Kenya in Crisis
After recent elections in Kenya, domestic strife is out of control which
this article describes in detail.
Civil war fears amid Kenyan violence
By Africa correspondent Andrew Geoghegan
Posted 1 hour 17 minutes ago
Updated 54 minutes ago
Slideshow: Photo 1 of 2
Mob attack: A man stands beside the burnt remains of the burned-out Kenya Assemblies of God Church (AFP)
Audio: Civil war fears after Church massacre (AM) Audio: Australian trapped in Kenyan home as violence worsens (AM) Related Story: Kenya reels after church massacre Fear of a civil war is gripping Kenya as fights between rival tribes over the disputed re-election of the country's president go from bad to worse.
In a normally peaceful town in the west of the country, hundreds of people were hiding in a church when a mob attacked. Those seeking shelter were beaten before the church was torched.
More than 50 people are believed to have burned to death. Many were children.
Pastor Jackson Nyanga says he witnessed the atrocity.
"After the elections people were attacking one another, and in part of that church people had gathered from different places for their security," he said.
"After torching the church, children died, around 25 in number, four elderly people, and many people who tried to confront them while injured."
Pastor Nyanga himself is in a critical condition.
"They are scared, they are frightened. In fact, they tried to run for their safety," he said.
More than 70,000 Kenyans have fled their homes as they try to escape the election-related violence.
The Kenyan Red Cross is describing it as a national disaster.
Is it Rwanda all over again, and will the international community once again sit by and let it happen?
Is it Rwanda all over again, and will the international community once again sit by and let it happen?
I don't know, is the UN involved? If yes, then it is possible there will be a genocide.
Why would you say that?
During Rawanda's Genocide the UN and Madame Albright knew all about it and sat back and watched it happen. some 800,000 people were hacked to death, stabbed, and burned to death in a peroid of about 4 months. The UN is an inept organization that sucks up US tax payer dollars {IMHO}.
So... rwanda would have been better WITHOUT the UN?
Kenya will be better WITHOUT the UN?
I can buy the argument that the UN isn't gonna do jack shit, but i dont buy it that they'll actually make it worse.
The UN is an inept organization that sucks up US, any money tax payer dollars
So... rwanda would have been better WITHOUT the UN?
Kenya will be better WITHOUT the UN?
I can buy the argument that the UN isn't gonna do jack shit, but i dont buy it that they'll actually make it worse.
Everyone would be better without the UN.
UN admits Rwanda genocide failure
The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.
In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.
Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.
At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.
Continues:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stmI'm with you on this Ibram. I think Mercs summation of the situation is incorrect.
I'm aware of what happened in Rwanda and the role the UN played. At least they played a role. They did what they were supposed to do but it wasn't nearly enough. It could never be.
I don't think this should become an argument about whether or not the UN is a useful organization or not, although I would ask that if the UN did enter Kenya and create peace, would it then be seen as useful, and if so what would need to happen to ensure this outcome?
If it's not up to the UN, then should anyone in the international community step in to stop the genocide that will surely occur?
If it's not up to the UN, then should anyone in the international community step in to stop the genocide that will surely occur?
No, let the chips fall where they will. The US has been dragged into a number of these things and all we get is beat up by the international community. The African Union has failed to stop the killing in Darfur, the Ethiopians are in Somalia and it has been nothing but a mess. We went into Bosnia and got beat up for that as well. Let the Africans figure it out on their own. We have no business there.
or maybe you mean, nothing to gain by going there
or maybe you mean, nothing to gain by going there
Not at all. What did we gain in Bosina? How about Somalia? Oil? Slaves? what?
Not at all. What did we gain in Bosina? How about Somalia? Oil? Slaves? what?
What he means is no oil available - therefore let them burn. We hate them because they have nothing for us.
Bosnia is the perfect example of how diplomacy works and how problems should be solved. The wacko extremists among us will deny this only because they hate Clinton and Clinton showed how problems can be solved. Clinton did it right; therefore it must be wrong – the Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Use political rhetoric rather than reality to determine what to do (and then blame the UN).
Shame is that Kenya only ten years ago was a model of African stability. A nation of warm relations to and a strong attachment to America. What has changed? According to TheMercenary, we don't care. They don't have anything we need. Therefore they are scumbags who should be left to rot on their own. Amzing the contempt TheMercenary has for one of America’s closest friends.
TheMercenary has advocated hate - the real agenda of politics that even blame the UN for all world problems.
I see the problem as forcing two nationalistic ethnic groups in the same political state.
I have two questions. First, what can we realistically do? Second, if we did stop the genocide, would we really have solved anything?
If we do stop the killings, we are not getting rid of the conditions that led to the killings, so by just stop killings, we are just pushing back the genocide to a later date where it will probably just be even worse. Big catch 22.
It’s a great pity.
I was hitch-hiking through Africa in the late 70’s and Kenya was one of the true gems of East Africa. In Nairobi an aged, white man (a remnant of the colonial times) gave me a lift in his Wolseley. He told me that he hoped he’d be dead “before the old man” (Kenyatta) because he figured that Kenyatta was the only thing standing between sanity and chaos. Maybe he was right.
What he means is no oil available - therefore let them burn. We hate them because they have nothing for us.
I didn't take that out of his post at all. Course what the hell is my vote worth? :headshake
[SIZE="1"]Oh yeah, same as everyone elses.[/SIZE] :right:
We hate them because they have nothing for us.
Speak for yourself, tw.
My sampling of Kenya's vibe in mid 1985 told me President Daniel Arap Moi was running an undemocracy -- a mildly critical remark about him from me netted me a very white-eyed nervous look from a concierge. That sort of thing cropping up in casual public conversation is not a good sign. English-language papers ran great numbers of articles of an officialese flavor, all Arap Moi, all the time, most of the front page, as if this paper were some party organ. Another bad sign.
Cutting genocidal groups off at the ankle strikes me as more of a deterrent than Pierce is willing to credit it being: "they started doing that and the whole bunch of them got thrown in jail/shot/fixed." This tends to take the fuze out of the powderkeg, whether or not it removes the keg. At worst, it buys time to address the more tractable of the root conditions necessary for genocides, particularly an imbalance of firepower -- the easiest side of the genocide triangle to eliminate. There is nothing in particular about genocide that makes delaying it conducive to anything demonstrably more severe that I've ever heard of.
Tw is far too willing to say "We hate..." -- it's more illustrative of tw's own cast of thought than of anyone else's, singular or collective. Maladroit. Bosnia really wasn't a perfect example of anything well done, what with its ethnic cleansing and suchlike diversions. We should not be expected by anyone (sane) to give it a top grade because a Democratic President had to deal with it. That would be blatant prejudice.
...a mildly critical remark about him from me netted me a very white-eyed nervous look from a concierge.
Freudian slip? :D
[SIZE="1"](hee hee!)[/SIZE]
But who is going to throw them in jail? The United States? The United Nations? I don't know if that is even possible and then you have to deal with the aftereffects of us coming in there.
And that wouldn't take out the fuze, it would just stop it from burning.
Speak for yourself, tw.
I requoted our extremists who see no profit in going there. Why is Brianna defending those whose underlying political agenda is based in hate and violence?
Meanwhile, moderates will recognize Kenya as a country undergoing some turmoil. This is far from Rwanda and Brunei deja vue. At least not yet. Counter productive would be other nations interfering at this point. If Kenyans solve this problem, then 50 burned victims in a church could become memorialized as what happens when extremists are permitted to exercise their usual solutions to everything - violence.
Kenyans and only Kenyans currently are our best hope for a lasting solution here. Kenyans must be permitted time to solve their own problems. If major actions are required as became necessary in the Balkans, then such actions will require the UN - in direct contradiction to those who just reposted Rush Limbaugh extremist rhetoric.
Let the Africans figure it out on their own. We have no business there.
Kenyans and only Kenyans currently are our best hope for a lasting solution here. Kenyans must be permitted time to solve their own problems.
Hmmm looks like you are both saying the same thing to me.
Sorry, the US is too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to care about a few Africans.
I think that Kanye West is more and more right: 'Bush doesn't care about Black people'.
Bush doesn't care about Brown people either, just that they are more important politically.
Hmmm looks like you are both saying the same thing to me.
I keep posting this. Please learn to read with care what was posted rather than what you want to read.
TheMercenary is saying we have no purpose in Kenya like we have no purpose in Bosnia. He says the UN is our useless enemy when, if the world eventually has to solve Kenya, then we will need the UN.
Where, classicman, do we say same thing? Posts from tw and TheMercenary are completely different - if classicman grasps the significant details. You didn't previously which was why you felt insulted when no insult was posted. You really need to reread multiple times before posting. Classicman has again completely misrepresented what was posted.
Did you notice we say contrary things about the UN? Did you notice we post contrary conclusions about Bosnia - where the lessons of how to conduct nation building are demonstrated? He says America got beat up in Bosnia. Wacko extremists (ie Rush Limbaugh) promote that lie. In reality, Bosnia was a perfect example of how to do nation building. Did you notice our posts use both examples to reach contrary conclusions about Kenya? Do you read before posting? Why must I again resummarized (or requote) details that you completely ignore? Why do you set yourself up again to be criticized for replying to posts that do not exist? Will you now take insult where none exists?
Since YOU brought it up - Yes tw, I will take your diparaging tone as an affront. I have read hundreds of your posts from years back to the present. You write with a pompous tone. Whether that is intended or not - that is your deficiency. I am not the only one to see it, I am just more vocal about it. We all have things to work on to improve ourselves in life. Perhaps this could be yours.
As to the real discussion. Yes I have read both your posts in this thread very carefully. I am well aware of your different opinions. That is why I found it interesting that BOTH OF YOU came to the same conclusion through very different thought processes.
Amazing actually that the two of you both think we should stay out of there and let them figure it out for themselves.
There is a lot of irony in your last post - guess you didn't read mine well enough.
'Bush doesn't care about Black people'.
Eh? I thought he was sleeping with Condo-lazy Rice.
Bush doesn't care about Brown people either.
So what about "
Yellow people"?
..... you ..... think we should stay out of there and let them figure it out for themselves.
I wouldn't have the slightest doubt (if such reports were to come to light) that the American CIA are responisible for the whole problem from the very beginning. Implementing political unrest (in another country) would be keeping in true form with standard CIA procedure if such unrest might lead to increased American influence and (ultimately) American control.
The British Empire relied on "Divide and Rule" tactics. The Americans rely on "Destroy and Reconstruct".
So what about "Yellow people"?
He owes them money.
What he means is no oil available - therefore let them burn. We hate them because they have nothing for us.
Bosnia is the perfect example of how diplomacy works and how problems should be solved. The wacko extremists among us will deny this only because they hate Clinton and Clinton showed how problems can be solved. Clinton did it right; therefore it must be wrong – the Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Use political rhetoric rather than reality to determine what to do (and then blame the UN).
Shame is that Kenya only ten years ago was a model of African stability. A nation of warm relations to and a strong attachment to America. What has changed? According to TheMercenary, we don't care. They don't have anything we need. Therefore they are scumbags who should be left to rot on their own. Amzing the contempt TheMercenary has for one of America’s closest friends.
TheMercenary has advocated hate - the real agenda of politics that even blame the UN for all world problems.
The Unibomber tw resurfaces...
Freudian slip? :D
[SIZE="1"](hee hee!)[/SIZE]
You're kidding, Bri.
There was white showing all the way around the iris, and nervous glances to either side to check on who might be listening. Fortunately, the lobby was empty but for us two.
Shall I compare tw trying to analyze politics to a thalidomide case trying to play the bagpipes...?
I can keep that up.
speaking of thalidomide, I saw on tv that they're going to use some form of the drug for something else. I'll have to look it up and see what it is.
Here it is. Cancer. You can read the rest of the article if you like.
Thalidomide, famous in the 60's because of limb deformities in babies born to women who had taken it for morning sickness, was withdrawn in 1961. Now doctors say it could be used as a treatment for cancer.
The drug has been seen to slow down weight loss in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer; severe weight loss is the direct cause of death in one in five patients with advanced cancer, according to doctors from Southampton University Hospital.
Patients who took 200mg of thalidomide daily during tests did not live longer than those who did not, but their increased weight was matched by increased physical capacity.
I wouldn't have the slightest doubt (if such reports were to come to light) that the American CIA are responisible for the whole problem from the very beginning. Implementing political unrest (in another country) would be keeping in true form with standard CIA procedure if such unrest might lead to increased American influence and (ultimately) American control.
The British Empire relied on "Divide and Rule" tactics. The Americans rely on "Destroy and Reconstruct".
