Michael Moore Goes Pro Gun

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Michael Moore Goes Pro Gun

Michael Moore wrote:

Next demand: Disarm the police. We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We'll survive til the right cops r hired

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/01/americas_modern_day_slave_system_126458.html

One of the most outspoken critics of second amendment rights, has finally come over to my side. Disarm the fucking government and trust the people. What are you going to do now Brian? I have a multi-millionaire, dishonest, crazy left wing, socialist commie, limosine liberal lefty on my side. You can just concede the whole gun argument now. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

 

                                                                      FROM MY COLD, DEAD...FAT...HANDS !!!

 

                                                           

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                                      FROM MY COLD, DEAD...FAT...HANDS !!!

 

                                                           

lmfao

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wow.

Wow.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Michael

Beyond Saving wrote:

Michael Moore wrote:

Next demand: Disarm the police. We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We'll survive til the right cops r hired

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/01/americas_modern_day_slave_system_126458.html

One of the most outspoken critics of second amendment rights, has finally come over to my side. Disarm the fucking government and trust the people. What are you going to do now Brian? I have a multi-millionaire, dishonest, crazy left wing, socialist commie, limosine liberal lefty on my side. You can just concede the whole gun argument now. 

I am quite sure you are taking what is tweets said out of context dumbass. Ever occur to you he is making a point about how stupid the tea party nuts sound? Now maybe you persnally value the rights of dems to own guns too, but most of the gun nutters would be scared shitless if liberals wanted their own revolution. But if you want to argue what the better outcome would be if liberals vs tea party nuts had one, if the tea party won the first thing they would do is disarm liberals. Alot like Hitler relaxed gun ownership to party loyalists and took guns away from everyone else.

Moore  was making the point that if you are going to argue the 2nd Amdendmet blacks would have more of a case than the Koch Brother dick you suck.

And disarm the government? NO SHIT ASSHOLE the police in Japan don't have guns. SO I AGREE. But that will not work if idiots like you protect a flooded market, how would you expect police to protect themselves, water pistles? You know why the Japanese don't have a violence problem? BECAUSE NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED YOU FUCKWAD! They don't have to fear their government because they don't masturbate over guns like it's pornography.

Never occurs to fuckwads like you that this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with MONEY! The makers love the fear between society and cops and they love poverty wages because that breeds fear and crime, then they can keep and expand their market and pit cops against society and have society fear cops. EXELENT SCAM, just like daffy plays the beagle against Foghorn. 

No one wants a fascist state dipshit, but you cant fake being for them after all the blaming the riotors protect guns like they are porn and pretend the rich never do anything bad. Australia had a mass shooting, they put their foot down, and guess what? They still have guns, they simply don't have a flooded market and their society doesn't have to fear police like we do. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure you should be

I'm not sure you should be happy about this though lol. O'Reilly and Moore agree on something? Armageddon must be right around the corner..

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not sure

Vastet wrote:
I'm not sure you should be happy about this though lol. O'Reilly and Moore agree on something? Armageddon must be right around the corner..

 

                                                                                                          Weird, hunh ?  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Listen dipshit, you are

 Listen dipshit, you are the one who couldn't understand what was wrong with the Brown case. You do not understand that becuase of the corporate military complex, they sell that crap to the police. Your over protection of big business instead of anti monoply laws, your protecting the tax breaks for the rich and protecting Citizens United, and 30 years of trickle down economics and your ignorance of how economics affects blacks more on average is why you don't get this.

If you truely agree with Mike, and I do to, then don't stupidly think this is about the police or one guy, and dont stupidly think he agrees with you. If anything if you agree with him then DON'T SUPPORT the no rules bullshit that is allowing our plutocracy to run things.

You truely want to help that guy? Then why the fuck do you vote the way you do? Which party do you think the society he lives in votes for because it certianly is not yours. Which party votes to allow big business to make those weapons they sell to the police and society? Which party who makes those military style weapons vote for? Which party does Walmart and McDonnalds do the CEOs vote for? 

Micheal has a much better understanding of what the Second Amendment was for, and it was not for protecting one class. You want an unarmed police force? I do too, so stop protecting corporate America and stop allowing the plutocrats to run everything.

I find it funny that you cant see what Nick Hanauer was saying, THIS is what he was talking about. I agree we have become a slave society, but that was done to us by one class. 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
blah blah blah blah blah.

blah blah blah blah blah. I'm too tired to rip Brians bs appart line by line right now. Lets just call it for what it is shall we?

