02-11-2017, 07:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 08:20 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-11-2017, 07:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1. Globalism/nationalism. No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face. That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.
What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.
I was just "ragging" on the 1st point of what nationalism is about in general. I just consider nationalism without some qualifier as other issue neutral. It's when nationalism per se is added as a plank to some other agenda that it can be bad or good. Brexit for example is good because the EU is a failed project, IMO.
IMO, it is not. I guess you get my point about when nationalism is good, and when it is bad. You could call that a neutral, on balance, but the good is good, and the bad is very bad.
Quote:Quote:The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,
I don't have much issue with the UN but some "world order" of some sort is silly.
Actually, "world order" has been around for millennia. It just means the prevailing power constellation among nations and/or empires.
Quote:Quote:Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.
Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.
See that's a difference right there. Our definitions of "war" are different. I have a broad definition of what "war" is. War = any action involving force between political actors. The US is conduction war in Syria by the insertion of special forces and bombing campaigns.
Baloney. The US has no bombing campaign or special forces fighting Assad, the supposed ruler of Syria. It has had for about a year now a small number of special forces and some bombing raids in what used to be eastern Syria fighting against the Islamic State. Most of the US campaign against the IS is in Iraq, helping the Iraqi army. I have pointed this distinction out to you dozens of times now. Why doesn't it sink in? The IS is a caliphate that controls a separate territory. It is not Syria. It is not a recognized government, but it is a defacto state nevertheless. It is a declared enemy of the United States and Europe, and it terrorizes us and our allies. It is a horrible disgrace to all values. It needs to be liquidated ASAP, if not fucking sooner.
Quote:Quote:But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda.
That's another point of disagreement. I also have a broad definition of "wars of choice". Wars of choice are any war that:
1. Does not involve a direct threat to US citizens.
2. Retaliation against deaths/injuries to US citizens from a foreign actor.
Assad has done neither which means wars against him are invalid.
Yes, but the USA is not waging a war against him, and as far as I know, no country is. Why you bring that up to me as a "disagreement" is a complete mystery. Why do you do that? The USA is not at war with Assad.
Quote:Quote:I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.
Just because Tulsi's findings do a mindfuck to Eric's worldview does not in any shape or manner invalidate such findings.
It is up to warmongers like Mcstain to also go get verifiable facts like Tulsi did if he does not agree.
You are really un-informed and mis-informed on this, and a number of other people I know are as well. Tulsi is deceived, and a deceiver. She has no facts at all. She just went there with her mind made up, and came back with what she wanted to believe. I trust AP and news reporters and Amnesty International, etc., and not Tulsi and other fantasy weavers.
The facts are objective. Assad has killed 400,000 of his own people, and tortured tens of thousands in unspeakable ways. He has driven millions of his people into exile, just because he doesn't want to hear any criticism. He is the worst human being I have known about in my lifetime. Defending him is defending the worst possible shit. Denying it is holocaust denial. Blaming any of his unspeakable crimes on the USA is disgusting. Thinking that the USA causes all wars and all problems is as stupid as thinking that it causes none of them. Conflating these truths with advocating a war of choice is just another form of this denial, and you ought to know better.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/0...es-exposed
Quote:Quote:That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.
That's one of the biggest problems since 'Nam. Undeclared wars which is exactly what's going on in Syria. Congress needs to man up and either declare war or defund anything they do not declare war on.
Since there is no war, there is nothing to declare.
Quote:Quote:Yes. Mexico is a sovereign country and should be treated as such. Mexico should not pay for the wall either. It's our wall and we should pay for it.Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.
Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.
The wall is nothing but a boondoggle, and really nothing more than a slogan Drump used to get votes. It is utterly pointless crap, and very comical and pathetic, as is almost everything Drump says and does.
Quote:Quote:Of course, justice and fairness. Really. And that is more than the constitution; it's an inherent value. And we do need to focus on groups, but only because those who unjustly discriminate and profile focus on them. I don't have a problem with SJWs and snowflakes. I'm sorry you do, but it seems like a matter of taste regarding presentation, rather than a beef with justice itself. Anyone can go overboard with nagging and single-issue dogma. That has nothing to do with justice, right?
Guess why I have a problem with SJW's and snowflakes? It's the exact same reason I have a problem with Jesusfreaks, your term.
Both of them try to TELL OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO THINK AND ACT! I despise both of them and a pox on both houses.
But some people need to be told. At least, they need to be informed. This nation is full of reactionaries and un-informed dummies and ruled by an oppressive oligarchy that people just roll over and accept. A revolution IS needed. Being shouted at doesn't always work, I agree. But those who are shouting, you don't need to take it personally, since I doubt it's directed at you. Is it?
I salute the SJWs for telling the truth about the need for social justice.