>> ^ChaosEngine:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why these supposed conspirators blew up the towers? I mean, it must have been a pretty extensive operation to plan, so I'm guessing they didn't just murder a few thousand of their own citizens for shits and giggles.
Hell, even maddox isn't retarded enough to actually believe this shit.


In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor for President Carter, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney) writes of an imperialistic endeavor of controlling the world's vast natural resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, etc.) and also human labor in Eurasia (specifically central Asia/Uzbekistan) that the U.S. must undertake to maintain global domination despite the American public's indecisiveness towards the external projection of American power (in which he reminds the reader that the American public supported U.S.'s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) and cautions that it will become more difficult to establish consensus on foreign policy issues with an ever increasingly multi-cultural society in America unless the public widely perceives a massive direct external threat. (killtown.911review.org)

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^bcglorf:

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.
Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.
You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.
Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?
Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?
Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.
Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.


Look I admire the fact you're giving this a go and putting on your thinking cap, I really do; but let's look at each of your points.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620

Overall - the economy is worse, it has next to no industry or farming, health outcomes/life expectancy are worse, while education has improved. So even with this brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, the country was doing better in many areas than it is now, and this is not even looking at the subjective elements such as the hundred thousand dead civilians at the hands of US soldiers and assorted explosive devices. However even though things were perhaps marginally better with Saddam in power, I do agree that his dictatorship was brutal, and things were pretty horrific for many in Iraq. But guess what? Saddam's Ba'ath Party was put in power by the CIA - this is a well documented fact, feel free to look it up. America objected to the fact the previous ruler wanted to nationalize it's own oil reserves. So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives (subvert Gaddafi's genocide) you're being extremely naive. There are far better ways of saving lives than invading a country with bombs, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

I don't support either, did I not make that clear?
Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.
On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?


So, I ask:
Gaddafi's defeat is good for the Libyan people. Do you agree with that or not?

And your answer is....

Neither?

Are the semantics giving your troubles, or the language in general?

If I were living under a dictator like Gaddafi, I would be optimistic about an outside nation providing air support and cover to local rebels trying to overthrow him. His defeat would be better for me than his continued rule, so a good thing. It doesn't mean Libyan's will be living the good life now. It means a less worse life. Thins might deteriorate once again, but there was zero chance for them to get better so long as Gaddafi remained.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?


I don't support either, did I not make that clear?

Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.

On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?

>> ^marinara:

1. WWII is a bad example b/c USA had no economic competition after WWII.

Nations aren't businesses. Most of what's produced in the US is sold in the US, always has been, and likely always will be. Exports alone don't account for the rise in prosperity post-WWII. A lot of it was that we'd build up a huge industrial infrastructure that pivoted from making bombers and tanks to making refrigerators and cars.

>> ^marinara:
2. Are you assuming some level of debt after the 'space alien boost'?
I think you are. Or maybe you assume inflation doesn't hurt or something.

I think you're assuming all debt leads to inflation. Have you looked at the stats on debt and inflation recently? Debt's going up fast, but inflation has stayed flat and long-term bond interest rates have fallen, even after S&P tried their best to make them spike by downgrading our credit rating.

>> ^marinara:
Iceland politicians took on their banks, we didn't and now they're recovering while we aren't.


Incidentally, Iceland followed textbook Keynesian macroeconomic policy. Now they're better off than the countries who just tried to stick to austerity and tight money (the former by choice, the latter not).

>> ^marinara:

I doubt that any amount of spending could 'fix' the economy. Instead, you'd have to borrow-spend continuously, like pumping air into a burst balloon.


I think first you have to commit to a theory about what's wrong with the economy now -- not symptoms, like unemployment is high, but what the underlying root cause is.

There are a lot of things it's not being caused by. It's not been caused by any physical damage to our country's industry or infrastructure. It's not been caused by people suddenly waking up one morning having forgotten how to make things. We didn't suddenly lose all our natural resources. What, in terms of real economic capacity did we lose? Anything? Anything at all?

The other half of the "fake alien invasion" thing is that it tends to focus our minds on what's real (factories, workers, materials), and what's not (debt, money, inflation), and helps us realize how ridiculous it is that we would let concern about debt or inflation stand in the way of us putting our resources to work to save ourselves from being turned into some alien race's dinner.

Once you realize that, all you need to do to get the rest of the way is to realize that the best way to save yourself from problems with debt and inflation is to put your resources to work making as much stuff as possible, you start to see why Keynesians are annoyed that they might need to fake an alien invasion to get people to do the sensible thing...

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

Many countries the world over import grain because of fiscal reasons but it's a little more complicated than you might think. The real problem is getting water. See this story:


http://www.npr.org/2011/08/12/139579616/feeding-a-hotter-more-crowded-planet

Snippet: "The reason for that is the - is that it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain. So if you need to import water, the most efficient way to do it is with grain."

A. Obama isn't a socialist.
B. Socialism doesn't always fail.
C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.
D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.
E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.
F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead. Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Seriously....

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.

Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).

The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.

Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.

The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

>> ^Yogi:

If it doesn't help us it is a waste of money. We need answers to serious questions not expensive ways to get pilots who call themselves astronauts laid.


I agree, but there are other reasons to spend money on it than the furtherment of science.

Even if you completely discount "keeping the dream alive", most of the Solar System's natural resources are located outside of Earth's orbit. Humanity would also be well served by having some permanent, self-sustaining environment to live in that's not on Earth, just in case.

None of those are scientific reasons to invest money, but they're not a waste just because it's not science, either.

Tyson was saying that too, as far as I could tell.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Hopefully the people. I believe that their should be government but government without elected representatives I long for a direct democracy with resolutions and legislation voted for/against by everyone, where no-one is allowed to starve to death because they can't work, where the long term goals of the human race can be debated and considered and where money and its corrupting influences can be learned about in history classes not fought over.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.

Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?
All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.


No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live. Unfortunately--that's not the case, and so our government is screwed no matter what form it takes.

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

And you should know I do not defend libertarianism Net, it is only as good as its people. And the active people today (I.e., the tea party) would turn this country into flames. With that said, god I am tired. Did that make any sense? I guess I have to read it tomorrow.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?

All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.