The Terrorists have Won

[Didums]

Zawahiri (Osama's right hand man) said years ago that they could not bring down the super power (the US) but we can make them bring themselves down, we can draw them into an economically backwards crusade and have them destroy themselves.

So, they attack us on 9/11/2001 by flying planes into the World Trade Center, their intentions were not just to kill 3,000 of our citizens, that just came with the job, what they were really after was hurting our Economy, it was strictly an economic attack that happened to kill people in the process. This attack wasn't the main one intended by Osama and Zawahiri, it was the worm on a hook. We took the bait and were reeled over into the middle east and began to pour our money into the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, billions and billions and billions of dollars spent for the deaths of 3,000 people.

Over the course of the war we have lost approximately 4,000 additional Americans in the armed forces and we have taken the lives of nearly 100,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians (atleast thats how many are Documented). So, we tried to revenge the lives of 3,000 people and ended up losing even more than that in even more American blood, killed a hundred thousand or so innocent foreigners, and will have spent nearly what, 2 trillion dollars now to do it? And we didn't even catch the guy that started this in the first place.

Once we got in the middle east and couldn't catch Osama, some red herrings lead us into Iraq because while we were there we might as well take down a corrupt leader and fight some 'terrorists' that we could actually find right? Guess what, Osama is in Pakistan, in a villa, not a cave. But we can't go into Pakistan now can we, too much to risk involved there, we'll just continue beating the dead horse in Iraq instead because we say that it's unstable and it would be disastrous for us to leave right? Well, Iraq's prime minister (Nouri al-Maliki)has asked for a timetable for withdrawal but Bush insists that we should stay for just a while longer (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4288108.ece)).

Now, back to the whole "2 trillion dollar war" thing. Don't you think, maybe, just maybe, that if we hadn't dug ourselves into the the middle east and put ourselves in trillions of dollars of debt, that, maybe, possibly, this whole "financial crisis" thing would not have occured, maybe, just a thought? That the money spent could have been used to fix the mortgage crisis? Isn't this the core cause of our problems? Falling for a trick played by a desert-gang. Sad isn't it? That an extremist group in a remote region thousands and thousands of miles away from our country, can understand and take advantage of America's weaknesses and use them against us? They shot a barbed arrow right into our stomach, and we carelessly ripped it right out, and now our guts are spilling all over the floor. Who's fault is that? Were we an intelligent and honorable country, wouldn't we have had the constitution (not the document) to handle it with composure and just count the losses and move on? Couldn't we see that the whole purpose of the attack was to hurt our markets, to hurt us within, to aggravate us to strike back? No, we had to take it personally, being the resilient, intelligent Americans that we are. That this was a direct attack on our freedom, that if we didn't fight back we would lose it all. Folks, is this a rational attidute? They shit on us now we have to shit on them?

We're losers, Osama has won. He and his gang are laughing at us as they lounge in Pakistan. They're watching us bleed our financial guts out, scrambling to pull them back inside, and then we decide to pull out more in hopes that we can use these guts to pull other guts back inside.

Have they not completed what they set out to do? Have they not hurt us where it really makes a difference? Has the decline of America finally been initiated?

[CaptainChick]

Hi

[Antisocial one]

I agree with you. From perspective of Europe this look like an extreme emotional outburst.

On the other hand US had to remove Sadam exactly because he was huge threat for the economy. That is because he started to sell oil on euros.

I can explain why that is problem for the US if needed.

Plus there are many other reasons in the background that were not solved because time and energy were spent on games.

[IlyaK1986]

Hahahahaha. Funny. America has had booms and busts long before Osama even was a baby. We've survived them, and we'll survive this one. In fact, he probably caused the downfall of the entire middle east since now we're so focused on Green just to make sure those damn towelheads with bombs in their clothing don't have any more money to blow themselves up.

Edit: If anything, the whole damn world hates Islam now or is pretty close to it. Whereas before 9/11, an Arabic person can walk around like any other one does today, if they get seen on the streets, they get looked at as an outsider and get very much ostracized. And don't get me wrong. This is a good thing. The sooner we completely isolate the middle east both culturally and economically, the sooner terrorism ends once their flow of cash ends, as does their anti-Israel, anti-America, and anti-Westernism.

Nope, I think Osama really doomed the entire Islamic world on 9/11. And the fact is, people are fully justified in hating Islam. And in fact, if you want to be patriotic, then I suggest you support Green, and loudly voice your disapproval of any misbegotten religion founded by a madman who used it to act as a stereotypical medieval villain.

The only unfortunate aspect to this is all of the nice Muslims like I personally know (some from Saudi Arabia themselves) that get screwed over. Those in college right now that learn to view the world from an objective perspective will hopefully clean this nonsense up.

But for now, it is what it is...

[Oberon]

...and we have taken the lives of nearly 100,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians...

What's your source for that number?

[IlyaK1986]

What's your source for that number?

The better question should be:

Who the hell gives a shit? It's their infighting between their different Islamic sects that caused it, and so they got their just desserts. Until they learn to stop hating each other because they believe in a different version of the same dumbass religion, they'll continue to kill each other unless well-protected by armed security forces.

[Jennifer]

The better question should be: Who the hell gives a shit? It's their infighting between their different Islamic sects that caused it, and so they got their just desserts. Until they learn to stop hating each other because they believe in a different version of the same dumbass religion, they'll continue to kill each other unless well-protected by armed security forces.

Last time I checked, this thread was about the strategy of terrorists to have the US destroy itself.

We can take the rampant Islam bashing elsewhere, please... either off-site or in a more rational discussion in a separate thread.

Thanks.

[Didums]

What's your source for that number?

Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

Off to school now :run:

[Oberon]

Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

Off to school now :run:

Didums, I hit the site and reviewed some of the records. I note that the people listed as killed on the site were victims of kidnapping and torture, roadside bombs, and so forth, all characteristic acts of sectarian militia.

So when you say that "...we have taken the lives of nearly 100,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians," I must object. You're using a very loose definition of "we." The US military didn't kill those people.

[IlyaK1986]

Last time I checked, this thread was about the strategy of terrorists to have the US destroy itself.

We can take the rampant Islam bashing elsewhere, please... either off-site or in a more rational discussion in a separate thread.

Thanks.

This "strategy" you speak of is absolutely coincidental that we happened to have a real-estate/credit bubble while fighting the two wars.

And this strategy only further gains credence by our sending in of troops in a long and drawn out process and spending billions of dollars when instead, we could launch a few stealth fighters, arm them with apocalyptic weapons of final destruction, and simply erase any trouble hotspot in the world.

The bottom line is that we're pulling our punches. If we weren't concerned about upholding a "good cop" image that the rest of the world doesn't seem to think we have anyway, we could end these "wars" a hell of a lot quicker, and with far less American bloodshed.

We believe in bringing prosperity and democracy to people that insist on killing each other for believing in a slightly different bullshit religion, and anybody else that doesn't believe in their bullshit religion at all (note: I think ALL religions are bullshit--but I don't really care so long as its believers don't impose themselves), rather than erase from map, ask questions later. Are we honestly doing anybody a service by trying to use troops rather than sheer annihilation?

Genghis Khan must be rolling in his grave knowing that the U.S. has enough weaponry to end the world five times over and the capabilities to deliver them that he couldn't even dream of, yet somehow managed to get into two drawn out conflicts in the middle east.

[Jennifer]

Thanks for bringing things back on track.

Sure, one strategy (and not a bad one) is, that if you engage, you bring everything you have to bear on the enemy and crush it immediately, before it can bite you.

What are the costs of that strategy in this situation? reasons it wasn't implement? (Besides stupidity -- I mean, were there reasons that path was NOT followed, reasonably?)

Actually, if we were trying to not lose our "good cop" status, that failed miserably as well.

[IlyaK1986]

Thanks for bringing things back on track.

Sure, one strategy (and not a bad one) is, that if you engage, you bring everything you have to bear on the enemy and crush it immediately, before it can bite you.

What are the costs of that strategy in this situation? reasons it wasn't implement? (Besides stupidity -- I mean, were there reasons that path was NOT followed, reasonably?)

Actually, if we were trying to not lose our "good cop" status, that failed miserably as well.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea. People say nuclear weapons are a last resort. I don't understand why. If someone points a gun at a cop, he doesn't try diplomacy there. He shoots the motherfucker dead and explains himself later.

The same example can be applied towards nations. If one nation is threatening you, you annihilate said nation.

Now granted if we were at a military disadvantage, we'd take a different position. But right now, we're the only ones with the stealth fighters.

[whatever]

Didums, I hit the site and reviewed some of the records. I note that the people listed as killed on the site were victims of kidnapping and torture, roadside bombs, and so forth, all characteristic acts of sectarian militia.

So when you say that "...we have taken the lives of nearly 100,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians," I must object. You're using a very loose definition of "we." The US military didn't kill those people.

I guess the question there is, would those people still be alive if we hadn't invaded? :huh:

On another note, had we reacted internally in a different way, we may very well be in a different place economically than we are now.

[whatever]

To tell you the truth, I have no idea. People say nuclear weapons are a last resort. I don't understand why. If someone points a gun at a cop, he doesn't try diplomacy there. He shoots the motherfucker dead and explains himself later.

The same example can be applied towards nations. If one nation is threatening you, you annihilate said nation.

Now granted if we were at a military disadvantage, we'd take a different position. But right now, we're the only ones with the stealth fighters.

Flaw here- it wasn't a nation threatening anyone, it was a terrorist organization. There's a difference :)

[IlyaK1986]

I guess the question there is, would those people still be alive if we hadn't invaded? :huh:

On another note, had we reacted internally in a different way, we may very well be in a different place economically than we are now.

Yes, if we simply didn't try to land troops, nuked into oblivion, and let the radiation keep the region peaceful for another 5 decades.

Would those people still be alive? Moot point. They don't matter. They don't contribute to human progress. They're parasites.