:tinfoil: Everything is America's fault - as usual. :headshake
:tinfoil: Everything is America's fault - as usual. :headshake
Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.
And you think I'm joking...
But seriously, we have fucked up many countries.
“Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes... In the process, the U.S. caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.” (Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blum#QuotationsAnd on a similar note, some folks claim that the rise of LSD was due to the CIA using it to distract the anti-war movement:
In the book Acid Dreams, authors Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain explore the way drugs destroyed the focus of the anti-war movement, pointing to links between major drug-dealers and the Central Intelligence Agency.
(Mentioned in passing
here.)
Given some of the things the CIA
did do, I wouldn't rule out
anything.
I'd love to work for the CIA. You get to do all sorts of crazy shit.
Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.
You're not far from the truth. Considering most of what's happened since then I must admit that I have similar thoughts.
One incident that's still a question mark for me though is Korea. I'm inclined to believe that the Americans were "the good guys" there but I'm afraid to say it out loud for fear of getting a ton of agro from those who are more "in the know" than I am. What's your opinion?
He owes them money.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
One incident that's still a question mark for me though is Korea. I'm inclined to believe that the Americans were "the good guys" there but I'm afraid to say it out loud for fear of getting a ton of agro from those who are more "in the know" than I am. What's your opinion?
I don't know enough about the topic to give an answer. Most times conflicts don't even have good guys versus bad guys too so who knows.
but I'm afraid to say it out loud for fear of getting a ton of agro from those who are more "in the know" than I am. What's your opinion?
Thanks for asking, I think you're a moron.
Gov't-related deaths in the 20th C, including wars:
Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.
And you think I'm joking...
But seriously, we have fucked up many countries.
Blum is an ass with an axe to grind, but thats fine - blame it all on America. Its fine, really. Just stop and think REALISTICALLY where the world would be without all we've done as a country and world leader - good and bad.
UT, your graph is skewed, keeping it to government related deaths take out a lot of them. And deaths have nothing to do with Aretha's question.
Classicman, I know Blum's stance and I don't take him to heart but he does put out some good solid stats. And stop being stupid and saying "blame it ALL on America". I have never ONCE done that and I explained that in a different thread yesterday. The US has done a lot of shit to other countries so we do have to take some responsibility for it. We exploit other countries and we do not do what is "good", but what protects our own interests, there is more than enough evidence to back those statements up.
Africa for example, I have a friend that went there to help out and he says all the Western corporations are in control, who sell their resources for extremely cheap prices and then sell back products to them for a bloated price. They also get screwed over by the WTO with behind the counter offers. If you don't think shit like this has anything to do with the welfare of foreign countries, I don't know what to tell you.
For your question, it would be stupid to guess because we are dealing with chaos theory (butterfly effect). If one thing was changed in the 1940's in a particular country, we will have no idea of what big changes would have happened in the 1960s or 1980s. It could be much better than it is today, or it could be much worse.
But we can have some insight in some situations. Iran, for example, why did operation Ajax happen in 1953? What would have happened if we didn't support a coup and replaced a socialist-leaning leader with the Shah? Why did the Iranians vote in Mohammed Mosadeeq? What did he do that turned the British and United States against him? What would have happened if we would have let them go?
I'll throw a guess out. The situation in Iran is very similar to what happened in Venezuela in 1999. A country exploited by Western oil companies decided to kick the corporations out. What is happening in Venezuela today (this is ignoring all the propaganda bullshit from both sides)? What has their GDP changed? How about their poverty rate? Are they better off before or after Chavez came in?
I will go back to my Africa example. What would happen if we stopped exploiting Africa? I will give you my guess. First, local rulers will get very rich and powerful from their resources and our prices will probably go up for various materials. Then because of the new rich and powerful leaders, militarism will be on the rise and we will see many wars and genocides with a scene most likely similar to Europe in the 700s to WWII. Political lines will change and empires will rise and fall. After a while, like Europe, will will finally see some stability in that area. Is that better than worse than what we have now? I don't know but hey, at least they are have more control than now.
We have also helped many other countries out so I can't ignore that. But once again, that gets into chaos theory. Bottom line, I have no idea what the world would be like and anything that claims too, is most likely dead wrong.
I am also tired of the idea that the world would be lost without US's help? We didn't need the British to get to where we are now and I have real doubts that many other countries need us either.
UT, that graph is definitely wrong.
at least five million, if not over ten or fifteen million, chinese died as a result of Mao's policies. That isnt shown at all.
Sure it is. The high points on the graph are number killed per year and Mao was at it 40 years. Look at the yellow area.
One incident that's still a question mark for me though is Korea.
I don't know enough about the topic to give an answer. Most times conflicts don't even have good guys versus bad guys too so who knows.
But ... but ... you were
there! You and Radar both!
Or were you just overwhelmed by the stupid futility of it all for 23 & 1/2 minutes per week?
Sure it is. The high points on the graph are number killed per year and Mao was at it 40 years. Look at the yellow area.
Still not enough - I'm not even including general drought and starvation caused by Mao in those numbers - one of his five-year-plans alone killed (roughly) six million people. That woulda certainly caused a bigger spike than shown there.
I don't follow your math, Ibram: 6 million over five years is a little more than a million a year. The graph shows that for about 1947-1953, 1958-1963, and 1966-1970. And the years in between aren't that far below a million a year, either.
Well, the graph starts in the 20th century, so it does not show deaths in the 19th century to the American Indians, deaths from government-condoned slavery, and, if war is included, the Civil War and War of 1812.
It also only counts deaths directly attributed to a government. As one of the world's top weapon suppliers and a supporter of numerous repressive regimes and insurgent groups, the US would certainly show up on the map if we accounted for that.
We didn't score the goals but we certainly should be credited for the assists.
The map doesn't even appear to list the Korean and Vietnam Wars, although there is a set in the 1970's for the Cambodian genocide.
By some accounts, the U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs onto Vietnam (and Cambodia), and according to that chart, we didn't hit anything. Either the chart is wrong or someone needs to go back to flight school.
But ... but ... you were there! You and Radar both!
Or were you just overwhelmed by the stupid futility of it all for 23 & 1/2 minutes per week?
What?
You mean you didn't serve with Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 4077?
By some accounts, the U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs onto Vietnam (and Cambodia), and according to that chart, we didn't hit anything.
According to the other lying administration, we killed everyone in Nam three times over. Therefore the chart must be wrong. Nixon (like George Jr) would not lie.
It so funny to watch you guys struggle to apply "original sin" to your own country. Here's a hint for you: when we were arming insurgents and supporting regimes the most, we were actually fighting the schools of thought which produced a lot of the biggest areas of color you see on the chart. The numbers that we armed did not produce big areas of color.
You mean you didn't serve with Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 4077?
Oh, haha, that flew over my head.
Oh, haha, that flew over my head.
I wonder if it'll be good luck if it shits on you...
It so funny to watch you guys struggle to apply "original sin" to your own country. Here's a hint for you: when we were arming insurgents and supporting regimes the most, we were actually fighting the schools of thought which produced a lot of the biggest areas of color you see on the chart. The numbers that we armed did not produce big areas of color.
So as long as we are fighting people who are evil, we can never do anything wrong? Sorry to exaggerate but that is exactly how you are coming off. Fighting evil with evil doesn't equal good UT.
But, I mean, we can never do anything wrong. I mean we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to save lives right? (hint: no)
I don't know how you take my attitude as, but I do not think America is good but I do not think it is pure evil either. There is always some balance. The United States is not a "good" country, those do not exist, we are only protecting our interests like every other country in this world. We just have the power to do it more covertly.
I wonder if it'll be good luck if it shits on you...
.........I doubt it.
The United States is not a "good" country,
That you really feel that way is truly sad.
That you feel that way is truly ignorant. Patriotism for patriotism's sake is nothing but self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing.
Thats bullshit Ibby. What is sad is that neither you nor PH have any idea of how awesome a country America is.
I may be a lot of things, but on this subject, ignorant is not one of them.
Pierce, it seems you've missed the Hiroshima-Nagasaki calculus. It's all out there in Estimate Land, but roughly 225,000-250,000 deaths from those two strikes were the price of not taking an estimated one million casualties on the Allied side of the ledger alone, with approximately two to three million estimated for the Japanese. Concomitant general damage for Operation Olympic would have made Kyushu and Shikoku look like a giant rake had gone over those islands from one end to the other. Tokyo was hoping to stop a very experienced army whose every soldier had a semiauto rifle plus support weaponry of every description and complete air supremacy with war emergency manufactured matchlocks and bamboo spears. Such army as they had left had boltaction rifles, badly designed machine guns, and plane crashes by way of cruise missiles.
Any question what would have happened, or of the eventual outcome anyway? If you want to put it romantically, Hiroshima and Nagasaki died that Japan might live. It did take the Emperor Hirohito's word to convince Imperial Japan that it had suffered quite enough, but even so, one plane, one bomb, one city was easy math to do.
I'd say it's pretty well proven that we did save lives that way, simply enough by the shortening of the war.
If we are fighting people who are evil, who cares if we do something wrong? Frankly I do not, and I have trouble believing in the honesty of those who do. Inerrancy on our country's part is not something I'm going to expect -- though I might expect fewer errors from one group, contrasted with another. Wars have errors in them. The idea is to make the other poor dumb SOBs collapse under theirs. Patriotism may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, but one-note anti-Americanism is the first property of the moronic. I make a hobby of demonstrating my intellectual power before those who are absolutely desperate not to credit me with any. It's fun watching them squirm and choke down their just deserts, and watching the cherished delusions they thought were an adequate philosophy of life trickle away.
First, Classicman, I was focusing on foreign policy with that quote. Foreign policy and internal affairs are not necessarily connected.
But, while I respect many of the opportunities that are available in the United States and that I directly benefit from many of them does not necessarily mean that we are a "good" country from every perspective. When it comes to other FIRST WORLD countries, the United States is behind in many different areas, while ahead in others.
I really don't feel like digging it up now, but I have seen many reports stating how the economic (class) mobility is low in the United States compared to other first-world countries because of how shitty our education is in low income areas. We are not that far ahead in health care, education, and many other aspects compared to other first world countries, but actually behind. If you disagree with any of those, it is only because we have different perspectives on how things should be run, which is subjective, so to say one is better than the other is as pointless as saying red is a better color than blue. Some people would rather have single-payer health care, some others favor privatized health care and then both sides can skew statistics to make their's look more favorable. But I have yet to see any statistic that shows the United States ahead in health care or education at the high school level, which does say something.
Also, you are looking at your view of the United States from a middle class white male's perspective. If you take a look from some American Indians, blacks, poor, and exploited foreigners perspective, you might see something different. All the benefits we receive are off the blood and bones of those four groups whether you will like to admit it or not. We NEEDED to displace, kill, and screw over the American Indians to get their land. We NEED(ED) the blacks for slave labor for the south, a static label to juxtapose whiteness (privileged class) with, and many of them die in our today's wars with very little benefits. We NEED the poor to power our urban areas and economy while they receive the short end of the stick on living conditions and pay. We NEED to exploit foreign countries to get rich (this mainly applies to the upper-class, not us) and our low prices at Walmart.
The United States is an extremely good country from some perspectives and a really bad country from others. We have made many innovations and without a doubt have changed the world since 1776, but we are no means any better than the other first-world countries in all or the majority of areas. We are definitely ahead of the rest of the world in some areas, but we are also behind in many others as well, it just depends on once again, perspective.
Why do you think so many people around the world hate us? It is not some bullshit excuse like you hear Bush and O'Reilly talk about, there are actual reasons.
Though, I would like to say, I do not point these flaws I see for hateful reasons, but because I want to improve our country in the areas that we are lacking in. I want to not only continue many of the great benefits every American citizen receives, but to turn our weaknesses into strengths. If I was just full of hate and looked at the United States in a condescending way, I would just move to Europe. That is the main difference between people like me and ducky.
UG, Japan would not have lasted to the end of the month. They were being attacked from both sides since the USSR declared war on them, had no supply of oil so they would be sitting ducks, and were honestly considering trying to end the war before the bombs dropped, and I have heard of pretty credible sources that said, if I remember correctly, that the Japanese tried to end the war sometime after Okinawa on conditional terms but Truman denied to pursue his goal of "unconditional surrender".
Just think about it. We cut off their oil supplies so they wouldn't have been able to have the same tactics as in the other island attacks, were getting bombed to the fucking ground by US air forces, had another enemy declare war on them who they went to NUMEROUS times to try to end the war with with an economic ideology that they could never accept and were faced a 100% chance of losing the war. To think they would have held out until true unconditional surrender is laughable. They were done before the United States bombed them.
