Politics & Stuff

[Ankit 3,176]

The shame

I forgot it was Independence Day today.

Haha! Never mind, mate! Now that you know it, lets grab a pint.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Every single bad behavior by any group is just a reaction to the US. Al-Qaeda? Well, that's because of American troops on Saudi territory. Iranian instability and crazy religious leaders? That's because of the coup of 1953. There is no responsibility of people for their own actions. Everything is the fault of the powerful. It's just nonsense. In 1973, the US helped overthrow the Chilean government which led to the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet. Chile is now one of the strongest democracies in the region with a modern economy and society. The US killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the nuclear attacks in the 1945. Japan has a full democracy and a vibrant society. Societies, even greatly wronged societies, can make decisions to improve. It's not simply about reacting to American actions.

I'm not familiar with this Pilger guy so I won't defend him but I would argue that all the US' 'problems', at least in the middle east are self-made. For example, it was the US who 'stirred up' the extremist anti-christian Muslims and helped bring back 'Al Jihad' in central Asia in the late 70s and early 80s to fight against the Soviet Union. They funded and armed all those, which they then called oppressed, including Ben Ladden. Needless to say that those extremest then turned into Al Qaeda and once they started fight the US they turned into terrorists.

Another example is Saddam who was turned into a force to be reckoned with in the middle east by the US. He was sold devastating weapons by the US to use them against Iran after the demise of the Shah. Iran, itself, is another example of what I'm taking about. The ambassadors of democracy supported the biggest tyrant in the region in that time. Iran in the era of the Shah had more weapons than Israel, all from the US of course. When the oppressed people had enough, they rose against the tyrant and those who supported him.

You say that societies should 'move on' as if the US screwing your country and killing your people is as inevitable as a natural disaster that hits third world countries, they should all just accept that it is bound to happen to them and move on in hope that they somehow stop being a third world country so that it doesn't happen to them again!

[capriccioso 2,545]

I'm not familiar with this Pilger guy so I won't defend him but I would argue that all the US' 'problems', at least in the middle east are self-made. For example, it was the US who 'stirred up' the extremist anti-christian Muslims and helped bring back 'Al Jihad' in central Asia in the late 70s and early 80s to fight against the Soviet Union. They funded and armed all those, which they then called oppressed, including Ben Ladden. Needless to say that those extremest then turned into Al Qaeda and once they started fight the US they turned into terrorists.

Another example is Saddam who was turned into a force to be reckoned with in the middle east by the US. He was sold devastating weapons by the US to use them against Iran after the demise of the Shah. Iran, itself, is another example of what I'm taking about. The ambassadors of democracy supported the biggest tyrant in the region in that time. Iran in the era of the Shah had more weapons than Israel, all from the US of course. When the oppressed people had enough, they rose against the tyrant and those who supported him.

You say that societies should 'move on' as if the US screwing your country and killing your people is as inevitable as a natural disaster that hits third world countries, they should all just accept that it is bound to happen to them and move on in hope that they somehow stop being a third world country so that it doesn't happen to them again!

US foreign policy has always been enormously pragmatic, though. They saddled themselves with ideological enemies many times, first with the USSR, then with pro-US dictatorships, finally with anyone anti-Soviet.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

US foreign policy has always been enormously pragmatic, though. They saddled themselves with ideological enemies many times, first with the USSR, then with pro-US dictatorships, finally with anyone anti-Soviet.

They keep making the same mistake over and over again. Look at Syria now, the US are back to funding Qaeda-like groups to fight Al Asad. They're going to turn Syria into another Afghanistan.

[capriccioso 2,545]

Ah yes, the nanny state. Or the nanny airline, as it were.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/14/travel/unaccompanied-children-flights/index.html

What's with the sensitivity? Are we not supposed to be a nation of Mick Dundee's?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

In terms of the Indian independence movement.. Bhagat Singh > Gandhi. (no disrespect to Gandhi of course!)

[Beirut_Blues 306]

yoo Choulo where u at... how's the situation in beirut??

[warnie_666 1,081]

In terms of the Indian independence movement.. Bhagat Singh > Gandhi. (no disrespect to Gandhi of course!)

Can you tell me why exactly you think Bhagat singh > Gandhi

[CHOULO19 24,332]

yoo Choulo where u at... how's the situation in beirut??

