Oppositions to Arabs - Page 18

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Chomsky is a true American hater. If you like him I can dismiss you now.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on this forums. You sound like a fascist. How can you label a fellow American as an American hater? Maybe you should expel him? Who gives YOU the right to determine who is and who is not an American hater?

BTW, yeah I like Chomsky; while I"m at it, I also like Micheal Albert, Ralph Nader, et al... people who, I'm sure, you would consider American haters!

KoalaBear33

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by roalan
Does anyone know in how many other countries budgets there is an item for Foreign Aid to the US?
We sure as Hell have a lot of Foreign Aid items for them.
They take our $ and run cursing us all the way home.

I don't think you understand how capitalism works. Did you know that a large chunk of cash flowing into USA is from foreign investors? Did you know that Japan is the largest foreign holder of US debt? Did you know that the Middle Eastern monarchs invest nearly all of their money in USA? If all this dissapeared, the system would collapse.

As far as others taking the money and running, well, they are not taking it from you. You are giving it to them. If you don't want to then you shouldn't. Also, most of the US aid is given with ulterior motives. For example, USA pumps billions into countries via IMF but that is mostly to prevent the collapse of capitalism (if even 30% of the countries defaulted on their debt, USA and many other countries will go into a recession or depression even). You DO give money as aid but in terms of ability it is very small. For example, USA is one of the countries with the lowest donations relative to GNP.

I'm not saying that USA is bad or that its aid is meaningless. What USA does donate is welcome. But the negative actions carried out by USA is worse. All I'm saying is that, if USA dropped its donations zero, and stopped interfering with other countries, the world would be better off.

KoalaBear33

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 01:44

About oil...

It seems that some of you have no idea why oil is valuable; It is not valuable because the Western countries need it--they don't. All the Western countries already have what they need. Did you know that the vast majority of oil that USA uses does NOT come from the Middle East? It comes from countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, etc.

So why is USA interested in Middle Eastern oil? It's because it is important to other countries, particularly high energy users like China and India. In a decade or so, these countries will start using up huge amounts.

How about Europe/Japan? This plays a part but USA is not in it for a "charitable cause". Europe can get their oil from Middle East easily, without US help. Europe has much better relations with most Middle Eastern countries.

What it all boils down to is money. Oil is the #1 industry and whoever that controls it makes lots of money off it. This is the only reason countries like USA are even involved in the Middle East. They don't really need it themselves but they can profit from it. The same argument applies to Russia.

As far as oil being replaced, it won't happen any time soon (not for at least 75 years). Even if alternative sources are found, only Western countries can afford it. The rest will still rely on other means. Besides, it will take time for the technology to be adopted (which will be decades). For example, television is still the hottest electronic device in many developing countries and so-called 2nd word countries, even though computers are almost ubiquitous in rich countries.

In some sense, if you live in a country with a valuable resource, it is a curse. Other countries will always invade you, kill your people, etc. Whereas, if you didn't have a valuable resource, it would be more peaceful. Oil is what gold was a few hundread years ago!

KoalaBear33

sprucemoose3311 · November 7, 2002, 01:46

wow this is a really bad thread full of opinion as fact...... wait its (mispellede) anecdotal evidence

but then again it is a touchy topic (the original topic that is)

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 01:50

If any of you want to figure out where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, check out this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It is a test that breaks from the typical left/right categorization and uses 2-dmensional categories. I thought it was accurate and liked it; I don't know if you'll agree with it.

I get a rating of economics: -6 and authoratarian/libertarian: -6.26. Exactly where I think I am; mix of anarchism and socialism

NOTE: If you are not comfortable, don't describe your scores.

KoalaBear33

ilcattolico · November 7, 2002, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf

haha,

totally off-topic, but your post reminded me of "a big fat greek wedding" ... it's a must-see
whoever saw this one will understand, what made me laugh

but to bring it back on-topic:
i honestly can't decide which civ had the biggest influence.

you could group it by categories (e.g.)
scientificly: greeks (philosophy)
militaristically: romans, maybe also chinese

or by time
or geographicly...

but

i really can't think of THE most influentual civilization.

Rome is by far the most dominant civilization that has ever existed.

Ozymandias · November 7, 2002, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
In the spirit of OT...

Oz, you mentioned last page that bush "won" by negative several thousand votes.

What is the difference between Bush's supposed trampling of the constitution and your assertion that he lost even though he won according to the constitution? Is this a pick and choose document? Are you aware that the popular vote means nothing at all?

Hi,

Sorry for the confusion -- I meant to make two different points.

The first (re: the negative 300,000 votes) was indeed an acknowledgement of the nature of the Electoral College as a "might" vs. "right" example.

My comment on Bush's trashing of the Constitution proceeds, not from that point (about which -- granted -- I do harbor some bitterness, due to the manner in which the 2000 elections were "resolved) but from the perversion of our Constitution's words and intent -- Specifically, Bush has (as Lincoln did) effectively suspended habeus corpus.

