 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Mountains Magpie wrote: | Do we wait until they come for what's left of our treasure ? The Chinese probably own it anyway  |
Nope. We start with Rule One: "When we are in a hole, first stop digging!" So no more spectacular-but-stupid displays of military power (like Afganistan, Iraq I, Iraq II, various smaller things). These outright acts of war are very satisfying at the time, but cost us far, far more than they purport to save us. While there is some short term satisfaction to be had from watching the live TV, the cost to us in terms of blood, money, and heartbreak is truly huge. The Bush invasion of Iraq to "avenge" 911, for example, has killed roughly twice as many Americans as 911 did - and it has also killed uncountable thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, most of them completely innocent of any act against the USA (hell, most of them were women and children) - and for every one we killed, we turned a whole damn family against us and bred another generation of grief and hate filled potential terrorists.
Bombing or invading a hard-line Muslim country is like reaching into a nest and squashing a few dozen wasps - the only outcome you can be certain of is that the rest of them will hate you and come swarming out of there looking for blood. You can't kill all of them because you will wind up killing vast numbers of innocent bystanders the same way Hitler did (you are better than Hitler, yes?), and even if you had god-like powers to completely avoid collateral damage (which no-one has) it wouldn't make any difference because for every one you kill you make two or three or four more enemies, endlessly, because every man has a brother or a mother or a friend or a nephew, and they will all come looking for justice and revenge to heal their pain. Kill them and their friends and relatives turn into fanatic anti-Western warriors.
Extermination does not work. Got that Stui? It does not work. Fact. Deal with it.
We can, however, defend stuff. We can defuse the worst of the anti-Western hysteria by dealing honestly and fairly, we can take firm action around the edges (for example, we don't have to take shit like the Somali pirates - we watch and wait and arrest and jail every last one 'till the seaways are safe again, and while we are doing that, we chase out the giant foreign trawlers which are destroying the entire fisheries these people depend on and make it hard for them not to turn pirate.
We trade with people, we talk with them, we build bridges and we gradually calm things down. This isn't rocket science. Diplomats are good at this stuff.
But we DO NOT invade or launch the bombers. That way lies madness and endless pain.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mountains Magpie wrote: | But the world's broke anyway.
Do we wait until they come for what's left of our treasure ? The Chinese probably own it anyway
Of course being a sworn atheist means I don't care if the muslims or the christians win. I think they're both wrong, and quite deluded, even brainwashed.
If Romney gets elected, is he the leader of the 'free' world we had to have ? |
The world's broke? They're taking your treasure? What ignorant isolated plateau commune are you part of up there on that mountain? World GDP growth is expected to be above 2.5% even in crisis (need to confirm that as the projections vary - the old IMF projection was 3.5% but that will be revised down), as is Australian GDP because we happen to be selling the fruits of our labour to other nations.
Oh, you mean you're upset because your proxies no longer control everything anymore. Boo hoo poor you; no longer the master of the universe.
Good post, Tannin.
Let's argue again like it's 2001; apparently some people haven't learned anything since then. What astonishes me is how (a) people can go a decade and not correct or advance their child-like comprehension of the world, and (b) under the tiniest bit of perceived pressure people crack and grope about for the nearest extremist policy which failed them but five minutes ago.
Each new inflection point in the moderation of absolute Western power brings with it more panicked flailing arms looking to beat up on someone to make it alright again. And how quickly does the desire to wipe out entire peoples surface? We await the generalised demonisation of all Muslims much like day follows night.
Looks like we'll be dealing with the same cadre of fanatics who underwrote that great moment in modern Western history:
Ah, the good old days of Western civilisation!
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Ignoring that publication looks like it is from a mountain commune, can you (a) define "bankrupt" in this context, and (b) explain how that is connected to your previous statement whereby you said you anticipate "...they [will] come for what's left of our treasure."
The present transition is a monumental challenge, to be sure, but that sounds like an incoherent mix of fears to me.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Assuming the publication is from a mountain commune, would that more than likely mean it has left leaning tendencies ? Would this make it incorrect ?
I'm not fearful, I hold great hopes for the future of mankind.
Allow me a day to 'get it down on paper' as it were and I'll get back to you.
