The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

[Only_Humean]

society seems more splintered there

Of course it is. We are an extremely diverse people with often divergent interests. We have literally come from everywhere. Our backgrounds are multitudinous.

That is the best part, as it happens. And why, notwithstanding anybody else's opinion to the contrary, there is no "typical" American.

That's heterogeneous; there are plenty of things that are heterogeneous but not splintered.

[Smirk]

That's heterogeneous; there are plenty of things that are heterogeneous but not splintered.

And I'm sure we could probably both think of many examples.

But when it comes to the human being...

[Jakob]

Iran can either sell its oil or it can use it to run power stations. Or conversely it can use nuclear plants for power and sell all of its oil, what would you do. These are American reactors, and European enrichment facilities (at least the tech and know how is).

The NNPT allows any country to use nuclear power for its energy concerns. Iran is perfectly and legitimately allowed to run nuclear power stations.

The CIA published a report detailing how Iran had abandoned its arms goals in 2002. Its not a question of convincing anyone of anything, it is a question of Iran letting inspectors in, although to all intents and purposes everyone already knows what they are using the fuel for. To power its nuclear grid and hence enable it to more lucratively sell its oil instead of wasting it in power stations. Which was the whole reason the US gave them the nuclear generators in the first place. Iran likes to posture though and give America the finger, hence the present situation. Iran is doing nothing that the USs intelligence community doesn't know about anyway.

If you're right about that - that energy this is the only aim -, then I dont think there will be a war there. Unless some crazy US strategists are bent on setting the entire Middle East aflame so they can profit from it somehow.

The UN came about because of all countries getting together after WWII and thrashing out a treaty. You're thinking of NATO.

That there was such a thing as an initiative of all countries coming together had much to do with the political scope of the war. If the US hadnt intervend, either Stalin or Hitler would have prevailed on the mainland, maybe some kind of treaty between them. There would be no question of an international community like there is now.

The reason for the UN was the deadlock at the end of that war, between three different victors over one common enemy. This unlikely turn of events, that such different ideological forces came together while reaching the same goal, was what prevented the continuation of the war.

America ignores the UN and procedes to declare war regardless of the legality so I don't really see how it provides an example of anything, except a liar and a cheat. The world community exists despite the acts of American imperialism. If America had its way they'd bin the UN because it is an inconvenience to its politcal aims.

And what exactly is the value of the UN as an example? Why would you hold compliance with the UN as a standard for the morality of the US? Just because in the UN every nation has some kind of voice? But that does not amount to any sort of goodness in my eyes, especially since all of these voices are purely opportunistic.

Actually population wise America is hardly significant, the only cock willing to stand up to it is powerless before its veto powers. Hence it continually defies it, reneges on treaties and generally acts like a belligerant asshole, blundering from one political disaster or conflict to the next, like a two year old on too much sugar
- as its reputation, as if it could get any lower, goes out of the window.

Well you can hardly deny that the US is powerful. India has a much larger population but isnt nearly as potent.

The cold war was a massive waste of time money on resources it involved itself in because of Communism being evil apparently. That worked out great didn't it, we almost destroyed the whole planet because of two belligerent children rattling their sabres.

"Apparently?" So you are a communist, then? Or what?
I dont see the point you are trying to me, except that all politics is ugly.
I agree with that. I just think Soviet and nazi politics were more ugly than US politics. I would prefer life in the US over Sowiet Russia or nazi Germany.

[Calrid]

Iran can either sell its oil or it can use it to run power stations. Or conversely it can use nuclear plants for power and sell all of its oil, what would you do. These are American reactors, and European enrichment facilities (at least the tech and know how is).

The NNPT allows any country to use nuclear power for its energy concerns. Iran is perfectly and legitimately allowed to run nuclear power stations.

The CIA published a report detailing how Iran had abandoned its arms goals in 2002. Its not a question of convincing anyone of anything, it is a question of Iran letting inspectors in, although to all intents and purposes everyone already knows what they are using the fuel for. To power its nuclear grid and hence enable it to more lucratively sell its oil instead of wasting it in power stations. Which was the whole reason the US gave them the nuclear generators in the first place. Iran likes to posture though and give America the finger, hence the present situation. Iran is doing nothing that the USs intelligence community doesn't know about anyway.

If you're right about that - that energy this is the only aim -, then I dont think there will be a war there. Unless some crazy US strategists are bent on setting the entire Middle East aflame so they can profit from it somehow.

Again it was the warmongers in Bushes cabinet making trouble. Now they are gone I doubt anyone's going to be threatening Iran for a while, not with the political furore that is happening atm anyway, as it is across the ME, sadly I think it would of happened sooner without Bush and his idiot cronies, the media both internet and developed worlds media has had a strong influence on the younger people in these countries. The US media ironically especially in Iran. Iranians don't trust the English, which is probably wise we were responsible for a lot of crap. Although the US did under our treaty overthrow a stable democracy in return for a pro western autocratic Shah and oil concessions. Which ultimately resulted in the current republic when the Shah, became as most dictators do, extremely unpopular and out of touch with the people and was overthrown by a popular uprising. For which the CIA gave a very tacit apology, detailing how it had set back Iranian democracy and progress by decades. About the closest you are going to get to an apology from the US.