[IlyaK1986]

Flaw here- it wasn't a nation threatening anyone, it was a terrorist organization. There's a difference :)

And nations that harbored and funded them willingly. And still do, in the case of Iran. WHo is also trying to get a nuclear weapon.

Though if it does, I say we hush hush, don't try to talk--just nuke their cities, nuke their reactors, and then drop a few more nukes to make sure that nation isn't coming back.

[whatever]

Yes, if we simply didn't try to land troops, nuked into oblivion, and let the radiation keep the region peaceful for another 5 decades.

Would those people still be alive? Moot point. They don't matter. They don't contribute to human progress. They're parasites.

You aren't human.

And think- if we destroyed the middle east what would happen to our energy needs :devil:

[Beat]

Things are significantly more calm over there than they were a few years back. That looks like progress to me. Is there more retaliation to come? Are things resolved in the middle-east? No, and it never will be until one of religions/sects wipes the other from the map. If nothing else, it showed nations that passive aggressiveness isn't the name of the game we're playing, or just that we make bad decisions from time to time.... However you want to see it.

[Oberon]

I guess the question there is, would those people still be alive if we hadn't invaded? :huh:


No. The war created opportunities for criminal mayhem, it's true, but the criminals are still responsible for the mayhem.

[whatever]

And nations that harbored and funded them willingly. And still do, in the case of Iran. WHo is also trying to get a nuclear weapon.

Though if it does, I say we hush hush, don't try to talk--just nuke their cities, nuke their reactors, and then drop a few more nukes to make sure that nation isn't coming back.

And on that note, you're ignoring of "collateral damage" would make Mr. McVey quite proud.

[whatever]

No. The war created opportunities for criminal mayhem, it's true, but the criminals are still responsible for the mayhem.

I'm not saying that we did it, but I'm saying that our hands aren't completely clean in that matter.

(though I, personally, think that invading Iraq in the first place was a shitty move :dry:)

[Anja]

Every nation has had it's rise and decline and I see no reason that the US should be an exception. Whether it could happen so relatively rapidly remains to be seen.

As many, I have been pondering this.

Imagine I have more to say, but the thought that came to mind reading the OP is that whatever one (nations included) puts the most value on is where he (they) will be the most vulnerable.

[Antisocial one]

Actually, if we were trying to not lose our "good cop" status, that failed miserably as well.

This is probably the biggest loss you have had in this wars.


Few years back there was a comment im my local newspapers: The beginning of the end for the Soviet union was invasion on Afghanistan, will the same story be with the USA?

I admit that it is strange that the two biggest superpowers in the 20. century had so much problems with one country that is in theory nothing and nobody.

But Ilyak is right.
I have said to many people that USA is losing the wars deliberatly. If the USA pulls out all the guns and chemicals and forgets that there is something known as ethics the problem would be solved in two weeks.

The only problem is how the rest of the world will take this measures.


On the other hand they could approve this because they are annoyed by the entire thing and this had to be done to end this.

[pure_mercury]

Every nation has had it's rise and decline and I see no reason that the US should be an exception. Whether it could happen so relatively rapidly remains to be seen.

As many, I have been pondering this.

Imagine I have more to say, but the thought that came to mind reading the OP is that whatever one (nations included) puts the most value on is where he (they) will be the most vulnerable.

The United States doesn't have to decline. We can set a new example by willingly abandoning the imperial role, cutting the insane taxing and spending, and getting back to being an economic power first and foremost.

[Antisocial one]

Every nation has had it's rise and decline and I see no reason that the US should be an exception. Whether it could happen so relatively rapidly remains to be seen.

It not that simple. If US falls apart in any way that means that it will in all other ways with time. What means that the dollar will be worthless.
But if I have the right number US makes around 1/3 of the worlds GDP. Also The 3/4 of money reserves of the world are in dollars what means that entire world has a problem. If dollar crushes the global economy will crash what means that other currencys will crash also.

In that case there are only two options, new "new deal" or beginning of new era.

[Oberon]

The United States doesn't have to decline. We set a new example by willingly abandoning the imperial role, cutting the insane taxing and spending, and getting back to being an economic power first and foremost.

Yes, this is all true... but sadly, it will never happen. Old men many years from now will sit over their beer and wonder why they didn't do those things when they could have.

[IlyaK1986]

And on that note, you're ignoring of "collateral damage" would make Mr. McVey quite proud.

In baseball, if you bat .300, you're considered amazing. If you've ever read Gulliver's travels, one of the points is that if the people would just rise up against their government, they can easily overthrow it.

They haven't. They won't. They're guilty enough by association. As guilty as Mahmoud I'm-a-nut-job or the Ayatollahs? No. But if they're part of the collateral damage, oh fucking well.

All of this pulling our punches and the noose of political correctness and our bleeding hearts are the terrorists' best assets. Not their petrodollars, and not their fanatical beliefs either. It's simply our unwillingness to make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a tiny pinprick that has everyone saying "hey look, America is tying its own hands! Get 'em!"

Will it paint us as a truly bad cop out only for our own interests and not that of the world if we decide to eradicate any nation that fucks with us? You bet.

And I say: so what? Isn't that how we're seen already? As the fat, greedy, selfish, imperialistic Americans?

So I say it's time to stop pretending the world loves us. They never have--and they never will. Even when we came to Britain as it was being carpet bombed by nazi bombers, the most memorable line from those times was:

"The Americans are overpaid, oversexed, and over here."

And then we more or less singlehandedly rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan, which cost us what our bailout today is costing us. Do we have any gratitude? I think the answer to that one is obvious.

Furthermore, who will cry if we annihilated the middle east? The Europeans, who are up to their noses in disgusting bearded towel-heads building ugly mosques everywhere and crying DEATH TO EUROPE after some political cartoons?

So I say we finish up in Iraq and Afghanistan, pull out in sixteen months, and if the situation goes to shit and the country falls apart, we just take no prisoners and pacify the place from above. And any other nation that decides to fuck with us.

The answer is simple: put the burden of nation-building on the people of that nation, because if they elect leaders that try to attack the free world, the response won't just be some surgical anti-terrorism ground campaign, but eradication from above.

Simple, clean, effective, and the way Genghis Khan did it.

[edel weiss]

I guess other people's lives don't matter, as long as American lives are saved.

[Antisocial one]

I guess other people's lives don't matter, as long as American lives are saved.

In the case of nuking there will be dead Americans for sure.

[nolla]

To tell you the truth, I have no idea. People say nuclear weapons are a last resort. I don't understand why. If someone points a gun at a cop, he doesn't try diplomacy there. He shoots the motherfucker dead and explains himself later.

The same example can be applied towards nations. If one nation is threatening you, you annihilate said nation.

Ilya, you know what is wrong with your anecdotes? You expect U.S. to be the cop. This is not the case. If we say that after 9/11 U.S. had nuked Afghanistan and Irak, It would have been more like this:

You walk on the street and some guy comes and punches you and says that it is because you are different. After that you go get your guns and shoot him, shoot his family, shoot his neighbors and then ask if there is anyone there who thinks similarly. After that you shoot them too.

Being a cop is being service of a higher code than your own opinions and also to a system. U.S. is no cop. The only reason the rest of the world keeps tolerating this is because U.S. tries to minimize the collateral damage by applying some ethics to their crusades.

The answer is simple: put the burden of nation-building on the people of that nation, because if they elect leaders that try to attack the free world, the response won't just be some surgical anti-terrorism ground campaign, but eradication from above.

"Free world" ... sigh... how free is the world if the only option for the individual countries is to be like United States? "Otherwise we nuke you.."

Furthermore, who will cry if we annihilated the middle east? The Europeans, who are up to their noses in disgusting bearded towel-heads building ugly mosques everywhere and crying DEATH TO EUROPE after some political cartoons?

You know, fuck off! You are a racist asshole who is willing to categorize all the people of certain religion or certain country by their worst individuals. Sure, I could do that too, I have nothing but disgust towards american foreign policy, american president and this attitude that you are showing. "We are the best fucking country dont come messing with us because we have a bomb." And why will I not say that all the americans are like you or bush? Because I know better. You are an ignorant sob who I hope will be sent to fight the next american crusade. You will maybe then see some gray areas between the black and the white. Speaking of black and white, do you hate different colors too? Are the gays to be killed? How about all the mormons and other sects?

Nevermind, just piss off...

[IlyaK1986]

Ilya, you know what is wrong with your anecdotes? You expect U.S. to be the cop. This is not the case. If we say that after 9/11 U.S. had nuked Afghanistan and Irak, It would have been more like this:

You walk on the street and some guy comes and punches you and says that it is because you are different. After that you go get your guns and shoot him, shoot his family, shoot his neighbors and then ask if there is anyone there who thinks similarly. After that you shoot them too.

Being a cop is being service of a higher code than your own opinions and also to a system. U.S. is no cop. The only reason the rest of the world keeps tolerating this is because U.S. tries to minimize the collateral damage by applying some ethics to their crusades.



"Free world" ... sigh... how free is the world if the only option for the individual countries is to be like United States? "Otherwise we nuke you.."



You know, fuck off! You are a racist asshole who is willing to categorize all the people of certain religion or certain country by their worst individuals. Sure, I could do that too, I have nothing but disgust towards american foreign policy, american president and this attitude that you are showing. "We are the best fucking country dont come messing with us because we have a bomb." And why will I not say that all the americans are like you or bush? Because I know better. You are an ignorant sob who I hope will be sent to fight the next american crusade. You will maybe then see some gray areas between the black and the white. Speaking of black and white, do you hate different colors too? Are the gays to be killed? How about all the mormons and other sects?

Nevermind, just piss off...

9/11 like getting punched in the face? More like getting shot. So if someone shoots you, you shoot him. In fact, you should shoot him BEFORE he shoots you ideally. That's how it works with police. And yes, America IS relied on as the world's cop ever since 1918 when we saved Europe from Germany the FIRST time.

And the US being a crusader...hahahahaha...that's just funny. If we were a crusader, we'd be in far more places than Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for your free world comment, who says "be like us or we nuke you"? Keep to yourself, don't come and kill our people or the people of your allies, and we leave you alone. But if you try to kill us, we will kill you and all you hold dear.