It's naturally exaggerated by the media, but I won't lie, there's some scary shit man. People on the street with machines guns closing some streets down and kidnapping some Syrians....usual stuff

[Beirut_Blues 306]

It's naturally exaggerated by the media, but I won't lie, there's some scary shit man. People on the street with machines guns closing some streets down and kidnapping some Syrians....usual stuff

hahaha....im comin tomorrow bro cant wait

hopefully it will be resolved soon.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

hahaha....im comin tomorrow bro cant wait

hopefully it will be resolved soon.

Bound to be resolved in the next few days, they can't just keep kidnapping people. Bas ntibih yfakrook Saudi yokhtfook man.

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

In terms of the Indian independence movement.. Bhagat Singh > Gandhi. (no disrespect to Gandhi of course!)

I liked how Bhagat Singh tried to clear up what anarchism was. The authorities in every country are shit scared of this phenomenum and continue to portray it as lawless violence and looting.

It is in fact the opposite -just meaning absence of ruler and state, (you can see why all rulers are terrified of the concept) and is in fact true grass roots democracy.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

They keep making the same mistake over and over again. Look at Syria now, the US are back to funding Qaeda-like groups to fight Al Asad. They're going to turn Syria into another Afghanistan.

The problem is...what should they do? If they do nothing, they will get criticized for allowing massacres. If they interfere, they will get criticized for interfering. It's not an easy situation by any means.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

To say Chile made the decision to 'move on' somehow makes it sound as though there is a collective will there. Washingtons 'model democracy' and other Central and South American countries are not run by right wing CIA appointed despots anymore (they did the dirty work torturing and murdering trade unionists and millions of others) -they are though ironically as you mentioned them, run by the World Bank, the WTO and Corporations. The World Bank talks of a ''globalised world economy'' in which capital and investment can freely move around, and developing countries can compete in a ''free'' international market.

Any fool can see the reality of this is all that is being globalised is poverty and the power of the huge corporations based in the advanced capitalist countries and international institutions, such as the World Bank, to exploit cheap labour. Another thing about Chile on R4 last week, mentioned the hundreds of thousands of people on the brink of having no power or water because of subsistence wages, or no jobs at all, and the private companies incessant putting their prices up for shareholders dividends

I hear this stuff all the time. It's the standard anti-Globalization line, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's all the fault of the big corporations and some secret cabal of bankers and the US. Corporations are not inherently evil. Capitalism is not evil. The reality is that every single country that has a decent quality of living is a capitalist country that has corporations. Every single strong democracy is a capitalist country with corporations. Capitalism creates wealth and growth. Where it runs into problems is where it has too little regulation and when it comes up against protectionism (And in the case of the US, the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.). Chile does have problems, but where your argument fails is pretending that these problems are somehow caused by the US and corporations or something. Pretty much every country in South America has these exact same problems.except usually worse.

Capitalism does create cheap labour but cheap labour helps build societies up and creates an enormous amount of wealth. China is exploding because of the cheap labour as India is for the same reason. This is what happened in the past to a number of Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan , and Japan. They moved from a low-wage economies to high-wage economies. The IMF makes some big mistakes but there are two important things to remember 1) You don't have to take loans from them. Don't get into insane debt and you won't need loans.2) They have also done good. Look at India which liberalised its economy about 20 years ago as a condition of the IMF's loan. You know what happened? International investment in India went from $132 million in 1991-1992 to $5.3 Billion in only 3 years. India's economy was stagnant under its previous Socialist monetary policy and is now growing at a fantastic rate. The percentage of people in India in poverty has dropped about 20% in the past decade. It's very appealing to view capitalism and corporations as the bad guys and sometimes they are, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Liberalized, capitalistic countries create wealth. As Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings and the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery".

[capriccioso 2,545]

In terms of the Indian independence movement.. Bhagat Singh > Gandhi. (no disrespect to Gandhi of course!)

Can you tell me why exactly you think Bhagat singh > Gandhi

Because LDN Blue is probably Punjabi

I think Mohammed Ali Jinnah is very underrated by Indians, probably because he founded Pakistan . He was a British style gentleman like Nehru, served as a great foil to Gandhi's anti-modernist rhetoric.

One thing worth noting is that nearly all Indian Independence leaders were educated in England, most as lawyers.