|
Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/17/2015 10:15:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Actually we did 'install' him. In fact, the America media is ALSO at fault, for not really doing enough to report to the American people the EXACT SITUATION in Iraq. Journalists failed to explain the religion, the culture, ideas, the people, and even the infrastructure. Before the invasion in 2001, most Americans held the view Iraq was mostly a pile of nomads, rather than common people living in buildings. The only difference on infrastructure was Iraq had many sources to create concrete (all that sand and gravel....).
Later, after the removal of Saddam, did we learn of all three seperate factions whom fought for power in the power vacuum we created. That Saddam had to use brutality just to keep all three from waging war against each other was not understood by the American people before 2003. They all had their reasons for why they should led the whole of the nation. The Bush administration 'installed' someone totally loyal to them, rather than making in-roads to all three factions. Go figured, the other two factions not really represented got pissed off....
I mostly agree with you here, although I was referring to 1979 when Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq. I suppose it's possible we might have installed him back then, although I don't think we really supported him until after he initiated hostilities with Iran in 1980 during the Iranian hostage crisis.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Likewise, the 'fighting' will never die down in the Middle East. Its like stating 'lets do something about firearms in America after everyone comes down about their usage". For the Middle East to be peaceful, there would have to be no humans living within it. The only way that will happen is by turning it into a nuclear wasteland. Be careful what you wish for. Since all those people will move elsewhere after that happens. They'll bring all their 'thousand year' squabbles with them. To America...
There is another option other than making the Middle East into a nuclear wasteland - although it's probably just as unpalatable. We'd have to take over the whole region and rule with an iron fist. Not that I'm advocating that, but it's clear that half-ass interventionism won't ever work to achieve the results our politicians claim they want. They claim they want to bring peace and stability to the Middle East, so either they have to totally commit themselves to that goal - or just forget about it entirely.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
That was a bad decision. Not from the point of view of 'What we know now', but 'placing power in the hands of a people whom we could not control'. There is a reason we do not allow anyone under the age of 18 to hold public office in America. The concept of "Lord of the Flies' comes to mind here. A people that would misuse power. Or a metaphorical 'One Ring to Rule Them All' mentality; the desire to do great good, but accomplish extreme evil without realizing it.
To bad no one can really admit that from those whom signed off on the process.
Sure, it was a bad decision, motivated by anti-communism more than anything else. Our politicians' obsessions over communism caused us to make all kinds of bad decisions on all continents and regions in the world.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
An organization with very little moral standards, deep pockets, and a thirst for power and domination; should be something to be worried about. One that can manipulate the population, while restricting the ability of media to expose the facts and truth, should ALSO be worried about. Worst than both of those? Many organizations working together, whose population is just a few percentage points, controlling the other 90% of the nation.
Hitler and his goon squad had early forms of this knowledge. Its been over seventy years. Do you have any idea how advance this knowledge is now? How its being applied? Towards 'Low Information Voters'?
Yes, I can see that. I think these tactics of manipulation (and other psychological ploys to which you may be referring) generally tend to work better on the young, naive, and the ignorant. This is especially true when it comes to matters of foreign policy. I often ask myself: Why are so many of my fellow Americans so woefully ignorant when it comes to geography, world events, and history? It's not as if the information is not available. Even people who are seemingly educated and knowledgeable in other areas somehow have formed a mental block when it comes to the social sciences. I just don't understand it myself. The best way to avoid being tricked and manipulated is to arm oneself with information.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
'Why should the United States not be the World Police?"
'Why should the United States be the World Police?'
Lets use the more logical question:
'Why should the United States deal with some evil people, while allowing others to flourish?'
Or even more logical question:
'Why should the people of the world allow some evil people to exist, but attack others?'
At any point in time, someone, somewhere, is being evil towards someone else. Likewise, at any point, someone, somewhere, is being good towards someone else. So why cant the good people band together to remove the evil people? If things were so simple, that would have been taken care of by now....
We are the world police because we have the resources to do so. So long as our defense budget is equal to the next ten largest nations of the world; we'll be the world police. After all, we got to use those tax dollars on something, right?
I think the answer is that we're not really the world police, but more like thought police - ideological enforcers. "World police" implies that we've taken on the role of enforcing international law, which we should presumably be following ourselves (heh). In reality, our role in WW2 propelled us to being the major power in the alliance with Western European nations, some of which held vast overseas possessions and economic interests which then became our economic interests.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
More plainly: Whom Watches the Watchmen?
That was the idea with the three branches of government. If one behaved in a negative manner the other two could deal with it. Of course, what happens when all three have been neutralized or corrupted? "They people will stand up and take action", right? Didn't see that happen when the GOP/TP have behaved in a tyrannical manner. Particularly by those folks whom say their guns are there for that sort of duty.
Or the Media? Yeah, what happens when the media, whom is controlled by corporate interests 'overlooks' one thing while intensely 'reporting' on something else? Conservative media right how is 24/7 attacks on Hillary Clinton, yet, not much is known of the 16 GOP/TP candidates on a huge variety of topics. We as the American people already know Mrs. Clinton and her stances on many things. Should we really care about what she is wearing on a particular day? When at the same time we are just as ignorant on the viewpoints of those GOP/TP'ers running for office on issues of the day: immigration, gun control, foreign policy, healthcare, infrastructure. Not only know their viewpoints, but know their plan as being 'well structured and thought out' rather than 'spur of the moment ideas'?
I can understand political partisanship and mud-slinging; that's been going on since even before our government was formed. The three branches of government were designed to prevent any single individual or faction from gaining total power. We do have a representative democracy, so the people do have a role in this, but if the electorate is riddled with apathy and ignorance, then democracy itself will tend to suffer.
The media have a role in this too, but I've noticed over the years that the internet and the blogosphere are starting to make inroads and gain larger following. But rather than opening up the lines of communication, it seems to have had the opposite effect. People can spend time at a site with others who think just like they do, where they can form their own insular echo chamber where dissent is not tolerated. Rival factions talk past each other rather than to each other. Things are not heading in a positive or hopeful direction.
Politicians who like to play on the public's fears are like children playing with matches. That's the real danger of the tactics of manipulation you mentioned above.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
While at a party with friends recently (we are the entire spectrum of politics), I asked a simple question: What are all the rights given under the 1st amendment. Even with smartphones before them on the table, not one of them could guess two correct answers (of the total five). That's right, in 2015 we have more information at our disposal, but all to often, the inability to use that information for something useful. Any one of those could have picked up their smartphone and googled '1st amendment'.
Wow, that's pretty sad. I see people walking around with their smartphones all the time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
When you next meet up with people for a political chat, ask them to define the 1st amendment's five parts. Most people (dumbly) assume they cant use a smartphone to look information up. Isn't a smartphone's technical ability the same as the human mind's bio ability for information purposes?
People (dumbly again) assume they must know everything in order to answer something. If that was true, we'd still be living in caves! That is while things are written down; so we don't have to remember it. All the stories in the holy bible were past down until someone got the brilliant idea 'lets write it down, so we dont keep fucking up the story'.
It's not that it really takes a lot of time to at least understand some of the basics and fundamentals. Before we had smartphones and internet search engines, we had to trudge through card catalogs and other reference guides. I could sort of understand it if some people didn't want to make a trip to the library, but nowadays, when the information is right at their fingertips - what's the problem?
|
|
|
|