The UN came about because of all countries getting together after WWII and thrashing out a treaty. You're thinking of NATO.

That there was such a thing an initiative of all countries coming together had much to do with the political scope of the war. If the US hadn't , either Stalin or Hitler would have prevailed on the mainland, maybe some kind of treaty between them. There would be no question of an international community like there is now.

The reason for the UN was the deadlock at the end of that war, between three different victors over one common enemy. This unlikely turn of events, that such different ideological forces came together while reaching the same goal, was what prevented the continuation of the war.

Actually that was the reason for the power of veto being given to certain countries, the reasoning is given in the UN charter, to ensure no country forces itself on another country in the future etc. Paraphrasing but it was to prevent the reoccurence of another world war. President of the US made the speech you can find a summary of it here:

PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations

You seem to be talking about NATO again for some reason.

America ignores the UN and procedes to declare war regardless of the legality so I don't really see how it provides an example of anything, except a liar and a cheat. The world community exists despite the acts of American imperialism. If America had its way they'd bin the UN because it is an inconvenience to its politcal aims.

And what exactly is the value of the UN as an example? Why would you hold compliance with the UN as a standard for the morality of the US? Just because in the UN every nation has some kind of voice? But that does not amount to any sort of goodness in my eyes, especially since all of these voices are purely opportunistic.

It acts on consensus not on its own.

The UN has bought about the peaceful resolution of over 200 conflicts, some of which resulted in War, UNICEF (its charity wing) has provided help of all different kinds in hundreds of countries. It's goals are to reduce international tensions. It has also mediated the peace terms in conflicts where war has broken out. Its a far better moral guide than the Republican hardline idiots are.

Actually population wise America is hardly significant, the only cock willing to stand up to it is powerless before its veto powers. Hence it continually defies it, reneges on treaties and generally acts like a belligerant asshole, blundering from one political disaster or conflict to the next, like a two year old on too much sugar
- as its reputation, as if it could get any lower, goes out of the window.

Well you can hardly deny that the US is powerful. India has a much larger population but isnt nearly as potent.

It will be though when it becomes developed instead of developing as no doubt will China.

That said, I never said it wasn't powerful it still has the most technologically advanced force combined with a large army thus is most powerful force on Earth. Although not for long probably, China does have a standing army of a million men, and it is technologically starting to catch up. Luckilly China is an extremely un interventionist country and in its history has seldom warred on anyone unless attacked first. Tibet being the only example I can think of, off the top of my head but I'm sure there are more.

The cold war was a massive waste of time money on resources it involved itself in because of Communism being evil apparently. That worked out great didn't it, we almost destroyed the whole planet because of two belligerent children rattling their sabres.

"Apparently?" So you are a communist, then? Or what?
I dont see the point you are trying to me, except that all politics is ugly.
I agree with that. I just think Soviet and nazi politics were more ugly than US politics. I would prefer life in the US over Sowiet Russia or nazi Germany.

So if I am anti US policy I'm a communist how very droll.

I am a liberal half way between the left and right... Ish. Or as they are called in the US communists. Being as you have no left.

You don't have to be a communist to see that the cold war was a big waste of both Russia and Americas time. however it suited both their political aims, for the Russians it kept their attention of their crumbling infra structure and the failure of a communist system. Win-win but still fricking stupid. For the US well I'm pretty sure you know why it suited their aims, however I don't think they were quite aware of how weak Russia was at times. One has to admire their secret service in keeping the US in the dark and its acquisition of technology. One thing that can be said about the pseudo communist systems, they certainly favoured large and fairly efficient security services.

[Jakob]

Again it was the warmongers in Bushes cabinet making trouble. Now they are gone I doubt anyone's going to be threatening Iran for a while, not with the political furore that is happening atm anyway, as it is across the ME, sadly I think it would of happened sooner without Bush and his idiot cronies, the media both internet and developed worlds media has had a strong influence on the younger people in these countries. The US media ironically especially in Iran. Iranians don't trust the English, which is probably wise we were responsible for a lot of crap. Although the US did under our treaty overthrow a stable democracy in return for a pro western autocratic Shah and oil concessions. Which ultimately resulted in the current republic when the Shah, became as most dictators do, extremely unpopular and out of touch with the people and was overthrown by a popular uprising. For which the CIA gave a very tacit apology, detailing how it had set back Iranian democracy and progress by decades. About the closest you are going to get to an apology from the US.

Ok, now you are denying what you suggested earlier, that the US would start a war against Iran.

The reason for the UN was the deadlock at the end of that war, between three different victors over one common enemy. This unlikely turn of events, that such different ideological forces came together while reaching the same goal, was what prevented the continuation of the war.

Actually that was the reason for the power of veto being given to certain countries, the reasoning is given in the UN charter, to ensure no country forces itself on another country in the future etc. Paraphrasing but it was to prevent the reoccurence of another world war. President of the US made the speech

That corresponds perfectly with what I said. You seem to have no point except that you find politics morally imperfect.

you can find a summary of it here:
PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And since this is basically a summary of the Bill of Rights to apply to a global context, my point is enforced.

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Noble aims, of course - it should come as no surprise that in pracitce it is a bit more difficult, since there are different ideas about what constitutes social advancement, as well as limited economic means.

