Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Noam Chomsky: George H.W. Bush was a war criminal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Just Another User" data-source="post: 73676722" data-attributes="member: 414922"><p>I have no moral problem either with a dictator being opposed. I truly don't. What I do care is governments have to lie to achieve this position, and the timing of such attacks anyway. There's a reason why America and the UK won't ever invade Zimbabwe and it's rhymes with foil. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hopefully Trump does keep to his isolationist stance at the moment. It would be a good for thing for the planet. Though many people are angered by the Maduro regime, it's near universally the richer citizens whereas the poor back him. Practically all rioting has happened in the richer areas too. Take that information as you will. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If this does turn out to be true that I'll be grateful for it. Truly. However with the millions of dead directly due to the aftermath of 9/11 I really don't know if the Middle East will ever be ready to progress to a better tomorrow.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I totally agree. Domestically, America is head and shoulders above China. That goes without saying. However, their foreign policy is what I'm criticising here and I truly say that there isn't much difference between them ( and we can certainly say that China has set up far less dictatorships).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Utterly backwards and Barbaric just like the religion you criticise. I say this as a brother in the faith that I truly don't believe that Christians should shape policy in a top-down way at all. By looking at the drop in conservative ethics of the Evangelicals in America since gaining influence and the collpose of the early church in respects to joining with the state with Constantine in the early 4th century, whenever Christianity has tried to influence politics, it lead to the World infecting the church more that the church helping the World. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Empirical evidence suggests the opposite. That poverty leads to an increase in violence through religion and not the other way around. Religion is usually used for a tool of violence rather than a direct cause of it (that's not the same in those people being disingenuous about their beliefs but looking at the Bolsheviks is Russia, something like that would never happen without dire circumstances).</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, there were at times when Islamic countries were certainly more advanced that Christendom when it came to medicine, mathematics etc during the Islamic Golden Period. Though I highly doubt it was the religion itself that lead to such progress, it shows that the Islamic world can at the very least hold technologically progressive ideals.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again the falling from the sixties is quite dishonest as I demonstrated earlier. I'll say again that such figures from the World Bank (which I'm assuming you've got your claims from but correct me if I'm wrong) change the figures to make it appear that poverty is falling.</p><p></p><p>When you remove countries like India and China you'll realise that poverty hasn't got better in this slightest. In fact, it's sadly got worse even with the standard figures.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It can read like a child's novel for all I care. What it claims is that around 2 to 2.5 trillion leaves poorer countries into richer ones whereas only give back about 130-140 billion. About half of said 2 trillion is due to the strength of western governments (due to forcing countries to pay back loans they they've already payed back). The "rich" can invent what they want but the evidence suggests that the third world is still being exploited to this day. If such money wasn't being poured out, I think we would see a more prosperous world be it a slight cost to the West. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, though it isn't always the case, religious violence decreases when a democracy is implemented and appears not to be constrained by religion or culture. Nevertheless, I'll concede that religious violence hasn't been getting better in the Middle East but this isn't linked to Islamic Democracy at least with the evidence we have at the moment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well to begin there's never been a Communist country because that's a post scarcity society. Secondly, it would appear that with polling a majority lived in the Eastern Bloc prefer it to life now. Oppressive and impoverishing it certainly was but it's still supported by the masses and we should consider the reasons why. Socialism did vastly improve the lives of those in those semi-feudalistic societies. An example would Russia's life expectancy increasing from 32 years in 1913 to about 69 years in 1958. In fact, compared to capitalist countries of the same strength, Socialist countries actually performed better.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Just Another User, post: 73676722, member: 414922"] I have no moral problem either with a dictator being opposed. I truly don't. What I do care is governments have to lie to achieve this position, and the timing of such attacks anyway. There's a reason why America and the UK won't ever invade Zimbabwe and it's rhymes with foil. Hopefully Trump does keep to his isolationist stance at the moment. It would be a good for thing for the planet. Though many people are angered by the Maduro regime, it's near universally the richer citizens whereas the poor back him. Practically all rioting has happened in the richer areas too. Take that information as you will. If this does turn out to be true that I'll be grateful for it. Truly. However with the millions of dead directly due to the aftermath of 9/11 I really don't know if the Middle East will ever be ready to progress to a better tomorrow. I totally agree. Domestically, America is head and shoulders above China. That goes without saying. However, their foreign policy is what I'm criticising here and I truly say that there isn't much difference between them ( and we can certainly say that China has set up far less dictatorships). Utterly backwards and Barbaric just like the religion you criticise. I say this as a brother in the faith that I truly don't believe that Christians should shape policy in a top-down way at all. By looking at the drop in conservative ethics of the Evangelicals in America since gaining influence and the collpose of the early church in respects to joining with the state with Constantine in the early 4th century, whenever Christianity has tried to influence politics, it lead to the World infecting the church more that the church helping the World. The Empirical evidence suggests the opposite. That poverty leads to an increase in violence through religion and not the other way around. Religion is usually used for a tool of violence rather than a direct cause of it (that's not the same in those people being disingenuous about their beliefs but looking at the Bolsheviks is Russia, something like that would never happen without dire circumstances). Furthermore, there were at times when Islamic countries were certainly more advanced that Christendom when it came to medicine, mathematics etc during the Islamic Golden Period. Though I highly doubt it was the religion itself that lead to such progress, it shows that the Islamic world can at the very least hold technologically progressive ideals. Again the falling from the sixties is quite dishonest as I demonstrated earlier. I'll say again that such figures from the World Bank (which I'm assuming you've got your claims from but correct me if I'm wrong) change the figures to make it appear that poverty is falling. When you remove countries like India and China you'll realise that poverty hasn't got better in this slightest. In fact, it's sadly got worse even with the standard figures. It can read like a child's novel for all I care. What it claims is that around 2 to 2.5 trillion leaves poorer countries into richer ones whereas only give back about 130-140 billion. About half of said 2 trillion is due to the strength of western governments (due to forcing countries to pay back loans they they've already payed back). The "rich" can invent what they want but the evidence suggests that the third world is still being exploited to this day. If such money wasn't being poured out, I think we would see a more prosperous world be it a slight cost to the West. Again, though it isn't always the case, religious violence decreases when a democracy is implemented and appears not to be constrained by religion or culture. Nevertheless, I'll concede that religious violence hasn't been getting better in the Middle East but this isn't linked to Islamic Democracy at least with the evidence we have at the moment. Well to begin there's never been a Communist country because that's a post scarcity society. Secondly, it would appear that with polling a majority lived in the Eastern Bloc prefer it to life now. Oppressive and impoverishing it certainly was but it's still supported by the masses and we should consider the reasons why. Socialism did vastly improve the lives of those in those semi-feudalistic societies. An example would Russia's life expectancy increasing from 32 years in 1913 to about 69 years in 1958. In fact, compared to capitalist countries of the same strength, Socialist countries actually performed better. [URL]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Noam Chomsky: George H.W. Bush was a war criminal
Top
Bottom