Lies, hypocrisy, false accusations, strawmen, red herrings, false equivalencies, false dichotomies, special pleading, and slippery slope arguments. I'm 99% certain each and every one of those will stick to at least something Brian has said in this topic. If not yet, it will soon.

Lest we forget, Brians martyr complex.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Yeah. That's the ticket.

Yeah. That's the ticket. Disarm the police?

They need to get rid of the corrupt and the disturbed. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am quite

Brian37 wrote:

I am quite sure you are taking what is tweets said out of context dumbass. Ever occur to you he is making a point about how stupid the tea party nuts sound?

Maybe, maybe not. But I can also be quite confident that you are too lazy to bother looking up the context and providing any evidence that this quote is out of context. I'm not on Moore's twitter, I'm relying on the liberal news media to tell me what he said, so it probably is wrong. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now maybe you persnally value the rights of dems to own guns too, but most of the gun nutters would be scared shitless if liberals wanted their own revolution. But if you want to argue what the better outcome would be if liberals vs tea party nuts had one, if the tea party won the first thing they would do is disarm liberals. Alot like Hitler relaxed gun ownership to party loyalists and took guns away from everyone else.

Do you have any evidence to support that at all? Didn't think so. But I agree, the NRA is way too supportive of gun control.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Moore  was making the point that if you are going to argue the 2nd Amdendmet blacks would have more of a case than the Koch Brother dick you suck.

Blacks have a great case for 2nd Amendment rights. Half the reason the left supports gun control is because they want to make sure that the black population remains needy and has to rely on big government to take care of them. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And disarm the government? NO SHIT ASSHOLE the police in Japan don't have guns. SO I AGREE. But that will not work if idiots like you protect a flooded market, how would you expect police to protect themselves, water pistles?

I don't expect the police to protect themselves at all. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You know why the Japanese don't have a violence problem? BECAUSE NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED YOU FUCKWAD! They don't have to fear their government because they don't masturbate over guns like it's pornography.

Do you know the first thing about the Japanese justice system? Do you know the first thing about the crime trends in Japan? Do you have an explanation for why non-gun crimes are also much lower in Japan? No of course you don't. What is there to know about all those idiots on the other side of the world right? 

 

Quote:

Never occurs to fuckwads like you that this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with MONEY! The makers love the fear between society and cops and they love poverty wages because that breeds fear and crime, then they can keep and expand their market and pit cops against society and have society fear cops. EXELENT SCAM, just like daffy plays the beagle against Foghorn. 

They love low wages? Then why the fuck do gun manufacturers pay such high wages? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

No one wants a fascist state dipshit,

You do. You have advocated precisely for fascist economics many times. The whole point of fascist economics was a "middle ground" of government working with corporations, with neither one have a MONOPOLY! It was created as the middle ground between communism and capitalism. Which is PRECISELY what you have advocated as the answer to our problems. The extreme nationalism and bigotry became a tool used to prevent the "race to the bottom" that you always whine about. The system worked quite well as long as the system remained closed and the private companies were tightly controlled by the government. It led Germany to go from being impoverished after WWI to becoming one of the largest powers in the world. 

A program like Bamacare can most accurately be described as fascist. The idea of government partnering up with private capital in the insurance industry and mandating that all citizens purchase from them, without fully taking government ownership of it was the very goal of the fascists. Will the hate, anger and extreme nationalism that developed in Nazi Germany come as a result? Who knows. Historians and economists argue over whether those features were an inevitable result of the economic system or if there were other factors at play. I tend to believe towards the latter. It is an interesting discussion to have, unfortunately, you are too fucking stupid to discuss the pros and cons of fascist economics seriously. You just support fascist economic laws and don't even know it because you associate fascism with the holocaust and don't have a fucking clue what the fascist movement believed outside of that.  

Although, if you want to increase wages in the US without having higher unemployment, keeping Mexicans out of our country would be an essential step. And stirring up anger, hate and racism against a group of people has proven effective in the past at keeping them out at least for the short term. 

Regardless, is was the fascists who pioneered the ideas of heavily progressive income taxation, requiring government licenses to start even the most basic businesses, price controls and wage controls. Nominally private corporations that were heavily controlled by government appointed boards through "partnerships" were one of the major features. Companies not at all unlike Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve, GM, energy companies or really health insurance companies. Fascism was marked by large public works projects designed to keep employment rates high and paid for by fiat money creation.  