Nontheless, it is clear that America, as could all others, could do more and better to attain these ideals.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

You seem to be talking about NATO again for some reason.

No, I am talking about politics.
You are talking about heaven, from which all goodness rains down in the form of the UN without anything on the ground having anything to do with it. As I said and as you enforced, the role of the US was crucial to the formation of the UN and the formulation its ideals.

It acts on consensus not on its own.

The UN has bought about the peaceful resolution of over 200 conflicts, some of which resulted in War, UNICEF (its charity wing) has provided help of all different kinds in hundreds of countries. It's goals are to reduce international tensions. It has also mediated the peace terms in conflicts where war has broken out. Its a far better moral guide than the Republican hardline idiots are.

Can you show me the specifics?
I'm slightly sceptical about the noble practices of the UN.

It will be though when it becomes developed instead of developing as no doubt will China.

That said, I never said it wasn't powerful it still has the most technologically advanced force combined with a large army thus is most powerful force on Earth. Although not for long probably, China does have a standing army of a million men, and it is technologically starting to catch up. Luckilly China is an extremely un interventionist country and in its history has seldom warred on anyone unless attacked first. Tibet being the only example I can think of, off the top of my head but I'm sure there are more.

America also has the notion of citizens rights, which is lacking in China.
Its (Americas) international power is based largely on the appeal of this notion as it was spread in its image after WWII. This is how they won the cold war.

"Apparently?" So you are a communist, then? Or what?
I dont see the point you are trying to me, except that all politics is ugly.
I agree with that. I just think Soviet and nazi politics were more ugly than US politics. I would prefer life in the US over Sowiet Russia or nazi Germany.

So if I am anti US policy I'm a communist how very droll.

Mjuh. Except that this argument is in your mind only.
I was respodning to your scepsis about Americas negative judgment of Stalinist communism.

I am a liberal half way between the left and right... Ish. Or as they are called in the US communists. Being as you have no left.

For the record, I am a Dutchman, and I usually vote labor.

You don't have to be a communist to see that the cold war was a big waste of both Russia and Americas time. however it suited both their political aims, for the Russians it kept their attention of their crumbling infra structure and the failure of a communist system. Win-win but still fricking stupid. For the US well I'm pretty sure you know why it suited their aims, however I don't think they were quite aware of how weak Russia was at times. One has to admire their secret service in keeping the US in the dark and its acquisition of technology. One thing that can be said about the pseudo communist systems, they certainly favoured large and fairly efficient security services.

I regard this as a completely nihilistic and unphilosophical non-perspective.

[Calrid]

Again it was the warmongers in Bushes cabinet making trouble. Now they are gone I doubt anyone's going to be threatening Iran for a while, not with the political furore that is happening atm anyway, as it is across the ME, sadly I think it would of happened sooner without Bush and his idiot cronies, the media both internet and developed worlds media has had a strong influence on the younger people in these countries. The US media ironically especially in Iran. Iranians don't trust the English, which is probably wise we were responsible for a lot of crap. Although the US did under our treaty overthrow a stable democracy in return for a pro western autocratic Shah and oil concessions. Which ultimately resulted in the current republic when the Shah, became as most dictators do, extremely unpopular and out of touch with the people and was overthrown by a popular uprising. For which the CIA gave a very tacit apology, detailing how it had set back Iranian democracy and progress by decades. About the closest you are going to get to an apology from the US.

Ok, now you are denying what you suggested earlier, that the US would start a war against Iran.

The reason for the UN was the deadlock at the end of that war, between three different victors over one common enemy. This unlikely turn of events, that such different ideological forces came together while reaching the same goal, was what prevented the continuation of the war.

Actually that was the reason for the power of veto being given to certain countries, the reasoning is given in the UN charter, to ensure no country forces itself on another country in the future etc. Paraphrasing but it was to prevent the reoccurence of another world war. President of the US made the speech

That corresponds perfectly with what I said. You seem to have no point except that you find politics morally imperfect.

you can find a summary of it here:
PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And since this is basically a summary of the Bill of Rights to apply to a global context, my point is enforced.

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Noble aims, of course - it should come as no surprise that in pracitce it is a bit more difficult, since there are different ideas about what constitutes social advancement, as well as limited economic means.

Nontheless, it is clear that America, as could all others, could do more and better to attain these ideals.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

You seem to be talking about NATO again for some reason.

No, I am talking about politics.
You are talking about heaven, from which all goodness rains down in the form of the UN without anything on the ground having anything to do with it. As I said and as you enforced, the role of the US was crucial to the formation of the UN and the formulation its ideals.

It acts on consensus not on its own.

The UN has bought about the peaceful resolution of over 200 conflicts, some of which resulted in War, UNICEF (its charity wing) has provided help of all different kinds in hundreds of countries. It's goals are to reduce international tensions. It has also mediated the peace terms in conflicts where war has broken out. Its a far better moral guide than the Republican hardline idiots are.

Can you show me the specifics?
I'm slightly sceptical about the noble practices of the UN.

It will be though when it becomes developed instead of developing as no doubt will China.