Also, then you have to look at the motives for the United States to drop an atomic bomb on the USSR. Truman did not like Stalin and knew there was going to be an arms race after the war and wanted to have the upper hand. It makes MUCH more sense that the atomic bomb was dropped to intimidate the Soviets while giving Truman the credit of unconditional surrender. Many modern historians acknowledge this so it isn't just some conspiracy theory.
If the war went on, it would just have been become a race to defeat Japan between the US and Soviets. The US was not going to stop and by looking at the Soviet invasion, they were not going to either. On top of that, Japan did not want to become a second Germany with a North and South Japan. They had a monarchy, which would have been the direct opposite of Communism, so they would have tried to stop the Soviets even more than the United States like Germany did. The estimated million death toll its complete bullshit.
Here is a book if you are interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939
If you want more proof:
On June 9, the Emperor's confidant, Marquis Kōichi Kido, wrote a "Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation", warning that by the end of the year, Japan's ability to wage modern war would be extinguished and the government would be unable to contain civil unrest.
"...we cannot be sure we will not share the fate of Germany and be reduced to adverse circumstances under which we will not attain even our supreme object of safeguarding the Imperial Household and preserving the national polity".[7]
Kido proposed that the Emperor himself take action, offering to end the war on "very generous terms". Kido proposed that Japan give up occupied European colonies, provided they were granted independence, and that the nation disarm and for a time be "content with minimum defense". With the Emperor's authorization, Kido approached several members of the Supreme Council, the "Big Six". Togo was very supportive. Suzuki and Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, were both cautiously supportive; both wondered what the other thought. General Korechika Anami, the Army minister, was ambivalent, insisting that diplomacy must wait until "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]".[8]
In June, the Emperor lost confidence in the chances of achieving a military victory. The battle of Okinawa was lost, and he learned of the weakness of the Japanese army in China, of the navy, and of the army defending the Home Islands.
... according to [Prince Higashikuni's] report it was not just the coast defense; the divisions reserved to engage in the decisive battle also did not have sufficient numbers of weapons. I was told that the iron from bomb fragments dropped by the enemy was being used to make shovels. This confirmed my opinion that we were no longer in a position to continue the war.[9]
On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first. "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."[10] It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, like Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they could not have done more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with the Western Allies. There was no agreement on what peace terms Japan might accept, or when to approach the Allies. The leaders of the Army were confident of their ability to deal the Americans a crippling blow when they attempted to invade Kyūshū in late 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_Japan Most times conflicts don't even have good guys versus bad guys too ….
Yeah, that’s true. :yelsick:
….. where the world would be without all we've done as a country and world leader ….
There’d be a
WHOLE LOT less political and military turmoil in the world but rather than confuse you with additional facts, I’ll just refer you to
piercehawkeye45’s response. :cool:
But ... but ... you were there! You and Radar both!
…… and now a war-time favourite tune
“Mi Brue Heben” sung by Jung Yun Leane. A one and a two ..... :drummer:
Actually, I served in the sequel:
"The Sun Sets in the East" :f179:
You mean you didn't serve with Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 4077?
…. and those surgery-tent cut ups Capt. Hawkeye Pierce, Doc Painless, Spearchucker Jones, Major Burns, Hotlips Hoolihan and the rest of those lovable guys and gals at the M*A*S*H unit. :f178: :f207:
Patriotism for patriotism's sake is nothing but self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing.
These are the most important words spoken on this thread so far. Concise and to the point. :shotgun:
Thats bullshit Ibby. What is sad is that neither you nor PH have any idea of how awesome a country America is.
The country is awesome because so many people do not have your view of patriotism that Ibram so accurately defined -
Patriotism for patriotism's sake is nothing but self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing.
A great patriot does not go about waving flags, wearing flags on a lapel, and singing songs of glory. The great patriot innovates. He gets an education. He advances mankind. He sees wrong and tried to right it, sees suffering and tried to heal it, sees war and tried to stop it. There is no glory in patriotism as so often expressed in self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing. It is that misguided patriotism that created the American disasters in Vietnam and Iraq. That tried to create nuclear war with the USSR. Fortunately, men are in increasing numbers over the centuries that that boys brainwashed by patriotism are a problem; not a solution.
Yes we need cannon fodder from time to time. So we hype them up with acclaims of patriotism and send them off. But sacrificing one for his country does not make a great man. The greater man comes back alive with the knowledge of how such patriotism can be misguided - or what really makes a great patriot. The great men don’t fight wars. They accomplish greater victory without conflict. That is the real patriot – different from what so many misguided souls believe.
Ibram is right on the money accurate. To become a man, one eventually learns what Ibram has defined.
If you take a look from some American Indians, blacks, poor, and exploited foreigners perspective, you might see something different. All the benefits we receive are off the blood and bones of those four groups whether you will like to admit it or not. We NEEDED to displace, kill, and screw over the American Indians to get their land. We NEED(ED) the blacks for slave labor for the south, a static label to juxtapose whiteness (privileged class) with, and many of them die in our today's wars with very little benefits. We NEED the poor to power our urban areas and economy while they receive the short end of the stick on living conditions and pay. We NEED to exploit foreign countries to get rich (this mainly applies to the upper-class, not us) and our low prices at Walmart.
Are you really gonna bring up this crap? #1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country. Yes blacks were used as slave labor - IIRC we abolished that, right? Did we take the land from the indians? Yes and your point is? There will be rich and poor in every society, and our poor have it it infinitely better than most, if not all, other country's poor. ok, fine start naming some other "great countries" which did not exploit some other group to advance their own ideals. I'll wait. I think that America does a hell of a lot for the world as a whole and you are focusing on much of the negativity of the past. Did "America" make mistakes and do bad things, of course, but I think we have gone a long way to learn from and rectify them.
Are you really gonna bring up this crap?
Crap? Is it not true?
#1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country.
First, I'm really tired of the "the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries" reasoning. Its just a cop-out. If we have a problem in our country, no matter how it relates to other countries, we should try to fix it in a reasonable manner.
Second, do you know how the poor compare to other first-world countries?
Yes blacks were used as slave labor - IIRC we abolished that, right?
So you think everything is going to be just fine if when we stopped slavery? Everyone would like that to be the case, but it just isn't true. Blacks still represent the underprivileged class and there are still racial disparities as much as we would like to ignore and blame them on blacks.
Also, you are making it sound like we did blacks a favor by freeing them?
Did we take the land from the indians? Yes and your point is?
Acknowledge the fact that the only reason you can live your life like it is today is because we took stole from, killed, and deceived the American Indians. You didn't kill anyone, but you are benefiting from your ancestors killing them.
ok, fine start naming some other "great countries" which did not exploit some other group to advance their own ideals. I'll wait.
There are no "great countries" that haven't exploited other countries or have benefited of the exploitation of others. America is no different. If I wanted to push the case, I would just talk about the level of exploitation but that would get too messy.
I think that America does a hell of a lot for the world as a whole and you are focusing on much of the negativity of the past. Did "America" make mistakes and do bad things, of course, but I think we have gone a long way to learn from and rectify them.
But how do you know we have rectified them?
I'll give you a hypothetical example. Lets say me and you are running a race, 100 meter dash. And because I want the upper hand, I break your leg right before the race. Now, because I did that, I got disqualified and someone else is taking my place and the race is set for the next day. But, because you have a broken leg, the race can never be fair. If we give you a head start, the other guy will complain saying that "he didn't break your leg so he shouldn't be penalized for it" and if you don't get a head start, you will be at a very steep disadvantage.
Now here is the question. By disqualifying me from the race, did we rectify the situation? By giving you a head start, did we rectify the situation? The answer to both the questions are no. The only way the situation will be rectified is when your leg heals, and that comes with time. In the meantime, my replacement will still be benefiting off my misdeeds no matter what his original views are. That is the problem.
That is why there is really no way of rectifying many of the situations that are present today. Yes, we are not doing the misdeeds that we have done in the past, but we are still benefiting from them and there is very little anyone can do about it except trying to speed of the healing process, which ironically usually does the opposite.
But yes, I have been focusing more on the negative parts just as you have been focusing on the positive parts. There is no need from me to mention the positive parts because those are not needed for my argument, but notice how I don't deny them either. If we are arguing over abortion, why would put out an argument for your side? The point of my argument is to say that America has done its fair share of misdeeds and then shouldn't be labeled a "good" country. Everyone knows of America's positive effects, so it is irrelevant using them in my argument. And please don't take me as we are a "bad" country either. We are as I said numerous times, a country that is just protecting our own interests, very little good or evil can come from that statement.
I'm really tired of the "the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries" reasoning. Its just a cop-out. If we have a problem in our country, no matter how it relates to other countries, we should try to fix it in a reasonable manner.
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that at all. I was speaking in terms of relativity. I think we all know there is a problem. To what degree and the decisions on how to address it are not mine to make.
So you think everything is going to be just fine if when we stopped slavery? Everyone would like that to be the case, but it just isn't true. Blacks still represent the underprivileged class and there are still racial disparities as much as we would like to ignore and blame them on blacks.
I am not ignoring nor blaming blacks for anything. I did not say, nor imply that at all!
Also, you are making it sound like we did blacks a favor by freeing them?
I said no such thing! Not even close. You want us to recognize a problem and correct it, yes? Well all I said is that is what we attempted to do so and still are attempting to address issues regarding racial bias. There is only so much a gov't can do to correct a problem through legislation though. Most of this particular issue may be cultural, not procedural.
Acknowledge the fact that the only reason you can live your life like it is today is because we took stole from, killed, and deceived the American Indians. You didn't kill anyone, but you are benefiting from your ancestors killing them.
Oh please - are you serious? Lets say that one caveman clan killed another clan and took their territory. This particular clan evolved into oh lets just say - Americans - Am I to blame for their actions too? I mean, seriously, how far back do you want to look?
There are no "great countries" that haven't exploited other countries or have benefited of the exploitation of others. America is no different.
That is why there is really no way of rectifying many of the situations that are present today. Yes, we are not doing the misdeeds that we have done in the past, but we are still benefiting from them and there is very little anyone can do about it except trying to speed of the healing process, which ironically usually does the opposite.
I agree.
If we are arguing over abortion, why would I put out an argument for your side? The point of my argument is to say that America has done its fair share of misdeeds and then shouldn't be labeled a "good" country. Everyone knows of America's positive effects, so it is irrelevant using them in my argument. And please don't take me as we are a "bad" country either. We are as I said numerous times, a country that is just protecting our own interests, very little good or evil can come from that statement.
Re: the first sentence - To get to the truth instead of winning a pointless argument - Isn't that what we are trying to do here find reasons and answers? Or are we here just to argue. Heck, I don't want to waste my time on that.
America has made mistakes, yes, but overall is America a good or bad country? That is the ultimate question and I say its a good one. But again, that is just my opinion.
Although this discourse is interesting, I will point to the obvious - you will never agree nor see things through the others eyes. But unlike the Kenyans, the two of you aren't going to kill each other, then have your family kill the others family, then ravage the land the others family lived on.
I spent 6 months in Africa. I consider myself a liberal, or maybe a conservative liberal, or maybe a libertarian. Anyway, after 6 months there I have come to the conclusion the west (USA and western Europe) should leave en masse. CENTURIES of aid to them have done nothing. You can say the aid had an agenda behind it, but we (collectively) have built schools only to have them turn into squatting huts. Dug wells only to have one tribe refuse to let another tribe use it, and then when it breaks, the few people we taught how to fix it are either dead and taught no one else, or they've forgotten. We send food, to have one tribe use it as a weapon against another. We (collectively) have not been able to convince them to rise above their tribal roots - something that was accomplished in Europe (to a greater or lesser extent, arguably, depending on location) following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. I had an Ethiopian Muslim tell me woman are lazy and should have no rights - all while I watched the women carry loads of sticks on their backs to go to the market to sell as firewood so they can feed their children, while the men were busy chewing quat (a drug) and sitting in a drug induced stupor. I went to the dedication of a new school - and watched the mayor of the town ask the aid organization "what are you giving me next?"
After centuries of aid, what the preponderance of the people in Africa know is that wait and the westerners will give you food. Our centuries of aid have created a continent that expects one hand out after another. I can't blame them - its all they know. But it needs to stop. After centuries of trying to bring them from tribal roots and trying to help them become self sustaining, and all of this has failed - maybe we should stop trying and let them solve it on their own. Maybe coming to know that America or England or France isn't going to drop of tons of rice will make them become self sustaining.
BTW, UN forces are not on "stand by" waiting to go to a crisis. There were no large indicators violence was going to happen to this degree. Kenya did not ask for UN help. So, how could the UN have responded? Anyone think of that?
