Global Interdependence and 9/11

[lavender]

 

[The Preacher]

Interesting article.

My problem with it is this. It has this "oops, we fucked up with globalisation" approach. The reality is, America hasn't played an indirect role in this, it's single handedly raped Islamic nations. Military installations in Mecca and Medina, preaching economic rationalism in nations who CLEARLY need local economic protection, sending in oil companies to plunder the only resource these people have to survive, bribing leaders, diplomatically isolating any Islamic nation, forbidding Islamic law in OTHER nations, declaring wars on regimes with no reason (ie. Iran), supporting Israel as it robs Palestine of it's land, random bombings (Sudan, Libya) and so on.

America may as well have flown those planes into the WTC.

 

[SINthysist]

lavy is a dedicated collectivist who wants to see globalization occur with one world government to rule us all.

Now read the article in that light.

It really doesn't matter. Read an article this morning by a World-Wide Group which says we have depleted 2/3's of the world resources and that the planet will die in 2050...

 

[SINthysist]

"On Sept. 11, in the most successful act of asymmetrical warfare since the Trojan horse..."

Now here you go. Success meant the fall of a city and the end of a very long, protracted, phyrric war vs the fall of buildings city and the beginning of a very long, protracted, phyrric war.

Now, if the first sentence is a bit off the mark, what chances are there for the other premises of the article...

 

[SINthysist]

The last sentence is particularly odorous...

 

[SINthysist]

Also lets add that the cultures mentioned had problems LONG before there was a United States and in that time we have succeeded due to our form of government and the efforts of people who said the hell with the traditional way of life, I actually want to have something...

Now take India and her lack of tax-gathering.

India HOLDS 1/7th of the world's gold out of the ground...

 

[SINthysist]

"Nepal, rural farmers spout rhetoric not heard since the death of Stalin."

In rural nepal, people still don't know the czar is dead...

 

[SINthysist]

"I also encouraged my American friends to turn the anthropological lens upon our own culture, if only to catch a glimpse of how we might appear to people born in other lands. I shared a colleague's story from her time living among the Bedouin in Tunisia in the 1980s, just as television reached their remote villages. Entranced and shocked by episodes of the soap opera Dallas,the astonished farm women asked her, "Is everyone in your country as mean as J.R.?" "

Is everyone in her land as dumb as the green Teletubbie? Now who's fault is that? Can't blame the NEA on that one, one would have to look at this woman's "enlightened" leaders and thier views on education, especially of women...

 

[SINthysist]

Should I go on? This is too much fun. Remember writers and debators personalize and provide annecdotal evidence to sway you emotionally because the do not have enough of an argument to sway you logically...

GAWD THIS IS FUN!

Thanks lavy. The Sunday papers in the KC Star/Pravda sucked eggs this morning. At least no my funny bone is getting a workout this morning. Wonder if I shall even bother leaving this thread. There is still so much to point out!

 

[The Preacher]

Sinthysist, the United States has had the benifit of British colanialism and imperialism on their side. They've also had the benifit of the British's success in looting, raping, pillaging any society they came into contact with. If you are trying to compare how these nations have developed in comparison with the USA, it's not a fair fight. Add to that, these nations do not have climates to support many industries that the USA thrives in (agriculture, for example). Also, it's very easily to have a great economy when you kill off the actual owners of the land. So, the USA's success is due much more to the fact that it had a roaring slave trade, enacted genocide, and a huge budget to begin with.

 

[SINthysist]

As more sinks in it occurs to me that,

"The shah of Iran provoked the Iranian revolution by thrusting not the Koran but modernity (as he saw it) down the throats of his people. "

Iran is close to revolution again, on the brink, and why? They WANT to belong to the MODERN world...

 

[SINthysist]

No, If George Washington had decided to become king, as a lesser ruler would, say, like the rich fucking Saudi's who keep their people desparate enough to fly into buildings despite increadible fucking wealth, then we would probably be pretty bad off ourselves...

Closest example: CUBA!

 

[bluespoke]

Sinthysist, the United States has had the benifit of British colanialism and imperialism on their side. They've also had the benifit of the British's success in looting, raping, pillaging any society they came into contact with.

So have India, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, Canada, Bangladesh, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe to name but a few.

Oh, and a little cultural backwater called Australia.