That said, I never said it wasn't powerful it still has the most technologically advanced force combined with a large army thus is most powerful force on Earth. Although not for long probably, China does have a standing army of a million men, and it is technologically starting to catch up. Luckilly China is an extremely un interventionist country and in its history has seldom warred on anyone unless attacked first. Tibet being the only example I can think of, off the top of my head but I'm sure there are more.

America also has the notion of citizens rights, which is lacking in China.
Its (Americas) international power is based largely on the appeal of this notion as it was spread in its image after WWII. This is how they won the cold war.

"Apparently?" So you are a communist, then? Or what?
I dont see the point you are trying to me, except that all politics is ugly.
I agree with that. I just think Soviet and nazi politics were more ugly than US politics. I would prefer life in the US over Sowiet Russia or nazi Germany.

So if I am anti US policy I'm a communist how very droll.

Mjuh. Except that this argument is in your mind only.
I was respodning to your scepsis about Americas negative judgment of Stalinist communism.

I am a liberal half way between the left and right... Ish. Or as they are called in the US communists. Being as you have no left.

For the record, I am a Dutchman, and I usually vote labor.

You don't have to be a communist to see that the cold war was a big waste of both Russia and Americas time. however it suited both their political aims, for the Russians it kept their attention of their crumbling infra structure and the failure of a communist system. Win-win but still fricking stupid. For the US well I'm pretty sure you know why it suited their aims, however I don't think they were quite aware of how weak Russia was at times. One has to admire their secret service in keeping the US in the dark and its acquisition of technology. One thing that can be said about the pseudo communist systems, they certainly favoured large and fairly efficient security services.

I regard this as a completely nihilistic and unphilosophical non-perspective.

I'm not even going to bother with most of this.

If you just want to say I am right an you are wrong go ahead but spare me the that's exactly what I said crap because it wasn't.

Just FYI you seem to have been wrong about just about everything so far. You need to learn your history and then come back when you know what it is you are talking about tbh.

Stalinist communism was an absolute traversty of what communism is about, he also killed between 10-20 million people which is why justifiably its history is universally despised. That doesn't mean communism is bad just that Stalin was a brutal dictator.

Nobody won the cold war you maroon. Christ. It set the world back by decades, and communism had been failing since not long after its inception, it was one side pretending it was a super power and the other happy to play along. Fucking pointless. It was a pointlessly useless part of history where we almost annihilated ourselves over stupid arrogant ideologies that never really existed anyway. The only winner were arms manufacturers. What a shitty way to ruin a century quite frankly.

Won what did they win, the continued existence of mankind was the victor, but then ironically you didn't need a cold war to have that happen.

Why don't you move to the US since you love them so much?

I mean I know what they achieved but you seem to have bought into their arrogant bragging and propaganda that is self agrandizing bs. A great nation, could of been had they not been led by morons for most of the post war era. A golden age completely wasted by idiot presidents who thought they could control the world and just ended up making it a mess. There legacy is something we now all have to live with, a volatile world and a far more dangerous place than it should of been. Sure that aint just the USs fault but they sure are the major culprit in how to fuck things up 20th century stylee.

[Gobbo]

Just FYI you seem to have been wrong about just about everything so far. You need to learn your history and then come back when you know what it is you are talking about tbh.

I could say the same thing to you.

It set the world back by decades, and communism had been failing since not long after its inception, it was one side pretending it was a super power and the other happy to play along. Fucking pointless. It was a pointlessly useless part of history where we almost annihilated ourselves over stupid arrogant ideologies that never really existed anyway. The only winner were arms manufacturers. What a shitty way to ruin a century quite frankly.

Cause that is not only wrong, but also uninspired - a gloss-over of a global plan that actually went off quite well. If you can't see the genius behind the cold war then you're missing a lot. Do you want us to believe that 1900-2000 was the century where global citizens were still stuck in nationalistic psychologies? Of course not. That would be retarded.

[Calrid]

Just FYI you seem to have been wrong about just about everything so far. You need to learn your history and then come back when you know what it is you are talking about tbh.

I could say the same thing to you.

And yet you have consistently failed to argue your case. You could say that or you could in fact just put your money where your mouth is for a change and start rebutting stuff.

It set the world back by decades, and communism had been failing since not long after its inception, it was one side pretending it was a super power and the other happy to play along. Fucking pointless. It was a pointlessly useless part of history where we almost annihilated ourselves over stupid arrogant ideologies that never really existed anyway. The only winner were arms manufacturers. What a shitty way to ruin a century quite frankly.

Cause that is not only wrong, but also uninspired - a gloss-over of a global plan that actually went off quite well. If you can't see the genius behind the cold war then you're missing a lot.

Yeah it was magic living under the fear of total anihilation all the time.

Genius are you fucking mental?

Russia would of collapsed much sooner without the cold war taking focus off the severe hardships of its people, it basically gave the people something other than the government to blame for their problems which were in fact intrinsic of the psuedo-Socialist system they were labouring under. It prolonged the existence of communism and jeopardised the entire planet. It was a fuck up of biblical proportions.

Why is it you can't admit when you fuck up? Is it a sort of defence mechanism, or just a result of being very nationalistic? There's always got to be this propaganda bs that makes you out not to be a fuck up? I presume in the US you think you won Vietnam, Korea wasn't a hopeless stalemate, and the cold war wasn't a perilously pointless and resource draining exercise in stupidity by two cock tard penis fencing nations with oversized egos and nationalist ideologies.

