Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 782)

Showing posts 15,621 - 15,640 of216,878
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16077
Apr 19, 2011
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard the Churchill thing several times but have never heard a source. Winston didn't strike me as overly manipulative.
Please include a list of countries America has sent aid in some form or another when you make a list of countries we've bombed ... seems only fair. One of the cool things about getting bombed by America is that we feel so guilty after one of our little tantrums, we often help turn that country into a economic juggernaut. Just saying.
I've heard it said that Churchill (figuratively) danced with joy when he heard that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor.

At the time, Britain's only ally was the Soviet Union, and they weren't doing very well, though with the winter weather they were doing better. It would be a year though before the Soviets really turned the Eastern Front around.

In the Pacific, just about everything went the Japanese way for the first 6 months. Coral Sea was their first defeat of any size, and that battle was more of a draw than a defeat. Then at Midway the Japanese got shellacked and never really recovered.(Another victory for the code breakers on that one.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16078
Apr 19, 2011
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Adams is the absolute best spray there is, I used it for years. Missy sounds like a great dog, I'm glad you two have each other. I wouldn't want a world without pets, I don't think I would do well there.
Missy is 1/2 Great Pyrenees. Almost as tall as a pure blood, but not nearly as stocky, though she does look pretty husky with all her fur.

Pyrenees have great personalities and are usually very gentle even though they are huge dogs.

She is 7 now, but still very playful. And loves to go ride in the car, which is why there is always some white tufts of fur somewhere in it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16079
Apr 19, 2011
 
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that would place you in the Boolean null state that we talked about in that long exchange with Jim Bob. Before that, when defining the gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist paradigms, we had been thinking in terms of strict binary dichotomies. But the null state still places you outside of the theist definition. Perhaps, then, the real defining statement is, "It is far from certain that any deities exist." Whatever defines us as atheists, though, has to be as inclusive as possible and include anyone who does not actively believe in deities.
Boolean null state sounds fine.

But what is wrong with defining atheist as a non-theist. If a theist is somebody that has accepted some god claim - would you agree that that is what a theist is - then an atheist is somebody that accepts no god claim. That's all of us. Why do I need to be "far from certain that any deities exist" to be an atheist? What if someone is just in a Boolean null state, or even fifty-fifty? Can't a person believe that there is a good chance that there is a god, but one who is invisible and unknowable to him? Aren't these all descriptions of atheism, as long as no god claims are accepted or made?

What I am very sure of is that the Christian bible is inauthentic, as is the god it describes. And also that if any gods exist, since they haven't ever manifested, they probably never will, and there is no way for me to know about them. So, I don't believe in anything or worship anything.

But there still may be gods. I don't see how I can comment on that except with something meaningless and indefensible.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16080
Apr 19, 2011
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I scanned your link briefly ... seems to be another "god of the gaps" argument. For me, it's mainly visceral ... I would be very "disappointed" in Churchill if he had the information and did not share it.
And I'd like to apologize for my rant (above or below or wherever)... I've expunged most of my religious indoctrination ... still working on the patriotism part. Surely you would agree that the vast majority of Americans are basically "good" folk ... our military interventions and economic aid efforts are extensions from this majority into the outside world ... it can't all be bad. Give us a break.
It would surprise me if Britain knew very much if anything about the Japanese plans. The British got beat up pretty badly right at the start. They lost Hong Kong and Singapore very quickly, and they lost several capital ships...the Prince of Wales, the Repulse and the Eagle.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16081
Apr 19, 2011
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The best parts of America are going or gone.
I'm sorry to be at odds with you - and probably most other posters, theist and atheist alike - on this, because I realize that my patriotic cynicism is just as offensive to people who love their country as my religious cynicism is to people who love their god. And one might say that as an expatriate, I have conceded my right to an opinion, although I doubt that you would.
America was great, and I used to be proud of her. We invented modern democracy. We invented secular government. We invented egalitarianism. We took personal liberty to the max by scaling government back to the max, and then dividing the stump into thirds and making it transparent. We invented the middle class, and offered the American dream. We took the adventurous people from all over the world and built the greatest nation ever to exist so far. A peasant could come to America and become educated, become wealthy, and attain social status.
Then we dominated just about everything else, from rock and roll to higher education to cinema to sports to science. We became hugely successful and wealthy as a nation, and were the envy of the world. Then we went to the moon in less than a decade - about the time since 911 - because we could.
Big difference today. Very little of that remains. "Can do" has turned to "Heckuva job, Brownie". Failure and incompetence are ubiquitous. The economic opportunities are disappearing, along with the vision, the excellence, the wealth, the rule of law, the freedoms, the respect of the world and the leadership position in it, the moral authority - all somehow pissed away. I see the problem as irreversible now.
Do we agree about that, or do you see a better America today than I do, or one with more hope of turning it all around than that?
No, completely agree. We are the generation who has seen it all. The post WWII boom, the "baby boomers", we've rode the shimmering, effervescent bubble of prosperity and technological achievement ... now it looks like we gonna get to see it go 'POP'... definitely in decline, definitely NOT better today. Sadly, realistically, I only see the possibility of "turning it all around" by the survivors post collapse. They will be made of sterner stuff. May not even be "Americans" in the traditional sense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16082
Apr 20, 2011
 
