Demondaze/Kali/matthewchris and Others Debating Nonsense

Okay so I've seen the last page or so and looked at the utterly ridiculous comments mixed in with only slightly utterly ridiculous comments. In particular this idea that we desire to play the "world police" is pure fantasy. The very idea implies that we're acting in the sake of the world. That's just wrong. As all nations do we are acting in our own interests. Only difference is that we are powerful enough to do so any and everywhere on the planet. Militarily, this is obviously true. But what's far more important is that we are the economic backbone of the entire planet. The recent recession has proved this long-standing geopolitical theory true beyond the shadow of a doubt. When America hurts, so will the rest of the world. So this conception of us acting as "world police" stems more than likely from our national interests being so global.

Another extremely ridiculous idea that's popped up is that we're fighting for oil. A mentally-impaired 3-year old could take a look at the cost-benefit analysis of any of our current conflicts and see that whatever we're getting out is worth significantly less than what we've put in. If you want to make an economic argument about why we're fighting the conflicts we're fighting, don't jump on the natural resources bandwagon. It'd be far more sane to point out the existing military-industrial complex (though you'd still be wrong).

So much is wrong with this statement. The primary agenda of every person that's ever been elected to the Congress or Presidency has been to help the economy. Everything else is ancillary.

China is one of the most aggressive, hostile, outright-mean spirited international actors. They don't make ideological concessions or recognize the legitimacy of opposing views. Any deal they make with a foreign nation (unless that nation, like us, is big enough to tell them to go fuck themselves) mandates recognition of the correctness of their geopolitical views. They fuck with the international markets and monetary system at the expense of literally every other nation on the planet and practically subsidize corporate espionage. The only reason they aren't pursuing aggressive military expansion is because we're (not just the US, but the world at large) wise to their game. Notice that every single country surrounding China, with the exception of N. Korea, is far better friends with the US than with them. China picks on the weak and forces them into one-sided arrangements that devastate their economies. One of the worst human rights abusers in the world, and not just the seven degrees of separation kind that some people pin to the US; they do it to their own.

When I first visited D.C. and went to the White House the very first thing I saw standing outside the front gates were protesters. They weren't, as you might expect, Americans. They were people who had escaped forced labor camps meant for political offenders in China, asking then-President Bush to intervene and call for a cessation of their persecution. Of course we do throw this sort of commentary China's way every now and then, but as they are keen to exploit their place in the international economy, nothing has been done.

To think that their model of geopolitical intervention is in any way better than ours is pure lunacy. We may fuck with the Third World over petty shit, but at the very least we stand for freedom, and aim to abide by it where it's at all feasible.

EDIT: Okay topic is completely off the rails at this point, I've split it from the Libya thread.

Libya Superthread

The number of military bases we maintain on the planet seems to suggest the opposite.

This is true, but on a more important note. Does this make it right?

The "economic backbone" of the world is a country who's number one export is worthless green pieces of paper? Wow the world is fucked up!

While I agree that oil is not the entire picture. It is absolute lunacy to suggest it has nothing to do with it.

Yes.... Completely wrong.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I don't know about that. All my local news organizations seem to suggest they are more concerned with issues like: Regulation of the internet and whether or not gays can be openly gay in the army.

About half way through this section I forgot you were talking about China. (That was just me being a bit cynical. But seriously, all you have to do is look at Latin America to realize we are not any better.

Well of course nothing has been done! Because the people up top don't care.

It's not any better. In fact it's a bit sickening. But this still doesn't change the fact that the spread of democracy at the point of an assault rifle is contradictory.

Libya Superthread

And yet you recognize the truth of my next statement, that we are acting in our interests as all nations do?

It makes it acceptable geopolitical behavior. More than acceptable, it's predictable and expected. What is "right" is a matter of debate on so many levels that it's useless to bring the issue of morality up without actually addressing what the superior ethical framework is.

Underestimating the economic importance of the monetary system, commercial, financial, and general service sectors is a good way to start a bad argument. Next thing you'll be saying that the only production that matters is what comes out of a factory...