As far as references to Darfur, the AU peacekeepers there are under a limited mandate that limits their involvement, and are ill trainined and equipped to deal with the mess. The main reason the forces are their is because the providing nations receive money for sending troops there. And its not as simple as red vs white. There are over 26 warring factions. An ill-trained and poorly equipped force definitely can't handle that, and quite frankly, neither can the US or any other western nation.
So, how could the UN have responded? Anyone think of that?
Oh be fair, they could have responded to the crisis by turning all the children into sex slaves.
It's what they do, and when they say they'll stop it,
they just continue.
Re: the first sentence - To get to the truth instead of winning a pointless argument - Isn't that what we are trying to do here find reasons and answers? Or are we here just to argue. Heck, I don't want to waste my time on that.
I agree with you, I thought our arguments were to find "the truth"? I am not going to purposely deceive or lie to anyone just to win and you have shown that you aren't going to either.
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that at all. I was speaking in terms of relativity. I think we all know there is a problem. To what degree and the decisions on how to address it are not mine to make.
How was I putting words in your mouth?
#1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country.
the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries
The only flaw I see out of my logic is that I said complaining instead of "it isn't such a big deal because...". For that, my fault, but my second sentence still backs up what I should have said in the first place.
I am not ignoring nor blaming blacks for anything. I did not say, nor imply that at all!
I was making a generalization with the "as much as
we would like to ignore or blame...". That was more of a rant to make a point than an accusation towards you.
I said no such thing! Not even close.
I'm sorry, this is my fault, I changed my post and forgot to edit that.
But, when the topic goes to slavery and someone responds "we freed them didn't we", that almost always is in a context where they are making it seem like did they a favor by freeing them and that rectified the problem. You did say "we did free them right?" in a defensive manner, so I meant to questioned you to see what you meant. I first had it as an accusation, but then reconsidered to make it a question and forgot to take out the 'you'.
You want us to recognize a problem and correct it, yes? Well all I said is that is what we attempted to do so and still are attempting to address issues regarding racial bias. There is only so much a gov't can do to correct a problem through legislation though. Most of this particular issue may be cultural, not procedural.
For a broad generalization, yes, I want to recognize a problem and correct it but I don't mean that in the typical liberal way, which has made the problem even worse. There are ways the government can correct this problem, but it is in ways that are not being used now, and they are not the typical liberal way of thinking. It would actually seem more like a conservative solution than liberal.
And yes, I agree that most of it has to do with individuals as well.
Oh please - are you serious? Lets say that one caveman clan killed another clan and took their territory. This particular clan evolved into oh lets just say - Americans - Am I to blame for their actions too? I mean, seriously, how far back do you want to look?
You can take it as far back as you want and you will find the same thing. Actually, many of the American Indians we stole land from weren't actually the original settlers, which sticks to my point of Americans not being any better or worse than most other nations.
Also, I would like to point out that if any other country would do what we did the the American Indians in present times, we would see human rights violations up the a-hole. So this is a matter of hypocrisy and understanding of what we did to get the land we have now.
In reality, I am not really worked up about this because it has happened so many times before and will happen many times in the future, but the denial that we destroyed a continent of a diverse, advanced (in some parts, hence the diverse), and normal people to get what we have. There is nothing we can do to change the past and I don't even like talking about the morality of actually changing it but it is the denial that gets to me.
I am not accusing you with any of that, just making a point.
America has made mistakes, yes, but overall is America a good or bad country? That is the ultimate question and I say its a good one. But again, that is just my opinion.
Cool. I really don't have much disagreements with a general subjective view on the United States but I attacked what I saw was an objective view that the United States was good, which I disagree with on an objective level.
A genuine patriot, tw, does NOT try what you are on record as trying here: cutting down absolutely every single tactic and strategy likely to result in our winning the war. Tw, you just can't bullshit people with normal minds. Particularly not you. Jeez, buddy, the only reason you try it is to gratify a subconscious masochistic urge: there are people here who think the stupid-Left needs a good hard spanking, one that will go on and on for seven generations.
there are people here who think the stupid-right needs a good hard spanking. One that will go on and on until you use the safety word.
The only flaw I see out of my logic is that I said complaining instead of "it isn't such a big deal because...” For that, my fault, but my second sentence still backs up what I should have said in the first place.
I meant that since our poor are better off than those in other countries are by comparison, we as a country are doing something toward the problem. I certainly did not say nor mean that the poor don’t exist or that we shouldn’t try to help the less fortunate become more independent & productive members of society.
I meant that since our poor are better off than those in other countries are by comparison, we as a country are doing something toward the problem. I certainly did not say nor mean that the poor don’t exist or that we shouldn’t try to help the less fortunate become more independent & productive members of society.
This issue is a matter of perspective. The fact that you/we live in a first world country and yet still have people living in poverty is inexcusable however, the fact remains that economically, it is necessary for there to be a certain proportion of people to live under these conditions in order to provide jobs for all those that get paid to worry about them.
In order to remove this problem, the whole structure of society must be changed, and change doesn't happen very quickly.
Ali, I think it is impossible to remove ALL poverty. Just like utopia or perfection do not exist.
Well if you let yourself start thinking you could change the world, who knows what could happen.
Just cause it can't happen is NO reason not to try.
Or even, just because you think it can't happen is no reason it can't.
ok and I'm the one that gets ridiculed for being optimistic or idealistic - Geez!
The point is, if you're happy to say things like, 'it can never happen' that's as good as saying, 'there's nothing I can do, so why bother trying'. There's nothing wrong with being positive in your outlook on problems which should/could be manageable.
No at all, I never said not to try, in fact, I've clearly stated that we should try to do more. I took offense to your comment
"The fact that you/we live in a first world country and yet still have people living in poverty is inexcusable~snip~"
There will never be ZERO - its a fact - Please don't confuse that with working toward reducing the number as much as possible.
ok and I'm the one that gets ridiculed for being optimistic or idealistic - Geez!
Now who would do that...
But getting rid of poverty is quite easy. You see it is a term that doesn't have a set meaning. Which means that if I set the poverty rate down to -$100,000, we have no one in poverty!!! :D
But realistically, getting rid of poverty with this many people on the planet and our level of technology is impossible. If we want to get rid of poverty we would have to either kill off billions of people (hint: this will backfire don't try (see Hitler)) or somehow become so efficient with our technology that we can feed, clothe, and house everyone. The backdrop to the second part is that by the time we do get to that point, the population will rise again and then we will have a new number to catch unless there is some form of birth regulation.
But getting rid of poverty in a first world nation is technically possible but not realistic since there are people who actually prefer to live on the streets, usually mentally ill, and the fact that we live in a heavily stratified society so there will always be the lower class. Also, I am kind of going out on a limb here so correct me if I'm wrong, but in a regulated economy, there will usually always be some unemployment so that will not be something we can get rid of.
Getting to my original point, even though we will not get rid of poverty in the United States, we can make realistic improvements to lower the number that are currently in that state or at least improve the social mobility.
America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country.
Oh. My God. This guy is really an idiot. Did he not go to school or are the schools so deficiant of any information - other than American propaganda? :smashfrea
..... getting rid of poverty is quite easy.
But I think what
Classicman needs is an explanation that will bring him out of the darkness. He seems to think that the most poverty-stricken American has a better life than those impoverst people in other countries. Classicman has never heard of socialism (it seems) nor would he understand what it means to have free medical care and a sensible un-employment system that doesn't leave
any of its' citizens in a state of poverty.
Good luck to you if you take on the assignment. :)
Classicman if I am not mistaken, much of your social security is based on families with children? If you are a young man who can't find work in an area of high unemployment, what help is available to you?
Of the help that's available, how much of it is provided through a voucher system and how much through actual currency?
In the UK, some asylum seekers on, a particular programme, awaiting a decision on their case, are provided with vouchers in order to get what they need. It's never enough, it means they are unable to go to anywhere that isn't within walking distance (often with families having been split up into different areas and twns, but thats a whole other debate:P) and they have the social stigma of buying things in shops with vouchers. Might as well stick a big sign over their head.
If you're unemployed you get a fortnightly payment into your bank, or as a cheque for the post office to cash. It isn't enough, not by a long shot, but with careful money management it is enough to feed and provide basics, alongside a few sparse luxuries like cigarettes and maybe a couple of pints at a weekend. After a certain amount of time (used to be a year, I think its six months now) you start to come under more pressure to take up some kind of work or training. Throughout your claim you report in every fortnight to show what you've been doing to try and find work. Help is available to get into training schemes and 'jobsearch' programmes are mandatory after 6 months. If you don't attend the programmes, you get a penalty, of maybe two or three weeks at half your benefit. (emergency rate).
We have poverty in the UK. Some half a million children live below the official poverty line. I really don't think the poor here, are as badly off as they are in many other places (I suspect including America). On the other hand I know there are countries where the poor are a damn sight better off than here.
Oh. My God. This guy is really an idiot.
Sorry,
Classicman. I apologise. I should never have jumped to such a hasty conclusion. :notworthy
Are the poor better off or are the poor hidden?
Even in areas of high unemployment, you can gaurentee McDonald's is highering. Although minimum wage isn't enough to 'make it on your own' (nor is it intended to), there's always a way to make money. My brother supported his family working at Taco Bell taking every single shift offered to him and working his way up to management when he and his wife were first married and they had their 1st son, all on a GED. They lived in a cramped one bedroom apartment on the bad side of town, but guess what, they made it. They didn't starve, they had a roof over their head and clothes on their back. Today they have 2 pre-teens, my brother has a decent paying job in construction, and his wife is able to home school their kids (not because they're right wing, but because the older boy was asked not to return to school... a fight after the teacher called him stupid in front of the class for being a slow reader).
My sister was a single mom and used welfare and student aid so she could get training in radiology. Although not rich today by any means, she has a job that allows her and her daughter to live in a modest 2 bedroom home, and to have some of the 'necessities' for a teenager (x-box, ipod, cell phone).
Seeing the error in the ways of my siblings, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. Not only did the pay allow me to get a BA degree, but I also was able to get a MS. I work in policy today. My point - if you want to support your family in the USA, you'll find a way. The homeless you see on street corners are there by choice. Most can make over $100 a day at a good intersection. And the mentally ill, although sad, cannot be forced into hospitals because then were taking away their freedom.
Poverty will never be eliminated. But the governments in the UK and USA and other western states all TRY. By varying degrees, and differing programs, but the fact is every developed nation has programs to address the poor and homeless. What works in one nation will not always work in another. You cannot compare two nations just because they are both "developed". Japan has a lower homeless rate because it would bring shame on a family for one of their family members to be homeless. They take care of family. The same is true in most developed nations that have a homogeneous population. In a melting pot like the USA, where family ties are much weaker and there is no societal pressure to 'take care' of family, and families are often quite physically distant, you do not have the family support, of lets say, Japan or Norway or Sweden. Its easier for a government to take care of the poor when the families pick up most of the burden.
The homeless you see on street corners are there by choice. Most can make over $100 a day at a good intersection.
Care to back this up with a cite? I don't believe
most homeless people make that kind of money. That's
more than double what a person earning the federal minimum wage ($5.85) would make in an 8 hour day of working.
How many cars go threw a busy intersection in a matter of hours? THOUSANDS. Let's say the light is red every 5 minutes. At each red light he gets $2 from panhandling. That's $24 an hour. Every time I get stuck at a red light with a homeless man panhandling, someone gives a buck or two or ten. I've seen a man get money from 5 cars IN A ROW. Whether it was $1 per car or $10, I don't know. But in less than 5 minutes he had at least 5 dollars. That exponentially increases around the holidays as people feel more inclined to donate.
An article was written in Austin when I was there as a student in the 90s. The University of Texas newspaper (which is quite liberal... UT and Austin are far left) followed a former student who dropped out and made a living off panhandling. By day he was a homeless bum in front of a bookstore. At night he lived in a nice apartment. Since that expose, the number of panhandlers in Austin has skyrocketed.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328421_beggar21.html
From Seattle:
"There's this woman panhandler we've seen who has a nice Suburban with two big kennels in the back," said Dalana Slaughter, safety supervisor to the ambassadors who patrol Seattle for the Give Smart campaign. "To me, that's not homeless."
Slaughter also knows another beggar who fakes injury. "I've seen her sit in the wheelchair, I've seen her get out of the wheelchair," Slaughter said. "Her husband sits down and then he panhandles."
Dreisinger said she knows of a beggar who makes $300 a day. She also heard one panhandler boast that begging got him $26,000 a year -- tax-free."