Some economists criticize considering fascism as an economic philosophy, because the leaders of the movement made decisions out of practical expediency and had little intelluctual theory or philosophy behind their decisions. Which is true to an extent. They were anti-communist and they were anti-capitalist. They (Mussolini, Hitler and other leaders of the movement) had disdain for economic theories. Kind of reminds me of a certain asshole on here who loves to attack economic theories as "all making the same mistake". Mussolini would agree whole heartedly. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
everybody knows what the


everybody knows what the second amendment is for. the second amendment gives citizens the right to arm themselves in order to protect themselves from the US government and even overthrow it should it become tyrranical. why on earth would the US of 1787 need militias to fight the british? they were a sovereign nation with a standing army. the only reason i think the second amendment is outmoded is that even the entire citizenry of the united states, with firearms, would not be able to beat the modern US military. theoretically, the purpose for the second amendment is still valid. practically, it isn't.

and does michael moore really tweet in text speak like that? that's extremely off-putting for someone who is supposed to be an intellectual authority.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:
The whole point of fascist economics was a "middle ground" of government working with corporations, with neither one have a MONOPOLY! It was created as the middle ground between communism and capitalism.



that's absolutely correct.


Beyond Saving wrote:
It led Germany to go from being impoverished after WWI to becoming one of the largest powers in the world.



with enormous debt. hitler didn't just go to war for ideological reasons. by the end of the '30s, the nazi social programs had put the state so far in the red, the bottom could have dropped out at any time. hitler needed more land, resources, and cash, and he needed them yesterday. for him, czechoslovakia and poland were the most convenient options. for us, it's the middle east.


Beyond Saving wrote:
You just support fascist economic laws and don't even know it because you associate fascism with the holocaust and don't have a fucking clue what the fascist movement believed outside of that.



scholars are pretty divided as to what degree national socialiam even comes under the umbrella of fascism, or whether it oughtn't to be classified as its own thing altogether.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:  the only

iwbiek wrote:

  the only reason i think the second amendment is outmoded is that even the entire citizenry of the united states, with firearms, would not be able to beat the modern US military. theoretically, the purpose for the second amendment is still valid. practically, it isn't.

 

      And yet after more than 10 years of facing the full might of the modern US military the supposed unstopabble force of our super-duper weaponry has still failed to defeat the various rag tag  Muslim factions ( even after using the dreaded MOAB to inspire "shock and awe" )   The Muslims street fighters will never achieve military parity with the the US war machine and yet they are still going strong.   Strange isn't it ?

 

  PS, in urban warfare it is generally conceded by people who do it for a living that the tactical advantage lies with the defenders.   The attackers will usually suffer disproportionate losses even if they prevail.  

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Difference being that the

Difference being that the Arab's haven't had a break in fighting since the crusades started. The American people haven't seen a war first hand since the 1800's.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Difference

Vastet wrote:
Difference being that the Arab's haven't had a break in fighting since the crusades started. The American people haven't seen a war first hand since the 1800's.

 

   Oh, believe me my experiences in dealing with most of  the pro-gun good ol' boys hasn't encouraged me.   I suspect that those tough talking bastards wouldn't do anything but piss in their pants and beg for mercy.  They're too lazy to vote or even attend a protest rally.   That's when I learned not to trust them.

 

  Still waiting for America's Big Victory® against the Muslim freedom fighters, because you know we've got billions of dollars worth of cool weapons and they've just got small arms and a few crappy IED's.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
It led Germany to go from being impoverished after WWI to becoming one of the largest powers in the world.

with enormous debt. hitler didn't just go to war for ideological reasons. by the end of the '30s, the nazi social programs had put the state so far in the red, the bottom could have dropped out at any time. hitler needed more land, resources, and cash, and he needed them yesterday. for him, czechoslovakia and poland were the most convenient options. for us, it's the middle east. 

Yes and no. Germany had enormous foreign debt when Hitler came into power, most of that burden was due to reparations imposed after WWI. Most of the debt used to finance public works came from Reichsbank through Mefo bills. While it was arguably falling into a long term trap, its immediate monetary monetary situation was far more secure than most modern governments today. For at least the next several decades, there is no reason the government couldn't just keep creating Mefo bills and keep borrowing from Reichsbank. (Many keynesian economists seem to think such borrowing can go on indefinitely, I guess the US is going to find out one way or the other some day).

