christo-f Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Then that becomes more China's problem than the US. I owe you $100, you own me. I owe you $1,000,000, I own you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 hey cunt sauce, one of my all time fave sources, PBS, interviewed someone who pretty much backs that up [not quite the pricing in dollars part, but definitely the protection of the regime part]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/etc/script.html excerpt: ANNOUNCER: The deal was struck 60 years ago. YOUSSEF IBRAHIM, Fmr. Mid. East Bureau Chief, NY Times: America struck a pact with Saudi Arabia. You give us oil at cheap prices, and we will give you protection. ANNOUNCER: Every president since has reaffirmed the arrangement. Over the years, both sides have benefited. Billions of petro-dollars were recycled to buy expensive American military hardware. When necessary, America has intervened directly to keep the kingdom safe. Prince BANDAR BIN SULTAN, Ambassador to the U.S., 1983-present: They found the oil for us, and they've been our friends ever since, ANNOUNCER: But there's always been another Saudi Arabia, one of fervent Muslim warriors, tribesmen with an innate distrust of outsiders. For them, the monarchy is corrupt and the deal with America a bargain with the devil. Saudi preachers ascend their pulpits to rail against infidels and Jews. Saudi citizens have supplied millions of dollars to school and train jihadis around the world. ADEL AL JUBEIR, Adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah: when it became clear that 15 of the 19 were Saudis, that was a disaster. ANNOUNCER: Now Saudi militants have turned their sights on targets inside the kingdom and on Americans in Iraq. President Bush maintains that the Saudis are America's friends. ..................................... ........ ................ ...... .. NARRATOR: In 1933, the first foreign oil prospectors started arriving in the kingdom. King Abdul Aziz did not care who got the concession, as long as they paid the money up front. The British showed interest, but it was the Americans who paid $170,000 in gold for a concession that would turn out to contain the biggest oil fields on earth. FRANK JUNGERS, ARAMCO President, '73-'77: The first number of holes were dry, and the question was, "Why should we continue with this?" They had been ordered to stop, and they'd failed to read their mail or whatever, and so they did strike the oil, and that well is today— is operating. NARRATOR: The Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO, was created to prospect for oil and market it. America's four largest oil corporations became the sole shareholders. HASSAN YUSIF YASSIN, Diplomat: When King Abdul Aziz went to open the first oil field and he smelt the sulfur, and he was repugnantly surprised by the smell, and they told him, "Your Majesty, this is what oil, what the sulfur of oil smells like." "So, oh, oh, oh! Let me smell more of it!" NARRATOR: The king still had little idea what riches Saudi oil would soon bring. But by 1945, the U.S. urgently needed oil facilities to help supply its forces fighting around the globe. For President Franklin Roosevelt, oil was an American national security priority. From Yalta, FDR sent a message to the Saudi monarch. ... from a frontline "house of Saud" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNINE Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Then that becomes more China's problem than the US. I owe you $100, you own me. I owe you $1,000,000, I own you. i see your point but china would go to war to get their money back. besides they dont really seem to be affected by the loss of all that money. they would just tax the fuck out of thier civilians and lift the 2 child limit to put more children in factories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 but we buy all their goods. they've be fucked, going to war with their customer base. those poor chinese can't prop up that inflated economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Not to mention that the US would wipe the floor with China in a war as well.... Second, lifting the one child policy to create more workers to tax would first, take at least 15-18 years to make any difference whilst spiking health and education costs in the mean time, second, create greater pressures on the economy and food supply etc. etc...... China will move from buying longer term debt to short term bonds in order to let them mature and roll them over whilst diversifying forex investment (which they are already doing) and encourage the US to be more fiscally responsible, which they have been doing since 2008. China is also moving to make the Yuan a global currency with currency swaps, cross border Yuan trading and establsihing the Yuan as a trading currency in HK. As Symbols said, it's an incestuous relationship, China buys US debt, US buys Chinese exports, etc. Simplistic, yes, but is the basic mechanics. Lastly, China cannot dump Us debt on the market in an attempt to attack the US economy as that would diminish the value of the assets due to over supply and China would only get a 50c return on each dollar it invested thereby screwing the Chinese economy more than it screws the US economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen X Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 China and the US have moved into a position of mutually involuntary detente. Economically speaking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 YEah, spot on, Neither can afford an all out trade war, hence there is no naming of currency manipulation nor will the (Levin, I think it is, not sure off the top of my head) bill be passed allowing the undervalued Yuan be seen as a trade subsidy. Each side will continue to snipe at each other with individual cases of protectionist measures such as duties/tariffs for individual items such as steel piping, flooring, tires, chicken products and other measures such as market access, certification regulation, etc. It will take a significant shift over a period of time for either side to break out of