 

[sexy-girl]

very interesting read lavender thank you for the post ... i dont know what comments i can make on it yet ... a lot of it i agree with some of it i dont

 

[The Preacher]

What? Oh right, because free market economics has brought that nation enormous wealth. Free market economics assumes two things. One, that there is a great deal of commodities available for trade, and two, that the local economy is competant enough to trade equally with foreign investors.

Secondly, economic rationalism, what America preaches from it's rooftops (but never backs up with actual POLICY, as my home nation recently found out) is NOT a social policy. However, it needs a social policy of liberalism to work, now, liberalism is not compatable with Islamic law. So, if the United States left nation states like Iran alone, even just economically, there would be a DRAMATIC improvement in living standards. Let alone the militaristic and diplomatic oppression these people suffer under.

 

[SINthysist]

Now, how do count for Australia's success? Canada's?

And what about the failures of OTHER British, French, and German colonies?

Now I will admit resources had something to do with it. As you may say, some human exploitation (all of which was well rewarded for their succeeding generations, thus acheiving that which THE EXPLOITED so desired...), but the main basic difference was the consitution, the Bill of Rights and men who DID what they said instead of SAYING what people should DO.

The power of the individual under a rational set of rules.

That is what we have that others lack, and resist because it does not benefit them, as rulers, personally, and keeps them at their level while we lead the world.

 

[The Preacher]

Cultural backwater! LOL, nice.

Anyway, yes, you're absolutely right. However I don't think you can quite lump Kenya, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, South Africa and such in there. Now, if you what to talk about the WHITE members of these societies, OK.

Rich Saudi's! LMMFAO! Yes, everyone in Saudi Arabia has a four storey mansion.

 

[SINthysist]

Why is China so desparate to be a free market economy?

Why, if resources are the key, do places like Hong Kong and Japan (Switzerland even) tend to do so well?

 

[The Preacher]

1 - I'm not excluding Australia from my discussions on the Western World, why would I? More importantly, why is it assumed I'd have a national bias?

2 - "but the main basic difference was the consitution, the Bill of Rights and men who DID what they said instead of SAYING what people should DO."

Ah, so this would account for the slavery then?

 

[SINthysist]

That's my point, Suadi's and Kuwaiti's and Iraqi's, and Argentinians have HUGE oil revenues which go to a tiny elite and do not trickle down.

Those revenues could go to markets and developing resources but they do tend to go to toys, especially weapons...

 

[SINthysist]

Slavery took on many forms and is still alive in the world today. We killed hundreds of thousands to end it, and even from the beginning, several founding fathers were against it, but they compromised. 1776 to 1865 is less than one hundred years. Less then 100 years to 1964. No other country corrected such hideous actions corrected them in anywhere near the amount of time.

It's a red herring.

 

[The Preacher]

Because China has immense wealth due to their lack of human rights, and the ability to sell goods for 10 bucks that cost them a billonth of a cent to make. When you don't have things like "minimum wages", it's easy to make a lot of money.

Hong Kong again, has a great deal of wealth due to being pratically a British county for most of it's history. Japan is a cultural anomaly, I'll give you that, I'm sure a more educated man or woman in the field of economic theory and history could help you on this one. Switzerland is strongly connected with the EMPIRES of Germany and more importantly, France. But most importantly, they're white Christian, which means they have rights that Arabs and blacks do not.

 

[The Preacher]

Yeah, to be fair, as easy as it would be for me to expliot the flippant phrase "Red Herring", America has, to be fair, always been an excellent place FOR Americans.

The problem is when you expliot other nations so blatently and shamelessly for your own profit. Now, every nation does this, not every nation does it under the guise of "global policeman" or "defender of freedom".

 

[Viper Vic]

What if the shirt maker didn't have the low paying job at all? Would he be better off if the do gooders made the GAP and other such companies shut down their factories?

I don't think so. The rest of the world should figure out how the US got rich and try to copy that example. Not try to take the citizens money and give it away to world welfare.

 

[The Preacher]

As far as the elite Saudi's point, a few things.

1) Yes, you're right, there are a few people (usually royalty) who have great amounts of wealth, due to the American government either bribing or threatening them for oil. Look what happens when you disobey America, you're nation is destroyed, that's how they do things - blackmail and fear.

2) If I was leader of one of the most hated countries in the world, with some powerful enemies, you best believe I'd want a shitload of weapons too. Since when does having a huge military budget and owning nukes and bios mean you're public enemy number one? Last time I checked, America had a vast majority of the above weapons in the world.