The immediate crises was that German imports were low. The use of a national currency that wasn't recognized outside of Germany, combined with the governments tight control over imports/exports created deficits in physical commodities. These shortages caused increasingly strict rationing and was having a negative impact on the quality of life, Germany started heading for widespread domestic discontent- especially since Germany wasn't self sufficient in agriculture.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yes and

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes and no. Germany had enormous foreign debt when Hitler came into power, most of that burden was due to reparations imposed after WWI. Most of the debt used to finance public works came from Reichsbank through Mefo bills. While it was arguably falling into a long term trap, its immediate monetary monetary situation was far more secure than most modern governments today. For at least the next several decades, there is no reason the government couldn't just keep creating Mefo bills and keep borrowing from Reichsbank. (Many keynesian economists seem to think such borrowing can go on indefinitely, I guess the US is going to find out one way or the other some day).

The immediate crises was that German imports were low. The use of a national currency that wasn't recognized outside of Germany, combined with the governments tight control over imports/exports created deficits in physical commodities. These shortages caused increasingly strict rationing and was having a negative impact on the quality of life, Germany started heading for widespread domestic discontent- especially since Germany wasn't self sufficient in agriculture.  




i seem to recall reading the overblown social programs instituted by the reich (gifts of farmland, nice houses, long paid vacations, long maternity leaves, subsidies for children, etc.) were driving it to ruin pretty quickly and that hitler knew it. i think my source on that was richard overy's 2004 book the dictators: hitler's germany, stalin's russia, but i could be wrong. i read the book seven years ago and haven't kept up with the third reich since (my interests went to the soviet union, obviously).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:And

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
And yet after more than 10 years of facing the full might of the modern US military the supposed unstopabble force of our super-duper weaponry has still failed to defeat the various rag tag  Muslim factions ( even after using the dreaded MOAB to inspire "shock and awe" )   The Muslims street fighters will never achieve military parity with the the US war machine and yet they are still going strong.   Strange isn't it ?



i don't think it's strange. i don't think the US even wants to defeat them. more than ten years after the end of the cold war, the american hawks finally found their new boogeyman, and they damn sure want to keep him around.


also, i think what keeps america in check in the middle east has more to do with not upsetting the other nuclear powers like china and russia. to really unseat the insurgents would require an absolutely merciless, devastating military action that would obliterate damn near every person in the middle east, perhaps even requiring the use of nuclear weapons, which would put the other nuclear powers on a hair trigger, not to mention the political catastrophe it would cause at home and abroad.


what keeps the insurgents alive is world opinion, not islamist military strength. but it's a moot point anyway, because i firmly believe the US wants the insurgents alive.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I dunno. I don't think the

I dunno. I don't think the US military could take them out now. There's only so much you can do with air strikes and drones. They haven't used soldiers in so long I doubt there's more than a handful who have actual experience fighting a war. Surgical strikes and patrols in hostile territory, sure. But real war? I don't think so. I bet the average insurgent has ten times the combat experience of the average American or European soldier. Might have shit training by comparison, but training is no match for real experience.

There's absolutely no chance of a nuclear option. Too many governments have nukes now, and too many of those governments are right in the middle of the area. India, Pakistan, Israel, China, and Russia would never just sit by and let that go down. I wouldn't be shocked if Egypt and Saudi Arabia had them too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: also, i think

iwbiek wrote:


also, i think what keeps america in check in the middle east has more to do with not upsetting the other nuclear powers like china and russia.

 

Seems doubtful when one considers that American politicians ( at the height of the Cold War, no less ) didn't seem too concerned about not upsetting those two nuclear super powers when the US war machine was stomping around in South East Asia in order to kill communists.  Nor did there seem to be any threat of actual military pay back from the Soviet Union ( the absolute epitome of a Nuke Super Power ) when America began supplying copious amounts of military aid to the Mujahideen so that they could kill Russian soldiers.   Can't get much more provocative than that. 

 

   Besides, China has had Most Favored Nation status with the US since 1979 ( tarif rates of roughly 6% versus 44% for non MFN status ).  Why would they want to screw that up ?   And there is no "Evil Empire" anymore since "democracy" came to the Mother Land.  We're all friends, now.

 

iwbiek wrote:
to really unseat the insurgents would require an absolutely merciless, devastating military action that would obliterate damn near every person in the middle east, perhaps even requiring the use of nuclear weapons, which would put the other nuclear powers on a hair trigger, not to mention the political catastrophe it would cause at home and abroad.

 

    The US is the only nuke super power to have actually engaged in nuclear warfare.  Only America has actually killed people ( civilians ) with nukes.  There was little if any political catastrophe for those actions.   I do agree that a risky domino effect is possible in today's world, but if that were to occur bad publicity would be the least of anyone's concerns.

