[themerchant]

Also to point out i'm British by birth so i fully accept the terrible things we did over centuries when we were the predominate power.

Iran seems to have been subject to a propaganda campaign as it's hardly this backwards country, they had more females in universities than most western nations till the recent Ahmadinejad era where they have started to implement "old man conserative shit"

At the start of his presidency in 2007-08, women's gains in education permeated every level, composing 44 percent of students pursuing associate degrees, 55 percent of bachelor's degree students, 43 percent of master's degree students, and a high 58 percent of students pursuing a professional doctorate

Women also dominated 6 of the 7 academic fields offered at university level, save for engineering, comprising the majority of students studying veterinary sciences, basic sciences, human sciences, medical sciences, agriculture and the arts

It moved backwards Ahmadinejad but is (far too) slowly moving back towards what it was

Iran has never went to war with anyone in centuries. Israel doesn't want any competition in the region. If Iran switch to nuclear power they can sell of much more of their oil to china and become even richer. US doesn't want China having a huge source of power and Israel don't want any competition in the region so they can continue to build illegal settlements and get rid of the Palestinians.

[themerchant]

In the end the scene that Houellebecq depicts in Submission will be possible.

Not by 2022 surely?

[Woden]

I hope not, but for 2100, I fear

[Woden]

Also to point out i'm British by birth so i fully accept the terrible things we did over centuries when we were the predominate power.

Iran seems to have been subject to a propaganda campaign as it's hardly this backwards country, they had more females in universities than most western nations till the recent Ahmadinejad era where they have started to implement "old man conserative shit"

At the start of his presidency in 2007-08, women's gains in education permeated every level, composing 44 percent of students pursuing associate degrees, 55 percent of bachelor's degree students, 43 percent of master's degree students, and a high 58 percent of students pursuing a professional doctorate

Women also dominated 6 of the 7 academic fields offered at university level, save for engineering, comprising the majority of students studying veterinary sciences, basic sciences, human sciences, medical sciences, agriculture and the arts

It moved backwards Ahmadinejad but is (far too) slowly moving back towards what it was

Iran has never went to war with anyone in centuries. Israel doesn't want any competition in the region. If Iran switch to nuclear power they can sell of much more of their oil to china and become even richer. US doesn't want China having a huge source of power and Israel don't want any competition in the region so they can continue to build illegal settlements and get rid of the Palestinians.

I Totally agree

[Madness]

Again, I'm going to miss out on the contemporary activity of this thread, I think .

I do want to say I think the US is the worst offender (... by some margin). I'll always fall back on the research I did in '12/'13 about the world's use of surveillance/weaponized drones. The US is basically the Terminator Empire to those randoms who live under its thrall. Much less, what Wilshire and others were talking about up-thread about destabilization techniques weaponized as far back as WWII.

[MSJ]

Well, we'll just stay out of international affairs then tell me if you think the world is a better place. I find it extremely amusing. I don't claim that we don't do dirty, we do. But, we do a whole lot of good too.

[solipsisticurge]

Well, we'll just stay out of international affairs then tell me if you think the world is a better place. I find it extremely amusing. I don't claim that we don't do dirty, we do. But, we do a whole lot of good too.

...so ISIS is better than Hussein?

[MSJ]

...so ISIS is better than Hussein?

Not at all, did I ever say so? Syria is a totally different animal with so many countries involved and half the time nobody knows who's fighting who. ISIS has integrated into the general public, hiding and shielding themselves. So, just bombing would result in loss of alot of innocent lives. A mistake I don't think anyone wants to repeat and one the military brass has taking into consideration heavily since Iraq and Afghanistan. Tensions between us and Russia could escalate to a global scale. But, I don't need to tell you any of this, your asking me dumb questions you already know the answer to. 

[solipsisticurge]

...so ISIS is better than Hussein?

Not at all, did I ever say so? Syria is a totally different animal with so many countries involved and half the time nobody knows who's fighting who. ISIS has integrated into the general public, hiding and shielding themselves. So, just bombing would result in loss of alot of innocent lives. A mistake I don't think anyone wants to repeat and one the military brass has taking into consideration heavily since Iraq and Afghanistan. Tensions between us and Russia could escalate to a global scale. But, I don't need to tell you any of this, your asking me dumb questions you already know the answer to.

You proclaim the killing of Hussein (which directly led, amongst other causes, to ISIS' standing as a formidable regional power)  a good thing. I'm asking if you legitimately feel ousting and killing a tyrant is inherently good if the power vacuum it creates results in a worse person/group in power (ISIS kills its own "citizens" just as routinely and horrifically, and attacks outside its borders far more prevalently and without U.S. support, and is far more interested in spreading theocracy, so I judge them worse). This seems a simple example of "doing good" filtered through piss-poor comprehension of the region or its demographics resulting in a demonstrably worse situation, which is a fairly good summation of almost all U.S. military action post-WW2.

Despite 1. knowing Hussein's ouster facilitated the rise of ISIS, and 2. knowing ISIS is worse, you repeatedly refer to Hussein's ouster as an inherently good thing. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit your reasons as to why.

[Woden]

In this case, removing Sadam and Gadafi from power was a mistake, because of the chaos that came after. Was it a terrible miscalculation or was the chaos the wanted effect? Anyway, lesser evil is far better than Evil itself. So it is better Kellhus than the Consult, IMHO. I'm not saying that Sadam was Kellhus, lol.

[themerchant]

Well, we'll just stay out of international affairs then tell me if you think the world is a better place. I find it extremely amusing. I don't claim that we don't do dirty, we do. But, we do a whole lot of good too.

