T
tands
Guest
My point is don't try to sell markets as a solution to inequality. Somebody always pays for any benefit anyone gets from capitalism.
Donald trump. what is your take on him?
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
I count the modern world (with roughly contemporary values) as starting from the beginnings of the UN, almost all colonies were offered independence after that. So I don't think it is worthwhile to bring up events before that point as evidence.
My point was over the partition of India and who was to blame for the genocide after that.
The general liberal viewpoint is that the British Empire was some evil incarnation for the exploitation of the people. But that doesn't explain how a million Indian soldiers served the Empire in WW1. In WW2 the Indian army had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945. This does not happen when you hate the colonial power.
For what it's worth, I think the worst thing that the British did was getting involved in slavery and pushing opium to the Chinese.
I regard our debt to these countries as being paid by the infrastructure we left behind, the civil administration and the billions of pounds given in foreign aid when we can't even finance our own health service properly. We have kept this up even when they have chosen to make nuclear weapons and join the space race instead of providing running water and sewage systems for their own people.
All of the posts I make on this thread are aimed at providing some balanced argument, because I see many of the posts here as being very highly biased towards a mostly a liberal agenda.
DaveP
My point was over the partition of India and who was to blame for the genocide after that.
The general liberal viewpoint is that the British Empire was some evil incarnation for the exploitation of the people. But that doesn't explain how a million Indian soldiers served the Empire in WW1. In WW2 the Indian army had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945. This does not happen when you hate the colonial power.
For what it's worth, I think the worst thing that the British did was getting involved in slavery and pushing opium to the Chinese.
I regard our debt to these countries as being paid by the infrastructure we left behind, the civil administration and the billions of pounds given in foreign aid when we can't even finance our own health service properly. We have kept this up even when they have chosen to make nuclear weapons and join the space race instead of providing running water and sewage systems for their own people.
All of the posts I make on this thread are aimed at providing some balanced argument, because I see many of the posts here as being very highly biased towards a mostly a liberal agenda.
DaveP
Matt,
My criticism of Iran is mainly because they supply Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation with arms.
Some interesting facts:
Israel has criticized Trump for banning Muslims arriving from 7 failed states for 90 days, whereas Israelis are banned from travelling to 16 states even though Muslims are allowed to travel to Israel.
DaveP
My criticism of Iran is mainly because they supply Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation with arms.
Some interesting facts:
Israel has criticized Trump for banning Muslims arriving from 7 failed states for 90 days, whereas Israelis are banned from travelling to 16 states even though Muslims are allowed to travel to Israel.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
Ok, now we know. I'll just reiterate that by ignoring history you're more likely to repeat mistakes and perpetuate injustices, generally speaking.
DaveP said:
"liberal agenda". Can you explain just what that agenda consists of? I see that word a lot and I never really hear just what the agenda is made up of. It's like the boogieman....
DaveP said:
Ok, so you limited your view of history as noted above, which then will include US support of, but not limited to:
Contras in Nicaragua
Indonesia's attack and slaughter of the East Timorese
Iraq's illegal invasion of Iran
El Salvadorean terrorists
and on and on....
So, the question for you then Dave is as follows: Do you criticize and judge the US to be the same as Iran - or worse - for its support of terrorists or military attacks on sovereign nations?
I'm guessing you don't, and that's exactly the problem.
DaveP said:
So?
dmp
Well-known member
Seems like critics of the status quo (obama's last 8 yrs) either strongly criticize him for being too militaristic or too weak-- opposite positions.
In fact, I've argued he's taken a middle approach that over time would have been effective and was the best informed choice he could take. The minimum level required would be to prevent a attack on the US - as the consequences would be huge -not just to victims in the US, but because the level of response would spill a whole lot of blood and create turmoil. The higher level would require support from Congress, which he had to work without for his entire tenure, and may just create a non-ending cycle of violence. Only providing opportunity for other things, besides terror, can we really change the dynamic.
Already we are seeing the incompetence of Trump by providing PR for terrorist groups. With this ban, they are telling anybody who would cooperate with us in mid east countries that we will abandon them later. After only 1 week, it will only be much easier for terrorists to demonize the US.
In fact, I've argued he's taken a middle approach that over time would have been effective and was the best informed choice he could take. The minimum level required would be to prevent a attack on the US - as the consequences would be huge -not just to victims in the US, but because the level of response would spill a whole lot of blood and create turmoil. The higher level would require support from Congress, which he had to work without for his entire tenure, and may just create a non-ending cycle of violence. Only providing opportunity for other things, besides terror, can we really change the dynamic.
Already we are seeing the incompetence of Trump by providing PR for terrorist groups. With this ban, they are telling anybody who would cooperate with us in mid east countries that we will abandon them later. After only 1 week, it will only be much easier for terrorists to demonize the US.
Been lurking on this thread for a while. Wanted to share an article that hopefully is an overreaction.... but still has a weird smell of truth about it, at least to me. Either way I think it's very important reading.
https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5
https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
I'm not so sure that's an overreaction unfortunately. I already posted regarding placing Bannon in that group while not making actually qualified people mandatory, and I absolutely see this as testing just how much power the administration can muster right away.