The reason that it was a a legal and understandable (if ugly) necessity under Lincoln, and an atrocity under Bush, is twofold --

1. It is an emergency power limited to wartime and, even though common parlance (which is different than law!) calls it a "war", WE ARE NOT AT WAR!!! -- THAT determination is a prerogative SPECIFICALLY given to the Congress, and to Congress alone!

2. We're not only NOT talking about a war AS LEGALLY DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION, we're not even talking about a conflict against another nation, wherein there is the expectation of a victory, treaty, peace, etc. after how ever much time has gone by. Oh, no -- we are talking about a "war on terrorism" (which Mr. Ashcroft just DIRECTLY linked with the 20+year-long travesty of the "war" against drugs) WHICH WILL NEVER END!

This means that the Bushies have chosen to use the word "war" -- without the legal nicety of actually having Congress declare one -- to ensure a very long period of time during which military tribunals can deport, execute, etc; during which AMERICAN CITIZENS can be deprived EVERY right of attorney-client privilege (including access to one in the first place) -- and, thanks to Ashcan's despicable and disingenuous link to our miserably failed "war" on drugs -- means that it's very easy to imagine a lot of people being denied due process for a very long time.

Add to this some of the reactions we've seen since Reagan first wrapped the GOP in the American flag and called everyone else "anti-American" and I fear a descent into the sort of authoritarian nightmare we tend to cluck our tongues at when they exist in other parts of the world -- like in Iraq.

-Oz.

Ozymandias · November 7, 2002, 03:51

Quote:

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
If any of you want to figure out where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, check out this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It is a test that breaks from the typical left/right categorization and uses 2-dmensional categories. I thought it was accurate and liked it; I don't know if you'll agree with it.

I get a rating of economics: -6 and authoratarian/libertarian: -6.26. Exactly where I think I am; mix of anarchism and socialism

Way cool. I scored -4.5 and -6

Yours Likewise From The Libertarian Left,

Ozymandias

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 04:08

Quote:

Originally posted by ilcattolico
Rome is by far the most dominant civilization that has ever existed.

Tough call... Rome was the most dominant WESTERN civilization... whereas civs like Mongols were dominant in the EAST, not to mention old ones like the Indus valley civilization... Incas or maybe Aztec dominated the Americas.

Having said that, if I had to pick one, I would go with the Egyptians. Sure, they didn't have as much land as the Romans or the Mongols. But based on my EXTRMELY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE of history, Egyptians had the best mix of technology, culture, religion, architecture, and so on. For example, Egyptians were the masters of agriculture, and many other civs borrowed from them. Egyptians also had a good religion (although it was largely destroyed by the Muslims afterwards). Needless to say, Egypt also built things like the Pyramids, Sphinx, and had elaborate irrigation systems. In terms of technology, Egypt is known for subtle things like the invention of paper (papyrus), literature (had big libraries), etc.

Here are my picks in different categories:

"Best" overall civilization: Egyptians (see above)

Militaristic: Mongols (conquered almost everyone they came into contact with)

Political/governmental/ability to supervise large regions: Romans

Scientific: British (popularized science)

Religious: Indians (lifestyle reflects the religion; huge impact on nearly all Eastern religions)

Architecture (in terms of difficulty): Aztec (no one hears much about these guys but what they built in the jungle/hill environment was very difficult)

Engineering: Romans (no need to say anything here)

Education/school/knowledge: Greeks (these guys spent more time thinking than anyone else

and their thoughts are reflected in nearly the whole globe)

hmm..there you have it.. some of my thoughts... I haven't spent much time thinking so some things may be wrong...

KoalaBear33

gsmoove23 · November 7, 2002, 06:53

Wow that was scary, as I was scrolling down the result page I thought I might not even have a dot. -7.69, -7.75, libertarian left. I thought I was relatively moderate

me and Rush Limbaugh I guess.

Traelin, in the spirit of our good relations I read as much as I could of globalwarming.org without having a brain emblism. I'm speechless, needless to say I don't agree. I wonder if I should direct you to electronicintifada.net, no no its too much. Glad we can agree on the death penalty I guess, you might be suprised to know I'm a recent convert as well, although I was never entirely sure on the subject. That you entirely disagree with my viewpoint doesn't bother or suprise me much. I've long come to terms with my position on the fringes of society. Otherwise I wouldn't have so many great arguem... discussions.

sabrewolf · November 7, 2002, 07:44

Quote:

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
If any of you want to figure out where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, check out this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It is a test that breaks from the typical left/right categorization and uses 2-dmensional categories. I thought it was accurate and liked it; I don't know if you'll agree with it.

I get a rating of economics: -6 and authoratarian/libertarian: -6.26. Exactly where I think I am; mix of anarchism and socialism

NOTE: If you are not comfortable, don't describe your scores.

