What's wrong with the term? How else would you describe a faction like ISIS or AQ? She also suggested not funding extremist groups and forcing regime change on secular countries which would otherwise empower the same extremist groups, in stark contrast to the Republican mantra on foreign policy.
General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
What's wrong with the term? How else would you describe a faction like ISIS or AQ? She also suggested not funding extremist groups and forcing regime change on secular countries which would otherwise empower the same extremist groups, in stark contrast to the Republican mantra on foreign policy.
Glenn Greenwald for Director of National Intelligence? Just to spur you on...
Wasn't it contraventional to official policy when HRC adamantly promised to attack Iran, despite the official US policy being to pursue a diplomatic solution? Was it not contraventional for congressmen/woman on both sides of the house queing up for their paid trips to Israel to proudly claim Jerusalem to be the indisputed capital of Israel when it was official US policy to pursue a two-state solution?
What Gabbard was doing wasn't remotely new, it just drummed up a fuss because she had the audacity to speak to a faction the US had determiend to be persona not grata, while happily throwing their weight behind the openly extremist enemies of that faction. Now she may have had her own opportunistic motivations, but list me some congressmen/women who aren't ambitious charlatans.
Whereas HRC is a selfless servant of the people with absolutely no history of shady opportunistic associations?
I'm not debating her personal motivations, but when you have the executive, congress and the media all conveying a one-sided sentiment with little room to even entertain a balanced debate, then sometimes it takes a public gesture to at least illuminate another perspective and broaden the debate. We saw what happened post 9/11 - the unanimous sentiment at the time was so intense that it would have been considered traitorous to oppose the war on Iraq, despite the sensible and logical objections due to the likely ramifications which have since been retrospectively dignified. Yet here we are a decade later, having seemingly decided that striving to oust the regime in Syria is paramount and indisputable.
You say you disagree with the position and thats your rightful perogative, but in respect to the method, would you have seen any issue if a member of congress had met with Palestinian officials and returned offering a vocal objection to current US policy?
Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
And? I like Obama, but his argument is pointless.
What is a Zebra? Describe a zebra to me, without using the words, horse, stripped, donkey.
You act like you only just heard of this issue a few minutes ago. Do you follow politics at all ? Its been front and center for a few years.
His argument is well thought out. Why would you attempt to vilify an entire religion by turning it into a pejorative.
ffs
It would result in Russia and China replacing the US as global superpowers.
I agree with this. Fact is Obama gets a pass from a lot of lefties because of the landmark of first african american president being elected. Clinging on to his Iraq vote now is pointless since he ramped up the drone strikers, ordered assassinations of american citizens and prosecuted whistle blowers as badly as republicans' administration did. All the time, presiding over an era where surveillance of american society reached unprecedented levels, that too without ever informing the public at large about it. But hey, he pardoned Chelsea Manning before leaving so he did not mean all the nasty stuff he did as president. Trump is the best thing that happened to Obama's legacy otherwise he would have gone down as Democratic Party's Reegan in some time.
Based on what exactly? America became a superpower on the back of rising prosperity of its citizens. It was its economic wealth that gave it such power, and over the last 30 years that power has been in constant decline (ironically, since it became the only superpower). The endless movement of wealth from the masses to the elite is weakening both the US and the UK considerably, reducing spending power amongst the people who are actually the drivers of wealth creation (the general public), reducing opportunity for innovation and creating a huge disconnect between voters and politicians.
People like Sanders and Corbyn want to rebalance that scale, which if successful would create much stronger economic bases. Corbyn is much more left wing than Sanders anyway (appropriately considering the UK is much more left wing than the US), but there's little about either that would automatically reduce the power of either country. The political needle is currently far too far over to the right, and its deeply unhealthy for global standing.
He probably means that if the U.S. stop meddling in foreign countries affairs China and Russia would be happy to do so (more than they do now) and that would not be a good thing for the world.
That superpower in that sense isn't linked to economic power is nicely shown by Russia (a country with the economy of California, as Raoul would say
)
That superpower in that sense isn't linked to economic power is nicely shown by Russia (a country with the economy of California, as Raoul would say
)The US became a superpower by virtue of being untouched by not just one, but two global conflicts that ravaged most of the old powers economically, geographically and socially.
Actually it became a superpower because it used war mobilization to drastically increase its industrial base, and not having its infrastructure and industry directly damaged during the war left it in a golden position to become the primary world industrial power. That growth into a true economic juggernaut however was built on the back of a surge tide of prosperity amongst American workers which led to a vast and hugely prosperous middle class.
The key here is that you can't have a truly prosperous country (and by extension economic power) where only a small number of people hold all the wealth.