Out of Memphis
http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1522655
Panhandlers might have more cash on hand than you do
"A "pied panhandler" of Beale Street is jammin' all the way to the bank. Michael Antonio is a panhandler. "There's men out here right now making hundreds and hundreds." Hundreds of dollars just by asking for it. You see, in downtown Memphis, panhandling is kinda like poker. You can make big money and few people ever call your bluff. We called another panhandler "Little Walter Wannabe's." Turns out he's far from broke.
James Harvey is frustrated with panhandlers. "They down here hustling and begging and while I'm here working 8 hours a day and they make 150 dollars while I make 90 dollars. I should be a bum snatcher." Apparently, he wouldn't even need much of an angle. Franklin Simpson just follows around groups of tourists. Simpson added, "I could average 200 dollars a night if I was just straight out panhandling." And this guy hits up couples using nothing more than a smile."
OK. So at one good intersection you have seen, one homeless dude can do well. How many homeless do you think there are in Austin? How many intersections? Do people pay the homeless at every intersection? Is the traffic at all those intersections constant, or is there a morning rush and an evening rush with little in between?
I don't doubt that a handful of homeless people in one city can do fairly well, but I seriously doubt that "most" homeless people in the US make $100/day.
The true poor are the uneducated single mothers struggling to care and feed their kids. But the government helps them the most. And aid societies help them the most. The ones that suffer are either too scared or too shy or too ashamed to ask for help, or they just don't know who to ask for help from. The help is out there. Children in the US don't starve to death, unless their parent refuses to feed them (and there are sick cases of this). There are countless free food programs. They can eat breakfast and lunch for free in schools. The parents get food stamps (for what... food). Churches and other aid organizations give out boxes and boxes of food.
66% of homeless people suffer from drug addiction, alcohol addiction, or mental illness. And no, folks, the first two aren't necessarily choices.
Those opportunistic sumabitches.
I got distracted as I wrote that post and missed your additional two anecdotal cites.
What I'm saying is that each city will have its handful of hustling homeless dudes who do fairly well, and at the same time, each city will have hundred or thousands of others who sleep in the parks during the day and eat in soup kitchens and spend the night in shelters. They aren't making the $100/day you claim, and they are the overwhelming majority. I walk past scores of them every day.
The homeless you see on street corners are there by choice. Most can make over $100 a day at a good intersection.
You have to take the entire text in context.
Does it say all homeless? No, it clearly states the one's we see on street corners.
Yes, alcohol and drug addiction are choices. No one forced a bottle into their hands or a needle into their arms. And guess what? Even if you want to play the "oh pity the addicts" card, you'll be the first one to say we can't take away their rights and force them into treatment or force the mentally ill into hospitals. Double edged sword there... "Its not their fault" and "we have to help" but "we can't force them". Guess what - if we can't force them, the problem will never go away. Never. So which do you choose? I'll keep the problem just not to have them sue over 'taking away rights'. And not to mention it is a slippery slope... if you force the homeless bum into treatment, what about the struggling student, or the high powered exec?
My father had a dehabilitating stroke when I was two. His company took care of my family for 5 years while he recovered. After 5 years, my father was better - but he was never going to be at the same level he was before. The company asked my father to find another job. He bounced from job to job for 2 years, fell into depression (probably had an undiagnosed mental break down), and didn't work for the next 8 years. My mother, with absolutely no education and 8 children to care for, worked 3 jobs to keep a roof over our head and keep us fed. We moved from a nice upper-middle class home to a small 3 bedroom home in the not-so-good part of town. She delivered papers at 4 in the morning. Then she sold bags of nuts/fruits/candy/chocolates door to door for a small local company. After she came home from that, us kids restocked her van for the next day while she went to the local convienence store and worked the evening shift. My sister at 16 waited tables and gave the money she earned to my parents. Our church would occasionally give us boxes of food. They knew we were struggling, but also knew my family was proud and didn't want hand outs. I know what its like to be the poor kid in ragged hand me downs at school that gets teased (I had to wear my brothers coat - that got me laughed at), the kid that turns down birthday party invites because you know you can't afford to bring a present, the kid that doesn't join girl scouts because it takes $5 to join. I know the humiliation of waiting after church for almost everyone to leave to take the box of free food. And from all this I know if someone works hard and asks for help when they absolutely must, they can support themselves. We always had a roof over our head and food on the table. I'll donate food, but I won't donate money.
But you got a great name out of the deal!
lol!
So, how does this go from debating about Kenya to arguing about poverty in America? I tried to get it back on track yesterday but had no luck...
You walk in your shoes Aimee, and you carry with you your life experiences and the things you have witnessed. Others walk in their own shoes, and carry entirely different life experiences, not to mention genetically in-built proclavities, talents and potential areas of weakness. The fact that some people can point to their lives and say I survived, and I did ok, despite these many barriers and anchors, does not necessarily mean that some other person given a very similar set of circumstances will be able to achieve the same outcome.
I do not, for one moment, believe that most poverty is entirely, or even primarily self-inflicted. I do believe there are people who are living in poverty and distressing circumstances, whose life choices and general attitudes have put them where they are. I believe they are a minority. I think the people who manage to break the patterns and chains of poverty are the exceptions who prove the rule. And I very much do not believe we should base our approach to ameliorating poverty on the experience of the exceptions.
You said it way better than I ever could have, DanaC.
And I do not believe that addiction is a choice. You can choose to try to come to terms with it, and do the work to overcome, but you do not choose the predisposition.
In my life are two very important people: one who has been sober 9 years...loves life and family, and is still the funniest guy I know. The other has fled the state because he doesn't want to quit drinking, and is leaving behind beautiful grandchildren and people who love him. Did he choose this? I can't believe that he would choose to give up what was once a very good life, if he wasn't in the arms of something much bigger than he can deal with.
What made the difference in these two people? If we knew that, there would be no addiction. Something, someone, something deep inside him made the former able to find the strength to achieve sobriety. His illness is not the illness of the latter one; each has his own illness that we cannot begin to comprehend because we are not them.
I thank God every day for the one who is doing great. I pray for the one who is not.
But I know they didn't choose the illness.
Dana I wholeheartedly agree that each of us views life from our own experiences. I do not believe that everyone has the strength to overcome adversity on their own. But many organizations exist to help. However, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Welfare and aid organizations help those that are least able to cope - the familes. As Shawnee points out, 66% of homeless people have alcohol and drug problems and/or are mentally ill. Not to say we should completely abandon them, but they should receive less aid. The addicts blow away money on their addiction. Until they want to change, want to stop the addiction, providing them aid only continues the addiction. An alcoholic (homeless or successful) will deny treatment until he/she has reached the point where they can admit the problem and want to change. The mentally ill that are homeless want their freedom. And unless we take away their freedom, all the assistance we give will only continue their problem. It may seeem merciful to give them aid, but the reality is this only continues the problem. The old addage, "if you give a man a fish he eats for a night, you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime" applies. If you give the addicts and mentally ill aid but don't change their behavior, the problem will not go away.
In an emergency room, triage is used so those with the most life threatening illnesses and injuries are treated first. If you go in with a broken finger, it may take 12 hours before you are seen. Go in with multiple internal injuries from a car accident, you're at the front of the line. The same sort of triage exists in the US for the poor. Collectively it has been decided those at the front of the line are the families. The rest fall by the way side. There are not enough resources to take care of every homeless person unless you cut other programs. And even if you cut other programs, would throwing money at drug addicts and mentally ill change the problem? They have to want to change.
My family did not have money for college. But my family valued education. All but one brother has a college degree of some sort by working their way through college (and depending on aid). I believe education is the key to bringing people out of poverty. And I don't believe money (loans and grants) available is understood by many students. One reason I enlisted was because my mom told me in no way would she co-sign on a student loan, and I had no clue that I could get a loan at 18 without my parents co-signing. I assumed I couldn't go to college. I also enlisted because I though ROTC meant I would be a weekend reservist... lol. But through a lot of hard work and a lot of luck, I got my education. So, to break the cycle of family poverty, the children need to be aware of what their potential is, what programs and resources are out there to help them achieve an education that will bring them out of poverty.
Shawnee - what do you propose the solution is? Do you continue to enable the addict?
I have a brother and sister who have both been through AA. My sister was an alcoholic and druggie in her early 20s (part of the whole 80s craze). One day she woke up and realized she didn't like what had become of her life. She went through AA it must be about 15 years ago. She is one of the women I admire the most. For my brother, it took 3 DUIs to wake him up. But he's been sober about 8 years now. He is completely devoted to his family now.
Addicts unfortunately have to reach that point - and that point varies from person to person - in which they wake up and say "I need to change. And I need to change today." For some people its realizing they don't like who they've become. Others its because its one too many times in jail. And some its only when they have seriously hurt or killed another. So how long to we enable them? Is it more humane to not enable them, and thus bringing them lower, and hopefully closer to their 'point' of asking for help with their addiction sooner?
Where is the enabling you speak of? Do you mean by people giving money to homeless?
That is personal choice, to give, and was something I had not addressed. Rather, I addressed that addiction, like mental illness, cannot be solved by a "wake up and smell the coffee and get better, mister, or else."
We can all point to those who have overcome. All my life I've heard people say "So and so got out of the ghetto (substitute the words poverty, or 'the gutter', or 'out from under the bridge') and made a life, so there is no excuse for the other so and so to not do so."
The first so and so had something, someone, something inside that made the first so and so do something. I cannot judge why the second so and so is unable to do so, and would not disrespect either those who have found the way or those who haven't by pretending I know there's a magic formula and if everyone would just get with the program there would be no problem.
So is this about Kenya in crisis, or Memphis in crisis with the homeless people?
Hell, I don't know. I'm just typin'. ;)
America is a stratified society, no matter how much we try, there will always be people on the bottom.
I don't like generalizing off personal stories because it is such a small sample size that doesn't necessarily represent society as a whole. You probably could find just as many stories that go the other way.
My point in this totally off subject thread was addressing the several people who were faulting the US for having poverty, and several posts in which multiple people stated more or less "if you look at other countries their poor are better off" (in response to a post that our poor have it better off). Too hard to quote everyone verbatum. Bottom line - the US government has programs and has aid organizations. We don't have a homogenous society like Japan where families take care of their own and it would bring shame on a family to have a homeless uncle. Each developed nation government tries to cope with their unique poverty issues. Sweden is different from the UK which is different from the USA. Its inaccurate to say a government better addresses poverty when there is not a common baseline to start from and compare to. An apple tree produces more apples than a pumpkin plant produces pumpkins, but are you going to insult the pumpkin plant and imply the pumpkin plant isn't doing his job?
Personal stories are a sampling of society. Everyone has their own stories. And no ones story is worth more than the next. Something can be garnered from, learned from, everyone's unique story.
snip ~ An apple tree produces more apples than a pumpkin plant produces pumpkins, but are you going to insult the pumpkin plant and imply the pumpkin plant isn't doing his job?
Only if the pumpkin plant is a homeless alcoholic. :lol: Just a little levity there.
No, the pumpkin plant isn't a homeless alcoholic. He's working on it, but its too cold for the pumpkins to make the pumpkin alcohol inside their shell. But the apple tree keeps trying to walk to the bus stop to hitch a ride to New York (he heard all about the bright lights in the Big Apple). However, his roots just won't let go! lol
Ok, I'm not the best joke maker ever born...
You did a fine job! It's been great talking to you.
Thanks!
Well, the latest news headline from MSNBC is "Protesters riot after Kenya cabinet announcement"
Looks like the violence will continue there.
Ok, back on topic now everyone...
Fuck Kenya.
"Protesters riot after Kenya cabinet announcement" Looks like the violence will continue there.
Did you think it was going to suddenly stop for some reason?
Please enlighten us.
America is a stratified society, no matter how much we try, there will always be people on the bottom.
Yes. To be fair though, I will stick out my neck and say that "
the bottom" is found in every country of the world - not only America. But, from your earlier post on the relativity of what constitutes "poverty" (in various societies), I think you will agree with me that the important factor is not so much that there exists a
"bottom" but at what standard of living do these
"bottom people" find themselves. ie. are they
destitute or are they
millionaires living in a country of multi-millonaires?
Did you think it was going to suddenly stop for some reason?
Please enlighten us.
I was just trying to get us back on topic... No, I didn't think it would magically stop.
I was just trying to get us back on topic... No, I didn't think it would magically stop.
If I may offer a friendly suggestion: don't worry about trying to keep "on topic". Thread drift is allowed here, and I love it. It throws up some amazing links. There's a thread about
avocados in which we ended up discussing drinking bhong water and the nature of Aliantha's arse. :lol:
Yes. To be fair though, I will stick out my neck and say that "the bottom" is found in every country of the world - not only America. But, from your earlier post on the relativity of what constitutes "poverty" (in various societies), I think you will agree with me that the important factor is not so much that there exists a "bottom" but at what standard of living do these "bottom people" find themselves. ie. are they destitute or are they millionaires living in a country of multi-millonaires?
