Is there anything conservatives and liberals both agree on?

Why are you talking smack about your own representatives' friends?





If it bothers you so much, next time vote for someone who won't befriend the creators of these laws.

But we both know you'd rather be friends than lose the benefits.

 

The Sky is blue..........

 

division is a feature of our system, not a bug

the left gets a little viable political opposition, and suddenly, unity and bipartisanship are the pinnacle of virtue, and they start whining about polarization and the system being "disfunctional"

 

Those savages were beating, raping and killing their girls and women before we ever got there, and they'll continue if we leave.

 

That Steve Irwin was a bloody legend!

 

Correct, but they weren't in power or even significant or more importantly in possession of any kind of destruction or oppression potential till you got there, which is a big deal.

First you show your ignorance by implying that I have anything to do with Saudi Arabia. Then you show your ignorance by showing you have no background knowledge of the country. Finally you imply that they'll continue to do those things after you leave, when in fact they would have had 0 chance of continuing if you hadn't armed them to the teeth with weapons and teargas and an illegal information gathering system and torture training. So instead, the people of that country will have to deal with what you leave behind by paying with their blood, sweat and tears.

From the looks of it, you'll be one of the first morons to then come out and say: "See! this is what happens when we're gone!" lol Just like the British and the Portuguese and the Spanish and the Dutch before you. Same strategy. Same complaints. Same theories. Just a different time and different technology.

I suggest you do some reading into what the top politicians, scientists, economists of the past from both ends of the political spectrum had to say about their colonial adventures. You'll find that you're just another one in a line of minions. A modern day disciple of a modern day John Stuart Mill. Oh how brilliant the middle class of the British empire thought he was!

Thank you, try again. This time, read a little.

 

That Mathloom is crazy?

 

Is ATW genuinely interested in the topic, or is he trying to change the subject because he knows a quarter of his freedom loving democratic country's weapon sales go to none other than... Saudi Arabia?

But of course, his responsibility towards that is equal to the responsibility of the citizen of a dictatorship towards the actions of their government, right?

 

Really? Maybe my history is bad, but I seem to recall that there was a pretty big foreign empire that was in the Middle East before the West showed up. It's not like the Arabs like the Turks any more than us.

Right. Because, say, a state like Syria which doesn't have American influence shows that the Middle East is just dying to become a democratic socialist state if it weren't for the evil rulers/capitalist order. Just like Iran would have become a proper democratic state under Mossadeq were it not for those evil Americans, and not, you know, the tiny fact that no one actually liked the guy.

"Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do."

 

No inflight phone calls.

/thread.

 

This. ^^

 

I think everyone[most here] was on the same page RE ethanol. As in do away with the subsidies/mandates.

 

That authoritarianism is good.

 

Who wasn't in power? These vile customs are practiced and reinforced by large sections of the overall male population. Nice try blaming postwar trade deals or arms sales for centuries of ceremonial killing, and casual rape, mutilations and beatings of women.

This culture-wide male-barbarism refers to the whole region, and you know it. You self-servingly implied that I was discussing Saudi Arabia so you could claim I was talking about our "friends."

 

There are a lot of things Liberals and Conservatives generally agree on. Just not many that are 'issues', because when everyone agrees about something it generally ceases to be an issue.

A more interesting question might be, what are some controversial issues on which opinions aren't cleanly split according to party line.

 

1) Yeah, please read up on history. The Turks crumbled just before the Brits swooped in, and when the Iran thing happened Oh America came in and claimed the region like a drumstick in a 2 piece meal. Of course the Arabs hate the Turks - you seem to be misunderstanding the key thing here by attributing your behavior to me. Hatred is not for America like Fox News has you believe. It's for whoever is the colonizer. Whether that's the Turks (Muslim FYI), British, Americans, Iranians, doesn't matter. It's the same reason Iranians hate Arabs, it's the same reason Middle Easterners hate Americans. It's about the colonization and despite any historically laughable argument you may make which implies this is an indifferent or better situation for everyone - it has never been true for any colonization, and even if it were it wouldn't matter because all that matters at the core of these arguments is that there's no such thing as a good colonized nation. The existence of a colonizer implies that there is something of value being extracted, and if it were not being extracted at a profit for the colonizer, then the colonizer would not bother to travel across the world.

2) Sources please. Who hated Mossadeq other than Churchill and your Shah? Also, why are you mentioning Syria a country in which you have hardly any hand in creating, maintaining or destroying? Would also like to see your fascinating views about which country and when do you think any state in the history of mankind became democratic overnight. FYI Iran was on its way from monarchism to democracy, and the Arab "nations" were on their way from tribalism to democracy until the US interfered directly in both. At that point in history though, there were hardly any functioning democracies in the world anyway. What's a real shame is the state of affairs in 2013.