Oh please let's cut the fake regard for Muslim feelings.
No country has caused more suffering to Muslim world in modern history than the US, including the Obama administration. Simply refraining from including 'Islamic' in how they describe the enemy which uses Islam as it's rallying doctrine anyway (rightly or wrongly) does little to cushion that fact.
You really think it matters that Obama didn't use the term while carrying out drone strikes on Muslim kids? Because it sounds to me that your main objection to it is a partisan one and don't like the fact it's the Republicans who primarily use it.
Wait till Kanye’s album is about to drop...
The trend of mobilization affecting post-war economy was evident in all countries, even the defeated ones. What made them into what they are is their advantageous geographical position that insulate them from much of the wars damage as well as the spread of contrasting ideologies that fracture society.
Wealth of the expanding middle class was one of many reasons, not THE reason. Plenty of empires throughout history have maintained dominance while having wealth concentrated in a ruling class.
We're talking about terminology not specific actions. You can make a case for or against actions in a complete separate topic.
I'm not sure how you can talk about a trend of mobilization affecting the post-war economies of the defeated nations, as in the major cases that describes countries whose industrial bases were completely annihilated. America's geographical position certainly helped it escape the damage of war, but its domestic and foreign economic policies were what set it apart from its rivals. It came out of the war with a clear advantage, and built on that to create a true global economic powerhouse.
All of them suffered continued internal revolt and rebellion over time. All of them fell.
America offered a potential antidote to those problems. A country built on meritocracy where normal working people had a good life, and those who pushed themselves could have a great one. Over time that has become practically laughable, and how you have a country split completely in two politically, with the one unifying plank being both think their government is totally untrustworthy.
Not when specific actions seem to pretty much contradict the sentiment behind the (non)use of the terminology. Given the context the whole sentiment is a massive misnomer essentially.
Regardless, I sincerely doubt you'd kick up a fuss about it if Obama or prospective President Hillary Clinton had used the term.
@Kentonio
You don't need Bernie style social engineering to fix what is wrong with domestic policy. The US simply needs to return to 3% or better GDP growth and an increase in wages and income by way investment in infrastructure, research and development of technology, and broader access to education. That was all achieved under Bill Clinton, who averaged nearly 4% growth and made considerable investments in the aforementioned areas. As Clinton showed, all of that can be achieved without siphoning off trillions from the private sector or weakening the country on foreign policy by so called "non-interventionism" which is just a euphamism for weakening the US as the world's lone superpower.
You don't need Bernie style social engineering to fix what is wrong with domestic policy. The US simply needs to return to 3% or better GDP growth and an increase in wages and income by way investment in infrastructure, research and development of technology, and broader access to education. That was all achieved under Bill Clinton, who averaged nearly 4% growth and made considerable investments in the aforementioned areas. As Clinton showed, all of that can be achieved without siphoning off trillions from the private sector or weakening the country on foreign policy by so called "non-interventionism" which is just a euphamism for weakening the US as the world's lone superpower.
Last edited:
Japan and Germany came out of WWII utterly wrecked and humiliated, they became the leading power in their respective continent. Even with the infrastructure in ruins, a labour base used to wartime economy can and did easily transition into rebuilding/expansion. The USSR built an economy sufficient for the war effort against the full brunt of German power in the span of 15/20 years following the revolution. To say as if that phenomenon is uniquely American is frankly, well, false. An industrial base is as much about the personnel as the infrastructure. You also forgot to mention the various independent movement of colonies that adversely affected the UK and France - both previous major powers already severely weakened to begin with - in the following decades, that left the US in the position to freely dictate its foreign policy on the Western hemisphere basically from the end of WWII to the present day.
Putting it simply, we'd all be speaking French and eating frogs if France is the country on the other side of the Atlantic.
Tell that to the native Indians, the black population, the millions of Hispanics living in the shadow. Even FDR's New Deal excluded nearly all of them. What thrived was a white middle class. America is a country built on exploitation and aggression, and when that tendency turns inwards when offered competition, it destroys itself. The Pax Romana was a thing for 200 years because Rome could keep on expanding and levying its conquests into new sources of income. The moment they turned defensive, events like Year of the Five Emperors became much more damaging. We are just seeing history repeating.
The actions aren't tied to the sentiment. They are a broader strategy to not vilify an entire religion by attaching the word terrorism to it when 99 plus percent of its adherents don't participate in such actions. It would be like attempting to tie Christianity to the KKK or Joseph Kone's Lord's Resistance Army. Just call it what it is - either militancy or terrorism.