Yes, there is a "bottom" in every society except for true far left societies, none of which exist today or for the past 300-400 years. But when it comes to it, I would rather have a lower standard of living for the lower class but a greater opportunity for class movement than a higher standard of living with very little opportunity for class movement. The United States does allow for class movement, but it is limited by social factors and education standards. In both poor white and black schools, they expectancy of moving on too college is extremely low, along with very badly funded and run schools, so it is much harder for someone in the lower class to move up than in a place where lower class public education is closer in quality to middle and upper class public education.
But going to the standard of living for the "bottom" in the United States, we do have many people living at third world standards. A lot of the people on American Indian reservations have no running water, no electricity, and live in broken trailers. So even though the majority of the poor are better off than many parts of the world, there are still a few that live in absolutely horrible living conditions. But this is caused by a combination of corruption in both the "white" and Indian power class, neither care about the average person on the reservations.
If I may offer a friendly suggestion: don't worry about trying to keep "on topic". Thread drift is allowed here, and I love it. It throws up some amazing links. There's a thread about avocados in which we ended up discussing drinking bhong water and the nature of Aliantha's arse. :lol:
Hmmmm...thanks for reminding me. :rolleyes:
Hmmmm...thanks for reminding me. :rolleyes:
Were there any pictures?:D
If we are fighting people who are evil, who cares if we do something wrong? Frankly I do not, and I have trouble believing in the honesty of those who do.
.
Were there any pictures?:D
Nope. It wouldn't be fair of me to do that...especially for those of you who might happen to be eating at the time.
If I may offer a friendly suggestion: don't worry about trying to keep "on topic". Thread drift is allowed here, and I love it. It throws up some amazing links. There's a thread about avocados in which we ended up discussing drinking bhong water and the nature of Aliantha's arse. :lol:
Thanks for including a link too!
Oh. My God. This guy is really an idiot. Did he not go to school or are the schools so deficiant of any information - other than American propaganda? :smashfrea
So the guy who forgot how to spell "deficient" is going to call some other guy an idiot. I see.
Let's see, chum; the simplest measure of the validity of what you are pleased to call "American propaganda" is probably the fact that by itself the United States is one fifth of the world economy, year in and year out. In several senses, we work. It's indisputable we work very well. We're the ones to beat, if that's possible.
UG, not trying to sound anti-american or to appear to be hero worshipping AD, but sooner or later some other country will have an economy that'll beat that of the US. It's inevitable. The past is the best way to predict the future, and history demonstrates that all world powers end up not being the world power sooner or later. Maybe that's not a bad thing though. It's a big responsibility having to be the watchdog of the world. ;)
Well put Ali. When my mum was little, the maps and globes in school still had a very imperial flavour to them (despite having already moved into the commonwealth phase of our history). In my grandfather's day, the Empire was a reality, in which he lived. Empires fall and hegemonies fade.
... and that's not including the change of the earth due to receding water levels, volcanoes, and such.
... but sooner or later some other country will have an economy that'll beat that of the US. It's inevitable. The past is the best way to predict the future, and history demonstrates that all world powers end up not being the world power sooner or later.
The world power eventually lets their 'big dic' mentalities promote war as if war solves all problems. Greatest nations get that way by avoiding war not justified by a 'smoking gun'. War is one of the most destructive forces to any economy.
Empires don't fall just because Empires fall. Empires fall because new leaders find solutions in war - invent one if necessary. Sometimes identified by how they spell 'deficient'. Deficient as in who suffers first - the poor and homeless. So we ask who elected these leaders. Well we better ask that question because nobody is asking it in Kenya. They don't want to be deficient of fingers and toes. You see, America's poor have it much better. After all, everything is going to be just fine since we stopped slavery. We are a world power because we have better poor people. So maybe that is the real crisis in Kenya. The voters are still slaves in voting booths. But then it seems we've missed the Hiroshima-Nagasaki calculus. Well yes. After all, it's pretty well proven that we did save lives that way, simply enough by the shortening of the war. Shorten the war and we save the Empire.
If we are fighting people who are evil, who cares if we do something wrong? Frankly I do not, and I have trouble believing in the honesty of those who do. I know the above is correct because I read these exact same sentences here. God save the Empire, our glorious leader, and Kenya. Oh. That's right, This is a debate about voters in Kenya. Since a controversy does not exist, then we invent one. After all, evil must be eliminated. (I have no problem following this debate. Do you?)
I do when you take posts out of context. Thats what bugs me most about you - You are seemingly so intelligent then post this stupidity.
War is one of the most destructive forces to any economy.
tw, I think you'll find most economists would refute that statement. In fact they'd suggest it's entirely on the contrary and that war fuels economy.
tw, I think you'll find most economists would refute that statement. In fact they'd suggest it's entirely on the contrary and that war fuels economy.
Does it? The American economy prospered in the late 60s and early 70s from Nam. As a result, America sold off the world's third largest economy to pay for those post-Nam debts. Sold off a large American owned overseas industrial base. Massive debts - government and trade - were created by that war. Were you trying to get a job in the 1970s when things were so good because of Nam? That *prospering* resulted in recessions, downsizing, stagflation, a lower standard of living, loss of military strength, etc throughout the late 1970s.
Yes, some economists do confuse economic activity with productive growth. They view war as good for the economy just as it did good for pre-1800 France, Britain, and Spain. Same economists also saw sub-prime loans, lower interest rates, and SIV type accounting as only good for 2000 America using the same reasoning. A 'greed is good' mentality. Funny how those economists ignore what happens once the bills come due and all that economic activity has nothing profitable to show. Some economists also believe economic growth can be created by only throwing money at things. Again, they ignore the bigger picture.
If war is so good for an economy, then making a law that requires everyone to replace their front lawns annually would also create productive economic growth. Yes it does according to the principles advoated by some economists who confuse economic activity with growth; who also believe the Fed creates economic growth by only lowering interest rates. A smarter economist knows that war only destroys economic growth just as it also harms empires. Notice how UK spent so much on WWII - and therefore became the premier world power. Must be true if that is what some economists say?
War fuels inflation or stagflation, massive debt, the selling of a country's capital to pay for those debts, long term harm to the population (especially the 25% of veterans who end up homeless), and ... well why did their economic analysis for that year ignore the massive harm and debts that appear on spread sheets many years and a decade later?
Clearly there is no difference between growth and economic activity - according to many economists with the spread sheet mentality.
By ignoring a total picture, then war is good for an economy. Tell that to the major European powers who were so much more prosperous because of and after WWI. Tell that to the Athenians who expected to become wealthy by invading Syracuse. That war meant a demise of the Athenian economy as the major economic power. But according to most of your economists, that war only resulted in a stronger Athenian economy.
The Syracuse war did result in a better Athens because the resulting economic downturn caused Athens to appreciate that wars are destructive to economies AND to listen to nay-saying critics such as Socrates.
Only bean counter types view war as good for economies because those same spread sheets don't measure the resulting long term damage. Economies that prosper most from war are ones who don't fight and who supply the warriors. How many times repeatedly have I disputed that myth from some economists? And still that myth hangs on like a Rush Limbaugh proclamation. Do not confuse economic activity with positive growth.
You are seemingly so intelligent then post this stupidity.
Did I forget to quote some of your posts in that 'stupidity'? Or should I spell it out for you: the stupidity criticized by Classicman are quotes from others in this thread. Would the word 'plagiarizing' better explain who actually posted the stupidity? Or is Classicman angry because he was not quoted? Is Classicman now mad because he did not understand he was criticizing others; again failed to grasp the context of the gag? Classicman - it required you to read and understand what was posted before making an emotional assumption. I figured you would respond with vindictive criticism and not get the gag. You tend to read only what you want to see – and you did it again.
I have no problem following this debate. Do you?
Only slightly. And I'm overwhelmed - in a positive sense.
I think you were being insulting to the people who posted those remarks. Thats the way it read to me anyway. I'd even go so far as to use post # 132 as evidence. If it was a "gag" tw, it wasn't one of your best - not even close. I didn't think I responded vindictively either, I was more incredulous than anything.
Oh and by the way you were on a hot streak in late summer '05. Very good stuff there.
For what it's worth, as an amateur economist I agree with tw #132.
Some economists call it the broken window fallacy. Some say that if a baker's window is smashed by a hooligan, it's good for the economy, because it means the window has to be replaced, a glazier gets business and money is moving around. But if the money for that window went instead to, say, a new oven -- not only there is the economic activity of buying the oven, but there is then the ability for the baker to bake more things, be more productive... an advance.
Government can do things that increase productivity - like building bridges, schools, and supercolliders. These things continue to "give back" to productivity long after they're paid for.
It can do things that are actually anti-productive, like bridges to nowhere, ineffective programs, etc.
When it spends with war contractors, it's like spending money with the glazier; building a bomb doesn't actually make you more productive, so in one sense, it's economic activity lost. Of course without defense one has nothing, so it's not like money down a rathole.
But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?
I am not an economy major, or minor, or even taken on class. However, I do believe that war can jump-start the economy. Long term wars are a drain...
Also, there is a large idea that war drives technology. New technologies are funded during war time to find solutions. Often (although certainly not always) these technologies have dual-use, and benefit the population as a whole.
BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.
On the suject of the OT, below is an update from a friend in Kenya. No comment from me on the situation except that any conflict where opponents are ranged on tribal or religious lines is incredibly hard to resolve.
Things have been very interesting here. On the day of the election there was a huge fire in Diani which wiped out hotels/houses/shops etc. so we ran out of basic supplies and then the election violence kicked off and we really began to run out of stuff - bread/milk/eggs/meat/water/gas/phone credit/beer/petrol/diesel, everything really. Lots of tinned soup has been consumed! The problem was that nothing was getting to Mombasa from Nairobi and anything that was getting through was being kept in Mombasa, thank you very much. Went to pick up some friends from the airport about 5 days ago and we drove through this area that's had lots of trouble. The road has melted where they set up tyre blockades and set fire to them, burnt out cars/petrol stations etc. The problem is that at any sign of trouble everyone suddenly gets tribal so people from upcountry who are working at the coast get attacked so that they disappear back upcountry, leaving a job for a coastal tribal person. The main problem is that most people prefer employing upcountry people because the coastal people are lazy! Anyway, saw lots of hilarious sights, including a bus of French tourists being taken to Mombasa airport for an emergency flight with two armed guards at the front of the bus - selfish f*cks - the armed guards would hve been better off protecting Africans who actually bloody live here. Don't believe the hype about tourists being 'trapped' here - anyone could leave at any time they wanted to...
I have to laugh. The first part reminds me of going to the grocery store when a hurricane is approaching. I remember as a kid in Houston my mom would have all us kids (theres 8 of us) run around the store with a cart of our own and we'd load it up with anything we could get our hands on. lol
But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?
The oven maker can now afford to put a new room on his house and calls the glazier for that. At least, thats the theory. And they can both buy bread.
I am not an economy major, or minor, or even taken on class. However, I do believe that war can jump-start the economy. Long term wars are a drain...
Any government spending spree can kick-start an economy. It can be on war or roads or schools. With roads and schools, they continue to deliver benefits after the initial spending, but war is unlikely to do that (unless the war annexes some juicy natural resources or something).
Also, there is a large idea that war drives technology. New technologies are funded during war time to find solutions. Often (although certainly not always) these technologies have dual-use, and benefit the population as a whole.
War has driven technological advance, it is true. Advances in flight, computers, and antibiotics are clear examples of dual-use* technologies developed during wars.
However, this is not the only way to encourage technological advance.
I'm going to plagiarize my mate's PhD here and contrast DARPA with Japan, Inc.
DARPA takes government money and develops military technology. These sometimes have dual-use spinoffs, but not always. This creates a situation where to stimulate spending on these products, the only really effective way is to go to war. See previous posts about how war spending is wasteful.
Japan, Inc. takes a smaller amount of government money, gets the corporation together and plans a new wave of purely consumer products and the standards and protocols for them. This results in the economy being stimulated by consumer demand, which creates a feedback loop. Oh and doesn't kill so many people.
BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.
No! That was Al Gore! ;)
*typed "duel-use" hehehe
But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?
Your reasoning also proves that featherbedding makes a wealthier economy. If a product results in higher profits, then we must employ more people to make the same product. That means more workers with money in their pocket.
Whereas featherbedding means more people have incomes (temporarily), it also means productivity decreases. More people to produce same. Decreased productivity means more jobs lost in this industry and in other industries. But that loss of jobs is not obvious when using sound byte logic.