It was fucking brilliant everyone nealry died and no one gained anything! War is fucking great isn't it!

Do you want us to believe that 1900-2000 was the century where global citizens were still stuck in nationalistic psychologies? Of course not. That would be retarded.

Yeah but the the US is still stuck in nationalist ideologies in the 21st century. Where as everyone else in the developed world has kinda got over themselves, that's a major reason for most of your problems. Btw Russia is still a very nationalistic and arrogant nation, but then it doesn't go round invading people at the drop of a hat and its a more understated form of perceived superiority than the USs.

The 20th century was a complete mess, I mean come on you have to be wearing pretty rose tinted spectacles to see anything but the demise of idiotic ideologies as a win.

[Gobbo]

I'm not American, first of all. I'm not coming from a nationalistic tendency - quite the opposite, as I said.

When I say 'success' I am talking in a global development context. The cold war, was, objectively, two opposing powers developing technology at an remarkable pace as prompted by the fear of a nuclear annihilation. The people who finance wars don't care what the threat is. That part is always some fiction. There's no shame in admitting the cold war wasn't really about nuclear annihilation. I mean, It's not like I always thought that. I was taught the same stuff, but a level-headed analysis of history/the cold war should lead you to the same conclusion, should you get serious about this topic. Dozens of historical books say the same thing. Just pick one and read it.

Btw Russia is still a very nationalistic and arrogant nation, but then it doesn't go round invading people at the drop of a hat and its a more understated form of perceived superiority than the USs.

The view that these nations, enmeshed in ostensibly controlling global finance systems, are somehow these discrete, autonomous agents who act in concert with the public announcements of their leaders is a radical view because there is no evidence to support that view. I mean if we don't count high school textbooks. Countries are not 'free' to do what they wish just because a leader decides so. There is no point in saying 'you need to back this up' because you know at some level that I don't. If you believe that you are hanging onto a delusion given to you by the media.

[Calrid]

I'm not American, first of all. I'm not coming from a nationalistic tendency - quite the opposite, as I said.

When I say 'success' I am talking in a global development context. The cold war, was, objectively, two opposing powers developing technology at an remarkable pace as prompted by the fear of a nuclear annihilation. The people who finance wars don't care what the threat is. That part is always some fiction. There's no shame in admitting the cold war wasn't really about nuclear annihilation. I mean, It's not like I always thought that. I was taught the same stuff, but a level-headed analysis of history/the cold war should lead you to the same conclusion, should you get serious about this topic. Dozens of historical books say the same thing. Just pick one and read it.

Btw Russia is still a very nationalistic and arrogant nation, but then it doesn't go round invading people at the drop of a hat and its a more understated form of perceived superiority than the USs.

The view that these nations, enmeshed in ostensibly controlling global finance systems, are somehow these discrete, autonomous agents who act in concert with the public announcements of their leaders is a radical view because there is no evidence to support that view. I mean if we don't count high school textbooks. Countries are not 'free' to do what they wish just because a leader decides so. There is no point in saying 'you need to back this up' because you know at some level that I don't. If you believe that you are hanging onto a delusion given to you by the media.

Is this more of your conspiracy theory stuff?

Well tbh we haven't needed war to develop technology since the 1940s. Now adays any sort of war tends to inhibit science. The twentieth century would of gone through a boom in technology regardless of the cold war as we moved into the computer age, into labs and where funding would be adversely effected by any form of unstability such as war. Which is where we are now. There is this myth that in the latter half of the twentieth century like the former half war created a drive to technology which is of course false. The computer revolution did that, the cold war was merely a sadly delusional battle of ideologies that prolonged the existence of Russian communism by at least 30 years. It's hard to see how anyone won anything unless you think that technology is still reliant on war to make progress, if anything the opposite is now true and has been pretty much since the late 50s and early 60s. Countries that have not been at war are producing a great deal of advances in all fields, in fact more than those that are because public funding is more forthcoming. Technology now pretty much all takes place in the lab not in the field so there is no need to field test much stuff until you are at the prototype stage, and a lot of models can be effectively and realistically designed by using the supreme number crunching ability computers can do, to model complex systems like aerodynamics and protein chemistry and about a million different other things.

Incidentally the first "computer" came about as a result of the second world war (designed by a telephone engineer) and was used to break codes in Beltchley Park, like the famous engima code. That said Americans usually claim they invented the first computer, and tbh its kinda probably true, at least recognisable computer in terms of a programmable system with active memory etc. That said Babbages cog and gear number crunching system was a computer of sorts too, as was the abacus so meh.

[Jakob]

I'm not even going to bother with most of this.

If you just want to say I am right an you are wrong go ahead but spare me the that's exactly what I said crap because it wasn't.

Just FYI you seem to have been wrong about just about everything so far. You need to learn your history and then come back when you know what it is you are talking about tbh.

Stalinist communism was an absolute traversty of what communism is about, he also killed between 10-20 million people which is why justifiably its history is universally despised. That doesn't mean communism is bad just that Stalin was a brutal dictator.