Last edited:
Wasn't intending to get into a debate on the semantics of the term, but I'll humour it.
How would you distinguish the form of terrorism practised by the likes of ISIS and AQ over say far right extremists or separatists?
Well each of these groups have varying aims, objectives, and methods so it would depend on the specifics of what takes place.
@InfiniteBoredom I think your first paragraph contradicts your second to an extent. In the first you point out the elements of economic development that are largely internal (workforce, organization) and still lead to development even in non-ideal/leading circumstances. In the second you characterize the US's development as being the result of expansion. But if expansion were the main source of development then it doesn't explain Germany v France/Russia/UK, Japan v China. I don't think it even captures the essence of Rome vs its contemporaneous rivals (to me the organization of the Roman economy is a lot more modern than any other at the time, especially relating to regional specialization).
Taking control of all of the land west (and partly south) of the original 13 colonies, and exterminating the indigenous population in the process, was key to give the US a geographical position that is one of the most advantageous in the world. But I would venture that if for whatever reason it hadn't historically, it might not have been as unanimous a power in the 20th century, it would still probably be a developed country in good position to compete with the europeans given its form of economic organization.
Taking control of all of the land west (and partly south) of the original 13 colonies, and exterminating the indigenous population in the process, was key to give the US a geographical position that is one of the most advantageous in the world. But I would venture that if for whatever reason it hadn't historically, it might not have been as unanimous a power in the 20th century, it would still probably be a developed country in good position to compete with the europeans given its form of economic organization.
Bernie isn't calling for social engineering, he's an old school Democrat who wants a return to FDR style domestic economic policy with modern social policies. Clinton was part of the neoliberal problem not an equality hero, he fueled the exact problem that is now ripping the social fabric of the western world to pieces. GDP doesn't mean shit when a vast proportion of that wealth is held by a small number of people.
Germany and Japan did EXACTLY what I'm talking about, which was to pay workers well and encourage the growth of the middle class. Obviously America is not unique, the unique factor was they were in a position to attain economic supremacy and a superpower status that no-one else could match. Look at Russia and how their economic power went despite having a larger landmass and as you say a huge wartime mobilization.
Tell that to the native Indians, the black population, the millions of Hispanics living in the shadow. Even FDR's New Deal excluded nearly all of them. What thrived was a white middle class. America is a country built on exploitation and aggression, and when that tendency turns inwards when offered competition, it destroys itself. The Pax Romana was a thing for 200 years because Rome could keep on expanding and levying its conquests into new sources of income. The moment they turned defensive, events like Year of the Five Emperors became much more damaging. We are just seeing history repeating.
Oh spare me the 'it wasn't fair!' crap, I'm no cheerleader of American morality. The white middle class created the prosperity because America was and even now continues to be a very white country. America was 89.5% white in 1950 and was still 72.4% white as recently as 2010.
As for your 'all empires collapse' theory, I don't particularly disagree. My point was simply that America was offering a vision of a potentially self sustaining system where the threat of rebellion from within could possibly have been avoided. That America no longer exists. Realistically it only ever lasted a few decades anyway, but it would have been interesting to see where it ended up over a longer term.
Except that the New Deal style policies he's interested in implementing would involve a massive redistribution of capital from the private to the public sector, for which there is neither the public consensus nor the political will at the moment, since it would redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who for various reasons haven't. Don't forget Bernie's program includes more than just health care, it also includes free education which mandates that the federal government cover 66% of all public education costs at the University level and then mandates the states cover the remaining 34%. This would completely alter the current structure of the relationship between the Government and private sector, for which there is currently no broad consensus or political will. Some of his ideas are great, but he will need more buy in from more than just idealistic millennial in order to be successful. In the interim, a more logical approach would (ironically) be what Bill Clinton implemented. You have to chip away at these problems incrementally in order to sell the ideas in order to get broad consensus so you can actually pay for them.
No one earns a billion dollars
Many people do.
In the digital age its entirely possible. Invent something that costs $1 to make, and a billion people are willing to buy for $2 (overly simplified, but is essentially how people make billions). The issue in the past was that you couldn't reach a billion people.
No they don't. our society is currently set up to give some people billions of dollars, that's a far cry from earning it.
That's not earning it. It is only possible because the current structures of capitalism enable it. It doesn't have to be this way.
Anyone can start a business and earn as much money as they want. Its all about the idea, the hard work and execution. Trouble is, most people don't have the idea and not enough are willing to do the work.
Earning it in your mind is not the same thing as earning it in real life. You think people don't deserve to accrue wealth because its "not fair!" (
). That doesn't however mean they can't earn that wealth through the aforementioned attributes.