amount of this countrie's tax money on the poor. Problem is the lefties running the organisations that help others suck out 98 cents on the buck and live the vida loco. Examples are the red cross Jesse the Jackson and H.U.D housing and urban development who use the money to give kick backs to each other and consult the money to death. The poor and the minorities are afraid of the righties so keep voting and getting nothing.
American right use the fear of the middleclass that if they dont support the right they will end up back in the hood by being taxed to death. A large pile of tax money is rebated by the right into the pockets of IBM et al and the bill is presented to the middle class. Those normal folks of us who want to own rifles, pistols and flamethrowers over the objection of the left are pandered by this group until 9/11 they are using that for an excuse to strip us of all rights.
A little more complex than oer yonder.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,400
11/15/01 10:10:17 AM
|
Why don't you go back where you came from :-)
Oh, that's right... Alaska is a territory of the US, isn't it?
Very apt description of the mess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
P.S. Did I forget to mention... Thank you.
|
Post #18,410
11/15/01 11:33:31 AM
|
workin on it :)
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,399
11/15/01 10:05:14 AM
|
I'll raise your meese and ...
LOL... All I got is a pair o' deusys...
What can I say, your country got some "extras" we can have? Sort of a refreshing change of lunatic... I did throw you a bone in the last threads with smoking... You may fire at will.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
The man who once knew fucking everything...
|
Post #17,345
11/8/01 1:24:20 PM
|
I'm not betting on it.
Look how we're handling the current situation.
Bomb someone.
Like I said before, we need to completely change our stratagy if we're going to win this.
No more bombing, no more killing, no more making new generations of suicide bombers.
We're not going to do that. It's so much easier to buy more bombs to drop on them and pretend we're doing something good.
|