what is essentially an economic stalemate. In that time China has to build up a domestic economy/consumer base and diversify forex holdings and increase the global trading of the Yuan. The US needs to find other cheap labor sources and increase manufacturing at home again whilst increasing savings and lowering debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen X Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Well, I agree that China is desperately trying to upjump the Yuan in the global markets but, imho, the shift to networked systems, 24hr real time global trading, 3d printing and other easliy available bootlegging methods and the ephemeral nature of all that has China "covertly" undermining the global economy and playing the waiting game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Waiting for what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen X Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 waiting for espionage and subterfuge to gain/force 'allies' to bend under the influence of the Dragon. Did you ever play the game 'Risk'? It takes forever and perhaps only a small percentage of people actually finish their first game but, if you end up playing a few games you come to realize the subtle (obvious) advantage of controlling Australia. Of course, as soon as you realize that and win twice the only other kid you can get to play it will realize that fact and then it's all based on tactical sleight of hand and outright luck to gain control of that part of the board. Sometimes it takes time to set, bait and drop the trap... Metaphorically this is what I see as China's goal, but also the US and all other countries with aspirations of global domination, anyway, like I said, sometimes it takes time, hence the 'waiting game'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 "Lastly, China cannot dump Us debt on the market in an attempt to attack the US economy as that would diminish the value of the assets due to over supply and China would only get a 50c return on each dollar it invested thereby screwing the Chinese economy more than it screws the US economy." i half way agree with this but peter schiff has a great discourse on this topic. his analogy is this: 5 guys get stranded on an island. 1 american, 4 chinese guys. they start assigning work duties. one guy gathers wood, one guy builds a shelter, the other two gather and hunt food. the american is assigned the task of eating. now the modern economist would say, look! the american is key to the whole thing. but in reality the chinese are quite capable of consuming their own stuff and when they realize this... things will change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 but the average chinese doesn't make enough money to consume their own goods, their economy is currently struggling with how to manage inflation, for example. my problem with the 5 guys analogy is that it's too simplistic. not too mention, all the people would have to eat, the american has just decided not to work (and in reality, that is not quite the case, as we still have some edge in the realm of technology, R&D and innovation, though it's slipping away rapidly.) the chinese haven't been able to teach creativity, i read a long article about it in nat'l geo awhile back, that while their students are often amazing, there is a ton of cheating and peoiple have a really hard time thinking for themselves as citizen X, others have said, i see it as a symbiotic relationship at this point. as for the whole risk thing.. if only australia had a ton of natural resources other than coal, we'd be there already. ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 ok. NATO steppin it's game up 25 March 2011 Last updated at 07:59 ET Libya: Nato to take command of no-fly zone Nato says it has agreed to take over responsibility from the US for enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya. Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said talks would continue on giving Nato a "broader responsibility", with a decision possible in the coming days. There have been differences of opinion about whether attacks on ground troops should form part of the action. British jets have launched missiles at Libyan armoured vehicles near Ajdabiya during a sixth night of allied raids. The UK government said Tornado aircraft fired guided Brimstone missiles at Libyan military units close to the town, where there has been fierce fighting between rebels and forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi. 'Consensus decision' The handover of the no-fly mission to Nato could come as early as this weekend. .................... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12856665 At the scene Ben Brown BBC News, near Ajdabiya The rebels are trying to push on into Ajdabiya, but it's got pro-Gaddafi forces on both sides. In the middle are civilians, who are running out of food and water and have very little electricity, we're told. Ajdabiya is blocking a rebel advance further west along the coastal highway into Sirte and ultimately to Tripoli. There's been more fighting here today. Rebels have been pounding Gaddafi forces' positions. We drove up the road earlier and shells were fired from pro-Gaddafi forces in our direction. One shell landed just a few hundred metres from us. It's still pretty much military stalemate for the time being on the ground. Rebels say if there were some more coalition air strikes against Gaddafi forces around Ajdabiya, then they could perhaps take the city in just a day. But the UN mandate is to protect civilians, not for the allies to provide close air support for the rebels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 5 guys get stranded on an island. 