 

1) Your guys. Re your second statement: are you implying that barbarism in a dirt poor country in the desert in the face of starvation decades ago is the same as barbarism in 2013 with virtually limitless financial wealth? Surely you see that it takes some kind of force to keep things roughly the same way. Unless you are implying this is just how Saudi Arabians generally are and have been, in contrast to other peoples >> which is a highly racist statement. Don't bother blaming religion either because those practices existed with higher intensity prior to Islam.

2) Wrong. First of all, almost the whole region are your friends, take a look at a US base map once in a while. Secondly, it's not the whole region. Those practices barely exist in Qatar, Oman, UAE and Bahrain. When these issues make headlines in those countries, it's actually the one time it happens. When it happens in Saudi, it's part of a huge trend. To imply that the region is homogeneous in that way - I can only assume you are being racist. Moreover, there's a great opportunity for you to learn how - in every avenue they're allowed to progress - such as education, employment, research, etc women in the UAE and Qatar are absolutely dominating their male counterparts, and are rewarded as such which is something you still have not achieved in your country. In the workforce, in classrooms, in the few available political positions, women are excelling and being propelled into top positions, pay grade and status.

Unlike you I'm more than willing to discuss my own country's shortcomings - and I think there are plenty existing, though few I can talk about. But when you prance into the thread and group the UAE with Saudi Arabia I absolutely have to unveil your racism, stereotyping and ignorance for people to see. I don't come in here grouping Ireland and the US together or Mexico and the US because it's a worthless and stupid exercise.

Certainly until you recognize how your friendships extend and strengthen the life of the barbarism you speak of, because that barbarism in turn extends the life of your friendship, then there's no point discussing this with you. There was a time, barely a decade ago, where your government's exit would have magnetically taken its trash with it. But today, your country and Germany and China and Russia have left the people of that country with an inevitable civil war against barbarians who are in possession of the deadliest weapons in the region.

Who's the real barbarian?

 

The ayatollahs for him being secular ( ironic given how they love to use him as a bloody shirt), the people for his policies causing massive inflation and messing up the economy, the military for him attempting to wrest control of the army from the Shah, and the Marxists because Morsi wasn't interested in further nationalizations.

Mossadeq was the Iranian equivalent of Morsi - a democratically elected leader who dissolved parliament, rigged elections, and generally pissed everyone off and did many basically illegal things until they got rid of him. The US paid some lumpenproletariat to riot, they didn't invent mind control rays. As for sources, I'll admit I used a book which was in my parents' home, so I don't exactly have access to it, but here's an article from the CFR, and you can find stuff if you look up Mossqdeq himself without going into the Ajax stuff.

And I'm mentioning Syria BECAUSE the US has hardly any hand in creating or destroying the nation, yet they're not any closer to democracy than the rest of the Middle East.

Exactly my point. Someone's going to dominate the Middle East, it's the nature of things. To tie back to Mossadeq, the US got involved in the coup because they were worried about the spread of Soviet influence, which they had done repeatedly over the years - for example, Stalin tried to annex half of Iran during the war, and the US said no. It has never been a choice between American influence and no influence. It was a choice between American influence and Soviet influence, and today it's a choice between American, Chinese, or Russian influence. Because men rule wherever they can, and always will.

Wait. A colonizer is one who extracts value from a far off distance of the globe? That's all it is to you? Holy crap, way to make the word meaningless.

 

1) The ayatollahs!! lol This is as significant as Sarah Palin being furious about something. As we later found out, the ayatollahs wanted power at all costs.

The PEOPLE absolutely did not hate him. Really you should provide a source for everything you say which escapes reality, but this particular assertion must be thrown out the window unless you can somehow show that THE PEOPLE OF IRAN HATED MOSSADEGH. Same goes for the Marxists, who went from radically oppressed group of people to being unhappy that they didn't sweep the elections. They hated Mossadegh like Republicans hate Obama or Democrats hated Bush. It's called democracy. That's hilarious. FYI, the economy was in shambles because he would not co-operate with the British (remember he nationalized oil), and the British ensured that Iran could not sell its primary asset - oil. I know you knew that. What I don't know is how you thought that would get past anyone.

The military hated him for sure, because like Egypt's army, they wanted the dictator to remain in power, and the dictator was someone else's b****.

Also, Mossadegh was not a Soviet guy. The soviets just happened to be the only people who were willing to talk to the rightful representative of the Iranian people. While their intentions were far from noble, it still doesn't make it any truer than Mossadegh was going the soviet route. So, source please.