 

 


iwbiek wrote:
what keeps the insurgents alive is world opinion, not islamist military strength.

 

     Who among the world's leading nations is applauding what ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Harim, etc are doing ?   Somalia, Malaysia ?   Besides, when has there ever been unanimity among world opinion regarding any violent faction ?  One nation's terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter. 

 

iwbiek wrote:
...but it's a moot point anyway, because i firmly believe the US wants the insurgents alive

 

          Maybe, but to what end ?   Who benefits ?

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Maybe, but to what end ?   Who benefits ?

 




lockheed martin. honeywell. the joint chiefs of staff. it's like the late vaclav havel once wrote: it was very clever of the US to change the title of secretary of war to secretary of defense. the country isn't always at war, but it always needs defending. still, even that angle is hard to sell if there are no enemies about.


i'm not saying they want the insurgents completely off the chain, but pretty much all the defense departments of the world's major powers, not to mention the arms manufacturers, benefit from an unstable third world.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Only

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Only America has actually killed people ( civilians ) with nukes.  There was little if any political catastrophe for those actions.



the average american at that time hardly saw a japanese as a "person." we were exhausted by years of active warfare which had directly affected most american families. the american propaganda machine had been operating overtime since before we had even gone to war, and people were much more willing to believe it back then. people in general were less cynical about the government and had much fewer sources of alternative information. while of course everybody knew the atom bomb had caused untold devastation, it's not like they could download thousands of high-res pictures of it on a whim, so it was easier to justify it and detach onesself from it (as my grandfather always did).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: i seem to

iwbiek wrote:

i seem to recall reading the overblown social programs instituted by the reich (gifts of farmland, nice houses, long paid vacations, long maternity leaves, subsidies for children, etc.) were driving it to ruin pretty quickly and that hitler knew it. i think my source on that was richard overy's 2004 book the dictators: hitler's germany, stalin's russia, but i could be wrong. i read the book seven years ago and haven't kept up with the third reich since (my interests went to the soviet union, obviously).

I haven't read that book, but it would be a departure from who Overy has said in the past in his 1996 book War and Economy in the Third Reich

Overy p. 22-23 wrote:

It is sometimes argued that the costs of military build-up on this scale proved insupportable, that Hitler once again found himself the victim of economic reality. There is no doubt that the adjustment to a state-dominated, rapidly militarizing economy did produce problems in resource allocation and the provisioning of the civilian population. The short world recession of 1938 also hit the German economy in its efforts to boost exports to earn essential imports for the rearmament effort. A recent study has suggested thtat the critical point in the German trade and payments situation came early in 1938, before Germany seized the gold and foreign exchange resources of Austria. 

He then goes on to summarize the problems- a slowing domestic economy, efforts to quickly re-employ etc. He continues,

Quote:

But these were the kind of difficulties faced by all the rearming states in the 1930s-- balance of payments problems, domestic arguments about budget priorities, a wary industrial response, considerable waste and muddle in the early stages of rearmament. The issue they all faced was how to respond to these difficulties.

The numbers seem to back that up. The budget under Hitler from 33-38 ran deficits ranging from $4-$8 billion reichmarks per year, depending on who you believe (there is quite a bit of argument over how reliable the records kept by the government are). Which puts Germany between 30-40 billion in debt in 1938. With a revenue stream over 20 billion, that is damn near austerity by modern standards. From a fiscal standpoint, there wasn't any real danger. Perhaps a concern, but not nearly as critical as it was the previous decade. And since an extremely large portion of that debt was going towards rearmament, I think it is unfair to blame the social programs when evaluating the relative effectiveness and stability of their economic policies. 

From a raw materials standpoint, Germany was facing a huge problem- which is in a sense an economic issue, but is also a very political one. There was a huge bias in much of the world against trading with Germany, combined with other countries dealing with their own recessions and being protectionist, and resources such as metals that couldn't be produced domestically ran into shortages. Especially the commodities that were needed for armament. 

If you put the same economic policies in effect in a country that has good ties with other large and healthy economies, I think the situation looks very different. I think that there are many arguments that the fascist economy was immoral, unpleasant, inefficient, certainly corrupt and various other issues to criticize. I'm not at all convinced that it was unsustainable.

Although, you do have the truism that when you have a really large military, you are going to use it. And when you do, you damn well better win, or at least lose in such a way that most of the world keeps trading with you.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X