1 american, 4 chinese guys. they start assigning work duties. one guy gathers wood, one guy builds a shelter, the other two gather and hunt food. the american is assigned the task of eating. now the modern economist would say, look! the american is key to the whole thing. but in reality the chinese are quite capable of consuming their own stuff and when they realize this... things will change. If you said that the American was also 5 times bigger than the Chinese but the more the Chinese worked the bigger they grew in relation to the American then I think the analogy may have some traction. But as it is it misses the point that Symbols made, the 5 Chinese guys can't tun around tomorrow and and change the dynamic because their economy is not big enough, balanced enough or even sustainable due to central command and suppot for inefficient market actors (I know you're loving that bit), around 600 million living off USD$4 a day, etc. etc. If China or any other country could simply have their way with the wold as the US does they would. Can't do it without being viable, sustainable and better than the rest and China still has many fundamental floors. As a matter of fact, the ONLY thing China has is market size, that's it. They use market access as a weapon, as they do their trade surplus. Aside from that they don't have a real navy, they don't have a real space program, they don't have a real domestic economy, they don't have anywhere near enough resources to support their own basic existence at a modern, competitive standard meaning they need to rely on foreign markets for resource supply making them not only vulnerable to the stronger navy but also forced in to spending billions in creating and maintaining a blue water navy, something they still don't have. I could go on for pages citing where China is still weak. As much as they play it up they still are a developing country in economics but also politically and socially (being shut off from the world for millennia will do this). And until they rectify these short comings they are not in a position to challenge the US and they don't in any meaningful way. The only thing that makes them enough to be considered a possible emerging threat is their population size. Even with 600 million people living in absolute poverty they still have another 700 million producing, paying, fighting. These kinds of nuances and realities render simplistic analogies unworkable. Complex matters can rarely be boiled down to simplistics. If they could they would have been solved way before now. Symbols, I have a friend here working in a top uni neuro lab here. She complains that the most basic aspects of scientific research are so absent that the hypothetico deductive technique is actually 'disregard observe, formulate hypothesis and stop at nothing to prove it'. Reminds me of a story that was in the news here recently (Keep in mind that phone numbers are stenciled on to walls here EVERYWHERE advertising fake degrees. Not shitting you one bit), this guy here has dedicated himself to exposing academic freud. He exposed some famous urologist recently as he was about to be inducted in to some elite scientific community/org for his work. The Urologist had the guy's legs broken, got busted for it, very publicly and is now doing 7 years in jail. That's how the science community rolls here, baby!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uzzi 9mm Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 but the average chinese doesn't make enough money to consume their own goods, their economy is currently struggling with how to manage inflation, for example. my problem with the 5 guys analogy is that it's too simplistic. not too mention, all the people would have to eat, the american has just decided not to work (and in reality, that is not quite the case, as we still have some edge in the realm of technology, R&D and innovation, though it's slipping away rapidly.) the chinese haven't been able to teach creativity, i read a long article about it in nat'l geo awhile back, that while their students are often amazing, there is a ton of cheating and peoiple have a really hard time thinking for themselves as citizen X, others have said, i see it as a symbiotic relationship at this point. as for the whole risk thing.. if only australia had a ton of natural resources other than coal, we'd be there already. ha Fuck yes, i have worked with some Chinese both young and old and there work ethic was simply tick the boxes required to complete that said job. There was minimal care about trying to better processes/equipment used. And it felt like they would sweep most minor problems under the carpet even though they had the potential to snowball into bigger issues in the future. Simply find a way around regardless if it were to compromise the quality of the job as long as the boss thinks im working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 If you said that the American was also 5 times bigger than the Chinese but the more the Chinese worked the bigger they grew in relation to the American then I think the analogy may have some traction. But as it is it misses the point that Symbols made, the 5 Chinese guys can't tun around tomorrow and and change the dynamic because their economy is not big enough, balanced enough or even sustainable due to central command and suppot for inefficient market actors (I know you're loving that bit), around 600 million living off USD$4 a day, etc. etc. well, i said i part way agree with you, but i part way agree with schiff. the part you arent hearing is the part about 'when they figure this out, the dynamic will change' in schiffs analogy. the thing is, the points you are making are correct in the last part of your post above. when they become richer and if or when the government backs off, stops doing their inflationary stuff, etc. they WILL then become capable of buying their own stuff. leaving aside the massive government controls, etc. economies always start small and grow in efficiency the more free they become and with the more wealth they generate. give it time and they will 'figure out' how to buy their own stuff. any who... back to o-bomb-ya and libya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Yeah, I gotta catch up on the whole Libya thing, actually. I've spent the last few days watching Hamas/Hezb/Israel/Iran. Since then Sarkozy has said crazy shit, seems the US has not been successful with NATO or something and a whole lotta shit has been banged on the ground. Looks like a cafe Saturday for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Metaphorically this is what I see as China's goal, but also the US and all other countries with aspirations of global domination, anyway, like I said, sometimes it takes time, hence the 'waiting game'. Whilst I'm not sure I fully grasp the Risk metaphor what you are saying does remind me of Deng Xiaoping's famous words, "....hide our capabilities and bide our time...". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 Symbols, I have a friend here working in a top uni neuro lab here. She complains that the most basic aspects of scientific research are so absent that the hypothetico deductive technique is actually 'disregard observe, formulate hypothesis and stop at nothing to prove it'. Reminds me of a story that was in the news here recently (Keep in mind that phone numbers are stenciled on to walls here EVERYWHERE advertising fake degrees. Not shitting you one bit), this guy here has dedicated himself to exposing academic freud. He exposed some famous urologist recently as he was about to be inducted in to some elite scientific community/org for his work. The Urologist had the guy's legs broken, got busted for it, very publicly and is now doing 7 years in jail. That's how the science community rolls here, baby!! ugh. yes. since working at some top places with som top people, i've learned a few things.. one is to never trust a 'chinese m.d.' they are a dime-a-dozen and no one trusts their degrees.. it's like they give them out with high school diplomas. so yeah, a chinese degree from a medical school is juts a joke in the US. that's crazy about that dude and his legs. sounds gangster. hahaha i have also worked at some less than stellar places. that mindset, of proving your hypothesis regardless of what the evidence tells you, is fucking damning. it totally ruins a person, it's so frustrating. and then, to try to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal is damn near impossible. i think i'd go back to cooking before i did that. we still slay them in that regard, no shadow of a doubt about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869658 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 we still slay them in that regard, no shadow of a doubt about it. And I hope so too. Not because I'm white but because the scientific method is utmost in every field of investigation. I come from a psych background (screw you, hard science!!) and I'm glad I have that as my foundation as it keeps me honest in what I do now. If you bend the foundation of truth and believe in absolute proof you're undermining progress, regardless of race, culture, ideology. Whoever is faithful to the discipline of clarification and understanding over agenda and benefit has my support, regardless of where they are from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcs Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 its like some other shit. We are Apaches looking at a fight between Navahos and Chippewas. We just decided we like 1 tribe better than the other. Why i have no idea. All that the enemy of your enemy is your friend until they become your enemy. We have NOTHING in common with those people. A lot of them either still live in tents or are a generation removed from them. I expect the foundational reason we give a fuck about the Libyans 1 way or the other is because of what they sit on top of. Our country has an energy crisis so oil source countries become sources of fixation. Might sound like a fucked up deal but if we gonna go thru the effort why not just take the oil. Thats what khadafi has been doing. Its not like he spreads the wealth. So we go over there, sell them on the american dream, build some schools and hospitals and take what we want. Elect a puppet govt and invest in infastructure. Leave when the oil is tapped out and leave it in a lot better state than it is in now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I'm just waiting to see what Obama has to say about NATO's role. Seems to me like the guy wants to strengthen the role of the U.N and NATO in international affairs, and is using this opportunity to regain some lost ground these institutions have had through previous U.S administrations. I still don't see how what Obama did/is doing in Libya was legal or Constitutional, and this new doctrine which he seems to be creating, with Pentagon spokesmen coming out and saying "If you attack your own citizens, you can expect to be attacked.", is really going to mean. Where will this sort of military intervention stop? Are we going to bomb Syria or all of the other middle eastern nations having uprisings now because their corrupt governments answer protests with violence and killings? What about all of the other nations around the globe who carry out the same sort of practices on their people, are we now all of a sudden going to intervene based off of what we are practicing in Libya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I think Barry wants to hand it over to NATO and the Europeans because he doesn't want the US to be responsible for a third war in an an Muslim/Arab country. Also, it's really Sarkozy and Cameron that have been pushing this and Sarko that's being saying all the threatening shit towards Syria and others concerning targeting civilians, etc. Germany's FM Westerwelle is pushing back against this and I think a lot of it points towards domestic politics. Sarko is in the shit at home and needs something to save him, what better than a show of strength on humanitarian grounds (the French love to be seen as important in the world and they took a real hit at home in the way they handled the Tunisia uprising by offering Ben Ali support to shut the demonstrators down. Sarko now has to show himself on the side of the "democratic wave" rather than that of the dictators. What better person to do that with than Gadhafi, no one likes him and he's a looney that will not play this off well to the Western media. Like Saddam he'll say dumb shit to the cameras, will be brutal in an effort to stay alive, kill a puppy, etc. and the media