As for your last comment: you're *damn right* I judge people by their worst. That's not called racism in my book. Know what that's called? Risk management. And I don't hate any groups of people, unless said groups of people decide to impose themselves on everyone else. The African Americans don't impose themselves, nor do the gays, nor do the Mormons or any other sects.

I happen to think religion is bullshit as a whole, but I'm not crusading about it. If you agree with me, great. If not, oh well, your loss.

[edel weiss]

You know, fuck off! You are a racist asshole who is willing to categorize all the people of certain religion or certain country by their worst individuals. Sure, I could do that too, I have nothing but disgust towards american foreign policy, american president and this attitude that you are showing. "We are the best fucking country dont come messing with us because we have a bomb." And why will I not say that all the americans are like you or bush? Because I know better. You are an ignorant sob who I hope will be sent to fight the next american crusade. You will maybe then see some gray areas between the black and the white. Speaking of black and white, do you hate different colors too? Are the gays to be killed? How about all the mormons and other sects?

Nevermind, just piss off...

I couldn't bring myself to say it like you, so I'd just like to say that I agree. :hug:

[Jen]

Ummm.... Anyone?

Maybe a cooling off period and corner assignment is in order.

[IlyaK1986]

Would it be better if I used a more politically correct term?

This is what I'm talking about when I say "the noose of political correctness is killing us".

Once we STOP with the political correctness and trying to please so many different people and not be afraid to resort to might if our opponents believe that might makes right, we can get much more done.

Edit: And by the way, I don't use the term towel-heads for everybody. I mean it quite literally. In a lot of the pictures we see in the media, you have people with big beards wearing...well...more or less...TOWELS...on their heads.

That's not a towel-head to you?

[Jack Flak]

This debate makes sense. It's valid, worthwhile. Without the name-calling maybe.

[edel weiss]

An eye for an eye makes the while world blind. Yeah, I know it's corny but I think it's true. Shrug.

The US undoubtly has done many great things, but it has messed up a lot as well. The Iraq War, in my opinion, is one of those mess ups.
Nobody is trying to defend terrorism here, but bracketing an entire community and ruining their lives just because of a few people doesn't seem like the best thing to do. It just fires up further communal hatred - and trust me, I've seen where this leads. I see it everyday. My country has been wracked with terrorists attacks for years now. Nobody is even surprised when we hear of bomb blasts, they're practically taking place weekly now.

But using this to impose draconian standards on *all* people, especially people who just happen to be from the same community? Not good. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, it fuels more hatred, more violence, and more deaths.

And that's not the world most of us would want to live in.

[IlyaK1986]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Two eyes for one eye means that you might take out one of mine, but I'll leave you blind.

I'm not proposing retaliation in kind. I'm proposing setting a message once and for all that:

"You are rational. Therefore, you will not attack us for fear of putting all of your people to death. If you attack us, you and your entire nation get burned off the planet. Be rational, live in peace, and we won't harm you. Fuck with us, and die."

The threat of force is a far better weapon than the use of it. But in order for the threat of it to work, we must show that we are willing to use it.

Edit: Edel, have you also ever thought about why terrorism is as rampant in India as it is? Could it be BECAUSE of this philosophy of live and let live and don't punish the many for the deeds of a few? For some reason, despite these many being given such a terrible name by these few, they seemingly do nothing about them!

[edel weiss]

The US accounts for nearly half of the entire world's military spending. Most of the world is plenty scared.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

I see what you mean, yet I do not like the idea of
"you and your entire nation get burned off the planet"

It seems terribly unjust to kill innocent people merely to scare a few.

[Oleander]

Sad thing is that no one side has all the shits. There are fundamentalist Muslims as ready to kill every other Muslim as they are every other religion, just the religious Khmer Rouge. There are fundamentalist Christians not much different. But one thing that can't be got away from is that one country has always stood out and greeted all criticism, even from its own co-religionists, with hysterical accusations of racial prejudice.

Israel.

The terrorism that established Israel and that it has continued to perpetrate can't be undone and neither can its existence. Nearly all countries exist only because foreigners invaded and drove the natives out. In the Americas it happened in the last 500 years, in Europe in maybe the last 5,000. Noever mind, it happened.

Until Israel as a 'Jewish State' is replaced by a 'State for Jews' (among others) there will never be peace in West Asia. It is all too frightening that fundamentalists of all three Biblical religions (four if that inculdes Mormons) need 'Armageddon' before the Messiah can arrive. Therefore peace delays His arrival and War is God's Will.

[IlyaK1986]

The US accounts for nearly half of the entire world's military spending. Most of the world is plenty scared.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

I see what you mean, yet I do not like the idea of
"you and your entire nation get burned off the planet"

It seems terribly unjust to kill innocent people merely to scare a few.

Edel, I'm sure everyone knows the story of America. We weren't always this giant nation stretching from sea to shining sea. We started off as 13 little colonies under the rule of the British as just another trading post to be taxed and not represented.

We revolted--and we won. Us little Americans against the mighty British. (Fine, I'm an immigrant from Kiev--I still consider myself American, because it was America that allowed my mother to bring us from out of poverty!)

Do you honestly think that all of those many people can't topple the "few" extremists, if that's honestly the case? Or is it that there are far more of these people more in favor of the government than you claim to be?

For plenty of nations to be scared, it seems that the Pakistanis aren't scared since their troops are firing on ours simply because of national sovereignty (never mind the terrorists within their borders!). The Iranians are not scared, judging by how they're trying to hide their nuclear program (otherwise, why wouldn't they open every single facility up to UN inspectors?).

Clearly, we have not scared the world enough because despite our military spending, we can't even clearly win two conflicts in two small desert nations.

[IlyaK1986]

Sad thing is that no one side has all the shits. There are fundamentalist Muslims as ready to kill every other Muslim as they are every other religion, just the religious Khmer Rouge. There are fundamentalist Christians not much different. But one thing that can't be got away from is that one country has always stood out and greeted all criticism, even from its own co-religionists, with hysterical accusations of racial prejudice.

Israel.

The terrorism that established Israel and that it has continued to perpetrate can't be undone and neither can its existence. Nearly all countries exist only because foreigners invaded and drove the natives out. In the Americas it happened in the last 500 years, in Europe in maybe the last 5,000. Noever mind, it happened.

Until Israel as a 'Jewish State' is replaced by a 'State for Jews' (among others) there will never be peace in West Asia. It is all too frightening that fundamentalists of all three Biblical religions (four if that inculdes Mormons) need 'Armageddon' before the Messiah can arrive. Therefore peace delays His arrival and War is God's Will.

Go away. We don't need this "Israel is the terrorist" religion-fueled nonsense. If Israel felt like being a terrorist nation, you wouldn't have any Palestinians to cry injustice or blow themselves up.

[nolla]

9/11 like getting punched in the face? More like getting shot. So if someone shoots you, you shoot him. In fact, you should shoot him BEFORE he shoots you ideally. That's how it works with police. And yes, America IS relied on as the world's cop ever since 1918 when we saved Europe from Germany the FIRST time.

On the anecdotes you were talking about earlier it is a punch in the face. You were the one to talk about countries as individual persons. If a terrorist kills 3000 civilians it is a punch in the face (or maybe a low blow) compared to U.S. killing all the people in Afghanistan, which is like killing a person. The neighbors who I was talking about are the other countries with similar governments or religions.

About america being police. It has appointed itself for the job. I repeat what I said earlier: Police is not police if he doesnt have legislators over him. If I rescue you from a bandit on the alley, I cannot call myself police from that day on.


And the US being a crusader...hahahahaha...that's just funny. If we were a crusader, we'd be in far more places than Iraq and Afghanistan.

U.S. crusade is to spread its form of democracy. It can be done with or without guns, but the states have been using the guns lately.

As for your last comment: you're *damn right* I judge people by their worst. That's not called racism in my book. Know what that's called? Risk management. And I don't hate any groups of people, unless said groups of people decide to impose themselves on everyone else. The African Americans don't impose themselves, nor do the gays, nor do the Mormons or any other sects.

Every group has its fundamental nuts. If it was possible to make a list of them, and if after that we applied your kill-all-of-their-people-before-they-make-a-move strategy, we would have a very very empty (and radioactive) world.

[IlyaK1986]

Every group has its fundamental nuts.

Which is why we don't hear about ANY other fundamental nuts, and when we do, it's much more of a "look at the idiot" kind of thing than "these nuts are out to get us" kind of thing.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet.

Thus if every group had its fundamental nuts, we should hear about non muslim nuts 4 times as much as muslim fundamental nuts.

We don't. You can blame the media all you like, but somehow it seems to be the countries in which religious muslim nuts are in highest concentration that are the world's problem, as opposed to only their own.

[nolla]

For plenty of nations to be scared, it seems that the Pakistanis aren't scared since their troops are firing on ours simply because of national sovereignty (never mind the terrorists within their borders!).

This is what I don't get.

How do you say that their national sovereignty is less important than hunt for terrorists? If, lets say, china wants to send troops to america fighting "terrorists" who live there, do you let them? USA needs to consider other countries as equals. That is really basic stuff.

Thus if every group had its fundamental nuts, we should hear about non muslim nuts 4 times as much as muslim fundamental nuts.

We don't. You can blame the media all you like, but somehow it seems to be the countries in which religious muslim nuts are in highest concentration that are the world's problem, as opposed to only their own.

The other fundamental nuts are doing some other stuff killing some people that no one cares about in this media. Yes, it is a lot about media.

[IlyaK1986]

Which is where you and I differ. Not all countries ARE equal. The USA does more for the world than Pakistan does. In fact, if a high-profile terrorist was hiding within our borders (fat chance...he'd be found rapidly), I'd say we'd work with the world and if they wanted to send their agents over here to help in the hunt, I'd venture to say we'd not only let them, but accept their help willingly.

