[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595145]Because we put up those dictatorships and they happily exploit the people and land for us(us as in the elite class).[/QUOTE]
oh I didn't realise we were still in the cold war
you know I'm actually astonished that people rated me dumb for encouraging people to go out and help in a high-impact way.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;37594036]who in the right mind would vote for Romney?
I don't even live in the US but that guy talks through his mouth like his anus spews shit[/QUOTE]
When you think about it, everyone actually.
[sp]get it?[/sp]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595098]uh okay? what's wrong with that? why should anyone want to overthrow capitalism, it's the most successful economic system in human history. if they're not suffering, then so what? think of it this way, if philanthropy required considerable inconveniences, then how many people would become philanthropists in the first place? don't confuse suffering with worth - it might be politically vulgar but it's possible to be a good person while also living in luxury.
[/QUOTE]
i'm not arguing that philanthropy is a bad thing. it definitely helps a lot of people. however, it's not the be-all end-all to the problems of the world. radical change is needed to fix problems permanently.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595098]
note the part where I said "makes a few capitalists happy and makes a lot unhappy". consider that at least a trillion dollars were lost to the iraq war. sure, you've cited a single example where ~capitalism~ was a motive. so? shouldn't there be more? like way more? there's loads of developing countries with tinpot dictators that have resources the West wants, why not invade those left and right?[/QUOTE]
syria's civil war has been accosted and accelerated by international powers. the us supports and supplies the rebels because if the rebels win, they'll have a stake in the future economy of the country. same goes with russia supporting assad. a large majority of the countries that uprose during the arab spring had opportunistic imperialist countries accelerating the war and begging to be on the side of the victor so they could exploit resources when the country is in disarray after the revolution. this has happened before the arab spring as well, and will continue to happen.
[url]http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/03/22/u-s-involvement-in-libya-is-all-about-oil/[/url]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595163]oh I didn't realise we were still in the cold war
[/QUOTE]
Judging by our rhetoric towards Iran I would say not much has changed at all.
[QUOTE=gra;37595185]i'm not arguing that philanthropy is a bad thing. it definitely helps a lot of people. however, it's not the be-all end-all to the problems of the world. radical change is needed to fix problems permanently.[/quote]
did you not even read what I said? philanthropists can and do invest into things like infrastructure and public health to make sure that problems [B]are[/B] fixed permanently. they want to spend their money efficiently, since it's [B]their[/B] money (and not the taxpayer's).
[quote]syria's civil war has been accosted andby international powers. the us supports and supplies the rebels because if the rebels win, they'll have a stake in the future economy of the country. same goes with russia supporting assad. a large majority of the countries that uprose during the arab spring had opportunistic imperialist countries accelerating the war and begging to be on the side of the victor so they could exploit resources when the country is in disarray after the revolution. this has happened before the arab spring as well, and will continue to happen.
[url]http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/03/22/u-s-involvement-in-libya-is-all-about-oil/[/url][/QUOTE]
then why was there so much hand-wringing by leaders not wanting to get involved? why was france and not the USA the first to go in guns blazing in libya? do you actually realize that the USA is a net [B]exporter[/B] of oil now? the blog is just an ill-informed partisan rant that doesn't cite any sources.
as for syria
A) it barely produces any oil
B) see A)
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595197]Judging by our rhetoric towards Iran I would say not much has changed at all.[/QUOTE]
uh okay what do you mean by that
Everyone should read about the 1948 Election. Lots of parallels between then & now.
[editline]8th September 2012[/editline]
Besides the fact Obama is starting to do well. It could still go in Romneys direction though
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595227]
uh okay what do you mean by that[/QUOTE]
Our main concern is to exploit regions that are strategically or economically advantageous. Then economically, and possibly militarily strangle countries that don't lick our boots.
[editline]8th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595227]
then why was there so much hand-wringing by leaders not wanting to get involved? why was france and not the USA the first to go in guns blazing in libya? do you actually realize that the USA is a net [B]exporter[/B] of oil now? the blog is just an ill-informed partisan rant that doesn't cite any sources.
[/QUOTE]
France lead the charge in Libya because they had the most to gain economically. We [i]only[/i] intervened in Libya for oil.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595280]Our main concern is to exploit regions that are strategically or economically advantageous. Then economically, and possibly militarily strangle countries that don't lick our boots.[/QUOTE]
but iran are kinda the aggressors here
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595280]France lead the charge in Libya because they had the most to gain economically.[/QUOTE]
source
USA might be dickbags but Iran's nose isn't clean either.