MM
_________________
Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Mountains Magpie wrote: | | Do we wait until they come for what's left of our treasure ? The Chinese probably own it anyway |
Nope. We start with Rule One: "When we are in a hole, first stop digging!" So no more spectacular-but-stupid displays of military power (like Afganistan, Iraq I, Iraq II, various smaller things). These outright acts of war are very satisfying at the time, but cost us far, far more than they purport to save us. While there is some short term satisfaction to be had from watching the live TV, the cost to us in terms of blood, money, and heartbreak is truly huge. The Bush invasion of Iraq to "avenge" 911, for example, has killed roughly twice as many Americans as 911 did - and it has also killed uncountable thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, most of them completely innocent of any act against the USA (hell, most of them were women and children) - and for every one we killed, we turned a whole damn family against us and bred another generation of grief and hate filled potential terrorists.
Bombing or invading a hard-line Muslim country is like reaching into a nest and squashing a few dozen wasps - the only outcome you can be certain of is that the rest of them will hate you and come swarming out of there looking for blood. You can't kill all of them because you will wind up killing vast numbers of innocent bystanders the same way Hitler did (you are better than Hitler, yes?), and even if you had god-like powers to completely avoid collateral damage (which no-one has) it wouldn't make any difference because for every one you kill you make two or three or four more enemies, endlessly, because every man has a brother or a mother or a friend or a nephew, and they will all come looking for justice and revenge to heal their pain. Kill them and their friends and relatives turn into fanatic anti-Western warriors.
Extermination does not work. Got that Stui? It does not work. Fact. Deal with it.
We can, however, defend stuff. We can defuse the worst of the anti-Western hysteria by dealing honestly and fairly, we can take firm action around the edges (for example, we don't have to take shit like the Somali pirates - we watch and wait and arrest and jail every last one 'till the seaways are safe again, and while we are doing that, we chase out the giant foreign trawlers which are destroying the entire fisheries these people depend on and make it hard for them not to turn pirate.
We trade with people, we talk with them, we build bridges and we gradually calm things down. This isn't rocket science. Diplomats are good at this stuff.
But we DO NOT invade or launch the bombers. That way lies madness and endless pain. |
Wonderful theories and in a general sense I agree. But you miss a fundamental point.
These people are not reasonable. Diplomacy will not work.
These are not just muslims. Muslims are reasonable people, shit there's plenty of them living right here in Australia, going about their business doing their own thing.
This Al Queda / Taliban mob are fundamentalist nut jobs. They'd be more than happy to drag all civilisation on earth backwards 100 years as long as they were in control of what was left over.
How the **** do you negotiate with people who would shot a woman for suspected adultery? Who'd strap explosives onto a kid making him a human bomb for no other reason than to make a statement?
If we do as you suggest, they will consolidate the holding that they have, and expand. The only way to prevent expansion is to focus on killing their leadership and and the same time work on providing aid to the neighboring democratic or moderate Muslim countries. People who have a level of affluence are a lot less likely to get sucked into that crap than people who are starving.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mountains Magpie wrote: | Assuming the publication is from a mountain commune, would that more than likely mean it has left leaning tendencies ? Would this make it incorrect ?
I'm not fearful, I hold great hopes for the future of mankind.
Allow me a day to 'get it down on paper' as it were and I'll get back to you.
MM |
Right oh. I don't actually care who writes it, it was just a delicious irony that it looked as dodgy as it sounded. Whatever the case, it at least has to be readable and make vague sense to be worth pursuing.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Stui, it's groundhog day. Your original posts are dangerously close to buying into the false syllogism the idiots who crashed the global economy used back in 2001 and 2002 to support their horrific stupidity.
The most annoying thing about it is having to dust off all the old arguments just because the nasty selfish folk can't cope with their inflated asset values being normalised to realistic levels. Nothing drives people to violence faster than petty self-oriented short-term greed, even if as Tannin says such irrationality will only make things worse.
For the kids who spent the last decade playing video games in class, let's look at the old false syllogism again:
1. These dangerous people will spread across the earth like locusts in an apocalyptic vision if we don't stop them
- Significantly false even locally given diverse groups in the region hate them as much as anyone; generally ridiculously false given most global powers/regional blocks do not support them (China, Russia, India, Europe, the US, Latin America, Japan, etc.).
- Using paranoid hysteria to whip people into a frenzy is irresponsible and dangerous at the best of times; we know exactly what it does, so why play with fire?
- We know this fear will degrade into generalised Islamophobia and evokes fearful imagery embedded deep in the racist recesses of Western culture, so again why invoke it?
2. They are oppressing their own people and are inhuman unlike us
- Plainly true on some levels, plainly false on other levels, and creepily dangerous on still further levels.