Reality: how do we create more jobs? We make the same product with less people every year. How if we are laying off workers? Because more productivity in any one industry means more new products from that industry, more sales and markets, and other new industries. All create many more productive jobs. Sound byte logic concludes otherwise.
Demonstrated is whether one uses common sense without experience (then assume less workers mean less jobs), OR takes a larger (and more complex) perspective to see the bigger picture. What creates more productive jobs? Doing every job with less people every year. What is the only thing that does that? Innovation.
Do we smash more windows to create a wealthier and more productive economy? Yes, when using Rush Limbaugh logic - common sense without experience and fundamental knowledge. If we suddenly have windows that never need replacement (innovation), then the glazier does new jobs that actually are productive - such as manufacturing windows that don't break. But that means the glazier must also keep getting educated. Why? Innovation means constant change - constant learning - another factor that sound byte logic both ignores and fears.
That change results in more wealth, more jobs, better standards of living, more new products and industries, etc for everyone.
Why does Rush Limbaugh logic disagree? Because Rush Limbaugh logic is based in fear of change - the status quo - no innovation. When the glazier is no longer needed, then resources are now available to develop other innovations. Notice the perspective. Don't view economics from the workers perspective. That would be silly and futile. View the bigger picture - the only thing that matters - the product.
The only way to make a wealthier economy is (and has always been) doing same work with less people, eliminating a need for jobs that maintain the status quo, and create jobs that result in something useful. What is the fundamental principle that underlies all these 'wealth creating' functions? Innovation. Innovation is not created by war or by glaziers replacing existing windows. Both jobs mean more money moving - but fewer products created. That is called inflation. Inflation means more temporary jobs today with a much larger loss of jobs tomorrow. Both jobs also mean more stifled innovation.
What I have posted contradicts sound byte economics because the real world is more complex. Sound byte economics spins wars as good for the economy - using the same spin that also proved Saddam had WMDs.
What "can jump-start the economy"? Wars? Of course not. Innovation does that. Others so little appreciate innovation as to instead credit war. If it takes a war to create innovation, then the economy has a cancerous problem with bean counters stifling innovation.
Why does it take a new gun to invent a disk drive? It does not. But sound byte logic spins such myths for the same reasons that people believe featherbedding creates more wealth. Guns result in spin off technologies such as disk drives only where spin rationalizes it.
Those who can be convinced that more guns mean disk drives are the same mentalities that Rush Limbaugh preaches to. People who know only by using sound byte logic - the 'I feel this is true' logic. The real world is more complex. 'I feel this is true' logic proves that both featherbedding and wars are productive. Neither advances mankind in direct contradiction to hype and spin.
The only thing that creates wealth for that glazier is innovation. The resulting productivity increase means fewer workers make the same product. That means more jobs for everyone. Spin reasoning cannot deal with such complex realities. Spin reasoning therefore proclaims wars and featherbedding as good for the economy.
War can create innovation. Is it the "right" innovation" No. But it can help economies. I agree not the best way. But it got us out of the depression. There was no return to the depression because the GI Bill was created. Thus returning soldiers didn't over-flood the economy with surplus labor and instead went to college.
Second, how does less workers making a product (and thus workers laid off) mean more jobs for everyone? It means less jobs.
The oven maker can now afford to put a new room on his house and calls the glazier for that.
The oven maker can now spend same money and labor to develop better ways of making that bread. The resulting productivity in bread means everyone prospers. It means the glazier may have to spend money, work harder to be educated; to operate that new bread making technology.
Notice that the human is not central in economics. The human is required to adapt to change. He must learn - get educated; or be unproductive - an enemy of the economy and punished with less money. But again, what does sound byte logic fear? Innovation - change - constant education - smarter workers - an economy viewed from the perspective of its products rather than its people. That means happier, wealthier, and more prosperous people.
Notice that I have just attacked the logic of extremist liberals and extremist conservatives simultaneously. Why? Because both are enemies of the moderates - the smarter people who can see the larger picture rather than worship sound byte reasoning.
BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.
Now let's add the additional facts forgotten by spin. Packet switching was a concept long understood by innovators. A technology stifled by large corporations such as AT&T and IBM whose top management 'knew' it would not work. Fortunately somewhere in DOD, someone saw the innovation worth exploring since their attitude was product oriented - not a bean counter attitude. AT&T and IBM were both becoming dominated by business school graduates who view innovation only in dollars and on spread sheets. A problem that continues so long that the French now own the Bell Labs and IBM computers do not serve communication functions.
BBN was created because of 'innovation fear' created by large companies such as AT&T and IBM. Somehow the frustration suffered by packet switching innovators gets forgotten in a story told by those who want 'positive' spin rather than dirty reality.
DOD only provided monetary resources after corporate America repeatedly denied innovation. Spin forgets that part of the story.
Please don't refer to me or my position as spin. I don't 'spin' things, nor do I appreciate the accusation. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you stop refering to people that do not have the same world view as you as stupid. I do not refer to those who disagree with me as stupid. It is a common courtesy that mature people extend to... well, other people they meet that haven't offended them. And as far as I can tell, I have done nothing to offend you. I'm not stupid, nor am I a spinner of facts/truth.
And DoD long provided funding, to multiple institutions looking for the best product.
Second, how does less workers making a product (and thus workers laid off) mean more jobs for everyone? It means less jobs.
I cannot change your perspective. You must do that. If you choose to view myopically, then you cannot see a bigger picture. Howfully you are only 20 years old. Spend the next ten years watching - asking damning questions while being poltiically incorrect - to appreciate how less workers on every product means more jobs. It requires you to stop taking a micro view that completely ignored innovation and that is preached by extremist conservative or liberals. Take a macro perspective to gain (work for) a whole new micro perspective.
If that last paragraph is confusing, then you have that much more work to do.
To see the bigger picture requires what the military calls a strategic objective. I have discussed this strategic objeictive often. Did you grasp the meaning? Currently you questions imply a Private's perspective. I cannot change your grasp with logic that your perspective cannot appreciate. But that reality is observed repeatedly in history. Countries that constantly do same work with less employees therefore have more jobs and must import more employees. That is what happens. Reasons why become obvious by grasping the bigger picture.
Thanks for the further insults. Obviously, you failed to grasp my initial comment that I am not an economics major, nor minor, nor even taken an economics class.
I do not see things myopically. Nor am I a Private. For that matter, I am a Major. Working in Policy and Strategy. Thankfully, not related to economics. As I previously stated... I have no education in that field. I'd love to be 20 again and unmake all the mistakes in my life... but I am quiet a bit older than that, with several degrees under my belt. Again, none in economics.
And yes I can see the bigger picture, and frankly I can probably see a bigger picture than you ever will. And no, I do not ignore innovation. I just don't take you view that narrows the scope on when and where innovation can occur.
Please don't refer to me or my position as spin. I don't 'spin' things, nor do I appreciate the accusation. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you stop refering to people that do not have the same world view as you as stupid.
Apparently you are entertaining emotions rather than dealing with the facts. Spin is exactly what is used to promote war as productive to an economy. Spin that is not based in facts or that uses half facts to make a point. You have posted popular urban myths - things justified by spin.
Spin says the Internet was developed by the military because it completely forgets the many others who were first offered the reserach and refused it - IBM and AT&T. Spin forgets to mention how many refused to innovate until finally the DoD came along. There is no way around why that other fact is missing - spin. Whether it is spin or a half fact says zero about aimeecc. aimeecc is does not even exist in (is irrelevant to) a discussion of myths and spin that forgets the frustrations of developing packet switching. aimeecc - did you know a most important part of that story about AT&T and iBM? If not, then you only knew the 'spin' version.
If getting emotional - if you think anything I have posted is insulting - then you don't belong in this discussion. I state bluntly that I am not poltically correct. One must be politically correct for those who entertain their emotions. Everything I have posted goes at politically incorrect and blunt facts. If you see any insult (and none was intended by me) then the insult is totally created in your own perception. Time to reread an only concentrate on principles.
How to read what I posted. The minute you see any insult, then read again to discover how you have completely misinterpreted my post. I make no effort to be 'careful' with anyone's emotions. One need only do that for adults who still need to be appeased. I have no interest in carefully rewording for emotional consideration. There is no insult of anyone in my posts. And they are written without wasting time worrying about emotion. People's emotions are not relevant to adults.
This is economics. The realities of ecomomics will insult those who have confused 'I feel this is true' logic with reality. Its not relevant if those realities make you upset. It's up to you to deal with the facts and to ignore your emotions. No one was insulted by me. That was never my intent. If you saw an insult, you are not reading with the intent of grasping the concepts.
Thanks for the further insults. Obviously, you failed to grasp my initial comment that I am not an economics major, nor minor, nor even taken an economics class.
I do not see things myopically. Nor am I a Private. For that matter, I am a Major. Working in Policy and Strategy. Thankfully, not related to economics. As I previously stated... I have no education in that field. I'd love to be 20 again and unmake all the mistakes in my life... but I am quiet a bit older than that, with several degrees under my belt. Again, none in economics.
All of which says you are taking everything personally where no human emotions should be found.
Did I say you were a Private? The metaphor was obvious. Apparently you are now so emotional as to convert a metaphor into a personal insult. Nowhere did anything say you are a Private or even in the military. Do you grasp the meaning and intent of a metaphor? Why does a metaphor somehow insult you? Why do you jump to that obviously not true assumption?
Nowhere were you or anyone else insulted. Defined were the concepts. Again, any emotion you see is 100% manufactured in your brain. IS that politically incorrect enough for you? Again it is not an insult of anyone. But if you entertain your emotions, then you miss the fact of where those insults are really being generated. With each post, you are apparently becoming as emotional as to now assume the metaphor about Privates (and Generals) applies to you.
You are a Major? A Major what? Asked because what does it have to do with economics?
What does your age and the mistakes made in your life have any relevance to what I have posted? It does not. But again the fact - somehow you have applied your emotions to text that requires no emotion and 100% politically incorrect logic.
aimeecc - you don't belong in this discussion if you are emotional - if you think even one sentence is personal. Please stop seeing insults were zero insults were posted. To do that, apparently, you must go away and calm down. This is economics where many of your posts are popular myth - promoted by spin - not based in how real world economics works. It means you must dispose of those myths - the spin - and take a whole new and larger perspective.
You have a problem with a most basic economic fact. How to create more jobs and wealthier employees? That means the same product every year is performed by less workers. Difficult to grasp if you do not dispose of popular myths - promoted by spin - that claim otherwise.
aimeecc the best thing you can do for your sanity and your enjoyment of the cellar is add the little muppet to your ignore list in user cp. he'll run out his usual insults and puke up another encyclopedic post (which if you google you'll see has been used dozens of times previously) based mainly on his opinions with cherry picked facts to prove everything he has ever thought is the pure unadulterated reality of life. He'll throw in plenty of barbs about your emotionalism and intellectual capacity and by the end of it you'll be surprised to find out that you have unknowingly had a long standing love affair with GWB and quite possibly may be carrying his secret love child.
so to avoid all that, just put him on ignore. he'll go back to browsing the internet for opportunities to barf an encyclopedia and you can carry on with your life with much less frustration. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will cause him to even question his superiority in any discussion.
lol Thanks for the advice.
lookout is right aimeecc. Everyone else is stupid and emotional and tw is devoid of emotion and is the knower of all things worth knowing. Anything he doesn't know isn't worth knowing and is only known by those who are emotional and stupid.
We've all been through it with him. He's rude and doesn't even seem to realize his manner of address is not socially acceptable.
You can argue with him, but there's really not point. ;)
lookout is right aimeecc. Everyone else is stupid and emotional and tw is devoid of emotion and is the knower of all things worth knowing.
Show me where it says that anywhere. Show me where aimeecc is insulted or disparaged. It does not exist.
it's your manner of address tw. You don't have the right to tell anyone they 'don't belong in this discussion' regardless of what their qualifications are, or whether or not they're emotional.
Just because you're crippled in that area, doesn't mean everyone else must be in order to have a reasonable discussion.
In order to get a proper perspective, let us first view an article
that provides us with an overview of the effects of war on a nations
economy and also pick up some answers to our questions. It mentions
that the bad effects of war could be seen in the vast amounts of
expenditure, disruption to trade, and loss of human and material
capital plus inflationary pressures.
Also taking into account, wars (if you win) can also provide positive
effects to an economy. It can stimulate economic activity by creating
jobs, improve current technology for future commercial benefit and
increase capacity utilization.
Such effects can have different consequences for a superpower economy
like the United States.