A lot of votes don't matter based on where you live. If you took all the democrats who's votes are singled out because they live in a heavy republican area and made their votes matter, you'd have a lot more democratic electoral votes (And vice versa for republicans in democratic areas). Which sucks.
The Electoral College system made sense in 1789
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595337]but iran are kinda the aggressors here[/quote]
Not really, no. They are a tyrannical theocracy, but they aren't an aggressive tyrannical theocracy. They are mostly concerned about [i]deterring[/i] and [i]defending[/i] themselves against the real aggressors, a US-backed Israel.
[quote]source[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
[url]http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=332d3454-52d5-4e7d-a1c6-e2ecf371612f[/url]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-libya-oil-idUSTRE77L1QU20110822[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595496]Not really, no. They are a tyrannical theocracy, but they aren't an aggressive tyrannical theocracy. They are mostly concerned about [i]deterring[/i] and [i]defending[/i] themselves against the real aggressors, a US-backed Israel.[/quote]
i'm not saying US+israel are angels, but iran are being aggressive as all fuck
[quote][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
[url]http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=332d3454-52d5-4e7d-a1c6-e2ecf371612f[/url]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-libya-oil-idUSTRE77L1QU20110822[/url][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595596]i'm not saying US+israel are angels, but iran are being aggressive as all fuck
[/QUOTE]
How, exactly? By creating a nuclear program that at best is only for energy purposes, and at worst is being used to deter another nuclear power in the region that has shown belligerence towards its neighbors time after time?
[QUOTE=TestECull;37593155]As I've said numerous times this is Obama's election to lose. Romney doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning it unless Obama ROYALLY fucks up.
And I'm talking "whipping out the presidential penis on live TV and hip-thrusting at the nearest female that isn't Michelle" fuck-up.[/QUOTE]
Wait, so Obama will lose [I]and[/I] win?
[QUOTE=gra;37595185]opportunistic imperialist countries[/QUOTE]
there goes the last of your credibility
[QUOTE=person11;37595488]The Electoral College system made sense in 1789[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595496]Not really, no. They are a tyrannical theocracy, but they aren't an aggressive tyrannical theocracy. They are mostly concerned about [i]deterring[/i] and [i]defending[/i] themselves against the real aggressors, a US-backed Israel.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
[url]http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=332d3454-52d5-4e7d-a1c6-e2ecf371612f[/url]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-libya-oil-idUSTRE77L1QU20110822[/url][/QUOTE]
Except the US has told Israel to fuck off not even a week ago.
[editline]8th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37595624]How, exactly? By creating a nuclear program that at best is only for energy purposes, and at worst is being used to deter another nuclear power in the region that has shown belligerence towards its neighbors time after time?[/QUOTE]
Executing large numbers of foreign nationals?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;37595637]Wait, so Obama will lose [I]and[/I] win?[/QUOTE]
It's sort of a figure of speech. When he says it's "his election to lose," he means that Obama's holding all the cards and he can't lose unless he actually does something wrong.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37595975]Why?[/QUOTE]
I was going to say that it was a way of keeping the vote indirect because the framers of the constitution were not sure the people were informed enough to vote, but then I realized that many people are still not informed enough to vote.
I am still against the Collge though
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37596072]Except the US has told Israel to fuck off not even a week ago.[/quote]
No they didn't. The US said they won't support a military strike on Iran. This didn't stop Israel from striking Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1976.
The US is also still trying to wrestle Iran into submission regarding their nuclear program.
[quote]Executing large numbers of foreign nationals?[/QUOTE]
Well, I'll need sources on that. There is a thing called context. Some nations tend to act with hostility when they have harsh sanctions put on them or their sovereignty is being violated.
It's absolutely horrible to murder people, but it isn't necessarily aggressive. It could be retaliatory as well.
I never understood the real demand and love to go out and vote on the presidential election. Anyone with a high school education knows that votes on the presidential election aren't counted for anything except "who is popular" statistics.
Sure these can be important, but me voting for Obama in a rep state means absolutely nothing. Me voting for Obama in a dem state means nothing. Me voting for Obama in a "swing" state means absolutely nothing. Your vote means nothing in presidential elections. You don't elect the president, the senators and representatives in your state elect the president.