RHill wrote:
And I'd like to apologize for my rant (above or below or wherever)... I've expunged most of my religious indoctrination ... still working on the patriotism part. Surely you would agree that the vast majority of Americans are basically "good" folk ... our military interventions and economic aid efforts are extensions from this majority into the outside world ... it can't all be bad. Give us a break.
The majority are decent people. In my opinion, they have only a token voice any more. They aren't represented in the ranks of the powerful, a group that is sociopathic in the extreme, psychopathic at times. Think Cheney, Rove, Norquist - the public face of the eminence gris, which is just as predatory and Machiavellian.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/beware-the-... [make sure to peak at this, and the links contained at the top of the article]

It's like the church. Most of the church mice like Grippy and Les Claypool seem like decent people, except where dogma may have made them a little ugly or stubborn. But their leadership isn't decent anywhere - the Discovery Institutes, Dobsons, Pat Robertsons and worse. Same with Americans and their government. You're a nice guy. But you aren't represented.

This may be a fundamental difference between us. Most people do not accept that democracy is dead in America, an assumption or premise of mine.

I say that voting, signature collecting, assembling to redress differences, writing congressmen, running for office - all of the visible aspects of participatory democracy - are just eye wash. The power doesn't give a crap that most Americans have wanted the US out of Iraq and Bush/Cheney investigated for high crimes since 2006, when the Democrats were swept into the majority on a mandate. What did you get? Impeachment was off the table and Bush's war budget was approved to the nickel. Americans really have almost no say. It's mostly just a show.

Notice that if that's true, if nondemocratic corporocratic types now control the government on their own behalves, and if democracy is only an illusion, then you have lost your government, because revolution sure isn't an option. That era is gone for good. Musket against musket and cannon against cannon is now automatic weapon vs poisoning all of your food, air and water, shutting off your power, and firing a smart bomb up your dog's ass from low earth orbit.

Had you ever considered that popular control of the American government might already be lost? Do you see how that could be possible, and that if it happens/-ed, it could be irreversible?

I think its already happened. Class warfare is over, and our class - the middle class - lost. Lots of people never saw that such a war was waged. But it was, and we have an aristocratic class that is now above the law, like Bush, which is getting fabulously wealthy as the middle class returns to paupery.

Too cynical? If so, how?

