Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

Um so should we start a list of the most impoverished nations of the world. I think youll find Iraq wasnt doing so badly before US military occupation. The bottom line is that there are many nations who are much much more desperate for aid (not neccesarily monetary) than Iraq was. Further, with respect to corruptness of government, you will in fact find many of the African nations such as Zimbabwe and the Sudan to be far more corrupt than Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. Up until the Iran and Iraq war, the US in fact was a monetary and military supporter of the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein. So what changed so rapidly as to make him any more of a tyrnanical dictator. I think youll find the central reasonm has less to do with Saddam Hussein and more to do with protecting the interests of the Israeli state and, of course, oil.

I think the fundamental flaw in your ideology is that you believe you can just replace economic and political structures over the span of a few years. As was seen with communism in russia and countless forceful annexations of land, it just doesnt work. Economic and political system have to evolve with the needs of the people. Super-imposing ideologies of the west onto a predominantly muslim canvas is non-sensical.

wat did u have for breakfast and lunch? just asking cos apparently it makes u smart.

 

[withoutaface]

Um so should we start a list of the most impoverished nations of the world. I think youll find Iraq wasnt doing so badly before US military occupation. The bottom line is that there are many nations who are much much more desperate for aid (not neccesarily monetary) than Iraq was. Further, with respect to corruptness of government, you will in fact find many of the African nations such as Zimbabwe and the Sudan to be far more corrupt than Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. Up until the Iran and Iraq war, the US in fact was a monetary and military supporter of the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein. So what changed so rapidly as to make him any more of a tyrnanical dictator. I think youll find the central reasonm has less to do with Saddam Hussein and more to do with protecting the interests of the Israeli state and, of course, oil.

I think the fundamental flaw in your ideology is that you believe you can just replace economic and political structures over the span of a few years. As was seen with communism in russia and countless forceful annexations of land, it just doesnt work. Economic and political system have to evolve with the needs of the people. Super-imposing ideologies of the west onto a predominantly muslim canvas is non-sensical.

Then why not have a completely liberalised system so that the people can choose what they want, when they want it? This will ensure that it does actually evolve and not have anachronistic elements.

 

[HotShot]

Then why not have a completely liberalised system so that the people can choose what they want, when they want it? This will ensure that it does actually evolve and not have anachronistic elements.

cos ppl always want more than they can get,

 

[withoutaface]

cos ppl always want more than they can get,

So introduce a system that forces them to live within their means and be self sufficient.

 

[absolution*]

Then why not have a completely liberalised system so that the people can choose what they want, when they want it? This will ensure that it does actually evolve and not have anachronistic elements.

I would have thought that even you would be able to figure out that liberalisation of an economic system must be a gradual process. Where would domestic industry in Australia be if we had liberalised and de-regulated all of out industry when we had similar economic prosperity to Iraq today?

And where exactly does a completely liberalised system evolve to? As far as I can tell theres no such thing.

 

[HotShot]

So introduce a system that forces them to live within their means and be self sufficient.

tats wat the EARTH is.

 

[melimoo]

wat did u have for breakfast and lunch? just asking cos apparently it makes u smart.

duh
he was born this way

 

[withoutaface]

I didn't say it wouldn't have to be gradual. Also the system itself doesn't have to evolve, but the products produced by industry and the values which are emphasised by the media etc will all be determined by what the populous wants.

 

[katie_tully]

I just like how you call our views simplistic, yet you're deadset under the impression that the middle east was a happy place that posed no threat to the developed world UNTIL we intervened.

 

[withoutaface]

tats wat the EARTH is.

Not when people are being spoon fed by welfare.

 

[CSI: CRIMES ™]

i saw the cartoons in numerous sites discussing this topic, and when the riots was growing, they still publish more cartoons.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Um so should we start a list of the most impoverished nations of the world. I think youll find Iraq wasnt doing so badly before US military occupation. The bottom line is that there are many nations who are much much more desperate for aid (not neccesarily monetary) than Iraq was. Further, with respect to corruptness of government, you will in fact find many of the African nations such as Zimbabwe and the Sudan to be far more corrupt than Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. Up until the Iran and Iraq war, the US in fact was a monetary and military supporter of the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein. So what changed so rapidly as to make him any more of a tyrnanical dictator. I think youll find the central reasonm has less to do with Saddam Hussein and more to do with protecting the interests of the Israeli state and, of course, oil.

Yea I think if we were really committed to this goal we would of started with africa and worked our way away from there... but I also think it's just silly to claim this was the aim of the US led occupation of Iraq... Unless we're to believe this was their goal and they just never really bothered to look into it very much?