will eat it up. Great way for Sarko to restore himself). The Germans are going through elections right now with Merkel in real trouble and they last thing their electorate wants is any more defense issues/spending. That's why they are pushing against it, not for any real foreign policy reasons. The UK, I'm a little unsure about but I'm not convinced at all that this is about oil as everyone seems to be rushing to argue. On the scale of things Libya isn't a HUGE exporter of energy. They supply Italian and southern Euro markets, if I remember correctly. So this really has little effect on the US bottom line. As a matter of fact this shit fight harms the US energy interests a bit as it's pushing prices up in the short term and allowing Russia to make more money and move in as an interim supplier to some markets. That's not in the US interest. CAVEATING: I'm doing my back-reading on this as I've lost touch on this issue over the last week or so. I may well come back and modify what I've said here!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen X Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Gadhafi, no one likes him and he's a looney that will not play this off well to the Western media. He fancies himself a 'Yassar' but... I doubt it. A lot of people are down on him now days but I like to remember the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I think Barry wants to hand it over to NATO and the Europeans because he doesn't want the US to be responsible for a third war in an an Muslim/Arab country. Also, it's really Sarkozy and Cameron that have been pushing this and Sarko that's being saying all the threatening shit towards Syria and others concerning targeting civilians, etc. Germany's FM Westerwelle is pushing back against this and I think a lot of it points towards domestic politics. I don't really agree, I'm sure that one of the reasons is because of what you are saying, not having the U.S being responsible for a third middle eastern war, but I feel as if Obama and his administration want to bolster the influence and role of these globalist institutions in the world. Isn't Obama the first U.S President to ever sit as chairman of the U.N security council? That alone should show his interest in seeing the U.N upholding it's role in the world. Not to mention, that almost every time I watch or hear a speech from Obama he is talking about the world being united as one, with united interests, and united goals, and bla bla bla united, united, one, one, united... So, this new doctrine he seems to be shaping here... it's only reasonable to question where they plan to go with this, how far, how long, and who is next or will it simply be action in Libya and that is all. We have plenty of other uprisings in the Middle East right now that are creating the same humanitarian threats as Libya is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share Posted March 28, 2011 And I hope so too. Not because I'm white but because the scientific method is utmost in every field of investigation. I come from a psych background (screw you, hard science!!) and I'm glad I have that as my foundation as it keeps me honest in what I do now. If you bend the foundation of truth and believe in absolute proof you're undermining progress, regardless of race, culture, ideology. Whoever is faithful to the discipline of clarification and understanding over agenda and benefit has my support, regardless of where they are from. one of the major failings o0f the modern age is a total lack of faith in the sciences, by the masses people turning their bak on reason and intellect could be our undoing. i only hope there's enough to tip the scales in favor of education instead of religion. ....... on another note. seeing that libyan rape victim yelling at those people on tv was kind of unnerving. hell hath no fury... i thought to myself 'they've surely killed her' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/rape-claim-parents-threat Parents of a Libyan woman who claimed she was detained by Muammar Gaddafi's troops and later gang-raped has said her daughter is being held hostage at the Libyan leader's compound in Tripoli. Iman al-Obeidi made headlines when she rushed distraught into a Tripoli hotel on Saturday, seeking to speak to foreign reporters. She was tackled by waitresses and government minders and dragged away. ................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yeah, you don't want to be her. Damn the men that did that should it prove true. What I thought was interesting were the staff of the hotel that were calling her traitor and putting a jacket over her head to silence her. Either these people were playing loyalist as they need to save their own skin or it is an actual indication of the support that Gadhafi has in Tripoli. Either way, war is some of the ugliest shit going around. The only thing I have seen that can equal it is absolute power/corruption amongst severe poverty. When I am 100% honest with myself I cannot deny that humans are in general ugly creatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share Posted March 28, 2011 the further along i get in life the less faith i have in human nature i am almost entirely convinced that the heart of man is corrupt, ugly, violent, dangerous, untrustworthy, greedy, all that shit that 'evil' is made of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Wonderful article on the moral framing of western intervention in Libya "At the core of liberal war is a contradiction between big rhetoric – humanity, innocence, evil – and limited liability, signalled by 'no ground troops' and the pathetic legions of UN peacekeepers. In wars primarily justified on altruistic grounds, the elected leaders of the Western democracies wisely, if conveniently, spare the blood if not the dollars of their own citizens. The chosen weapon is air power and the cost is strategic incoherence. Absent a terrestrial policy, air forces are left to blow things up, surveil the results, and fly about. Other things being equal, the likely outcome is stalemate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.