It's got something to do with it in the same way Harry Coover has something to do with spider-traps.

If you want to make the argument bring more than sarcasm and a Wiki page.

I do know about it. Watch C-SPAN for a day and count how many times you'll hear bi-partisan economic proposals be it in committee, on the floor, or in front of a crowd. Then count how many times you hear about internet regulation or DADT...

As well, you'd have to be actively blocking out huge chunks of your news in order to avoid hearing constant bickering about someone's economic agenda.

Really? Our support of anti-communist regimes equates to our support of their human rights abuses? As well, when was the last time we forced a nation to accept democracy or recognize Taiwan in order to receive aid? What you'll find is that every single nation that China "helps" is either already receiving actual aid with no-strings-attached from America and other Western nations, or else is a brutal dictatorship being sanctioned by the UN.

I don't get this kind of thinking. Politicians are people too. They aren't heartless money-grabbing machines who seek power to undermine everyone else.

Contradictory, maybe, but a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Libya Superthread

I also think the regilar police are acting in their own interest. So as you can see, we won't get vary far here.

Forgive me for not being satisfied with the status-quo!

Oh I understand it's importance relative to the current system on which the world operates. I just think it's out-dated and primitive.

So a resource which is used in every thing from the plastic our modern products are made of to the fuel which powers our civilization is unimportant?

Here's something that isn't Wikipedia:
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/
Now with 20% less sarcasm. Wait.... damn it...

Oh boy! You mean if I tune into C-SPAN I get to hear the Republicans defend corporate interests and Democrats promote highly centralized bureaucracy AT THE SAME TIME!? Do they also occasionally bring out a Libertarian to tell us that the only way to fix our problems is to worship metals that are just as equally worth less as the green paper?
And the entire time I get to be reminded about how I (And everyone with a similar ideology to mine.) am completely unrepresented?

Refer to wienergate. I wish I could find that clip from the Daily show about the media cutting away from that dem's speech (which was about the economy.) because of lack of wienergate.

Do I need to bring up Carlos Armas and his National Committee of Defense Against Communism? Or if you want we can talk about Augusto Pinochet.

As you pointed out earlier, we prefer direct military action. (With the exception of the occasional CIA based operation.)

Well, yes they are people too. And they live in the same cold system that we do. It's funny because you just actually made an argument for Anarchy.

There is more than just one alternative.

Libya Superthread

I am well aware that America is acting only out of their own interest. But the fact they often act as if they are fighting for the greater good while they act in their own interest is what makes my stomach turn, and you don't have to have a argument over morals to realize that's wrong. Just be up front about it.

Anyway, let me get to the meat of our argument.

I'm not saying that they U.S. isn't working on economic issues, but they are indeed pushing other issues unnecessarily hard which is obviously going to split their focus. Maybe there is more economic bills and policies being proposed than I am aware of, but you certainly can't say they are getting all the attention they deserve.

From your earlier post -

First off, don't put words in my mouth. I never supported the Chinese human right's violations. I don't support China, but I like their style of financial control over their respective sphere. But think about it, the countries that they are screwing over aren't being invaded, and China is using their financial might to influence global politics (not for the better, but they are influencing them) peacefully while the U.S. is busy building sandcastles and bombing caves in the Middle East. I'm all for removing Saddam and the Taliban, but they have long overstretched their welcome. What I am saying is that the U.S. needs to stand back and reevaluate their plans. Instead of having boots on the ground where people don't want them, why not fund the governments to a greater degree than we are already doing, and then if they can't handle their own business, that's their problem.

Blowing stuff up isn't always the answer, and because the U.S refuses to take the hands off approach, they continue to loose lives and money in the Middle East for no reason. The U.S. has the chance to be the knight in shining armor here by improving the global political situation with out invading people. China does just the opposite, they influence nations for the worst to satiate their greed, the U.S. just needs to the opposite of China ideologically by using the same means.

Libya Superthread

Really? Do the American voters have their own plan for fixing the economy? Our voices ARE being heard, we're telling them to "fix" the economy and they have different opinions on how to "fix" it.