I think the fundamental flaw in your ideology is that you believe you can just replace economic and political structures over the span of a few years. As was seen with communism in russia and countless forceful annexations of land, it just doesnt work. Economic and political system have to evolve with the needs of the people. Super-imposing ideologies of the west onto a predominantly muslim canvas is non-sensical.

I agree

 

[absolution*]

I didn't say it wouldn't have to be gradual.

Double negative. You mean, "I did say it would have be gradual". When, in fact, super-imposing any economic system over another is anything but gradual by definition.

Also the system itself doesn't have to evolve, but the products produced by industry and the values which are emphasised by the media etc will all be determined by what the populous wants.

Who exactly is supposed to be investing the capital to produce these goods? Like Ive been saying, its a practically unfeasible solution. Capital accumulates at an accelerated rate. I sincerely doubt that there would be enough capital whether be domestic (Iraqi-owned) or foriegn (due to political and eocnomic instability) to execute the full inner-workings of a consumer based, capitalist system operating through a neo-liberal scaffold.

I just like how you call our views simplistic, yet you're deadset under the impression that the middle east was a happy place that posed no threat to the developed world UNTIL we intervened.

I think youll find..

1) I dont think anyone belives that the Middle East ever was, or will be, even under US occupation a peaceful place. It is ingrained within their cultural ethos moreso than anything else. Further, western need for oil will no doubt lead to further military struggle and occupation in the region in the decades to come.

2) Further, youll also find that if nothing else.
i) Iraq had no weapons of mass-destruction or the capability to create them.
ii) The US attacking Afghanistan and Iraq has, in fact, further proliferated arms in many nations. I mean, why wouldnt you want to arm yourself after seeing the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Non-UN backed. Pre-emptive. Etc.

 

[withoutaface]

Double negative. You mean, "I did say it would have be gradual". When, in fact, super-imposing any economic system over another is anything but gradual by definition.

I actually should have said "I didn't say it would have to be immediate", but meh.

Who exactly is supposed to be investing the capital to produce these goods? Like Ive been saying, its a practically unfeasible solution. Capital accumulates at an accelerated rate. I sincerely doubt that there would be enough capital whether be domestic (Iraqi-owned) or foriegn (due to political and eocnomic instability) to execute the full inner-workings of a consumer based, capitalist system operating through a neo-liberal scaffold.

Perhaps offer a more feasible solution other than sponging off aid for Iraq to feed its own people then?

 

[absolution*]

Perhaps offer a more feasible solution other than sponging off aid for Iraq to feed its own people then?

I think youll find the onus was on you to justify the war in the first place. Now that it has completely fucked up Iraq, you then cant ask for a feasible solution to fix it, because frankly I dont think it can be fixed. No capital. No infrastuctre. Possibility of civil war. Political instability. Central export resource of oil being repatriated back to the US. Demoralised and scared populace. Just a few problems yeah. Like i said, us tree-huggers opposed the war in the first place, the onus is on you, the perpetraitors to find a solution.

 

[withoutaface]

Yeah because a fascist regime isn't fucked up.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Like i said, us tree-huggers opposed the war in the first place, the onus is on you, the perpetraitors to find a solution.

It seems to me the only option is to leave the country to have democratic elections and vote in some theocratic government that'll probably end up being worse than saddam.

 

[absolution*]

Yeah because a fascist regime isn't fucked up.

Whats so unique about the Iraqi fascist regime? There are many worse ones around the world. The media has painted the Iraqi people and its dictatorship in such a way as to justify the war, but I think youll find poverty, education, life expectancy etc. were all much higher in Iraq than in many Aftrican and south American nations. And yet, I dont hear you calling for US military occupation of those nations? Why is that?

Just think logically about this for a second, ideology aside. Why would the US spend more then 50% of their total fiscal spending, amounting to billions of dollars a day on a war where they have nothing to gain themselves? It just doesnt make sense. Especially in the context of US hegemony and imperialistic tendences post world war II throughout the Americas and the Middle East.

Recognise, youve been duped.

 

[withoutaface]

And yet, I dont hear you calling for US military occupation of those nations? Why is that?

Because there is no feasible excuse of self defense. Had I known what I know now when the war began I would have opposed it.

 

[absolution*]

Had I known what I know now when the war began I would have opposed it.

And yet you still seek to justify it? That doesnt make much sense. In fact, if i had been duped like that, id be even more against it.