Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tomcost]

Well, thanks for the sort-of-transcription. I'm rather unfamiliar with most of the things that happen in middle-eastern countries, but the main motive appears to be always oil, and extending influence. Terrorist groups appear to only be used as tools by the potencies.

[burningpet]

Thanks for the wall of text! That clarified a lot. Ahh, the game of the powerful. I feel surpassed by the complexity of these international politics, as my country still has internal struggles to even worry about these things.

I'm partially glad to know that we are not AS bad, just pragmatic and selfish assholes, but not crazy ones. Still, I see no point in this paranoia to be the most powerful country, but that could be because where I live. Most of the thrid world is ignored, and, after seeing what happens to those countres who are not ignored, I feel that it's better this way.

The 3rd world countries that are being ignored is either poor in natural resources or already in the sure hands of any of the superpowers.

[Tomcost]

Thanks for the wall of text! That clarified a lot. Ahh, the game of the powerful. I feel surpassed by the complexity of these international politics, as my country still has internal struggles to even worry about these things.

I'm partially glad to know that we are not AS bad, just pragmatic and selfish assholes, but not crazy ones. Still, I see no point in this paranoia to be the most powerful country, but that could be because where I live. Most of the thrid world is ignored, and, after seeing what happens to those countres who are not ignored, I feel that it's better this way.

The 3rd world countries that are being ignored is either poor in natural resources or already in the sure hands of any of the superpowers.

Well, my country now has a probably bad oil explotation agreement with Chevron, from the USA. So, well probably we are already on his side, but politically we remain neutral.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The middle-east gets picked on by big powers alot because it has some important resources, For NATO and European members of the U.N. it's the Suez Canal and Oil, for America it's Oil and Terrorism, for China it's Oil and the chance to weaken America, and for Russia it's because they heading back in the direction of crazy, expansionist totalitarianism!

In general though, despite a lack of infrastructure, "Third world" countries are easier to fight over than trying to invade another (Super)power's homeland.

[Hotfire90]

.

[EnigmaticHat]

I'm of the opinion that everything the US gains by keeping overseas influence and launching pragmatic wars it loses paying for its military.  Within the near future our problem is not the possibility of being attacked, its the fact that we're losing more money than we bring in, and taking out loans to pay the interest on our loans.  Cutting military spending, among a whole bunch of other things, is what we should be doing.

It all just seems so self feeding.  We need our worldwide influence to launch wars of aggression, and we need to fight wars to build up our worldwide influence.  We need oil to keep up our military, and because of that we feel the need to fight to keep oil cheaper.  It seems to me that in the end, it would be more practical to take a defensive stance and not play the game of world influence.  Because of nukes military strength isn't what it used to be: look at China's rise.  They got there through economic strength, not defeating the opposing power as is traditional.

Or at least that's how it all seems to me.  I mean, what benefits did we get for our country in the war in Iraq?  We lost face and looked like the bad guy, we paid something like $1-3 trillion dollars*.  We may or may not have forced Iraq to give an American corporation an unfair deal to exploit their oil but even if that's true that hardly benefits the US people or government as much as the war cost.  Oh, and we lost more people than in 9/11 and killed way, way more Iraqi civilians.  The war in Afghanistan is shaping up to be about the same thing.  I guess we killed some terrorists, but as long as cheap and deadly weapons are available (read: probably forever at this point) we're never going to beat the concept of terrorists anymore than we can beat the concept of criminals, so really we should just focus on prevention.

*I have no idea how that estimate varies so wildly, I'm just repeating what Google told me on this one

[Sheb]

I totally expected a thread on people comparing penises.

[Hotfire90]

.

[nenjin]

Basically, the super powers have a vested interest in who has the most contact with what, in the cold war, were considered "containment countries."

Really the US cares about Russia & Syria because a) of Syria's ties to various groups in the Middle East and b) because Russia is Syria's #1 seller of weapons.

Which is why Russia refused to approve any action against Syria, because it would interfere with their arms sales. (Also because Russia doesn't like approving any US action against countries they're "allied" with.)

So yeah. It essentially is Cold War logic using modern-era justifications.

*snip*

You know what makes way off-topic diatribes more readable? Paragraphs.

[PatriotSaint]

I'm of the opinion that everything the US gains by keeping overseas influence and launching pragmatic wars it loses paying for its military.  Within the near future our problem is not the possibility of being attacked, its the fact that we're losing more money than we bring in, and taking out loans to pay the interest on our loans.  Cutting military spending, among a whole bunch of other things, is what we should be doing.

It all just seems so self feeding.  We need our worldwide influence to launch wars of aggression, and we need to fight wars to build up our worldwide influence.  We need oil to keep up our military, and because of that we feel the need to fight to keep oil cheaper.  It seems to me that in the end, it would be more practical to take a defensive stance and not play the game of world influence.  Because of nukes military strength isn't what it used to be: look at China's rise.  They got there through economic strength, not defeating the opposing power as is traditional.