Nobody won the cold war you maroon. Christ. It set the world back by decades, and communism had been failing since not long after its inception, it was one side pretending it was a super power and the other happy to play along. Fucking pointless. It was a pointlessly useless part of history where we almost annihilated ourselves over stupid arrogant ideologies that never really existed anyway. The only winner were arms manufacturers. What a shitty way to ruin a century quite frankly.

Won what did they win, the continued existence of mankind was the victor, but then ironically you didn't need a cold war to have that happen.

Why don't you move to the US since you love them so much?

I mean I know what they achieved but you seem to have bought into their arrogant bragging and propaganda that is self agrandizing bs. A great nation, could of been had they not been led by morons for most of the post war era. A golden age completely wasted by idiot presidents who thought they could control the world and just ended up making it a mess. There legacy is something we now all have to live with, a volatile world and a far more dangerous place than it should of been. Sure that aint just the USs fault but they sure are the major culprit in how to fuck things up 20th century stylee.

I've seen many howling, cursing retreats on this board, and they're always funny. But then your posts to me have been nothing but a scurrying repositioning, closer back to the stone you crept out underneath from.

One thing arrogant cowards have in common is that you say one thing in one post, and have completely forgotten about it the next post, so you cant be held accountable for what you say. Very convenient!

Another thing you have in common with each other is the conviction that you're naturally better than the world, and are effortlessly able to judge everything flawlessly, without ever considering perspective, or desire, or the human will to power, or anything real.

Reality, including the history of your own posts, is inconvenient for you, stands in the way of your self-therapeutic rage. Live in the moment! Raaaah!

Dont get me wrong, you're free to curse everyone and everything you hate. I'm not against that. Passion is good!

[Calrid]

I'm not even going to bother with most of this.

If you just want to say I am right an you are wrong go ahead but spare me the that's exactly what I said crap because it wasn't.

Just FYI you seem to have been wrong about just about everything so far. You need to learn your history and then come back when you know what it is you are talking about tbh.

Stalinist communism was an absolute traversty of what communism is about, he also killed between 10-20 million people which is why justifiably its history is universally despised. That doesn't mean communism is bad just that Stalin was a brutal dictator.

Nobody won the cold war you maroon. Christ. It set the world back by decades, and communism had been failing since not long after its inception, it was one side pretending it was a super power and the other happy to play along. Fucking pointless. It was a pointlessly useless part of history where we almost annihilated ourselves over stupid arrogant ideologies that never really existed anyway. The only winner were arms manufacturers. What a shitty way to ruin a century quite frankly.

Won what did they win, the continued existence of mankind was the victor, but then ironically you didn't need a cold war to have that happen.

Why don't you move to the US since you love them so much?

I mean I know what they achieved but you seem to have bought into their arrogant bragging and propaganda that is self agrandizing bs. A great nation, could of been had they not been led by morons for most of the post war era. A golden age completely wasted by idiot presidents who thought they could control the world and just ended up making it a mess. There legacy is something we now all have to live with, a volatile world and a far more dangerous place than it should of been. Sure that aint just the USs fault but they sure are the major culprit in how to fuck things up 20th century stylee.

I've seen many howling, cursing retreats on this board, and they're always funny. But then your posts to me have been nothing but a scurrying repositioning, closer back to the stone you crept out underneath from.

One thing arrogant cowards have in common is that you say one thing in one post, and have completely forgotten about it the next post, so you cant be held accountable for what you say. Very convenient!

Another thing you have in common with each other is the conviction that you're naturally better than the world, and are effortlessly able to judge everything flawlessly, without ever considering perspective, or desire, or the human will to power, or anything real.

Reality, including the history of your own posts, is inconvenient for you, stands in the way of your self-therapeutic rage. Live in the moment! Raaaah!

Dont get me wrong, you're free to curse everyone and everything you hate. I'm not against that. Passion is good!

I only hate the US governments actions on the world stage. And thanks I wasn't aware I needed your permission. You can go back to pretending you are absolutely right, without actually indulging in an argument.

If you are so sure of your argument actually attack my points, don't pretend my arguments are the same as what you said, they are not and that is disingenuous.

[Jakob]

Like I said, you're free to hate. I have no beef with this. I just would like you to follow through, to not keep cursing on the sidelines, but engage in reality. See how strong your convictions are when they are tested.

if you want to argue, in the sense of two people participating, why don't you revisit our correspondence and approach it as a human, instead of as the supreme God of Judgment.

I know of probably more evils perpetrated by the US than you, but I still see the good.

I am deeper than you, because I walk in the world.

[Gobbo]

I'm not American, first of all. I'm not coming from a nationalistic tendency - quite the opposite, as I said.

When I say 'success' I am talking in a global development context. The cold war, was, objectively, two opposing powers developing technology at an remarkable pace as prompted by the fear of a nuclear annihilation. The people who finance wars don't care what the threat is. That part is always some fiction. There's no shame in admitting the cold war wasn't really about nuclear annihilation. I mean, It's not like I always thought that. I was taught the same stuff, but a level-headed analysis of history/the cold war should lead you to the same conclusion, should you get serious about this topic. Dozens of historical books say the same thing. Just pick one and read it.

Btw Russia is still a very nationalistic and arrogant nation, but then it doesn't go round invading people at the drop of a hat and its a more understated form of perceived superiority than the USs.