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16083
Apr 20, 2011
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, basically we are just trying to live our lives. That's all well and good, except that the people committing crimes on others are our governments and we should hold them to task. I don't know how to do this other than to vote and raise awareness and I don't know how to hold a government to task while it maintains your nation's power and place in the world - because, let's face it, I don't want to give up the benefits of Western civilization and modern living.
But, let me put it another way: the tea, sugar rum and slave trade is well studied. We know very well that the rules back then acted without good morals - and, in doing so basically had the British underclass working in wage labor (and lots of poverty, misery) to produce the items of bondage that were used on the African slaves so that they could produce the cheap calories for the British Empire to keep functioning. It's all circular and economic and it worked out nicely for the aristocrats (and, in the end, nicely for us too - but that also involved a lot of pilfering of resources around the world).
These kinds of historical atrocities are all well documented - what makes you think our leaders are acting any better than the leaders of the past? And this is going to sound preachy, but please ignore it and uh... realize I don't really mean anything other than as a rhetoric device - but when we drive our cars and use plastic goods, we are supporting the war industry that protects our oil. It's similar to the British wage-slave/slave duality above; we are still wage slaves (although with a very nice comfortable life - I mean, I'm dirt poor but I have a shower, no malaria mosquitoes, and ok food, that's nice) and our actions are still - through the actions of our governments - impoverishing billions.
But I like my car and I don't use my bike all that much and I don't get out and protest - unlike the Arabic countries right now (good for them!)- when I see obvious inequality. It kind of sucks, the sheeple I and the common populace of developed countries, save France, have become.
I'm with ya ... like 98%.

I just don't think we are supporting governments or "impoverishing billions" as a consequence of our life styles. Why can't the governments of the impoverished billions take some responsibility? Why can't the milling masses, the impoverished billions, the people themselves take arms or plowshares and do something for themselves? Why does it have to be the fault of our government, who seems occasionally to consider the general population a little bit (sometimes maybe).

I was in the oil exploration business, I traveled extensively ... these operations and the resulting discoveries pump BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, employ many local people ... I mean, we're NOT STEALING the damn oil from them ... we are BUYING IT!! Not our fault if their governments are ripping them off, funneling the money or whatever. I know, I know ... we're "propping" up undesirable governments or whatever by dealing with them ... we don't do that because it's FUN people, it's not a hobby or something. If we want their OIL we gotta kiss some ass!!

By falling in step with the AMERICA KNOCKERS you are contributing to the decline and dissolution of something that WAS undeniably great, wonderful, the pinnacle of human endeavor.

Anyway ... I gotta crash ...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16084
Apr 20, 2011
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we agree about that, or do you see a better America today than I do, or one with more hope of turning it all around than that?
I live in Shanghai.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16085
Apr 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority are decent people. In my opinion, they have only a token voice any more. They aren't represented in the ranks of the powerful, a group that is sociopathic in the extreme, psychopathic at times. Think Cheney, Rove, Norquist - the public face of the eminence gris, which is just as predatory and Machiavellian.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/beware-the-... [make sure to peak at this, and the links contained at the top of the article]
It's like the church. Most of the church mice like Grippy and Les Claypool seem like decent people, except where dogma may have made them a little ugly or stubborn. But their leadership isn't decent anywhere - the Discovery Institutes, Dobsons, Pat Robertsons and worse. Same with Americans and their government. You're a nice guy. But you aren't represented.
This may be a fundamental difference between us. Most people do not accept that democracy is dead in America, an assumption or premise of mine.
I say that voting, signature collecting, assembling to redress differences, writing congressmen, running for office - all of the visible aspects of participatory democracy - are just eye wash. The power doesn't give a crap that most Americans have wanted the US out of Iraq and Bush/Cheney investigated for high crimes since 2006, when the Democrats were swept into the majority on a mandate. What did you get? Impeachment was off the table and Bush's war budget was approved to the nickel. Americans really have almost no say. It's mostly just a show.
Notice that if that's true, if nondemocratic corporocratic types now control the government on their own behalves, and if democracy is only an illusion, then you have lost your government, because revolution sure isn't an option. That era is gone for good. Musket against musket and cannon against cannon is now automatic weapon vs poisoning all of your food, air and water, shutting off your power, and firing a smart bomb up your dog's ass from low earth orbit.
Had you ever considered that popular control of the American government might already be lost? Do you see how that could be possible, and that if it happens/-ed, it could be irreversible?
I think its already happened. Class warfare is over, and our class - the middle class - lost. Lots of people never saw that such a war was waged. But it was, and we have an aristocratic class that is now above the law, like Bush, which is getting fabulously wealthy as the middle class returns to paupery.
Too cynical? If so, how?
Thank you for this excellent post! You have expressed my feelings precisely.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16086
Apr 20, 2011
 