- This approach is easily misused to dehumanise peoples en bloc and incite overreach. See the most shocking case of propaganda in modern Western history, the Hill & Knowlton lie before the first Iraq War to see how it works. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) ]
- We cannot be trusted, either. Under certain conditions we are just as likely to wipe out peoples, torture, assault, rape, steal resources, destroy environments, support tyrants, break treaties, pervert justice, and so on. And we are more likely to do this when we conjure up imaginary apocalyptic wars with imaginary apocalyptic demons. The angry fearful irrational violent human is a global menace lurking closer to home than our selective memories and the stability we're fortunate enough to enjoy allows us to notice.
- We do definitely have the tools to do things well, but there are no guarantees at all whatsoever that we will. Conditions of war and hatred bring out the worst in us and unlock the deep irrational and ugly side of who we are; the best of what we can do will not be brought to bear on this problem despite delusional claims to the contrary.
- We do not have a right to gamble with people's lives without their permission, meaning our approach must balance risks we don't have a right to take on behalf of others (such as forcing people to engage deadly war) with doing things we are sure will improve the situation.
- Minimal intervention is in fact better than causing worse suffering and carnage; that is not to support minimal intervention per se, but to place reality above the disingenuous and fake concerns people pretend to have when they want really just want to justify violence, imperialism and resource theft.
3. The only fitting response is to eliminate them and free the countries/peoples concerned by installing democracy
- Tannin has put forward enough arguments to deal with this. Obviously there are many forms of containment. Certainly after the Bush idiocy we know what not to do, and we can n longer fund such clumsy ill-disciplined and corrupt overreactions anymore anyhow.
- We cannot afford to trample upon the UN in a multipolar world because we need it to hold together to mediate the present change as smoothly as possible. Contra Machiavellian extremism, institutions matter because social relations are symbolic and mediated. Quality societies don't have quality institutions by accident; doing things in a transparent and fair manner makes a difference to international relations.
- We don't have the unfettered muscle to flex anymore, while many other countries have increasing military capacities; every action now brings with it justification for others to do the same and risks conflict between much greater powers (we can't even influence Russia in Syria anymore for goodness' sake).
- The present trend is accelerating; the only cause for panic is that some people are still denying reality by imagining going back to the old ways is even an option; we ought to be scrambling to develop a new order which works for everyone, not suffer absurd fantasies that things are as they always were and we can get what we want without dealing properly with an increasingly interdependent world.
Edit: Expanded.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:11 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Any kind of conditions. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Wonderful theories and in a general sense I agree. But you miss a fundamental point. These people are not reasonable. Diplomacy will not work. |
Stui, no. No, I am not missing the point. YOU are missing the point. Of course you can't negotiate with these nutjobs. Of course they are completely unreasonable fanatics. We all know that and no-one on the same mental planet would deny it for a moment.
But that's not the point!
These scumheads are a fairly small minority in their own countries - exactly as the American religous nutcases are a small minority in their country. But, unfortunately, through a combination of fanatic religious zeal, mad commitment to non-negotiable policies, access to substantial financial backing, and the politics of fear where useful to them, they are in control of a lot of places. (Very like the American religious fanatics, alas.)
You can't negotiate with them, they are completely unreasonable, and don't see you as another human to forge an agreement with, you are just an enemy of their evil god. If you lack the strength to stand up to them, you will obey them or die.
What you can do is cut off their air supply. You corral the problem (military power has a role to play here) and you negotiate with and forge alliances with their opponents. You do NOT team up with anyone who hates the fanatics - that's what America did in Vietnam and Afganistan and look at the disasters they turned out to be! You deal openly, fairly, and honestly with people who are willing to deal with you. If you do this (and I DON'T mean "rip them off and carve our all their resources" the way the USA did in Iraq post-Saddam, I mean genuine, honest trade to mutual advantage) they get richer and better educated and happier, while the Taliban are gradually starved of recruits and funds and relevance.
Yes it's hard. Yes it takes a long time. But it is the ONLY way to achieve success. Going in with military force never works. We have proved that over and over and over again. What parts of that do you not understand?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Wonderful theories and in a general sense I agree. But you miss a fundamental point. These people are not reasonable. Diplomacy will not work. |
Stui, no. No, I am not missing the point. YOU are missing the point. Of course you can't negotiate with these nutjobs. Of course they are completely unreasonable fanatics. We all know that and no-one on the same mental planet would deny it for a moment.
But that's not the point!