The view that these nations, enmeshed in ostensibly controlling global finance systems, are somehow these discrete, autonomous agents who act in concert with the public announcements of their leaders is a radical view because there is no evidence to support that view. I mean if we don't count high school textbooks. Countries are not 'free' to do what they wish just because a leader decides so. There is no point in saying 'you need to back this up' because you know at some level that I don't. If you believe that you are hanging onto a delusion given to you by the media.

Is this more of your conspiracy theory stuff?

Well tbh we haven't needed war to develop technology since the 1940s. Now adays any sort of war tends to inhibit science. The twentieth century would of gone through a boom in technology regardless of the cold war as we moved into the computer age, into labs and where funding would be adversely effected by any form of unstability such as war. Which is where we are now. There is this myth that in the latter half of the twentieth century like the former half war created a drive to technology which is of course false. The computer revolution did that, the cold war was merely a sadly delusional battle of ideologies that prolonged the existence of Russian communism by at least 30 years. It's hard to see how anyone won anything unless you think that technology is still reliant on war to make progress, if anything the opposite is now true and has been pretty much since the late 50s and early 60s. Countries that have not been at war are producing a great deal of advances in all fields, in fact more than those that are because public funding is more forthcoming. Technology now pretty much all takes place in the lab not in the field so there is no need to field test much stuff until you are at the prototype stage, and a lot of models can be effectively and realistically designed by using the supreme number crunching ability computers can do, to model complex systems like aerodynamics and protein chemistry and about a million different other things.

Incidentally the first "computer" came about as a result of the second world war (designed by a telephone engineer) and was used to break codes in Beltchley Park, like the famous engima code. That said Americans usually claim they invented the first computer, and tbh its kinda probably true, at least recognisable computer in terms of a programmable system with active memory etc. That said Babbages cog and gear number crunching system was a computer of sorts too, as was the abacus so meh.

Nonsense.

A total guess on your part.

[Calrid]

Like I said, you're free to hate. I have no beef with this. I just would like you to follow through, to not keep cursing on the sidelines, but engage in reality. See how strong your convictions are when they are tested.

if you want to argue, in the sense of two people participating, why don't you revisit our correspondence and approach it as a human, instead of as the supreme God of Judgment.

I know of probably more evils perpetrated by the US than you, but I still see the good.

Challenge my argument not me, ad hominem is a waste of my time. Either put your money where your mouth is and dispute what I have said or shut up. Wasting your time railing at me.

I didn't say the US was pure evil now did I cut out the straw men too, you might convince people of something.

I am deeper than you, because I walk in the world.

Sounds to me the only thing you are deeper in is your own ass where you seem to be buried up to your nuts. There you go ad hominem, what does that resolve? Do you see?

[Calrid]

Nonsense.

A total guess on your part.

Is this the extent of peoples arguments? Lame.

Of course Russia managed to extend communism by years by focusing peoples attention away from the deteriorating infrastructure of post Stalinist Russia, this isn't even contentious. But then you don't even question the non contentious stuff. Oh dear. Gorbachev the arch proponent of ending the cold war himself admits that Russia had been crippled by communism and that any longer and their country would become conspicuously undermined. He had the foresight to see this and the nouse to try to mediate a peace with Reagan.

Technology has not relied on war since the 1940s and early 50s, now it relies on funding, its research takes place in the lab and is funded mostly by public and also by private funding. These are reliant on economic factors, war particularly is damaging to the public sectors ability to fund research. It no longer takes place in the hanger or on the battle field and hasn't done since the computer revolution. This is a fact, live with it.

If this is all you have then I suggest you keep your half baked opinions to yourself quite frankly.

[Gobbo]

Is this the extent of peoples arguments? Lame.

Yep. That's the extent of it.

You've countered all the points I raised. That last post was about as relevant as a post could get to the one it was referencing.

[Exdividual]

Staying in line with my life experiences and tendancy to loathe my own species for it's self-important, control-freak attitude, I have no opinion about the "fall" of my country of origin. If it ever happens, I probably won't live to see it, and if I do, as I'll be joining the military soon, I won't care. I just hope I can take part in the eradication of all human life when I die. A hypothetical "reset button" for the process of evolution. If human beings ever begin colonizing other planets, it will be the worst possible outcome for all parties involved. Homo Sapiens will be a cosmic parasite, sucking the life out of everything they touch, with little to no regard for who or what they affect. It's human nature, and it's disgusting. I can only hope that among the trillions of trillions of planets in the universe, at least one is home to truly intelligent life.

Keep in mind, while you or I may not share these qualities with our brethren, history dictates that it will take millions of years of evolutionary change to remove these tendancies from our DNA. By then we'll have fucked up so much of this dimension it won't matter.

Species go extinct all the time, pray that we're next.

My apologies for the mostly off-topic post, but this is where my mind wandered after reading half of this discussion and getting a headache from all the petty bickering.

[Smirk]

Welcome, Exdividual. You'll love this place and fit in very nicely. It's full of cynical people loaded with negativity.

Bring your half-empty glass and enjoy!

[Exdividual]

Welcome, Exdividual. You'll love this place and fit in very nicely. It's full of cynical people loaded with negativity.

Bring your half-empty glass and enjoy!