It is just so ironic to me how most of the emphasis is "YEAH GO OUT AND VOTE ON OUR PRESIDENT" and how people should only ever bother voting on the presidential election every 4 years. When the people have zero voting power for that election - what we REALLY have the voting power on is when we elect our representatives and senators. They are the people who actually vote in the president, and "represent" the people who voted them in. If we put all the "voting hype" and "go out and vote!!" mantra on the presidential election instead of the representative elections, we (essentually) sacrifice our voting rights.
It's ironic, because the election (in a way) is already decided - repub states will always vote republican, democrat states will always vote democrat, and the swing states will vote dem/repub depending on how many dem/repub representatives are in office during the election. I bet if you count how many representatives support which political platform in each of the swing states, you'll easily be able to predict who will win.
The only outliar is when Republicans end up voting for a Democrat president and/or vice versa. And this happens (mostly from either public pressure, major disagreements on certain stances/issues their party president is pushing, etc). These people are key. But they are few. And voting isn't going to "change" their minds. Writing to them might, protesting might, etc.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37596589]No they didn't. The US said they won't support a military strike on Iran. This didn't stop Israel from striking Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1976.
The US is also still trying to wrestle Iran into submission regarding their nuclear program.
Well, I'll need sources on that. There is a thing called context. Some nations tend to act with hostility when they have harsh sanctions put on them or their sovereignty is being violated.
It's absolutely horrible to murder people, but it isn't necessarily aggressive. It could be retaliatory as well.[/QUOTE]
It was entirely over the news only a few months ago.
I also did not know the Canadians are acting hostile towards Iran, and thus it is okay to execute Canadian nationals. This is great logic here.
The US didn't say no in 1976, the US has been steadily moving away from Israel for years now.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37597267]It was entirely over the news only a few months ago.
I also did not know the Canadians are acting hostile towards Iran, and thus it is okay to execute Canadian nationals. This is great logic here.[/quote]
"On July 26, 2010, Prime Minister Harper made a statement announcing that Canada was imposing sanctions on Iran under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA), in addition to existing sanctions passed under the United Nations Act. These new sanctions were imposed because Iran was violating its international obligations by ignoring successive UN Security Council resolutions to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and suspend its enrichment-related activities. Therefore, in close consultation with like-minded partners, including the United States and the European Union, and building upon UN Resolution 1929, the Government of Canada implemented further sanctions against Iran under the SEMA."
This is aggression. The entirety of the west is pretty belligerent towards Iran. Murdering people isn't alright, but when you are trying to destroy a nation's sovereignty, retaliation is to be expected. The whole fucking existence of the the theocratic government can be traced back to blowback from US foreign policy. Iran isn't an aggressor, Iran is not proactive, Iran is reactive, created from an incredibly hostile environment.
You can't keep trying to coerce a nation and then when they retaliate say "See?! They are the aggressors here!" You have to stop with the bad fucking policy.
[quote]The US didn't say no in 1976, the US has been steadily moving away from Israel for years now.[/QUOTE]
Until I see actual evidence that the US will no longer back Israel, this is all fluff.
I live in the south, and while I'm sort of rooting for Obama (mostly because Romney seems like a poopdick), my co-workers seem to genuinely believe that if Obama is elected again that he's going to let the Chinese invade or some shit and it will be the end of the world.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37594732]as for capitalism causing war, lmao you couldn't be more wrong. war is a negative-sum game - it might make a few capitalists happy (say, arms manufacturers) but it'll make a lot unhappy (people that would otherwise sell their products in that warzone).
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace[/url][/QUOTE]
Yes because people who put their love of money ahead of the lives of people who are culturally different than them that they'll never meet in their entire lives care SO MUCH about the lives that are ruined by war.
[url]http://www.countercurrents.org/avery070912.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1210897[/url]
I ended up making a thread about all this.
[QUOTE=Ybbats;37597602]Yes because people who put their love of money ahead of the lives of people who are culturally different than them that they'll never meet in their entire lives care SO MUCH about the lives that are ruined by war.
[url]http://www.countercurrents.org/avery070912.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
You're right, people who don't value human life tend to not value human life. Great point.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;37593652]Futile in more than one way. Very nice.[/QUOTE]
That party doesn't try to win elections, only use them to gauge support and effect of their campaigns on them.
[B]UPDATE[/B] In today's Gallup poll Romney has dropped to 44 while Obama stays at 49
[img]http://puu.sh/13xfn[/img]
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
I think we can safely say the DNC was the more effective convention
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.