Furthermore, if a policeman wanted to inspect your property for something, would you turn him away if he had good cause? I'd say "how can I help you, officer?" ESPECIALLY if somewhere on that property there was something threatening not only to you but your neighbors.

Yes, the police analogy isn't perfect. No analogy is.

[Anja]

In my opinion it is really too late to remedy the problems the US has and we are going to see upheaval big time. Everything points to that. I hope it's staved off long enough for me to get outta here.

One of our major problems is our exponentially growing population. Add to that the huge amount of immigrants which we still welcome through tradition, though not wisely, and our humanity problems will cause a collapse of the system irregardless of terrorism.

I think blind optimism about maintaining the status quo would be better spent getting ready for the chaos.

The terrorists? They're already among us. No need to go looking for them half-way around the world. And not all of them are "towelheads."

[Metamorphosis]

Go away. We don't need this "Israel is the terrorist" religion-fueled nonsense. If Israel felt like being a terrorist nation, you wouldn't have any Palestinians to cry injustice or blow themselves up.

Wow. Are you familiar with the creation of Israel at all?

[Anja]

I'd say we'd work with the world and if they wanted to send their agents over here to help in the hunt, I'd venture to say we'd not only let them, but accept their help willingly.



I'd like to believe this but it's doubtful. We have our own CIA, FBI and local law enforcement officers continually at odds with each other. Crime investigations are contstantly being botched because of the possessive attitudes. We certainly aren't going to allow any "foreigners" have a chance at the glory. Tsk.


Edit: I don't think many US citizens realize what a mess we have on our hands here. It ill behooves us to go looking for the arsonist when the barn is on fire.

[edel weiss]

I thought that US and Pakistan were pretty friendly till about some time ago.

[nolla]

Which is where you and I differ. Not all countries ARE equal. The USA does more for the world than Pakistan does. In fact, if a high-profile terrorist was hiding within our borders (fat chance...he'd be found rapidly), I'd say we'd work with the world and if they wanted to send their agents over here to help in the hunt, I'd venture to say we'd not only let them, but accept their help willingly.

Well, my point was that the chinese idea of a terrorist is different than U.S. view on terrorist.

But, tell me, if the countries are not equals, why do you rate U.S. so high? Only because it is "doing things" doesn't give it right to rule other countries. That is hardly democratic. I am all for democracy as it is the best system that people have come up with and I think that the countries in the world should be considered equals in order to make the world government a democracy. Now, USA is acting like the dictator of the world, while internally it is ruled by democracy. This is a huge contradiction.

[Metamorphosis]

The US accounts for nearly half of the entire world's military spending. Most of the world is plenty scared.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)


That's the nature of the law of increasing cost of war. The hegemon is forced to spend substantially more on Defense R&D and production because they are the one on top. It then filters down to other nations via buying, receiving, or stealing. It costs us significantly more to create jets than it costs Israel to buy them from us.

[IlyaK1986]

In my opinion it is really too late to remedy the problems the US has and we are going to see upheaval big time. Everything points to that. I hope it's staved off long enough for me to get outta here.

One of our major problems is our exponentially growing population. Add to that the huge amount of immigrants which we still welcome through tradition, though not wisely, and our humanity problems will cause a collapse of the system irregardless of terrorism.

I think blind optimism about maintaining the status quo would be better spent getting ready for the chaos.

The terrorists? They're already among us. No need to go looking for them half-way around the world. And not all of them are "towelheads."

And once again, where will you go? We've faced these kinds of problems before--bigger ones in fact. The bombing of Pearl Harbor, and after that, the red scare. This is also merits different approaches that we should not be averse to taking.

The problem is the media and people that believe in such things as "human rights" for people that are anything but human, and in the news media for trying to tug at our heartstrings, rather than presenting us with information that's important to us.

Why do we need to know that someone got murdered in the major city close to us? It happens all the time and then it just becomes "oops, someone got killed again".

As bad as things look in the US, they're FAR worse anywhere else in the world.

[IlyaK1986]

I thought that US and Pakistan were pretty friendly till about some time ago.

They still are on paper. That was minor.

And Nolla, your idea is terrible. Simply because we are NOT all equals. We have far better standards of living in the US than in a lot of other places. So our policy should not be dictated by any other nations.

See that's the thing--we have the power to act without the consent of other nations, and I don't mean to botch it up Bush style. We have the power to annihilate any enemy from the face of the earth. And whether you want to admit it or not, our enemies are probably your enemies.

Any nation not living under Sharia is an enemy to the Islamic theocracies. The end. The only reason they don't attack us is that they don't have the power. If the situation were switched around, we'd all be living under Muslim rule. Learn your history. Islam went on conquering sprees. Twice. They still try to. The only reason they haven't succeeded is that we've battled them down militarily.

But why leave this to chance? Why not just destroy the threats once and for all?

[Anja]

And once again, where will you go? We've faced these kinds of problems before--bigger ones in fact. The bombing of Pearl Harbor, and after that, the red scare. This is also merits different approaches that we should not be averse to taking.

The problem is the media and people that believe in such things as "human rights" for people that are anything but human, and in the news media for trying to tug at our heartstrings, rather than presenting us with information that's important to us.

Why do we need to know that someone got murdered in the major city close to us? It happens all the time and then it just becomes "oops, someone got killed again".

As bad as things look in the US, they're FAR worse anywhere else in the world.

Well, that's the truth. My point exactly. Exponentially growing population. . .

Where will I go? That's up to the Powers That Be. Haven't a clue on that one.

[Anja]

No American hubris in my corner. There is a limit to the amount a nation can tackle regardless of track record.

[IlyaK1986]

And as for exponentially growing population, immigration is declining to the US now that nobody wants to hire a foreigner. Their legal and visa issues just cost far too much, unless it's for a professorship, and then, you have to be DAMN good (most of the time, I've had some garbage foreign profs and TAs).

Immigrants will find the US right now a terrible, terrible place. So you need not worry about that.

[Metamorphosis]

And as for exponentially growing population, immigration is declining to the US now that nobody wants to hire a foreigner. Their legal and visa issues just cost far too much, unless it's for a professorship, and then, you have to be DAMN good (most of the time, I've had some garbage foreign profs and TAs).

Immigrants will find the US right now a terrible, terrible place. So you need not worry about that.

There surely aren't illegal immigrants. And the U.S. surely isn't better off than Mexico. :rolleyes:

[Beat]

I guess other people's lives don't matter, as long as American lives are saved.
I don't see how our significant sacrifice of American troops over seas affirms this idea.

[IlyaK1986]

There surely aren't illegal immigrants. And the U.S. surely isn't better off than Mexico. :rolleyes:

That's also an issue. Don't deport them if caught. Jail them. Make a very bad example out of them. Send a message. Solve problem.

[Little Linguist]

Zawahiri (Osama's right hand man) said years ago that they could not bring down the super power (the US) but we can make them bring themselves down, we can draw them into an economically backwards crusade and have them destroy themselves.

So, they attack us on 9/11/2001 by flying planes into the World Trade Center, their intentions were not just to kill 3,000 of our citizens, that just came with the job, what they were really after was hurting our Economy, it was strictly an economic attack that happened to kill people in the process. This attack wasn't the main one intended by Osama and Zawahiri, it was the worm on a hook. We took the bait and were reeled over into the middle east and began to pour our money into the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, billions and billions and billions of dollars spent for the deaths of 3,000 people.

Over the course of the war we have lost approximately 4,000 additional Americans in the armed forces and we have taken the lives of nearly 100,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians (atleast thats how many are Documented). So, we tried to revenge the lives of 3,000 people and ended up losing even more than that in even more American blood, killed a hundred thousand or so innocent foreigners, and will have spent nearly what, 2 trillion dollars now to do it? And we didn't even catch the guy that started this in the first place.

Once we got in the middle east and couldn't catch Osama, some red herrings lead us into Iraq because while we were there we might as well take down a corrupt leader and fight some 'terrorists' that we could actually find right? Guess what, Osama is in Pakistan, in a villa, not a cave. But we can't go into Pakistan now can we, too much to risk involved there, we'll just continue beating the dead horse in Iraq instead because we say that it's unstable and it would be disastrous for us to leave right? Well, Iraq's prime minister (Nouri al-Maliki)has asked for a timetable for withdrawal but Bush insists that we should stay for just a while longer (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4288108.ece)).

Now, back to the whole "2 trillion dollar war" thing. Don't you think, maybe, just maybe, that if we hadn't dug ourselves into the the middle east and put ourselves in trillions of dollars of debt, that, maybe, possibly, this whole "financial crisis" thing would not have occured, maybe, just a thought? That the money spent could have been used to fix the mortgage crisis? Isn't this the core cause of our problems? Falling for a trick played by a desert-gang. Sad isn't it? That an extremist group in a remote region thousands and thousands of miles away from our country, can understand and take advantage of America's weaknesses and use them against us? They shot a barbed arrow right into our stomach, and we carelessly ripped it right out, and now our guts are spilling all over the floor. Who's fault is that? Were we an intelligent and honorable country, wouldn't we have had the constitution (not the document) to handle it with composure and just count the losses and move on? Couldn't we see that the whole purpose of the attack was to hurt our markets, to hurt us within, to aggravate us to strike back? No, we had to take it personally, being the resilient, intelligent Americans that we are. That this was a direct attack on our freedom, that if we didn't fight back we would lose it all. Folks, is this a rational attidute? They shit on us now we have to shit on them?

We're losers, Osama has won. He and his gang are laughing at us as they lounge in Pakistan. They're watching us bleed our financial guts out, scrambling to pull them back inside, and then we decide to pull out more in hopes that we can use these guts to pull other guts back inside.

Have they not completed what they set out to do? Have they not hurt us where it really makes a difference? Has the decline of America finally been initiated?

Exactly. They won. And America is going down....Too bad emotionality got in the way of rationality and common sense.

[Metamorphosis]

That's also an issue. Don't deport them if caught. Jail them. Make a very bad example out of them. Send a message. Solve problem.

The problem here being that jails are significantly over crowded as it is and keeping prisoners is prohibitively expensive.