Libya Superthread

Kalal knows how the world works. Demon seems to have a vague idea about how the world works but instead of learning more about it he just complains and does nothing. blablabla, the world has problems, blablabla.

I'm not trying to be rude demon, but come on.

Libya Superthread

Demon has a pretty good idea of how the world works. Him and Kali just have different views on how it should work. Just because someone think something should work differently doesn't make them wrong.

Libya Superthread

I'd be more inclined to agree with Kali because he's reliable in actually supporting his arguments with solid evidence.

Libya Superthread

I can't really comment either way because my debate with Kali is over something totally different.

Libya Superthread

On the contrary. I made my stance on the subject clear right about here:

Kali also made the argument that the military-industrial complex did not have a hand in the push for conflict. As illustrated here:

The point of those statistics was to point out the Military Keynesian policy we are using, which suggests the opposite of what Kali said.

Actually It saddens me vary much that the majority of Americans have no plan for fixing the economy and rely on the opinions of a few people who have a spot on T.V.

And that driving ambition for change which inspires the voters to their side dies when they take office.
A two party system is just as bad as a one party system.

Libya Superthread

It's not the political party system that's broken, it's the general American mind-set of politics. Politics have broken down to team sports and this is perpetuated by the media for good rating and politicians to foster unreasonable political loyalty to stay in power. Nobody is willing to compromise their stances or accept other views anymore. Political discourse fucking sucks in the US right now.

Libya Superthread

This is also true. But you have to understand that what you are describing is simply some of the negative effects of the two party system.

Libya Superthread

Granted.
And if you want oil imports:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2175rank.html
Simply looking at those numbers should be more than enough to point out the importance of a steady supply of oil.

How about a list of defense contractors to go with that budget?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors

And let's throw in their lobbying power as well:
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/55/Articles/55_38-39.pdf

Taken from wiki page on Military keynsianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

And yes. I do use Wikipedia a lot. But not as a source for 100% truth, It's more of a reference point.

Libya Superthread

Break it down to the most basic level and we're all acting in our own interests all the time. On a macro scale we redefine self-interest to to be a much more limited term, and we define it as a detached observer, which makes it more akin to "selfishness" than simply acting in the manner you want (and therefore always choose) to act.

It's not a matter of satisfaction. It's a matter of what the "facts" are in this case.

As if there is some method of regulating exchange without a price system... And in any case this argument isn't about what you think the world "should" be like. It's the reality of the situation, and, in terms of internal consistency, why the US is not acting out of its bounds in the current geopolitical arena.

Didn't say it's unimportant. But it's not the primary reason for our conflicts. It's a secondary, or perhaps tertiary issue.

As pedro stated I'm not going to dispute that we spend a large amount of money on the military. That's a material fact readily available to the public. But I would dispute the idea that we are involved in any of our current conflicts because of it.

Because everything is that simple... Look, you can prance around and spout your ideological rhetoric all day, but if you want to complain about policy then you should actually have a policy to complain about.

Even in a society without a monetary system scarcity would dictate that precious metals are valuable...

If you want representation you need to fight for it. No barriers beyond our political climate exist for you to seek it...

What is your issue here? That the news is interested in sensational stories? There is completely unbiased material available 24/7, be it on cable or the internet, that documents virtually (and in the case of Congress, literally) every single thing that Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court do.

As I said, supporting a regime for obviously geopolitical purposes does not mean we support entirely domestic affairs that affect that regime.

I pointed that out? Because we pretty much do everything possible to avoid direct military action unless we went into a situation actively seeking it...

You aren't making any sense here. Because politicians are people we should abolish government...

And the status quo is better than the overwhelming majority of them. Realistically though, there are only a few alternatives, and I can't think that any of them would be better than democracy by force.

We claim to fight for the "greater good," as you put it, because we believe it. All of our recent conflicts have been pursued according to Just War doctrine, and though they're not all internationally supported we certainly didn't pursue action on false pretenses.

What issues, exactly, do you think are supposedly cutting off our focus on the economy?

I didn't say you supported their human rights violations.