You won't though cause the primary purpose isn't altruism it's power and control.

You should read Smedley Butler's book "war is a racket" he was a USMC Major General 2 time medal of honour winner and eventually came to realise he was fighting not for freedom or altruism but to help out large American Corporations.

[MSJ]

Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life.

[themerchant]

Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life.

The Soviets "won" World War 2 at the cost of 25 million people, they killed 75% of enemy combatants in the war. Germany never reached Britain cause they lost the air battle(with Pilots from all over the world volunteering to help) and couldn't mount a landing as Britannia ruled the waves, we sank the Bismarck, all this was done months before America even entered the War.

American companies and banks were funding Hitler at this point (Brown's bank etc), profiteering off both sides. We just finished paying off the debt we accrued to America during that time.

In our darkest hour we turned to Canada, Australia, New Zeland, India, Nepal etc to help us fight the first 2 years of the war. Then after Russia turned in June 1941 we had a powerful ally, then when America was attacked via Pearl Harbour we got another one.

It turned out to be a collaborative war and we eventually won.

[MSJ]

You proclaim the killing of Hussein (which directly led, amongst other causes, to ISIS' standing as a formidable regional power)  a good thing. I'm asking if you legitimately feel ousting and killing a tyrant is inherently good if the power vacuum it creates results in a worse person/group in power (ISIS kills its own "citizens" just as routinely and horrifically, and attacks outside its borders far more prevalently and without U.S. support, and is far more interested in spreading theocracy, so I judge them worse). This seems a simple example of "doing good" filtered through piss-poor comprehension of the region or its demographics resulting in a demonstrably worse situation, which is a fairly good summation of almost all U.S. military action post-WW2.

Despite 1. knowing Hussein's ouster facilitated the rise of ISIS, and 2. knowing ISIS is worse, you repeatedly refer to Hussein's ouster as an inherently good thing. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit your reasons as to why.

And, I've answered this question multiple times already, so excuse my irritation. When Obama pulled out the majority of our troops after him being elected, it caused a vacuum which gave rise to ISIS. Mind you, against the wishes of our highest military officers. It was only done because that's what he ran his campaign on. If those troops weren't pulled out and we have the Iraqi government more time to stabilize and become confident in there military and police force, ISIS wouldn't be what they are today. It was a mistake, a huge one. Iraqi officials felt betrayed because of the pullout and knew and told what was going to happen. Their military wasn't trained enough or established for that matter. Thats why we've sent more troops back over to there and Afghanistan, to try and get back the territory we ceded when we pulled out. ISIS, the Taliban were licking their chops when Obama was announcing the pullout of troops, all they had to do was wait.

ETA: and you keep insisting ISIS is worse, how so? Sadaam killed millions of his own people, mass genocide by chemical weapons over decades. No difference between the two in my mind. And, as I stated above, if we didn't pullout so quickly, ISIS wouldn't be as huge as a problem as they are now.

[TLEILAXU]

(click to show/hide)

This segment of this post has been moved to the Building Better Communities thread

You proclaim the killing of Hussein (which directly led, amongst other causes, to ISIS' standing as a formidable regional power)  a good thing. I'm asking if you legitimately feel ousting and killing a tyrant is inherently good if the power vacuum it creates results in a worse person/group in power (ISIS kills its own "citizens" just as routinely and horrifically, and attacks outside its borders far more prevalently and without U.S. support, and is far more interested in spreading theocracy, so I judge them worse). This seems a simple example of "doing good" filtered through piss-poor comprehension of the region or its demographics resulting in a demonstrably worse situation, which is a fairly good summation of almost all U.S. military action post-WW2.

Despite 1. knowing Hussein's ouster facilitated the rise of ISIS, and 2. knowing ISIS is worse, you repeatedly refer to Hussein's ouster as an inherently good thing. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit your reasons as to why.

And, I've answered this question multiple times already, so excuse my irritation. When Obama pulled out the majority of our troops after him being elected, it caused a vacuum which gave rise to ISIS. Mind you, against the wishes of our highest military officers. It was only done because that's what he ran his campaign on. If those troops weren't pulled out and we have the Iraqi government more time to stabilize and become confident in there military and police force, ISIS wouldn't be what they are today. It was a mistake, a huge one. Iraqi officials felt betrayed because of the pullout and knew and told what was going to happen. Their military wasn't trained enough or established for that matter. Thats why we've sent more troops back over to there and Afghanistan, to try and get back the territory we ceded when we pulled out. ISIS, the Taliban were licking their chops when Obama was announcing the pullout of troops, all they had to do was wait.

ETA: and you keep insisting ISIS is worse, how so? Sadaam killed millions of his own people, mass genocide by chemical weapons over decades. No difference between the two in my mind. And, as I stated above, if we didn't pullout so quickly, ISIS wouldn't be as huge as a problem as they are now.

Blaming it on Obama pulling troops out is too simple. ISIS would've been shut down by Assad, Russia and Iran, but that would've meant increased geopolitical influence for these horrible "freedom-hating" nations  . Meanwhile, rich people in the Gulf states fund ISIS and other rebel group.  Truly a dilemma.

Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life.

I'm not sure how serious you are with this, but this attitude is what makes many people in the world dislike America. Just because some interventions were morally correct (from some kind of greater good reference frame) doesn't mean we have to accept ALL of them. Likewise, the intervention in Kuwait, where Saddam grossly infringed on another nations sovereignty, was morally justified from my standpoint.