Or at least that's how it all seems to me.  I mean, what benefits did we get for our country in the war in Iraq?  We lost face and looked like the bad guy, we paid something like $1-3 trillion dollars*.  We may or may not have forced Iraq to give an American corporation an unfair deal to exploit their oil but even if that's true that hardly benefits the US people or government as much as the war cost.  Oh, and we lost more people than in 9/11 and killed way, way more Iraqi civilians.  The war in Afghanistan is shaping up to be about the same thing.  I guess we killed some terrorists, but as long as cheap and deadly weapons are available (read: probably forever at this point) we're never going to beat the concept of terrorists anymore than we can beat the concept of criminals, so really we should just focus on prevention.

*I have no idea how that estimate varies so wildly, I'm just repeating what Google told me on this one

Wait, what kind of "prevention" are you talking about here? Just curious.

[Tomcost]

-Snip-

The concept of money the video states is nothing new. In economy, this kind of money can even be calculated, via the formula: total paper money*(1/ percentage of cash the banks are not allowed to loan). This formula considers that all the money gets inside a bank again.

Like, for example, there are 1000 dolars in cash in an economy. The banks are allowed to lend all the money they have, except of a 20%.

Using the formula: 1000*(1/0.2)=1000*5=5000 money in the economy.

Still, all the economic system relies in how trustful is the money. If everybody tried to withdraw their money at the same time, the system would collapse, but it has already happened.

But I fail to see how would this system make us slaves of the banks. If you don't ask for a loan, why would you be working for a bank?

[10ebbor10]

But I fail to see how would this system make us slaves of the banks. If you don't ask for a loan, why would you be working for a bank?

It's not slaves perhaps, but for all points and purposes, your money relies on the banks to have it's worth. If they threaten to fall, someone will have to pay to keep them upright.

On a side note, the 2008 economical crisis was a direct result of an interest rate change required to free funds for the Invasion of Iraq. More problems are coming up for the US too.

[EnigmaticHat]

-snip-

Wait, what kind of "prevention" are you talking about here? Just curious.

Preventing terrorists from getting explosives into the US or making them here, preventing foreign terrorists from easily gaining entry to the US, making it hard to obtain improvised weapons, and preventing terrorists from becoming powerful by supporting nations in fighting their own local terrorists.  That last one is different from sending our own military in because that costs more and involves sending a large portion of our army to fight and die in a land they don't understand.

I know its a cold viewpoint, but the amount of people killed by terrorists annually in the US is tiny compared to other societal ills like medical problems, our own military operations, or plain old murder.  The terrorists had their one, utterly horrible moment in 9/11, but since then weaponizing planes has become much harder and the terrorists haven't caused any disasters on nearly that scale.  Yes, as long as explosives or dangerous vehicles exist there will always be the possibility some crazy guy will use them to kill.  But you know what?  That would still be true even if every Taliban and Al Queda member suffered a fatal heart attack right now.  Life is risk.  And I think that in this case the sacrifices in terms of military casualties, government expenditure, and creepy totalitarian legislation have outweighed the risk of staying reactive and using a measured response.

I like to compare it to crime.  You can't attack crime, because ordinary people can choose at any time to become criminals.  Criminals will always have the initiative, always choose their battles.  Same with terrorists.  Yeah, both terrorists and criminals will form organizations, and some effort should be made to stomp them out.  But I wouldn't want the US to suspend due process just to take out the Mafia, and I certainly wouldn't want them to attack Italy because its a Mafia stronghold.  I don't see how the Taliban are different; they're resilient, rely on local knowledge, and are ultimately a bad but livable plague on society.  Except that unlike the Mafia, the Taliban doesn't have a strong foothold in the US.

(this is all the view of a US citizen, if I lived in a country actively plagued by terrorism I would definitely want a more military response.  But even then I think reactiveness and longevity are the name of the game when it comes to fighting terrorists.  You know, in my experienced college student opinion.)

[Tomcost]

Hasn't anybody suggested that the US keeps a huge military budget just as a way to create work and incentivate economic growth? You know, all that money spent goes somewhere. I'm not saying that it is ethic or even acceptable by any means, but this seems the case.

[10ebbor10]

Hasn't anybody suggested that the US keeps a huge military budget just as a way to create work and incentivate economic growth? You know, all that money spent goes somewhere. I'm not saying that it is ethic or even acceptable by any means, but this seems the case.

Military Industrial complex. Thanks to the US's system of legal corruption, weapon producers ensure that the army is there to buy their stuff. Link

Also relevant, the Prison Industrial complex. They nearly doubled the prisoners.