[IlyaK1986]

I don't see how our significant sacrifice of American troops over seas promotes this idea.

Except we shouldn't do that. Desert Storm (aka the Gulf War) succeeded because we bombed, bombed, bombed some more and then sent in tanks for shits and giggles. We're untouchable in the sky--and we should stick to that. The sacrifice of our troops isn't necessary.

[IlyaK1986]

The problem here being that jails are significantly over crowded as it is and keeping prisoners is prohibitively expensive.

In that case, allow the people in border states to bear arms, and let them do with those as they freely choose. Or put the prisoners to some form of labor such that they at least pay for their storage costs.

[Metamorphosis]

Except we shouldn't do that. Desert Storm (aka the Gulf War) succeeded because we bombed, bombed, bombed some more and then sent in tanks for shits and giggles. We're untouchable in the sky--and we should stick to that. The sacrifice of our troops isn't necessary.

This creates bitterness for generations and exacerbates the problem of terrorism. On top of that, Iraq was an ally of ours not long before the Gulf War. I think we also learned about this following World War I.

[Jack Flak]

No one's ever as gray as me on these things, lol. Yeah, America's in a tight spot, but "Going down?" Meh, I think we'll be okay. *yawn* *looks out window* Everything looks cool from here.

[nolla]

And Nolla, your idea is terrible. Simply because we are NOT all equals. We have far better standards of living in the US than in a lot of other places. So our policy should not be dictated by any other nations.

My idea? Democracy is not my idea. It is obvious that you cant make world democratic if you don't consider the countries equals. Sure, it will not happen soon, but that is the only way world could be governed successfully.

See that's the thing--we have the power to act without the consent of other nations, and I don't mean to botch it up Bush style. We have the power to annihilate any enemy from the face of the earth. And whether you want to admit it or not, our enemies are probably your enemies.

I say it is wrong to use that power in the way you described.

Any nation not living under Sharia is an enemy to the Islamic theocracies. The end. The only reason they don't attack us is that they don't have the power. If the situation were switched around, we'd all be living under Muslim rule. Learn your history. Islam went on conquering sprees. Twice. They still try to. The only reason they haven't succeeded is that we've battled them down militarily.

I'm not saying lets give them the chance to rule, no. I want the United States to see that what it is doing is not democratic, it needs to stop so that we can change the world BEFORE someone else is on the throne. But I guess it is too late since the economy is going down and U.S. has maybe a decade before someone else calls the shots.

But why leave this to chance? Why not just destroy the threats once and for all?

Because, the mainstream muslims are not the same crazy towelheads you talk about.

[CaptainChick]

And as for exponentially growing population, immigration is declining to the US now that nobody wants to hire a foreigner. Their legal and visa issues just cost far too much, unless it's for a professorship, and then, you have to be DAMN good (most of the time, I've had some garbage foreign profs and TAs).
LOL, WHAT?!?!?!?

And, I'll have you know I've had far more garbage native American, wait, er, um, I mean, American-born profs than I have had garbage foreign ones.

But what does any of this matter it is purely anecdotal.

That's also an issue. Don't deport them if caught. Jail them. Make a very bad example out of them. Send a message. Solve problem.
Lol, how long have you and your family been "Americans", sugar-booger?

[CaptainChick]

In that case, allow the people in border states to bear arms, and let them do with those as they freely choose. Or put the prisoners to some form of labor such that they at least pay for their storage costs.
:huh:

I take it you are not big into human rights.

[nolla]

:huh:

I take it you are not big into human rights.

Yeah, this stuff is unbelievable. I don't know why I bother.. :doh:

[IlyaK1986]

Nolla, the idea of "citizens of the world" or "world nation" will not apply, because government leaders are elected to do what's best for the people within their own borders. Thus, if our standard of living is higher than the average person's in the world (AND IT IS!), then it would be TERRIBLE for the US to engage in US style democracy on a world scale. Doing that would put so much power into the hands of China and India that it would be a disaster!

As for mainstream vs. extremist--I don't buy it. I have very much difficulty believing after seeing so many people dancing in the streets on 9/11 or after the release of Samir Kuntar or other disasters like that, that everyone is a jolly good fellow except for the governments and anyone in power, who maintains that power despite every single person within those borders despising them.

[IlyaK1986]

:huh:

I take it you are not big into human rights.

Hello! I'm an ENTJ! I do what's rational, not what's gushy-feely! I realize that there are some things that are absolutely terrible from a feeling standpoint, which is why I stick to the numbers and not with my feelings.

Am I a cold-hearted, unfeeling bastard? When it comes to politics, absolutely. My feelings are reserved for those closest to me that my conscience would trump my rationality. I don't invoke my conscience when dealing with numbers.

And if you think I'm terrible, what about the politicians that made the decisions to drop the two bombs on Japan? Was that also merciless and cruel and evil and a flagrant disregard for human rights? All I have to say is that judging by the current state of affairs between America and Japan, had we not dropped those two bombs, things may have wound up far worse.

[CaptainChick]

Hello! I'm an ENTJ! I do what's rational, not what's gushy-feely! I realize that there are some things that are absolutely terrible from a feeling standpoint, which is why I stick to the numbers and not with my feelings.
Are you Russian born, my dear, and if not, are your parents Russian immigrants?

Just curious.

:)

[IlyaK1986]

Are you Russian born, my dear, and if not, are your parents Russian immigrants?

Just curious.

:)

I MYSELF am an immigrant, thank you. But I immigrated LEGALLY. I didn't sneak in across a border. (I flew across one!)

Edit: But I love this country. It is the country of opportunity, in which anyone willing to work hard enough can rise to the top. Warren Buffett started off as a nobody and built his wealth through intelligence. Sergei Brin is also an immigrant and wham, look what he did.

While I don't agree with the view that most Americans hold of Russia, I agree that it has some issues, and I'll take America's any day to Russia's.

And I'm a citizen.

[CaptainChick]

I MYSELF am an immigrant, thank you. But I immigrated LEGALLY. I didn't sneak in across a border. (I flew across one!)
:rolleyes:

I knew it!!!

[nolla]

Nolla, the idea of "citizens of the world" or "world nation" will not apply, because government leaders are elected to do what's best for the people within their own borders. Thus, if our standard of living is higher than the average person's in the world (AND IT IS!), then it would be TERRIBLE for the US to engage in US style democracy on a world scale. Doing that would put so much power into the hands of China and India that it would be a disaster!

So the problem would come down to U.S. (and the western world) having to admit that they have too high standard of living compared to other countries and their people, and this would take some away from the western world in the long run... That comes very close to what I call fair.

As for mainstream vs. extremist--I don't buy it. I have very much difficulty believing after seeing so many people dancing in the streets on 9/11 or after the release of Samir Kuntar or other disasters like that, that everyone is a jolly good fellow except for the governments and anyone in power, who maintains that power despite every single person within those borders despising them.

They get a whole different perspective (through their media) on western world than we do. I can understand how it might seem like U.S. is a big boogey man across the ocean. I am sure that if you take the average muslim and place him in some western country, he will see a whole different perspective to the world dynamics.

[IlyaK1986]

:rolleyes:

I knew it!!!

Well of course you did.

Now if America and Russia were attached to the same above-water landmass, THEN we'd have an issue!

(Though I'm sure we'd find a peaceful way to solve it, such as with some nice hockey games =])

[IlyaK1986]

So the problem would come down to U.S. (and the western world) having to admit that they have too high standard of living compared to other countries and their people, and this would take some away from the western world in the long run... That comes very close to what I call fair.



They get a whole different perspective (through their media) on western world than we do. I can understand how it might seem like U.S. is a big boogey man across the ocean. I am sure that if you take the average muslim and place him in some western country, he will see a whole different perspective to the world dynamics.

Our higher standard of living is a PROBLEM? I'm sorry but we weren't handed this standard of living from out of the sky. We worked for it, kicked around some Indians for it, industrial revolutionized for it, and did a hell of a lot of other things that the rest of the world can't, or won't do.

Not. Our. Problem.

We are not responsible for the rest of the world. No country is. Which is why I hate the fact that the US is wasting its resources trying to play world policeman. It should stick to its allies (Israel and Japan), and if it needs to get involved in foreign affairs, it does so with kind diplomacy--backed by threat of annihilating force. It's as Teddy Roosevelt said.

Speak softly.

But carry a BIG STICK.

[CaptainChick]

Our higher standard of living is a PROBLEM? I'm sorry but we weren't handed this standard of living from out of the sky. We worked for it, kicked around some Indians for it, industrial revolutionized for it, and did a hell of a lot of other things that the rest of the world can't, or won't do..
We?!?!?!?!?

:huh:

[Lucifer]

(Though I'm sure we'd find a peaceful way to solve it, such as with some nice hockey games =])

I like hockey.

[nolla]

Our higher standard of living is a PROBLEM? I'm sorry but we weren't handed this standard of living from out of the sky. We worked for it, kicked around some Indians for it, industrial revolutionized for it, and did a hell of a lot of other things that the rest of the world can't, or won't do.

Not. Our. Problem.

Well, say it this way... I was given high standard of living, I have all kinds of opportunities to become whatever I want. This was made possible by work of other people before me that made my country rise above some countries. When I follow the resources needed to do this, I see that without unfair treatment of other countries this would not have been possible. There are countries that are in a bad shape now because their chances for better have been stolen by irresponsible use of capitalism.

And, I might add that the world is polluted and dying. So it could be fair for me to try to give something back.

We are not responsible for the rest of the world. No country is. Which is why I hate the fact that the US is wasting its resources trying to play world policeman. It should stick to its allies (Israel and Japan), and if it needs to get involved in foreign affairs, it does so with kind diplomacy--backed by threat of annihilating force.

Ok, I agree with this more than I agree with US policy at the moment.

But you know, this conversation is doomed to fail, because a nihilist talking to a humanist can never really lead to anything... (Except maybe marriage. Are you female?)

[Lucifer]

Barrack Obama, save yourselves and vote for him.