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't keep track of the number key--I know because I've used different sequences when the first either timed out or was replaced when I hit the refresh button. The software still posted only one of them.
OK, thanks. Nothing there, then.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16087
Apr 20, 2011
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority are decent people. In my opinion, they have only a token voice any more. They aren't represented in the ranks of the powerful, a group that is sociopathic in the extreme, psychopathic at times. Think Cheney, Rove, Norquist - the public face of the eminence gris, which is just as predatory and Machiavellian.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/beware-the-... [make sure to peak at this, and the links contained at the top of the article]
It's like the church. Most of the church mice like Grippy and Les Claypool seem like decent people, except where dogma may have made them a little ugly or stubborn. But their leadership isn't decent anywhere - the Discovery Institutes, Dobsons, Pat Robertsons and worse. Same with Americans and their government. You're a nice guy. But you aren't represented.
This may be a fundamental difference between us. Most people do not accept that democracy is dead in America, an assumption or premise of mine.
I say that voting, signature collecting, assembling to redress differences, writing congressmen, running for office - all of the visible aspects of participatory democracy - are just eye wash. The power doesn't give a crap that most Americans have wanted the US out of Iraq and Bush/Cheney investigated for high crimes since 2006, when the Democrats were swept into the majority on a mandate. What did you get? Impeachment was off the table and Bush's war budget was approved to the nickel. Americans really have almost no say. It's mostly just a show.
Notice that if that's true, if nondemocratic corporocratic types now control the government on their own behalves, and if democracy is only an illusion, then you have lost your government, because revolution sure isn't an option. That era is gone for good. Musket against musket and cannon against cannon is now automatic weapon vs poisoning all of your food, air and water, shutting off your power, and firing a smart bomb up your dog's ass from low earth orbit.
Had you ever considered that popular control of the American government might already be lost? Do you see how that could be possible, and that if it happens/-ed, it could be irreversible?
I think its already happened. Class warfare is over, and our class - the middle class - lost. Lots of people never saw that such a war was waged. But it was, and we have an aristocratic class that is now above the law, like Bush, which is getting fabulously wealthy as the middle class returns to paupery.
Too cynical? If so, how?
No ... not too cynical. Frighteningly illuminating ... like striking the last match in a dark forest, surrounded by wolves ...

I must sleep ... I'll have to delve into the link a bit later ... good night.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16088
Apr 20, 2011
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at least concerning this particular post, I don't see where you actually have a complaint. The information he provided is true. The tone might or might not be a bit snide.
Certainly it doesn't rate up there with the copper guy's chortling about atheists going to hell. At least the way it read to me sounded like he was pleased with the concept.
Les might also note that copper dimes is a longtime troll with a new name. I can't remember even half of the names he's posted under.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16089
Apr 20, 2011
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm with ya ... like 98%.
I just don't think we are supporting governments or "impoverishing billions" as a consequence of our life styles. Why can't the governments of the impoverished billions take some responsibility? Why can't the milling masses, the impoverished billions, the people themselves take arms or plowshares and do something for themselves? Why does it have to be the fault of our government, who seems occasionally to consider the general population a little bit (sometimes maybe).
I was in the oil exploration business, I traveled extensively ... these operations and the resulting discoveries pump BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, employ many local people ... I mean, we're NOT STEALING the damn oil from them ... we are BUYING IT!! Not our fault if their governments are ripping them off, funneling the money or whatever. I know, I know ... we're "propping" up undesirable governments or whatever by dealing with them ... we don't do that because it's FUN people, it's not a hobby or something. If we want their OIL we gotta kiss some ass!!
By falling in step with the AMERICA KNOCKERS you are contributing to the decline and dissolution of something that WAS undeniably great, wonderful, the pinnacle of human endeavor.
Anyway ... I gotta crash ...
Sure, you are correct, if we ignore history. First, the reason the world is set up the way it is is because European powers divided it thusly - and America in the last 200 years. When they left their colonial empires, they divided their colonies in the way that would cause the most instability - European governments knew exactly what to do to ensure that these developing nations could not develop.