Cynicism, the spice of life!

Thank you for the welcome.

[Smirk]

Yeah. Right.

[Jakob]

Challenge my argument not me, ad hominem is a waste of my time. Either put your money where your mouth is and dispute what I have said or shut up. Wasting your time railing at me.

I didn't say the US was pure evil now did I cut out the straw men too, you might convince people of something.

You've said that the US is a bunch of evil morons without any standards, and that they are not a superpower, but in the meantime commit evil all over the world.

Since these are purely subjective terms, I cannot dispute them. It's just like your opinion man

I am deeper than you, because I walk in the world.

Sounds to me the only thing you are deeper in is your own ass where you seem to be buried up to your nuts. There you go ad hominem, what does that resolve? Do you see?

I think you misunderstand the concept, Calrid -
Saying I am deeper than you is just an explanation of my perspective. You see only the surface, not into the human heart. In the heart is where contradictions lie. It seems to me like you can't handle those.
Im not saying its easy for me, or that I'm always right, but I fight.

[Calrid]

Challenge my argument not me, ad hominem is a waste of my time. Either put your money where your mouth is and dispute what I have said or shut up. Wasting your time railing at me.

I didn't say the US was pure evil now did I cut out the straw men too, you might convince people of something.

You've said that the US is a bunch of evil morons without any standards, and that they are not a superpower, but in the meantime commit evil all over the world.

Since these are purely subjective terms, I cannot dispute them. It's just like your opinion man

I am deeper than you, because I walk in the world.

Sounds to me the only thing you are deeper in is your own ass where you seem to be buried up to your nuts. There you go ad hominem, what does that resolve? Do you see?

I think you misunderstand the concept, Calrid -
Saying I am deeper than you is just an explanation of my perspective. You see only the surface, not into the human heart. In the heart is where contradictions lie. It seems to me like you can't handle those.
Im not saying its easy for me, or that I'm always right, but I fight.

Straw man. Come on dude at least try. Stop saying stupid things. Indulge in my arguments, not in ad homs. This is pointless.

I didn't say they were not a superpower, I never said they were evil, I said their government are chimps and were for the most part in the 20th century wasting their golden age, because they couldn't get over themselves. Come on try at least.

Yes you are all knowing and wise, but prove it by actually saying something other than trite ad homs. Attack my argument not me. this is pretty simple, if you can't fine. But don't bore me with how evil I am. It's pointless.

Yes I am Satan^100000 I am the greatest evil alive, I rob tombs eat babies and will kill you without a moments concern. Now we have established that how 'bout you tackle the actually meat of the argument?

[Jakob]

Straw man. Come on dude at least try. Stop saying stupid things. Indulge in my arguments, not in ad homs. This is pointless.

What arguments?

I didn't say they were not a superpower, I never said they were evil, I said their government are chimps and were for the most part in the 20th century wasting their golden age, because they couldn't get over themselves. Come on try at least.

You're entitled to your opinion and just as entitled to change it every two posts.
I think that the only chimp was GW Bush. Let's not try to logically argue for the validity of a metaphor, through, we might end up looking like Wittgenstein.

Yes you are all knowing and wise, but prove it by actually saying something other than trite ad homs. Attack my argument not me. this is pretty simple, if you can't fine. But don't bore me with how evil I am. It's pointless.

I see neither an argument nor any evil in your words.

Yes I am Satan^100000 I am the greatest evil alive, I rob tombs eat babies and will kill you without a
moments concern. Now we have established that how 'bout you tackle the actually meat of the argument?

Lol. But again, what argument? Don't you mean statement?

[Calrid]

Straw man. Come on dude at least try. Stop saying stupid things. Indulge in my arguments, not in ad homs. This is pointless.

What arguments?

I didn't say they were not a superpower, I never said they were evil, I said their government are chimps and were for the most part in the 20th century wasting their golden age, because they couldn't get over themselves. Come on try at least.

You're entitled to your opinion and just as entitled to change it every two posts.
I think that the only chimp was GW Bush. Let's not try to logically argue for the validity of a metaphor, through, we might end up looking like Wittgenstein.

Yes you are all knowing and wise, but prove it by actually saying something other than trite ad homs. Attack my argument not me. this is pretty simple, if you can't fine. But don't bore me with how evil I am. It's pointless.

I see neither an argument nor any evil in your words.

Yes I am Satan^100000 I am the greatest evil alive, I rob tombs eat babies and will kill you without a
moments concern. Now we have established that how 'bout you tackle the actually meat of the argument?

Lol. But again, what argument? Don't you mean statement?

I haven't changed my argument one iota. I think the US wasted its golden age indulging in conflicts whose major ones almost all lead to defeat or stalemate and a vast expenditure of resources that ultimately did more harm than good. I'm not saying all the presidents were bad, just most of them. That is my contention. You can either challenge it or you can stfu and stop making yourself look like a fool with this philosophical wankery.

This is the extent of your argument? You merely contend that my opinion is wrong because you say so, then go on to make more fallacious statements and ad homs, my arguments have already been presented, so either you are an idiot or you are deliberately acting like a moron for effect.

This quite honestly pretty dire. Challenge the argument or don't but wanking about and name dropping Wiggtenstein is just making you look like you can't.