[Oleander]

This creates bitterness for generations and exacerbates the problem of terrorism. On top of that, Iraq was an ally of ours not long before the Gulf War. I think we also learned about this following World War I.

The First Gulf War succeeded because Bush Snr knew when to stop. American forces are good at force. They are lousy policemen. Get in do the job get out, that works. Saddam got left in place under powerful conditions knowing if it could happen once it could happen again. He behaved himself. He never became a saint but the list of unsaintly leaders goes on for ever topped by those the US has traditionally armed and kept in place against social justice and democracy.

You can bomb everybody you don't like but in a world of global trade there's a catch. They own half your industry, you own half of theirs. You need their goods, they need your money and vice-versa. International trade is the only thing that has kept the Dollar afloat for nearly 30 years. The US itself is bankrupt.

Invading Iran has been on the cards undre one excuse or another ever since the story went round that they planned to trade oil in Euro instead of Dollars. Image once one major producer took the risk for political reasons how fast Venzuela and all the other anti-American producers would follow!

Major US corporations are mostly multinational corporations. Those that actually manufacture for export usually have their factories overseas. Are they going to risk their own people bombing those factories to hell and back? Are they going to risk the world telling them it doesn't want their products and forbidding them sale of their own? Including perhaps oil? The world can live quite happily without Coke or MacDonald's.

Hitler couldn't bomb everybody into submission. He needed their oil and once deprived of it he was doomed. In Hitler's day the US was close to self-sufficient and parts of it were very rich. Most of it was stinking poor and didn't even have interstate highways. The World War made it rich and the Cold War kept it that way. The resources it was built on are running out and others have much more of them. American engineering? Outside of Space what proportion of vehicles and domestic appliances are built or or even designed in America, even in in America?

Sure there are major American-based international finance institutions. Right now they are less popular or trusted than Osama bin Laden. Imagine bombing them out and expecting allies of the victim nations to go on letting them function! Except for a few internationally loathed leaders like Saddam and Kim, invading anywhere is a scorched earth policy in reverse for any major trading nation. In scorched earth tactics you withdraw and destroy everything useful to the enemy. Reversed you destroy everything and occupy a wasteland it costs you to rebuild.

[Beat]

(Though I'm sure we'd find a peaceful way to solve it, such as with some nice hockey games =])

fixed

[Lucifer]

fixed

-_-

Honestly Beat...

[IlyaK1986]

Well, say it this way... I was given high standard of living, I have all kinds of opportunities to become whatever I want. This was made possible by work of other people before me that made my country rise above some countries. When I follow the resources needed to do this, I see that without unfair treatment of other countries this would not have been possible. There are countries that are in a bad shape now because their chances for better have been stolen by irresponsible use of capitalism.

And, I might add that the world is polluted and dying. So it could be fair for me to try to give something back.



Ok, I agree with this more than I agree with US policy at the moment.

But you know, this conversation is doomed to fail, because a nihilist talking to a humanist can never really lead to anything... (Except maybe marriage. Are you female?)

No, I am male. And I don't quite think I'm Nihilist, so much as objective to beyond thinking about human feeling. And my view on US foreign policy is that we're just wasting so much treasure trying to take care of the world--which is money that we could put to such better use here in the states that it's unbelievable. We should let those that wish to destroy themselves do just that and just insulate our allies from it.

And as for countries whose chances have been stolen, oh please. If you sit on top of natural resources, you have the chance to prosper and create...

In fact, fuck...NOT EVEN. Israel has NO natural resources and look at what it does. Japan has next to nothing in terms of natural resources and it's the second strongest economy in the world!

I don't believe in having a debt to the world. I believe that because we humans can reason, that we can, if we work hard enough, achieve anything we set our mind to.

[Beat]

It's too much fun and this one fell in my lap, you gotta admit.

[IlyaK1986]

Some good points gained from classes I haven't taken and probably won't have the chance to...

Oil is a huge problem. I agree that right now, we're sort of in a tight spot because of it.

But in terms of selling oil in the Euro, that's laughable. Europe got too tied up with our mortgage mess and now THEIR economies are tanking. So if they try to sell oil in the Euro, I think in terms of the race to the bottom, we're hitting (and bouncing) back up first, whenever the bottom is.

As for American engineering:

Google.
Microsoft.
Lockheed Martin.
General Electric.
General Motors.
Tesla Motors.

And of course, all of this knowledge is gained for the most part in American institutions.

Once we get green energy online (which I'm clamoring for), then terrorism goes out the window with oil.

[Lucifer]

Yea I don't blame you, I blame your teachers.

[nolla]

No, I am male. And I don't quite think I'm Nihilist, so much as objective to beyond thinking about human feeling.

There are values. Human rights shouldn't be forgotten.

And my view on US foreign policy is that we're just wasting so much treasure trying to take care of the world--which is money that we could put to such better use here in the states that it's unbelievable. We should let those that wish to destroy themselves do just that and just insulate our allies from it.

This I can buy. Yes, U.S. should mind its own business. Diplomacy is also quite a lot cheaper than aircraft carriers.

And as for countries whose chances have been stolen, oh please. If you sit on top of natural resources, you have the chance to prosper and create...

In fact, fuck...NOT EVEN. Israel has NO natural resources and look at what it does. Japan has next to nothing in terms of natural resources and it's the second strongest economy in the world!

If you sit on top of natural resources, sure. But I am talking about these countries like Japan. The resources come from somewhere and it wasn't long ago when there were colonies for this. I am saying that the poor countries are not poor by accident. We made them poor. Or, at least kept them poor.

[IlyaK1986]

Countries like Japan? Japan is an amazing country. Well, not to foreigners (they get looked at funny), but to the people there. All of this technology and innovation, yet these traditional shrines in out of the way places, and of course, who can deny the beauty of Mount Fuji?

In terms of "we" made them poor by accident, which countries are you referring to, and who is "we"?

[nolla]

I mean that the wealth of the western countries comes from natural resources they didn't have. They had some and after that they started to build colonies. Maybe the most clear example is British expansion in India. Anyhow, after the colonies stopped working, the capitalism replaced it and the big companies are still making money by producing cheap products in countries that don't care about human rights or environmentalism as much as we do. You know, like Nikes made in sweat shops by child labor.

I must admit that I don't know as much as I would like about this subject, but it seems obvious that the British could not be as rich as they are if they had not benefited from the poor countries' valuable resources.

[IlyaK1986]

Britain lost its last colonies a while ago.

As for the unethical ramifications of sweatshops, this is a controversial issue, but I'm in favor of them, since the consequences of not having them are worse. Kids can sew shoes or soccer balls, or they can be trafficked in child prostitution rings to earn money for their families.

Take your pick. Bad, or worse.

But in terms of getting back to the topic:

American ingenuity is what has always driven our economy. So long as ingenuity continues and we don't just rely on importing our talent in engineering of all sorts, we're going to still be the leaders of the free world in technology and innovation. And that, coupled with regulations that actually WORK in the financial markets is what will keep our economy recovering in bad times, and going full steam in good times.

These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be over sooner than later. So will this latest financial crisis. And we're still going to be around safe and sound with plenty to eat, a roof over our heads, and a job we like.

[Anja]

No one's ever as gray as me on these things, lol. Yeah, America's in a tight spot, but "Going down?" Meh, I think we'll be okay. *yawn* *looks out window* Everything looks cool from here.

Same here. "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world. . ."

There comes a time to awaken to reality. Most thinking people are at some level - financially, spiritually socially, whatever. But nobody knows what to do about it. Any way we try to deal with it, another problematic life area pops up. Bottom line will be overpopulation.

Facts are a buzzkill.

So lookin' out the window ain't all bad. :smile:

Edit: Now if everybody would just stop flocking to the Midwest. Think we should shut the floodgates here! It's gettin' dang hard to take care of everybody and Lord knows we try.

Edit again:

Sorry - I went off track. Odd thing, that!

[nolla]

Britain lost its last colonies a while ago.

As for the unethical ramifications of sweatshops, this is a controversial issue, but I'm in favor of them, since the consequences of not having them are worse. Kids can sew shoes or soccer balls, or they can be trafficked in child prostitution rings to earn money for their families.

Yeah, I know, but as long as the rich buy something valuable from the poor and are not willing to give a fair price, the poor will stay poor and we are to blame for it.

American ingenuity is what has always driven our economy. So long as ingenuity continues and we don't just rely on importing our talent in engineering of all sorts, we're going to still be the leaders of the free world in technology and innovation. And that, coupled with regulations that actually WORK in the financial markets is what will keep our economy recovering in bad times, and going full steam in good times.

These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be over sooner than later. So will this latest financial crisis. And we're still going to be around safe and sound with plenty to eat, a roof over our heads, and a job we like.

Without the cheap materials, there isn't much use for those ingenuous engineers.

[Lucifer]

Canada is the best.

[IlyaK1986]

Yeah, I know, but as long as the rich buy something valuable from the poor and are not willing to give a fair price, the poor will stay poor and we are to blame for it.



Without the cheap materials, there isn't much use for those ingenuous engineers.

Well if the rest of the world stays poor, that doesn't smack our GDP or employment rates. This whole world citizen is nonsense. The world is full of problems caused by all sorts of different people. America is not the world's maid. Capitalism works because everyone acts out of their own rational self-interest. So too should the world do so as well.

Without cheap materials? Unless I'm mistaken, America is the biggest steel producer in the world. And with our dollar sort of sick right now (it'll get better on the medicine that is ingenuity), US materials are rather cheap.

[nolla]

Oh, you are a greedy guy. I think that if there was more equal distribution of wealth, it would make many of the problems go away. Its a bit like if there's a lot of unemployment in a country, you'll see crime rates go up. So, unequal chances for success create illegal ways to make your living. If we think this on a "world citizen" scale, the poor countries create problems for us because of the unequal distribution of wealth among the countries.