Second, the monetary system in place keeps poor countries poor - the IMF and World Bank have lofty goals but have been repeated shown to be failing at these goals. They admit it themselves - look at the development book list I sent you, or just check out their own website. They are bankers and have no problems admitting failure - and that is all you see on almost every single development project. What this does is impoverish these governments - and peoples - and subject them to the power of the developed nations.

Third, many of those governments are corrupt because our nations put them there. In all of the central/south American nations I listed above, most of the Caribbean ones, and many of the Arabic ones, the developing countries' governments are in place because we put them there. Sadam, Noriega, Pinochet, and more. So, yeah, corrupt, backed by Western money, put in place by our nations - us. Of course they do what we want and bankrupt their own nations.

So, no, I don't think that individual actors in the oil companies - I have worked in the oil business myself, but not internationally - are evil or trying to impoverish people, but the structure of the world is such that developing countries will have debt and will not succeed (without global restructuring).

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16090
Apr 20, 2011
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I believe that the people are convinced by government that their military interventions are necessary, but when military interventions are scrutinized, they usually don't hold up to the morals they espouse.
Of course. Beyond any reasonable doubt. That's the patriotic side. It appears that a nation went to fetch ExxonMobil some Iraqi oil based on deliberate lies. People had to be convinced to pony up their children - willingly if they didn't want a draft - and their tax dollars to finance this move that obviously could only benefit the oil companies, and the companies that outfit war like Halliburton and Blackwater.

But make it a crusade for Jesus, or for truth, justice, and the American way, and get those bumper stickers out there telling God to bless America - BTW, how did that work out last time?-- and you've got the people's support.

I don't think you can be too cynical here.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16091
Apr 20, 2011
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. That was just weird, and not weird in a good way.
Got to say, the guy had a wonderful speaking voice. One could see why his little godbots would be so entranced by him.
Kinda scary...not in a hellfire and brimstone way. Rather, he was defining anyone as not in his little group as "wicked" and on the verge of being a serial killer. One could easily see one of his followers deciding God had chosen him to take out the garbage.
While the speaker was speaking in a very pleasant, calm tone, there was a lot of hate in that speech.
The irony there is that this sort of ideology is more likely to produce a serial killer. It's so much easier to justify murder when the victim is perceived as evil and vile, less than human.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16092
Apr 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

gettagrip wrote:
Thats a bold faced lie, as I have read atheist after atheist argue about the topic, and accusing each other of not being a true atheist.
<quoted text>
Ok then grippy, write me ONE sentence of atheist dogma if you are so sure it exists.

Just One Sentence.

I challenge your cult infested brain to come up with it now:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16093
Apr 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
No man is an island unto himself IANS, my friend. Your words resonate, they sting ... but the truth in them, undeniable. You and Hiding have shaken my Vulcan composure. Fascinating.
Sorry, dude. It's just like crawling out of the religion cocoon. You conclude that you were sold a bill of goods. The reality is shocking at first, unbelievable. There must be some mistake. Then anger.

Finally, acceptance, with sarcasm and disesteem. The stages of grief, my man. If you go through the political version of this, it will be just like the religious one in most ways - lengthy, shocking, disorienting, maddening. If you go through this, you will be watching Lady Liberty die the way you watched Jesus die in your escape from religious dogma. That hurts. That's grieving. I'm done on both fronts.

When I hear you tell of the net good America does against a backdrop of few flaws, it sounds like a Christian telling me how much net good the church does notwithstanding the odd bad apple. That's the view from within, from a weekly church goer who just sees Sunday morning smiles, hymns, and airy words. What's not to like? How is this institution not goodness and light?

Ask yourself if that could be right. I'm not even going to say I'm right, even though you must surely realize that I think that I am. BTW, I have always wanted to be wrong about this.