“At certain historical times and places, war can stimulate a national
economy in the short term. During slack economic times, such as the
Great Depression of the 1930s, military spending and war mobilization
can increase capacity utilization, reduce unemployment (through
conscription), and generally induce patriotic citizens to work harder
for less compensation.”
“In the 1990s, the GPS navigation system, created for U.S. military
use, found wide commercial use. Although these war-related innovations
had positive economic effects, it is unclear whether the same money
spent in civilian sectors might have produced even greater
innovation.”
“In recent centuries, the largest great-power wars have been won by
ocean-going, trading nations whose economic style differs sharply from
that of land-based empires. Rather than administer conquered
territories, these "hegemons" allow nations to control their own
economies and to trade fairly freely with each other. This free trade
ultimately benefitted hegemons as advanced producers who sought
worldwide export markets. The Netherlands after the Thirty Years' War
(1648), Britain after the Napoleonic Wars (1815), and the United
States after the World Wars (1945) each enjoyed predominance in world
trade. By virtue of superior naval military power, each of these great
powers shaped (and to some extent enforced) the rules and norms for
the international economy. For example, the international financial
institutions of the Bretton Woods system grew out of U.S. predominance
after World War II.”
“War and Economic History”
Joshua S. Goldstein
http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgeconhi.htm
Since our focus is the United States, it would be an injustice to the
discussion if we do not include citations that include the latter part
of the 19th century wherein the US actually started becoming a
military and economic power. In the article “Expanding Empire”, it
provides an extensive commentary on how the US uses war for economic
expansion that eventually benefited the American economy in the long
term.
“The first real foreign war of the United States—the Spanish American
War—took place almost simultaneously with the first real expansion in
U.S. foreign investment. And that is the real secret of understanding
that war, as it is of understanding all subsequent U.S. wars.”
“It was precisely in the 1890s that investment abroad—that is, the
export of U.S. capital—took place on any substantial scale. And in
1897, just before the Spanish-American War, there were still "only"
700 million U.S. dollars invested abroad. By 1914, the foreign
holdings had leaped to $3.5 billion—five times as much. Without the
war, this could not have happened.”
“The war with Spain was motivated by the desire to exploit Cuba,
Puerto Rico, the rest of Latin America and the Philippines, etc., and
to get complete control of the Caribbean so as to facilitate the U.S.
control of the contemplated Panama Canal and open up easier access to
business expansion in Asia. It was a question of economic expansion
and pretty much understood and openly explained as such at the time.”
This extensive document stretches to 12 web pages and mainly states
its case that the US involvement in the Philippines, Korean and
Vietnam wars were all for the sake of economic expansion. It shows
that different business segments from the auto to the retail
industries benefited from such wars.
“Expanding Empire”
http://www.workers.org/cm/empire1.html
It is however in the argument for economic stimulation that observers
view as the more acceptable instigators when the US government goes to
war. This article form the Business Week website shows how the US has
been becoming more efficient in the use of its resources during times
of war which leads to greater profit.
“If we consider World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, we have examples of
large, medium, and small wars. In World War II, peak military spending
in 1944 was 60% to 70% of prewar gross domestic product. During the
Korean War, spending peaked at around 11% of GDP in 1952, and during
the Vietnam War, it peaked at about 2% of GDP in 1968.”
“The economic effect of the Gulf War is harder to isolate because
military spending rose by only about 0.3% of GDP. The economy was in a
recession in 1990, before the war started in January, 1991. Economic
growth resumed by the second quarter of 1991 but remained low until
1992. The analysis from the other three wars suggests that little of
the recovery stemmed from the Gulf War.”
“Not all aspects of wars are favorable to economic activity, of
course. Consumers' perceived increased risk of flying, for example,
lowers the demand for air travel, and the perceived higher risk of
terrorism likely reduces business investment. However, negative
effects were also present in previous wars, including worries about
Japanese invasion of the U.S. mainland during World War II and about
Soviet missiles during the cold war. Nevertheless, the net effects of
previous wars on U.S. GDP turned out to be positive.”
“Why the War against Terror Will Boost the Economy”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_45/b3756038.htm
Now let us see the perspectives of those from a different side and
view that such arguments are impractical and do not resemble the
reality of the economic consequences of war.
Such is the dilemma of the US should it push for a war against Iraq.
“Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that
peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991
demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. That
conflict contributed mightily to the onset of the recession of 1991
(which was probably the key factor in denying the first President Bush
re-election in 1992).”
“Whichever way one looks at it, the economic effects of war with Iraq
will not be good. Markets loathe uncertainty and volatility. War, and
anticipation of war, bring both. We should be prepared for them.”
“The myth of the war economy “
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4588495,00.html
“'In previous periods when the U.S. has been involved in war, what you
typically end up with is an artificially propped up economy followed
by a decline in economic activity when the war is over,’ said
economist Patty Silverstein of Littleton-based Development Research
Partners.”
“'War is a wonderfully inflationary pressure on the economy,’ added
Tom Clark, director of the Jefferson Economic Council in Jefferson
County. ‘It's a wonderfully nonproductive use of assets, usually
followed by a period of hyper-inflation.’”
“Iraq war could hurt local economy”
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2002/10/21/story1.html
I also found other articles that may help you since these ones are
additional discussions on the merits and negative effects of the
participation of the US in a war.
“Relationship Between 20th Century Money and 20th Century Wars”
http://heily.com/mark/wizards/wizards-html/node26.html
“The Economics of War”
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-04-02.html
“Interventionism 101 - New US Military Bases: Side Effects or Causes
of War?”
http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1808
I spent some time reading and researching this subject. All in all a worthy exercise. I posted the above as I thought it gave a good description and had multiple links attached.
it's your manner of address tw. You don't have the right to tell anyone they 'don't belong in this discussion' regardless of what their qualifications are, or whether or not they're emotional.
Just because you're crippled in that area, doesn't mean everyone else must be in order to have a reasonable discussion.
Take your own advice.
You seem to be the only person around here who has a problem with me Bruce. Why the fuck can't you just fuck right off and leave me the fuck alone? You're an arsehole. Just fuck off.
How's that for some advice from me to you??!
See, that's your problem. You advised aimeecc to take lookout's solution not to argue with tw. I advised you to do the same thing, when you started with tw, and you fly off the handle.
Get help, you need it.
He asked a question and I answered it.
It looks like it's time to put you back on ignore where I should have left you before.
I had hoped you'd see some value in discontinuing with your antagonism but I guess it was foolish to hope you'd ever change.
it's your manner of address tw. You don't have the right to tell anyone they 'don't belong in this discussion' regardless of what their qualifications are, or whether or not they're emotional.
I don't apologize for suggesting to aimeecc that she withdrawal from the discussion until she can get a less emotional perspective. Why do you see insult in what may be good advice for aimeecc? Or did you assume I meant something else - something that was never intended in my post?
That's my point, is it not? You have assumed insult when the intent was a recommendation that aimeecc might be better off taking a break. The minute you see insult in what I posted, then you better look at yourself as the reason for not reading what was intended. Did you not see what I posted? Did you instead assume what was never intended - an insult?
It's a perfect example, Aliantha, of what I keep saying. If you see insult in what I have posted, then the insult is only within your head. It comes from your own personal biases. For all you know, I may word things intentionally just to test you - to see if you are either tolerant or self centered. Did I say I do that? Nope. But again, I worded it so that one who uses personal bias can jump to conclusions. So again, another example of how wording is so easily misinterpreted when one applies their own personal biases rather than read what was actually posted.
I asked for example of where aimeecc was insulted. You have not provided one. Would you like to try again. (Does this sound like a video game that never ends?)
You seem to be the only person around here who has a problem with me Bruce. Why the fuck can't you just fuck right off and leave me the fuck alone? You're an arsehole. Just fuck off.
Let's put this into perspective. Any problem you have with my posts is no where near as vile as my opinion of Aliantha now because he/she posted useless four letter adjectives. You see, Aliantha, I come from people who need not swear - in family, friends, high school, college, or employment. Your net worth is measured by such language. Right now, your net worth is near zero because you need four letter adjectives rather than facts to express yourself.
I never really had a problem with Aretha's Doc or with Barak (from long ago). But I have a problem with someone so illogical as to need four letter adjectives. That is as evil as lying - another sin that should result in immediate excommunication.
Who insulted aimeecc more? Aliantha just did with a post chock full of useless, bandwidth wasting, four letter adjectives. A post so vile that an apology is in order (not that aimeecc should expect one).
... a long list of economic articles ...
I have not read most of them yet. But a few factors appear contradictory - caught my attention. For example, the Spanish American war is cited as America creating foreign investment. However the time period (ie 1914) is when America was financing European military buildups. American after the 1900s had become a major source of international finance. American wealth grew at the expense of European military fiascos. A factor that undermines the author's Spanish American premise.
A second example would be the recession created by the Gulf War in 1991. Well America never really paid for that war. A recession would not be due to expenses from that war. So maybe the war created an export trade downturn? I don't know. But many forget who paid for that war.
He asked a question and I answered it.
And I do appreciate the answer. Not that I agree with it.
I have not read most of them yet. But a few factors appear contradictory - caught my attention.
Yeah, I'm still going through them too.
Ali, I think you misunderstood bruce. His advice was merely not to argue with tw, not trying to compare you to tw (which I think was how you read it).
Let's put this into perspective. Any problem you have with my posts is no where near as vile as my opinion of Aliantha now because he/she posted useless four letter adjectives. You see, Aliantha, I come from people who need not swear - in family, friends, high school, college, or employment. Your net worth is measured by such language. Right now, your net worth is near zero because you need four letter adjectives rather than facts to express yourself.
I never really had a problem with Aretha's Doc or with Barak (from long ago). But I have a problem with someone so illogical as to need four letter adjectives. That is as evil as lying - another sin that should result in immediate excommunication.
Who insulted aimeecc more? Aliantha just did with a post chock full of useless, bandwidth wasting, four letter adjectives. A post so vile that an apology is in order (not that aimeecc should expect one).
I wasn't speaking to your or aimeecc tw so it's got nothing to do with you for one thing. For another, I don't give a rats arse what your opinion of me is, so please feel free not to respond to my posts in future if you find me that distasteful.
Ali, I think you misunderstood bruce. His advice was merely not to argue with tw, not trying to compare you to tw (which I think was how you read it).
That's possible Dana, but you'll all have to excuse me if I'm a bit touchy where he's concerned. The last time I mentioned anything about emotions in a post was to SG where that man basically accused me of being a hypocrite for telling her that she mattered to me.
So there's your explanation.
I'm done with this thread.
But Ali, you started this thread. You can't just abandon it.
But Ali, you started this thread. You can't just abandon it.
Arsonist. Starts a contraversy, then leave the room to let the resulting flame war consume everyone else in the room.
Ali Arson?
Let's put this into perspective. Any problem you have with my posts is no where near as vile as my opinion of Aliantha now because he/she posted useless four letter adjectives. You see, Aliantha, I come from people who need not swear - in family, friends, high school, college, or employment. Your net worth is measured by such language. .
This is idiocy.
There is nothing more emotional and illogical than the concept of "bad words". At least there's a rationale when it comes to racial epithets, but there is none when it comes to "four letter adjectives".
Posted by tw
This is idiocy.
i'm thinking about commissioning a study to determine the statistical probability of those statements being found incorrect in that order.
Spin says the Internet was developed by the military because it completely forgets the many others who were first offered the reserach and refused it - IBM and AT&T. Spin forgets to mention how many refused to innovate until finally the DoD came along. There is no way around why that other fact is missing - spin.
Provide source documents.
Licklider, credited by many as a forefather (one of many) of the internet was always involved w/ DoD.
I could go on and on for about 100 pages, but you first need to provide source documents on why you call it spin "the Internet was developed by the military" and you CLAIM IBM and AT&T initially refused to research it. Who offered it to them to research? Wasn't Licklider. Wasn't Baran, also a forefather of the packet switching concept. Bet your referring to their failure to bid for the ARPA contract - a military contract. Their failure to bid on a military contract to explore the idea of packet switching does not at all validate your idea that its spin. Still goes back to who wanted it developed - the military.
Provide source documents.
Licklider, credited by many as a forefather (one of many) of the internet was always involved w/ DoD.
I could go on and on for about 100 pages, but you first need to provide source documents on why you call it spin "the Internet was developed by the military" and you CLAIM IBM and AT&T initially refused to research it. Who offered it to them to research? Wasn't Licklider. Wasn't Baran, also a forefather of the packet switching concept. Bet your referring to their failure to bid for the ARPA contract - a military contract. Their failure to bid on a military contract to explore the idea of packet switching does not at all validate your idea that its spin. Still goes back to who wanted it developed - the military.
He can't. Give it up.