But, I think we are heading towards a big change in the way world works. Five minutes ago they said on BBC that Lenin is laughing in his grave because the financial system is being socialized. I think there will be some sort of balancing progress in the future. The rich are getting poorer and the poor will maybe be better off without Nike and McDonalds around. World might become more equal.

But, I do wonder what will China do when it dominates... ;)

[heart]

Bottom line will be overpopulation.

Overpopulation is a myth. Die Malthus, die.

[IlyaK1986]

China won't dominate. The top institutions for education are American, American, and American. China can't do shit without American knowledge. America is simply changing. We rose to power on the back of an industrialized nation. Now, technology (not China) has usurped the assembly lines from the masses of workers. If we start a green industrial revolution, oops, we turn the clock back 100 years and retake power like never before.

You're right. I'm greedy. And sorry, forced redistribution of wealth does not work. Russia tried it and look where that got them. China tried it and now, they're imitating the US.

As Bill Gates has said, the rest of the world would LOVE to trade their problems for ours. Our economy does well in the long run, and while we may have needed legislation changes here and there to deal with new advents in thinking and technology, our economy has always ALWAYS done well in the long run.

Furthermore, our economy is NOT based off of global cheap production, like all of the other empires were. It has always been based off of homegrown ingenuity, which is why it's looking so gloomy today--because we're starting to import all of our talent from India and China. Bad idea. So long as the American people have faith in the American system, we'll be the strongest country in the world. Furthermore, when the American people are unhappy, they vote the current politicians out of office. So if a politician wants to keep his power, he better make sure Joe Six-Pack is smiling.

[Enyo]

Furthermore, if a policeman wanted to inspect your property for something, would you turn him away if he had good cause? I'd say "how can I help you, officer?" ESPECIALLY if somewhere on that property there was something threatening not only to you but your neighbors.

First, I'd have to believe that there's something threatening on my property. But, as a rule, I'd have to say "got a warrant?"

I like my constitutionally guaranteed rights regarding search and seizure.

[Enyo]

That's also an issue. Don't deport them if caught. Jail them. Make a very bad example out of them. Send a message. Solve problem.

Don't jail them. I don't want to pay for their asses in prison cells, either. I doubt that would make a sufficient example for the illegals, anyway. Our jails still are better than the jails they had in Mexico, I'd imagine.

[Enyo]

:rolleyes:

I knew it!!!

You know, I'm not a big fan of illegal immigrants, either. My family was here before the Revolution. However, I did legally immigrate to Canada. People doing it illegally piss me off. Especially when their non-taxpaying families cost my taxpaying dollars.

[Anja]

I just want to say a word to IlyaK. (At first glance I thought you were telling us you'd slipped a disc in your mid-back in 1986! Shows how I relate to stuff these days!)

I am very much impressed with the strong sense of pride you feel in being an American. I know how much more knowledgeable immigrants can be than native-born citizens historically speaking. Kudos.

But I think CC is hinting at something relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, CC.

It occurs to me that the history books you've been reading are influencing your interpretations of the experience of being American.

Maybe someone can help me elaborate on this. Your POV is strongly of the old post WWII variety and thoughtful Americans are in process with understanding how this can-do sort of spirit has been damaging to our global reputation.

[Alpha Prime]

That's also an issue. Don't deport them if caught. Jail them. Make a very bad example out of them. Send a message. Solve problem.

Making an example sounds stupid and short term, especially since they are driven by desperation, the same desperation your parents felt when "legally" flew over the US border.

A better way is to go to the root of the "immigrants'" problem.

[Orangey]

Overpopulation is a myth. Die Malthus, die.

Heh, I know. He's kind of like Freud in that their sucky ideas, no matter how many times they're shown to be stupid (sorry Freud fans), keep getting resurrected over and over again. Someone needs to drive the nail in both these sucker's graves once and for all.

[ptgatsby]

You know, I'm not a big fan of illegal immigrants, either. My family was here before the Revolution. However, I did legally immigrate to Canada. People doing it illegally piss me off. Especially when their non-taxpaying families cost my taxpaying dollars.

I actually rather like it. If they can benefit by doing it, then they are invariably working off the books (no SIN) and unable to drain the system (no carecard, no SIN, etc). This gives the country a pool of below-market value labour.

Works for them, works for me!

[IlyaK1986]

I just want to say a word to IlyaK. (At first glance I thought you were telling us you'd slipped a disc in your mid-back in 1986! Shows how I relate to stuff these days!)

I am very much impressed with the strong sense of pride you feel in being an American. I know how much more knowledgeable immigrants can be than native-born citizens historically speaking. Kudos.

But I think CC is hinting at something relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, CC.

It occurs to me that the history books you've been reading are influencing your interpretations of the experience of being American.

Maybe someone can help me elaborate on this. Your POV is strongly of the old post WWII variety and thoughtful Americans are in process with understanding how this can-do sort of spirit has been damaging to our global reputation.

I don't think that our can-do spirit has been damaging our global reputation, at least not about the can-do spirit we hold in terms of the outstanding work we do, and that American workers are the best in the world (which I really give kudos to McCain for touching up on).

Where I think we went wrong in the world's eyes is saying "FUCK YOU WORLD!" and charging into Afghanistan and Iraq with very little backing and then getting ourselves into this mess like an angry drunk with a rifle that's doing who knows what.

We're seen as the fat loud-mouths pointing our guns every which way with our bark a lot stronger than our bite.

This is why I say if we're going to go at a nation alone, that we don't try to do it with troops. Troops aren't efficient, troops die, and troops get bogged down into costly morasses, both in terms of treasure, and priceless American blood.

Which is also why I was astounded about the troops question if Iran would attack Israel, what would the candidates do. If I was one of the candidates, I would ask:

"Here is a nation that has been calling for the annihilation of our allies, and the question is for troops? No. I wouldn't send in our troops. They're tired and worn down enough as it is. We have other means of waging war--other facilities and instruments that can deliver justice in far faster ways than troops armed with small-arms. I would use the full extent of American military might to pacify as need be any aggressive nation and carry out our peacekeeping role--by any means necessary."

Of course, that's a moot point. I wasn't born in the states, so I'll never get to be president. I of course do want power and influence to change this country, since I think America is capable of so much more if we make some changes in our economic policy and the way we spend our tax dollars.

But don't get me wrong--the reason America isn't liked right now is that we fucked up. Big time. We didn't use our by far and away most powerful weapon which delivers swift justice and ends conflicts almost bloodlessly, in terms of American lives, and that's our shining air force.

Our air force is stronger than it ever has been. We have a true stealth fighter--the F-22, and if we wished for a quick and bloodless (bloodless meaning no American blood is shed...I can't give less of a damn about the "civilians" that elected our enemies' leaders) end to any conflict, it would be a simple matter of delivering justice from above.

But about our can-do spirit, I believe that is what makes America what it is. It IS our can-do spirit that's been responsible for workers going to the assembly lines, for them to bust their asses doing anything they need to in order to support themselves and their families, that's been the reason for American advancement.

We need to tap that spirit again now in these times too, with jobs that can't be outsourced. If we can kick this green industrial revolution into overdrive and become a net energy exporter, we can A) rid ourselves of terrorist oil, B) settle our debts with the Chinese, C) cut our pollution to the point that we make Japan look dirty, and D) really clean up our global image.

Trust me, green energy is something I'll be harping about for a long, LONG time. Now at the moment, I want to go into finance, or to silicon valley, because I want to be among the most intelligent people, and because in addition to the green industrial revolution, I either want to come up with crazy new ways of implementing it from Silicon Valley, or to make sure that Wall Street gets its shit together and restores itself to its wonderful reputation that was bestowed upon it by the likes of Marcus Goldman and John Pierpont Morgan himself.

There's a lot of cleaning up to do in this country--but what the presidential candidates don't really say is that for all of their promises, the government can't do everything--and it's the Americans (both naturally born and those only nurtured here) that will be responsible for their futures--as they always have, always will be, but always have done better than the rest of this misbegotten world in doing so.

Edit: As for history, unless you count economics as non-quantitative, history has been by far and away my most favorite academic subject. There are too many great "dos" and "don'ts" in history for anyone to learn from. Anyone who's well-versed in history can cite any number of amazing historical figures in their decisions.

In terms of waging war, I believe no man has done it better than Temujin (most people know him better as Genghis Khan). He pulled no punches and did what was necessary to ensure the preservation and prosperity of his people while he was still alive--and indeed, the Han Dynasty (I believe that's what it was...if it's not please correct me...world history was three years ago for me) lasted for several generations, and only fell apart because the Mongols were poor administrators. But I do remember Marco Polo describing the saturnine peace on the Silk Road to Kublai Khan's court.

That peace was built with the lives of annihilated enemies. But in my opinion, it was most certainly worth it, certainly to European merchants, and certainly to the Mongols for their place in history. I believe that any leader who is intent on securing the preservation and prosperity of his people should follow Genghis Khan's example. Spare no instrument in achieving victory, and spare no enemy, either.

Edit: can we change the title of this thread? I hate seeing "The terrorists have won" every time I go to respond to it. How about just "another discussion on the current economic crisis"?

[whatever]

You know what? You can't blame your entire attitude of "fuck everyone else, go me and mine" on being an ENTJ- there's a lot of decent ENTJs out there who actually DO give a shit about other people. I think the problem may just be you.

Did it occur to you that the only reason that the dipshits in office HAVEN'T invaded any other countries may be that our troops are spread thin as it is and we can't fucking afford another war at the moment? (let alone the ones we're mired in now- I'm already pissed that I'll be paying off THAT debt for the rest of my life)

I'd tell you to go and live in another country for a while to get another perspective, but that would be irrelevant- you probably should quit internalizing the image you have of this country though and realize that every country has a lot more good people than bad people, and thier blood is on your hands if you're supporting thier killing. Maybe try living in Latin America for a while- there are plenty of regions there that view US as the terrorists for some of our past involvements (completely un-asked for) that threw thier countries into turmoil. You're too thick skulled to pick up on anything of that sort though.

It's pointless to argue with you, because your mind is incredibly narrow and closed, so don't even bother responding, I'm voicing my opinion to OTHER people mostly.