If you pursue learning about your country like you did your church and bible, you may end up in the same place - disillusioned. I did.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16094
Apr 20, 2011
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, you are correct, if we ignore history. First, the reason the world is set up the way it is is because European powers divided it thusly - and America in the last 200 years. When they left their colonial empires, they divided their colonies in the way that would cause the most instability - European governments knew exactly what to do to ensure that these developing nations could not develop.
Second, the monetary system in place keeps poor countries poor - the IMF and World Bank have lofty goals but have been repeated shown to be failing at these goals. They admit it themselves - look at the development book list I sent you, or just check out their own website. They are bankers and have no problems admitting failure - and that is all you see on almost every single development project. What this does is impoverish these governments - and peoples - and subject them to the power of the developed nations.
Third, many of those governments are corrupt because our nations put them there. In all of the central/south American nations I listed above, most of the Caribbean ones, and many of the Arabic ones, the developing countries' governments are in place because we put them there. Sadam, Noriega, Pinochet, and more. So, yeah, corrupt, backed by Western money, put in place by our nations - us. Of course they do what we want and bankrupt their own nations.
So, no, I don't think that individual actors in the oil companies - I have worked in the oil business myself, but not internationally - are evil or trying to impoverish people, but the structure of the world is such that developing countries will have debt and will not succeed (without global restructuring).
Particularly since the end of WWII, our governments goal in foreign policy has had little to do with our American ideals and a whole lot to do with 1) containing the communists and 2) promoting American business concerns. If it required supporting some nasty dictators, then so be it.

Putting the Shah in power was one example (and one I am particularly disgusted with). Iran had a popularly elected government, and the Iranian people loved it. But (!!!) it wasn't very friendly to Western oil companies. Ergo...the CIA helped oust the government the Iranians wanted and put the Shah into power, someone much more to the liking of the oil companies.

If someone tried to do that to us, there would be war on a massive scale. But since we are the US and the US can do no wrong...well, you get the idea. Hypocrisy abounds.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16095
Apr 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Beyond any reasonable doubt. That's the patriotic side. It appears that a nation went to fetch ExxonMobil some Iraqi oil based on deliberate lies. People had to be convinced to pony up their children - willingly if they didn't want a draft - and their tax dollars to finance this move that obviously could only benefit the oil companies, and the companies that outfit war like Halliburton and Blackwater.
But make it a crusade for Jesus, or for truth, justice, and the American way, and get those bumper stickers out there telling God to bless America - BTW, how did that work out last time?-- and you've got the people's support.
I don't think you can be too cynical here.
Couldn't agree more. I can get pretty cynical here.

At least some of them are being prosecuted in Spain and they were up for prosecution in Germany - those countries have laws that allow for people to be prosecuted for war crimes even if they are outside the state. And, if convicted, it would be binding to all of the EU. I'm obviously hoping they proceed.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16096
Apr 20, 2011
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Particularly since the end of WWII, our governments goal in foreign policy has had little to do with our American ideals and a whole lot to do with 1) containing the communists and 2) promoting American business concerns. If it required supporting some nasty dictators, then so be it.
Putting the Shah in power was one example (and one I am particularly disgusted with). Iran had a popularly elected government, and the Iranian people loved it. But (!!!) it wasn't very friendly to Western oil companies. Ergo...the CIA helped oust the government the Iranians wanted and put the Shah into power, someone much more to the liking of the oil companies.
If someone tried to do that to us, there would be war on a massive scale. But since we are the US and the US can do no wrong...well, you get the idea. Hypocrisy abounds.
Yeah, and now the US government seems to be building a popular movement against Iran, so that they can attack again. The interesting thing is that the normal people of Iran are pretty ok. They just want a middle class life and want their government not to be insane - the very gov't that the US put in place. Most of the normal people in Arabic nations are hoping that Iran actually does get a nuclear weapon, because they believe it will promote stability. This viewpoint relies on the MAD deterrent. You can't attack a nuclear nation without serious consequences.

But, Chomsky problematized your take on the "Cold War" and pointed out that the USSR tried in earnest to negotiate with the US but was shot down at every turn. USSR wanted to reduce weapons first, but Regan wouldn't hear of it, etc. Chomsky's view is that the Cold War was really just an extension of American policy to protect its economic interests and had little to do with communism other than lip service - so that the people could believe in something.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 15,621 - 15,640 of216,878
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••