What's more worrying than this development is the super-lax attitude by Americans who are just willing to let these guys do what they want in the name of "well they're my party so they probably know what they're doing".
Having the former CEO of Breitbart in this position should send chills down the spine of conservatives and liberals alike. Nobody should be ok with that development, or with the DHS ignoring the courts. The latter is incredibly dangerous.
Heck, throw in some "Torture works and we're going to re-open black-sites" and you have all the tools at your disposal to carefully craft something awful.
Then again, people seem concerned about their stock portfolio (if they're lucky enough to have one).
What's more worrying than this development is the super-lax attitude by Americans who are just willing to let these guys do what they want in the name of "well they're my party so they probably know what they're doing".
Having the former CEO of Breitbart in this position should send chills down the spine of conservatives and liberals alike. Nobody should be ok with that development, or with the DHS ignoring the courts. The latter is incredibly dangerous.
Heck, throw in some "Torture works and we're going to re-open black-sites" and you have all the tools at your disposal to carefully craft something awful.
Then again, people seem concerned about their stock portfolio (if they're lucky enough to have one).
DaveP said:
You consider the worlds 27th largest economy a failed state?
And funny how you say Israeli's and Muslims, as if they're comparable. Israeli's can't travel to any countries who don't recognise them. Jews can travel anywhere they like. Two entirely different issues.
I have to sleep sometime!
I don't agree with supporting terrorists whoever is doing it, US or Iran, Hezbollah or Contras.
No, they support a terrorist organization.
And so can the Muslims of the other 57 Muslim countries in the world.
It might suit to make it an anti- Muslim/racist issue, but it's a failed state terror issue.
Whether it's effective or counter productive is debatable, and quite another thing.
Inconvenience at airports is something we have been suffering for years in the UK, taking shoes off, belts off, my wife has lost around $100 worth of cosmetics over the years as they are liquids. All the time watched over with police with machine guns. All this because we must not show discrimination against the racial/religious profile who actually want to blow up the planes.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
I wasn't complaining.
DaveP said:
What a cop out. You know exactly what the issue is here. You characterize one state according to its actions and in turn find that the characterization it then has warrants actions from the rest of the world as a result. Cause and effect if you will. I have never ever heard a conservative argue for the same standard and same action against "their" countries. Never.
So if you agree that Iran and the US are on par, the next question is obviously if you think the same actions that are warranted against Iran are warranted against the US... Do you support that?
DaveP said:
Which failed state are you talking about?
And did you listen to what Giuliani said? He specifically stated that Trump wanted to ban Muslims and asked for advice on how to make that legal. The fact that he not only exempts but clearly give preferential treatment to Christians in the region should ring a bell. This is all just a test to see how far they can push this, and if they can get away with this they'll add more nations.
Dave, how many terrorists have come from these nations?
How many terrorists came from Saudi Arabia?
Does Trump have business interests in Saudi Arabia?
This is not about terrorism. If it was, then Iran wouldn't be the target.
DaveP said:
What's your point here? Didn't you in the same post point out that it was NOT about race or religion that these people are blocked from coming to the US?! Why the reversal all of a sudden?
I can't help it if you can't pigeon hole me, it's not my problem, maybe you live in a left wing bubble?
The US is not my country, only a fool would think they had never made any mistakes.
Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Iraq*. Iraq is not a failed state in quite the same way, but it is a conflict zone and is likely to hemorrhage terrorists pretty soon.
Christians and Yazidis have been persecuted in Syria/Iraq by IS.
Saudi Arabia is an unpleasant state but it has not yet failed, it actively roots out terrorists. I am aware that terrorists have come from other places is the past, but common sense tells me it's more likely from states where the governments are weak or non-existent. Terrorism has moved over the last 16 years.
Suggestion: Try putting over your points like you are not the state prosecutor, I am not your witness under cross examination, I have free opinions formed over six decades of observation that I justify to you only if I feel like it.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
Maybe you're a neo-con chickenhawk armchair general? Did we move the conversation forward now?
DaveP said:
The point is that we know from where terrorists in the US have already come, and it has been Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc, and NONE from the countries blacklisted. And while your argument makes some valid points Iran sticks out like a sore thumb by being inherently different from the others in many ways.
And this is still an issue of very likely violating the US constitution. If he gets away with it on this issue, what's next?
DaveP said:
Thanks for what appears to be yet another personal attack.
I'm just sick of people advocating hostility towards other nations without even having the balls to own up to their own support of inherently unequal "principles". I can't frickin' read your mind, I can only ask you what you mean. But you're just being a slippery eel because you know exactly what the issues here are.
Iran is bad because that's what your media told you, and your media told you it is so because it supports an organization labeled a terrorist organization. Therefore all sorts of things are warranted, like embargoes and boycotts etc. Curiously, when we bring up your nation or the US it stops at "Yeah, nobody is flawless" but never quite proceeds to "yeah, we should probably have an embargo against the US as well", or "Yeah, since the US supported terrorists and colonization it too should be taken are of" or whatever it is you support in the case of Iran.