And next time you watch Team America please realize- it's making fun of us, not showing us as superheroes ;)

[IlyaK1986]

Their blood is on my hands? Big whoop. Another number.

And whatever, as for living in another country:

Been there, done that. Have some nice, if hazy memories.

[whatever]

Their blood is on my hands? Big whoop. Another number.

And whatever, as for living in another country:

Been there, done that. Have some nice, if hazy memories.

;) Like I said- it was totally irrelavant. I said I would have told you that, meaning that I was aware.

You're the type of fanatic you hate, btw.

[Orangey]

That peace was built with the lives of annihilated enemies. But in my opinion, it was most certainly worth it, certainly to European merchants, and certainly to the Mongols for their place in history. I believe that any leader who is intent on securing the preservation and prosperity of his people should follow Genghis Khan's example. Spare no instrument in achieving victory, and spare no enemy, either.

Hey, I think that this is similar to my brother's opinion on the matter. He's 12 and plays too much empire total war.

[Angry Ayrab]

Guys, let the dog bark all it wants.

Luckily, he can’t run for the big office.

Sorry immigrant (you and my dad can go chill and do whatever it is you naturalized citizens do).

[IlyaK1986]

;) Like I said- it was totally irrelavant. I said I would have told you that, meaning that I was aware.

You're the type of fanatic you hate, btw.

Except I'm not a fanatic. I'm rational about it. Cold beyond human feelings rational, sure. I don't bring my feelings into decisions based on thought. Heart and Soul stay with at home.

[IlyaK1986]

Guys, let the dog bark all it wants.

Luckily, he can’t run for the big office.

Sorry immigrant.

Never planned to. Although Schwarzenegger wants to repeal that so he could run for office.

I'd think it'd be too much to try and translate everything I want to say into politicospeak.

[Angry Ayrab]

Never planned to. Although Schwarzenegger wants to repeal that so he could run for office.

I'd think it'd be too much to try and translate everything I want to say into politicospeak.

No it's ok, you can keep the politicospeak out of it, but I have to say, your comments probably sound much better in their original German.

-Sorry guys I had to rip off Ivins.

[whatever]

Except I'm not a fanatic. I'm rational about it. Cold beyond human feelings rational, sure. I don't bring my feelings into decisions based on thought. Heart and Soul stay with at home.

that's how you perceive it ;)

everyone finds thier beleifs rational- and to the rest of us they're completely rediculous, and possibly quite horrible.

it's people like you who give america a bad name.

[edel weiss]

that's how you perceive it ;)

everyone finds thier beleifs rational- and to the rest of us they're completely rediculous, and possibly quite horrible.

it's people like you who give america a bad name.

Most of the world sees America as the big bully. :yes: And if the Republicans are voted into power this time round... the world pretty much loses all faith in America.

Human rights are important. That's not some soppy emotional thing to say, it's as rational as it gets.

[Victor]

Most of the world sees America as the big bully. :yes: And if the Republicans are voted into power this time round... the world pretty much loses all faith in America.

Human rights are important. That's not some soppy emotional thing to say, it's as rational as it gets.

It's ironic isn't it?

America is the bully and the Islamofascists are the victim.

This resonates with MBTI where the Jew, Freud is the bad guy and fascist Jung, the father of MBTI, is the good guy.

[Oberon]

Furthermore, if a policeman wanted to inspect your property for something, would you turn him away if he had good cause? I'd say "how can I help you, officer?" ESPECIALLY if somewhere on that property there was something threatening not only to you but your neighbors.


Because, after all, "...if you have done nothing wrong, tovarisch, you have nothing to fear."

[CaptainChick]

Everything is connected in this intricate biosphere we call our world.

There is no such thing as an isolated incident.

Every action is met with an inversely proportional reaction. While one of us consumes as much as four human beings easily could, four foreigners are left to sparingly consume what should be enough for only one.

Efficiency at what cost?

Growth by whose standards?

There were economic benefits to slavery, after all, "free" labor is the cheapest labor, but, hmm, can one economically defend and support the validity and justification of slavery?

[Oberon]

Everything is connected in this intricate biosphere we call our world.

There is no such thing as an isolated incident.

Every action is met with an inversely proportional reaction. While one of us consumes as much as four human beings easily could, four foreigners are left to sparingly consume what should be enough for only one.

The zero-sum fallacy again.

Cap'n, I think I'll eat an apple today so you can't have one. :devil:

[CaptainChick]

The zero-sum fallacy again.

Cap'n, I think I'll eat an apple today so you can't have one. :devil:
That is not what I am saying at all!!!

If you take my apple, then yes, you happen to gain at my loss.

Get it?

[Oberon]

That is not what I am saying at all!!!

If you take my apple, then yes, you happen to gain at my loss.

Get it?

I do understand the concept of theft, but I don't see how this applies to western consumption. My apple may have been grown in Peru, but it wasn't stolen from some poor Peruvian... it was paid for at the prevailing rate.

(actually, the apple I just ate was grown in Maryland at an orchard near where my father lives. It was delicious... fresh orchard fruit is always better. Thank you, Captain!)

[nolla]

How is it possible that these kinds of concepts are understood by NFs and not by NTs?

If there is a certain number of apples in the world and they are shared unevenly enough, someone is left without. The big question: Is this acceptable or not?

[CaptainChick]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

^Depressing

[edel weiss]

How is it possible that these kinds of concepts are understood by NFs and not by NTs?

If there is a certain number of apples in the world and they are shared unevenly enough, someone is left without. The big question: Is this acceptable or not?

I understand it. But it was only after the strong influence of a close INFP friend of mine that I started thinking this way, so maybe it is an NF thing.

I believe in equality of opportunity rather than equality of position, though.

[Oberon]

How is it possible that these kinds of concepts are understood by NFs and not by NTs?

If there is a certain number of apples in the world and they are shared unevenly enough, someone is left without. The big question: Is this acceptable or not?

But you miss another point... we could grow more apples if we wanted to. Your "certain number of apples" is not a fixed number. If there was increased demand for apples, we'd plant more orchards, and there would be more apples.

The situation now is that we have about as much apple-producing capacity as is required to satisfy demand.

And that's why my eating an apple doesn't take an apple out of the hands of some poor starving kid somewhere.

[edel weiss]

Limited Resources + Unlimited Wants = Scarcity.
And in a lot of poor countries, Limited Resources + Basic Wants leads to scarcity.

A couple of months ago, George Bush said that the world food crisis was because countries like India and China had started eating. I could see where he was coming from, but it was a little galling, like the nutrition that previously malnourished people were finally getting was being resented by others.

[Oberon]

Limited Resources + Unlimited Wants = Scarcity.
And in a lot of poor countries, Limited Resources + Basic Wants leads to scarcity.


This is true to a degree, but wrong in one respect: there's no such thing as "unlimited wants."

[Jennifer]

But you miss another point... we could grow more apples if we wanted to. Your "certain number of apples" is not a fixed number. If there was increased demand for apples, we'd plant more orchards, and there would be more apples.

The situation now is that we have about as much apple-producing capacity as is required to satisfy demand.

And that's why my eating an apple doesn't take an apple out of the hands of some poor starving kid somewhere.


But demand isn't all just based on "desire," is it?

It's also based on ability of the system to respond to desire?

So there can be lots of starving people in the world, yet there seems to be no "demand" because there is no easy way for the (1) desire to be transmitted to those capable of meeting it [i.e., "Oh, I REALLY WANT THE APPLES!"] and for the (2) desire to be met from the practical standpoint [i.e., "Oh, how on earth do we GET them the apples?"]

I don't think we can assume that desire is always easily transmitted/communicated, not because the desire doesn't exist but because the system is SO fubar to begin with.

Therefore, your eating an apple takes an apple out of the hands of a child who might have been dying to have one... if they knew what an apple was, if they weren't busy scrounging cardboard and grass so they'd have SOMETHING to eat, and if they had a cell phone or internet mail account to let you know they were starving in the first place + an address you could mail the apple to and a postal system you could mail the apple through and a refrigerated vehicle you could mail the apple in. ;)

[IlyaK1986]

The question isn't "is it a problem?"

The right question is: "whose problem is it?"

This is why we have BORDERS. So our President here in the US (and it better be Obama) isn't responsible for some starving kids in run down nations that have been governed like crap forever.

This whole world citizen thing is nonsense. The US didn't become what it was overnight. Originally, it was colonists from the Mayflower and Jamestown struggling to survive. Then more people came, we got the 13 colonies, overthrew the British, had a civil war, manifested destiny, and more or less stayed out of world events until the world wars at which point we sort of were forced into our current position.

I say it's time to scale back again and say fuck you to the rest of the developing world. We owe them nothing. Not our problem.

[Oberon]

But demand isn't all just based on "desire," is it?

It's also based on ability of the system to respond to desire?

So there can be lots of starving people in the world, yet there seems to be no "demand" because there is no easy way for the (1) desire to be transmitted to those capable of meeting it [i.e., "Oh, I REALLY WANT THE APPLES!"] and for the (2) desire to be met from the practical standpoint [i.e., "Oh, how on earth do we GET them the apples?"]

I don't think we can assume that desire is always easily transmitted/communicated, not because the desire doesn't exist but because the system is SO fubar to begin with.

Therefore, your eating an apple takes an apple out of the hands of a child who might have been dying to have one... if they knew what an apple was, if they weren't busy scrounging cardboard and grass so they'd have SOMETHING to eat, and if they had a cell phone or internet mail account let you know they were starving in the first place. ;)

The big fly in the ointment is that the producers of apples have to eat too. They have to buy clothes and pay their county taxes and pay their workers and pay for their supplies. All of which means that you can't grow apples for free; it takes an investment of time and effort and money.

If there isn't some way of compensating the apple producer for his time and effort and money, he'll go into some other business NOT because he's a greedy SOB, but because he needs some kind of cash flow on which to supply his and his family's needs. And if he does go into some other business, he won't produce any more apples.