These scumheads are a fairly small minority in their own countries - exactly as the American religous nutcases are a small minority in their country. But, unfortunately, through a combination of fanatic religious zeal, mad commitment to non-negotiable policies, access to substantial financial backing, and the politics of fear where useful to them, they are in control of a lot of places. (Very like the American religious fanatics, alas.)
You can't negotiate with them, they are completely unreasonable, and don't see you as another human to forge an agreement with, you are just an enemy of their evil god. If you lack the strength to stand up to them, you will obey them or die.
What you can do is cut off their air supply. You corral the problem (military power has a role to play here) and you negotiate with and forge alliances with their opponents. You do NOT team up with anyone who hates the fanatics - that's what America did in Vietnam and Afganistan and look at the disasters they turned out to be! You deal openly, fairly, and honestly with people who are willing to deal with you. If you do this (and I DON'T mean "rip them off and carve our all their resources" the way the USA did in Iraq post-Saddam, I mean genuine, honest trade to mutual advantage) they get richer and better educated and happier, while the Taliban are gradually starved of recruits and funds and relevance.
Yes it's hard. Yes it takes a long time. But it is the ONLY way to achieve success. Going in with military force never works. We have proved that over and over and over again. What parts of that do you not understand? |
| Stui Magpie wrote: | | The only way to prevent expansion is to focus on killing their leadership and and the same time work on providing aid to the neighboring democratic or moderate Muslim countries. People who have a level of affluence are a lot less likely to get sucked into that crap than people who are starving. |
targeted military intervention, plus strategic aid. Same shit, different label, similar result.
I'd still like to drop a nuke on their heads but the collateral damage would be too great. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If those burkas want to start a desert kingdom in the middle of the Sahara i for 1 say, go for it.
The last thing i want is more australian deaths because of some tin-pot civil war in the heart of Africa or yet another act of brutality in Afganistan.
I know they only went into Afaganistan to get Bin Liner but they were supposed to have restord the rule of US law but surprise surprise, ithasn't worked.
Americas kick em in the teeth foriegn policy has been tried and found wanting in almost every time they employ it.
I'd hate to see another domino theory so how about we try the "live and let live" approach this time?
If the moslams have there own holy land, asylum seakers will have a friendly and welcoming place to go and live the islamic dream.
Boats will be easier to send back because they will be riding camels. (ship/boat of the desert).
bth, the "turn back the boats" policy will not work.
A boat will be challenged by the Navy and the smugglers will simply sink it! Forcing the the Navy to pick-up the survivors.
We saw this last time the coalition was in power and i seriously doubt it work this time round. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159...etc wrote: | If those burkas want to start a desert kingdom in the middle of the Sahara i for 1 say, go for it.
The last thing i want is more australian deaths because of some tin-pot civil war in the heart of Africa or yet another act of brutality in Afganistan.
I know they only went into Afaganistan to get Bin Liner but they were supposed to have restord the rule of US law but surprise surprise, ithasn't worked.
Americas kick em in the teeth foriegn policy has been tried and found wanting in almost every time they employ it.
I'd hate to see another domino theory so how about we try the "live and let live" approach this time?
If the moslams have there own holy land, asylum seakers will have a friendly and welcoming place to go and live the islamic dream.
Boats will be easier to send back because they will be riding camels. (ship/boat of the desert).
bth, the "turn back the boats" policy will not work.
A boat will be challenged by the Navy and the smugglers will simply sink it! Forcing the the Navy to pick-up the survivors.
We saw this last time the coalition was in power and i seriously doubt it work this time round. |
Mate, Islam is an extremely diverse entity and there are plenty of happy Muslims in various countries across the world, just as there are plenty of non-Muslims or Muslims who oppose those groups in that part of the world who wouldn't be too keen on your resettlement plan.
On resettling people to deal with a refugee problem, this is a long and technical review, but it's worth a watch to see what the debate looked like last century:
Part 1/7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-QyxJ37M08
Other parts (Kattan follows Chomsky's intro somewhere in part 2/7):
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chomsky+kattan&oq=chomsky+kattan&gs_l=youtube.3...285.2762.0.3126.14.12.0.1.1.1.287.1533.6j1j5.12.0...0.0...1ac.A-_XsUS1EgU
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
i was less thanj 1/2 serious when i wrote that, (who'd want to rule or become a citizen of the Sahara. Besides, theres alwaes Mecca.
..... i was pandering to the xenophobes but i do beleive it's time we butted-out of trying to solve the Islamic Worlds problems.
Turning back the boats is a piss-arsed, knee jerk reaction the coalition seems to thrive on.
I repeat, it will not work.
Last edited by 3.14159 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