Which, although we don't do so in such an aggressive and one-sided manner the US also utilizes as a foreign policy tool.

Which is basically Zimbabwe, North Korea, and a few other hellholes.

Probably because China lacks the capacity to do, has no motivation to do so, and would be prevented from doing so by the international community...

As we also do quite a bit; definitely more so than we bomb things...

The military is but one (relatively small) part of US foreign policy. The overwhelming majority of our diplomatic actions are conducted through the same channels that the rest of the world uses.

We already fund the Afghani government almost entirely, and continue to support Iraq to a very large degree... In combination with COIN and CT operations we've almost wrapped these conflicts up...

It's also ours, since we will have a significant investment fall flat with no recompense.

Again, I must stress that we primarily use regular diplomatic channels to address issues of foreign policy. I believe the US State Dept. has more funding (relative as well as nominal) than any other similar agency in the world. Not to mention that we fund a significant portion of the UN and incur all of the hosting costs associated with it.

There is a very plain reason that we remain where we are: we've almost won.

China is not a good role model for us, or very many nations at all, domestically or in terms of foreign policy.

Libya Superthread

Which is another pro-Anarchy argument.
If we are all acting in our own interest, then we are the ones best qualified to dictate our actions. Taking into consideration our interest include but are not limited too the well being of the environment we live in and our own stranded of living.

We can't maintain the status-quo forever. Change is the natural way of things.

Again. Because it's what we have we should accept it? We shouldn't even consider looking into an alternative?

[Refer to discussion with Pedro]

It generally isn't acceptable in our society to call for an end to society. And I get that.

I'm also vary happy with my rhetoric thank you vary much!

Yes. Useful metals like iron.

Accept during the red scare when a lot of us got deported...
Anyway, I think we have one socialist in congress, but when his name pops up on the screen there is a big "I" for independent rather than an "S" for socialist.

Yes. that would be part of my problem.

And supporting such regimes is really no better than what China does. This is the point I'm trying to make here.

Yes. You Pointed it out during your discussion with mat.

"unless we went into a situation actively seeking it..."
And here is the hole in your statement that I suggest you patch up.

Think about it this way:
Government rules over man because it is said that he is incapable of ruling over him-self. (In essence man needs protection from man.)
But government is also made of men, who are said to be incompetent and unfit to rule over themselves. So if a man is incapable to rule over him-self, then what the makes us think a man is capable of ruling over another man?

Doesn't really sound like democracy to me....


Edit:Thank you for the pointers Pedro. I'm really hopping to get into a debate class next school year.

Libya Superthread

Not really, we can call it what it is or we can call it what it means in context.

Okay there Rand.

Check my sig, bro. Status quo porro motus; now as it moves. I'm not advocating we remain immobile and never change. But the change that needs to happen can happen by the means provided by the status quo.

I'm certainly not interested in an alternative. And I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find a an alternative that works at least as well as the status quo.

Okay, still dispute that idea...

I don't mind your ideology. I mind that proponents of virtually any radical ideology completely ignore details. Like what we can do now to make changes that actually benefit people. They focus on what we can do when they're in power, or what we can do to give them power...

It's so utterly boring debating against walls of rhetoric.

Because gold and platinum have absolutely no uses at all, right? Not like they're used in the construction of pretty much every single electronic device in existence...

Please don't use the troubles of the past to justify your apathy today...

Probably because (if this dude actually exists) he wasn't elected on a party ticket.

Then stick to C-SPAN. Sensationalism is quite impossible when you have to provide constant live coverage and are funded by people across the spectrum.

It's different. China isn't supporting some anti-American nation that happens to persecute its domestic opposition. China is persecuting its own domestic opposition.

I really don't see what's wrong with this. If we are looking for a conflict then we will pursue that avenue of action. All other times we avoid it.

Government rules over man because it's got to hold up its end of the social contract; protecting us from threats external and elsewhere.

Because he's been chosen by the people to do so. Citizens aren't subject to government, government is subject to the citizens.

If citizens are voting for their leaders then it's a democracy.