2) " a democratically elected leader who dissolved parliament, rigged elections, and generally pissed everyone off and did many basically illegal things until they got rid of him."

He didn't piss everyone off, except the richest tier of Iranians and the ayatollahs. He dissolved a corrupt parliament as he promised = good. Rigged elections?? I'd love to see that, just like I'd love to see how Morsi rigged the elections under the Egyptian army's nose: source please. Of course many things he did were illegal - he was elected because the monarchic law was to be thrown out the window.

3) Just because someone is going to dominate the Middle East doesn't mean it's right to dominate the middle east. I learned this general idea in 6th grade when we were told: just because someone is going to sell drugs doesn't make a drug dealer any better.

4) Syria is, sadly, closer to democracy than much of the Middle East today. What's even sadder is your not recognizing that foreign intervention initially from Russia and now from your allies is stifling the process of getting to a point where democracy can even be discussed. Still though, it is closer to democracy than much of the Middle East.

5) You're right, I forgot to include: by using brute force to suspend the rights of citizens of a sovereign nation.

I left my favorite of your quotes for last. Are you seriously contending that China has even a tenth of the colonial intentions of the US or previously Russia? Have you lost it? China is busy trying to secure its own waters and acting as a factory for the United States consumer culture.

There only reason there's no alternative for people is because the only superpower in the world wants it that way. No one would even look at Russia if their only other alternative wasn't: "be our allies, or be prepared to defend yourself." This is also exacerbated by your largely monopolistic control over global weapons. If someone tells the US to get out, the US makes sure that country does not become a good example for people to follow. This is a 60 year old story pattern. This is not new. That's why those people turn to the Russians or whatever - it's not like the defense ministers of those country have any illusions about winning a war with Russian weapons in 2013. They are just desperate - and that's where you childhood of red flag brainwashing comes in, and you media starts the war drums of "they're allying with the Russians!!" as if Putin wants anything more than for things to stay absolutely the same for the rest of his lifetime.

But most of all. Most importantly. It's none of your business if a country that is not yours crumbles to the floor. If it buys weapons to protect itself from its neighbors. If it is a dictatorship or a democracy. It's none of your business. Me and you both know it's about making money, and we also both know that you consider that a legitimate goal to pursue across your border, and I don't. So what's the point in you trying to legitimize something which we both know you consider legitimate anyway? Are you going to convince me that US foreign policy of gaining power and money within a non-vacuum is the best thing for a foreign country? Is that even a rational consideration? lol

 

First, you don't get to discount the ayatollahs and the military just because you don't like them. You asked for two powerful groups which disliked Morsi enough to kick him out, I named them.

Secondly, on your economic point? Yes, you're right in that the British imposed trade restrictions. But when you flip off the British, don't exactly be surprised when they don't want to do business with you. Or is America to blame for Venezuela because the oil companies didn't want to do business with Chavez and his cronies after all of his stunts? The resulting economic chaos resulted in popular discontent - or what, do you think America paid all of those thousands of protestors who entered the streets?

See, this is the card which you've played that others have called you out on repeatedly over the years. America does nothing, the rise of the Islamists is now our fault because other countries begin funding the Islamists. America does something and now it's an evil imperialistic power. Those at the bottom will always hate those at the top, and will use any action to justify its hatred - not that there's anything wrong with that hatred, it's just the fact that those at the bottom want to be at the top and rule themselves. Human nature and all that.

Of course they do. They don't have the power to carry out said intentions for now, but once they do, they will. There's nothing wrong with it. If China does it, they'll just be doing what the Americans did before them, and what the British did before them, and what the Ottomans did before them, and what the Abbasids did before them, and what Mohammed did before them, and what Rome did before them, and what Alexander did before them, and so on and so on.

It's not about money, it's never been about money - we didn't help play a role in overthrowing Mossadeq because of money, we played a role because of fears of Soviet encroachment, just like the Soviets invaded Afghanistan out of fear of American encroachment. To me, the idea that the state is just some bread-making machine for the people is repelling. It's about power. Power and security. And when it comes to that, the affairs of other countries is very much our business. Heck, if you want an extreme example, what precisely was America's problem with Hitler? It wasn't the Holocaust or any of the human rights crap which is taught to schoolchildren. It's because even if Hitler was a benevolent dictator, the prospect of a Nazi-dominated Europe or later a Communist dominated Europe is not in the interests of American security. That case was such an extreme example that we threw away hundreds of thousands of lives and untold treasure to handle that problem. A lesser case? A lesser response.