I think the difference is clear. They're not us. Therefore the rules are different for them.
They're bad because they do it.
We're good despite us doing it.
I'm just sick of people not admitting it while supporting this clown in the white house or advocating that we take a wait and see approach while he likely violated the constitution and puts right-wing white-power-appeasing former publicist into the National Security Council.
living sounds
Well-known member
Dylan W said:
Good article. I was going to post this one on a similar vain:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.j8x98z1m6
micaddict
Well-known member
Although one shouldn't generalize, I can't help noticing that conservatives and/or right wingers often somehow seem to lack the talent to put themselves in another person's or group's shoes. Or to question the neutrality of the schools, media etc. in their country.
I was born in one of the wealthiest countries on earth (much of that wealth was stolen IMO, but that's not necessarily written in our history books) and I was given a pale skin, light blond hair and blue eyes. In many ways that makes me a lucky SOB. If I wanted to please myself alone, I would prolly be a (moderate) righty. But I constantly try to imagine how I would feel if I were in less lucky shoes. And I firmly believe that is what human beings should do. So thinking "left" is the "right" thing to do IMO, especially for the more fortunate on this planet. Oh, and that does not make me a communist.
Furthermore, if we look at the longer term, then righties who continue to refuse this approach will shoot themselves in the foot. So for self preservation its a good idea, too. But that's not my first motive.
The danger of sharing this is that some may accuse me of being or "holier than thou". This is not the case. I don't think I'm a better person than someone else. Which is actually the point to begin with. But if someone utters this accusation, it does tell me something.
Let's clear up the media situation first.
1. I don't and I never have followed US media, it's far too complicated and full of speculation and conspiracy theories to trust.
2. I follow the BBC, ITV , France 24 and Al Jazeera.
3. Most of the media is probably liberal minded so you need to sort that out with your opinion.
I am not one of John's "low information voters" and I am quite capable of winnowing wheat from chaff myself. However I may come to different conclusions from you.
We did not find out until much later that the US caused the Cuban missile crisis because they had installed missiles on Turkey's border with Russia. The agreement with Khrushchev that they would quietly be taken away in 3 months was to be kept secret. That is an example of a very stupid and dangerous action that the US did. Russian containment again. I think that any scolding of the US by its allies goes on behind closed doors to preserve the illusion of unity.
Just for the record so you don't think I'm being too slippery: I hate religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim. Every non secular government that I have observed has done bad things to its people in the name of religion. That is another reason why I don't like the Iranian government, I think most Iranians are obviously fine, (most people are) but I think their government is oppressive. Hammas is another example so is North Korea where the religion is the leader. Saudi Arabia is not much better in the way it treats women, they are still in the middle ages.
Regarding immigration: I am not opposed to it in principle, but I question the degree to which it has been allowed. A gradual assimilation over time is fine, but wholesale transformation of towns and cities is quite another. The problem is compounded when immigrants don't stop at the 1- 3 children that we have, so that the population grows even more. This is all the fault of disconnected government whose politicians don't mix or live in the circles where the immigration impacts. This is what causes things like Brexit and Trump.
I have come to these conclusions after observation of outcomes not from anything the media has told me.
DaveP
That strain of pessimism is running rampant like a bad flu virus. Lessons about making the worst assumptions seem bound to come up. I do think there are legitimate concerns esp on the topic of elevating the tension level with our allies and enemies. Trump fosters combativeness and I'm afraid nothing much can be done about that.
Re the future, I will repeat something I had alluded to at one time. I foresee his entire 1st term being defined by a significant and constant strain between he and Congress (and Supreme court). And on that point I am optimistic that Trump's most rash, impulsive and poorly though out proposals will be effectively stonewalled. I don't know off the top of my head just what all his options are for attempting to circumvent opposition, but I would imagine it will play out much as it did with Obama - no dice. So one way of looking at these apparent reverse tug of wars is that centrist is where the buck stops.
I think you are right Alan, I always believed this would happen.
The only problem that I see, is that if he is blocked by outright mutiny among the Washington elite (swamp), then it will just emphasis what he has been saying all along. Some times it's better to give someone enough rope to hang themselves.
I think he should be left to get on with the job and then people can vote on the results in 2020. If he completely screws up then he will sink without a trace. If there are constant protests and obstructions then his people will claim that democracy has been subverted and he has not been given a proper chance. That will make the divisions even wider, if that were possible. From my own experience, I doubt that everything he does will prove to be a disaster, life is always patchy in its outcomes.
DaveP
If you are kidding add a smiley face emoticon. If you are not kidding STOP the personal attacks.mattiasNYC said:
JR
T
tands
Guest
Banzai said:
That was my obscurantist point. The reason the US bombs those people, and enslaves others is capitalism, the constant pressure to exploit, and exploit others for profit. No exceptions.
tands said:
