Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Fascism is forcing people to go to war. ...

Don't disagree and this applies to most of the 'isms. But many volunteered to fight the fascists and it's to them that I think you did a disservice.

We are losing our freedom bit by bit anyway, and most people don't seem to give a damn. Look at how much freedom we've all lost since 11/9, and all for some bullshit excuse that it's for our 'protection'.

I agree, liberal democracy is on the back-foot and most prefer bread&circuses, i.e. social networks but you appear to hate Americans and if Trump gets in he's going to be your nightmare and your heaven as he proposes to end America's current policy of supporting the 'west' unless they pay and he's going to be isolationist with respect to trade so a nice depression for the rest of us may well occur, on top of that he appears to want to be majorly belligerent with respect to using the true force of the US military, so a lot of flattened countries to boot.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Fascism is forcing people to go to war. ...

Don't disagree and this applies to most of the 'isms. But many volunteered to fight the fascists and it's to them that I think you did a disservice.

We are losing our freedom bit by bit anyway, and most people don't seem to give a damn. Look at how much freedom we've all lost since 11/9, and all for some bullshit excuse that it's for our 'protection'.

I agree, liberal democracy is on the back-foot and most prefer bread&circuses, i.e. social networks but you appear to hate Americans and if Trump gets in he's going to be your nightmare and your heaven as he proposes to end America's current policy of supporting the 'west' unless they pay and he's going to be isolationist with respect to trade so a nice depression for the rest of us may well occur, on top of that he appears to want to be majorly belligerent with respect to using the true force of the US military, so a lot of flattened countries to boot.

So what's new? Since when did the US do anything that wasn't out of self-interest? Trump is just what the US is now, in a convenient individual package. He's the perfect President for them.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:So what's new? Since when did the US do anything that wasn't out of self-interest? ...

When does anyone?

Trump is just what the US is now, in human form. He's the perfect President for them.

I agree but I'd have thought you'd be happy that if he gets in they are going to retreat from the rest of the world? As you come across as thinking they are responsible for all its ills.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:So what's new? Since when did the US do anything that wasn't out of self-interest? ...

When does anyone?

You could change that to 'when does any politician?'

I agree but I'd have thought you'd be happy that if he gets in they are going to retreat from the rest of the world? As you come across as thinking they are responsible for all its ills.

I'm hardly the only one who thinks this. Only a half-wit can't see that it's destruction of Iraq has caused the tidal wave of islamification. 'Retreat from the world..?' You mean stop attacking other countries? Like that's ever going to happen.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Fascism is forcing people to go to war. ...

Don't disagree and this applies to most of the 'isms. But many volunteered to fight the fascists and it's to them that I think you did a disservice.

We are losing our freedom bit by bit anyway, and most people don't seem to give a damn. Look at how much freedom we've all lost since 11/9, and all for some bullshit excuse that it's for our 'protection'.

I agree, liberal democracy is on the back-foot and most prefer bread&circuses, i.e. social networks but you appear to hate Americans and if Trump gets in he's going to be your nightmare and your heaven as he proposes to end America's current policy of supporting the 'west' unless they pay and he's going to be isolationist with respect to trade so a nice depression for the rest of us may well occur, on top of that he appears to want to be majorly belligerent with respect to using the true force of the US military, so a lot of flattened countries to boot.

So what's new? Since when did the US do anything that wasn't out of self-interest? Trump is just what the US is now, in human form. He's the perfect President for them.

Not everyone in the US thinks or believes the same way. Believe it or not, there are many even among conservatives who disapprove of what was done in Iraq. The Republican Ron Paul spoke out against it back in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

Gary Childress wrote: Not everyone in the US thinks or believes the same way. Believe it or not, there are many even among conservatives who disapprove of what was done in Iraq. The Republican Ron Paul spoke out against it back in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

And those people are derided as 'liberal scum' in your illiterate country. There was barely a wimper, and ya'll just LOVE your troops (professional murderers and thugs). Who dares to criticise them over there? Practically no one I bet, unless they have a death wish.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Not everyone in the US thinks or believes the same way. Believe it or not, there are many even among conservatives who disapprove of what was done in Iraq. The Republican Ron Paul spoke out against it back in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

And those people are derided as 'liberal scum' in your illiterate country. There was barely a wimper, and ya'll just LOVE your troops (professional murderers and thugs). Who dares to criticise them over there? Practically no one I bet, unless they have a death wish.

I don't know what you mean by we "all love our troops". Our "troops" are our sons and daughters or our brothers and sisters or fellow countrymen and women who are being told to go to war for all the wrong reasons by corrupt and cowardly politicians. Yes we love them and we don't want to see harm come to them, especially for unjust reasons. Some people fall under the spell of mindless war propagandists who say that if you are against the war then you are therefore against the troops. But not everyone.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm hardly the only one who thinks this. Only a half-wit can't see that it's destruction of Iraq has caused the tidal wave of islamification. ...

It's way more complicated than that.

'Retreat from the world..?' You mean stop attacking other countries? Like that's ever going to happen.

No I mean a retreat from funding the defense of the 'West', if we don't pay we are on our own. A retreat from capital and industrial investment in other countries. With respect to them attacking other countries, a change in that Trump will just flatten them.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm hardly the only one who thinks this. Only a half-wit can't see that it's destruction of Iraq has caused the tidal wave of islamification. ...

It's way more complicated than that.

'Retreat from the world..?' You mean stop attacking other countries? Like that's ever going to happen.

No I mean a retreat from funding the defense of the 'West', if we don't pay we are on our own. A retreat from capital and industrial investment in other countries. With respect to them attacking other countries, a change in that Trump will just flatten them.

What a load of codswallop. And it's not 'way more complicated'. It's quite simple really. The truth always is. You use a lot of Americanisms for a 'Brit'. What on earth do you mean by 'the defence of the west'?? Why are you defending American meddling? They've already 'flattened' Iraq. Who did that help? Who did Vietnam help? Afghanistan? Korea? If that's what you call 'help' then they can stick it up their 'ass'. And America has the nerve to expect everyone else to home millions of angry, displaced muslims. I would be quite happy for every McCrapolds to shut up and clear out.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:What a load of codswallop. And it's not 'way more complicated'. It's quite simple really. The truth always is. ...

Not really, as where do you want to start? With the Sykes-Picot carve-up of the Levant? With the Iran/Shia-Saudi/Sunni 'war'? With the Shia's being on most of the Oil?

You use a lot of Americanisms for a 'Brit'.

So what?

What on earth do you mean by 'the defence of the west'??

The Cold War and NATO, or do you think Stalinism had a peaceful intent?

Why are you defending American meddling?

I don't really, I'm just stating that if Trump gets in a large chunk of this meddling will end and I wonder what happy heaven you think will appear?

They've already 'flattened' Iraq. Who did that help?

They can't really win can they as if they don't depose a dictator they are wrong and if they do they are wrong.

Who did Vietnam help?

No-one as far as I can see.

Afghanistan?

What do people expect if they have the instigator of the largest terrorist attack upon American soil?

Korea?

You think the S.Koreans would be better off under N.Korean rule?

If that's what you call 'help' then they can stick it up their 'ass'.

Where did I use the word 'help'?

And America has the nerve to expect everyone else to home millions of angry, displaced muslims. I would be quite happy for every McCrapolds to shut up and clear out.

Fair enough, tell me what kind of world do you think would evolve from such an event?

Too much guff to deal with. Nearly all the 11/9ers were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan wouldn't have anything to do with poppies would it? Al Quaeda was trained by the US. So much hypocrisy to practise, so little time. Who made the US the moral standard-bearer of the planet? I don't see the US being over-run with 'commies'. Communism was always doomed to fail and died a natural death. Are you suggesting the US destroyed Iraq to 'save' it from Hussein? You can't possibly be that naive. Bush has more blood on his hands, but apparently he's a 'goody'. Tell the Iraqis they were being 'defended' by vicious British and American mercenaries.

Greta wrote:An established modest minimum wage, subsidised in part by more honest accounting of multinationals' and billionaires' taxes, could help heal some of the divisions of US society.

Government-established minimum wage represents a misallocation of labor. Free-market capitalism is the only way to provide a higher standard of living for everyone, rich and poor. If the government wants to provide additional income to someone, it must do so for everyone in a free society, and paid for like everything else by a tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Too much guff to deal with. ...

You think the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire and the betrayal of the Arabs back then guff?

Nearly all the 11/9ers were Saudi Arabian. ...

So what? The Saudis would have handed him over but he was in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan wouldn't have anything to do with poppies would it?

Doubt it, if you're going that route then look at the proposed oil-pipeline.

Al Quaeda was trained by the US.

No they weren't they were funded in part by them, they were trained by the Pakistanis and also equally funded by the Saudi's and other Sunni states.

So much hypocrisy to practise, so little time. ...

Not quite hypocrisy as at the time they thought the Soviets the enemy and the Mujahideen freedom fighters. So you would have left the Russians to it would you? I would but just wondering what you would do.

Who made the US the moral standard-bearer of the planet?

Like you I doubt it's about this but how did the US end up in this position? It pretty much started in WWII. Personally if there are going to be empires I prefer the ones that pay at least some service to the ideal of democracy.

I don't see the US being over-run with 'commies'.

The Cold War was a proxy one.

Communism was always doomed to fail and died a natural death.

Was it? What if there'd been no American forces to oppose them at the end of the second world war, you think Stalin would have been satisfied with just staying in Germany?

Are you suggesting the US destroyed Iraq to 'save' it from Hussein? You can't possibly be that naive. Bush has more blood on his hands, but apparently he's a 'goody'.

Not saying that. Just wondering what

Tell the Iraqis they were being 'defended' by vicious British and American mercenaries.

Tell the Kurds et al that they weren't. Tell the Bosnian Muslims.

What I want to know is how you think the world will play out if you get your wish and America withdraws to its pre-WWII stance?

bobevenson wrote:

Greta wrote:An established modest minimum wage, subsidised in part by more honest accounting of multinationals' and billionaires' taxes, could help heal some of the divisions of US society.

Free-market capitalism is the only way to provide a higher standard of living for everyone, rich and poor.

Can you cite an example of a society which has now or has had in the past a perfectly "free market" without any government intervention of any kind in which there is or was a standard of living higher than what is now present in many developed countries?

[quote="Arising_uk"][/quote]
Can't you just write it all in one piece? The yank invasion of Iraq enabled the rise of ISIS and you know it. Outcomes are sometimes so obvious that they don't warrant the word 'prediction'. Hussein hated radical islam. He kept it well under wraps. People come up with endless excuses for war. It's always 'the other side' in the wrong. I have no time for warmongers. The US was warned it was opening Pandora's box. You only think the US is 'benign' because of brain-washing and racism. I doubt if the people of My Lai found Americans very 'benign'.
Iran had a democratically-elected leader but we all know what happened to him and the puppet who replaced him. Fuck the US and its meddling, and the same goes for GB, its little bitch.
Btw, the Kurdish massacre occurred more than a decade before the Iraq invasion. That was never given as a reason anyway, just some bullshit lies about WMDs. Iraq was the easiest target for venting yank rage at its buildings being blown up, and a convenient opportunity to stamp its footprint in the ME, create more mischief, and use some of the toys it spends an obscene amount of money on (keeping the arms industry happy). America's committed more than its fair share of massacres, keeping in mind that it's 'the goody' and everything in the world that is moral and good.
ps The 'war on tourism' has worked REALLY well (or perhaps that was the idea in the first place).