KoalaBear33

interesting calculation.
i'm 0.12 (so basicly middle) and -4.87 (so clearly libertarian).

for politics i'm slightly left, while at economics i'm a bit more right (comes from my economics+computer science study

).

koala: why don't you post this politicalcompass in the apolyton community forum and maybe also in OT? i guess we'd have some quite varying numbers: from your double -6 to some double +6.

traelin and roalan: i would interested to know your stances too. if you don't want to post it here, PM me... i'm swiss, so your numbers are secret with me

gsmoove23 · November 7, 2002, 07:57

All the british politicians are suprisingly on the right and authoritarian. A little confusing since I thought it was a basically socialist demo but I don't know anything, any brits have anything to say? I'm afraid to see where the american politicians end up, as well as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader

umm.. yeah I think the Arab civ is cool. Thought I'd put in my token on-topic statement.

sabrewolf · November 7, 2002, 07:58

ok, i did it myself

(but credits went to koala)

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=66890

gsmoove23 · November 7, 2002, 08:00

Oh thanks, another thread I have to check regularly

Chemical Ollie · November 7, 2002, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by KoalaBear33

Tough call... Rome was the most dominant WESTERN civilization... whereas civs like Mongols were dominant in the EAST, not to mention old ones like the Indus valley civilization... Incas or maybe Aztec dominated the Americas.

---

Finally an on topic post! I wonder where the moderators are?

Romans were the only of the above mentioned that still have any large influence on the world. Their language and religion are easily traceable thoughout the whole western world including USA and Latin America. You write CIVIII as often as CIV3, don't you? The Mongols were mostly raiders who pillaged one town and went on to the next. Perhaps they left some permant traces in China where they actually settled, but I doubt that it's even closely comparable to the romans influence on the western world.

gsmoove23 · November 7, 2002, 08:44

Olaf, how is this on-topic, its an opposition to the arabs thread

Mongols had an incredible influence on our world just because of the general higgledy piggledy they made of the cultural racial makeup of the world from the far-east all the way to europe. Aren't the Turks essentially a mongol tribe?

I like to generally stear away from discussions of which civs are more significant so I'll try to keep my comments here to devil's advocate. I have problems with the Romans as most significant because IMO their most impressive feat was how much they borrowed from other cultures, the Greeks for the most part who in turn borrowed heftily from the Egyptians. They do of course have an incredible influence on our modern european world.

Buster13 · November 7, 2002, 10:42

Wow, compared to you guys, I'm a centrist...and I thought I was liberal!

-2.25, -4.67

Just call me Charles Kennedy.

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Romans were the only of the above mentioned that still have any large influence on the world. Their language and religion are easily traceable thoughout the whole western world including USA and Latin America. You write CIVIII as often as CIV3, don't you? The Mongols were mostly raiders who pillaged one town and went on to the next. Perhaps they left some permant traces in China where they actually settled, but I doubt that it's even closely comparable to the romans influence on the western world.

I don't think the impact on modern day should be the most important thing to consider. If there was a civilization that was isolated but very advanced/good, I would still consider that to be best. Impact on present can't really be measured anyway. For example, you mention that people use the Roman numerals still. Well, people use Indian/Arabic numbers more so should they be valued more? Similarly, the British law and parliamentary system is far more prevalent than anything else so does that mean Britain is #1 when it comes to politics?

KoalaBear33

KoalaBear33 · November 7, 2002, 11:54

I'm moving ovre to the other thread for all econopolitical dissucssions...

KoalaBear33

Abdul Alhazred · November 7, 2002, 16:02

My answer : it has actually in PTW 24 civs ...
We can add 8 extra civs ...

My propositions :

Jews, Polynesians, Incas, Aborigens, Mayans, ...

That's all

!

sabrewolf · November 7, 2002, 16:45

abdul: no, only 7 more, for the barbarians are counted as a civ too.
but maybe the new data-format in XP2 might allow 64 civs

roalan · November 7, 2002, 17:18

Bull those foreign investors invest to make money period. If I gert any benifit it is from corporate taxes earned from them. I doubt the foreign investors even pay US taxes on their profits. They send NO $ for any US needy. As for oil you can believe it when the oil Co. can come up with something else but profits are to good to switch. If you are old enough to rem,ember Nixon he wanted the oil co. to develope fuel from Shale. They ignore him. If they had done something like that we would be of the oil standard today.
I scored Eco.-4,25 and Auth/Lib .067 Not as right wing as you thought.

Ozymandias · November 7, 2002, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

Finally an on topic post! I wonder where the moderators are?

To us all, and moderators perhaps especially! --

There is a genuinely unique aspect to this thread, which comprises many (granted, by no means all) of its digressions and rants.

For ALL of our lifetimes until 9/11, the clash of arms was between ideological blocks (often very artifically constructed) or between nations, often within the same "civilization" (almost all of Europe's 20th Century wars).

We are living during a time PERCEIVED (rightly or wrongly) as the first large-scale clash of CIVILIZATIONS in a very, very long time. I say "perceived" because there are so many factors in play that the perception might or might not be fully accurate.

Whether or not the perception is 100% correct or not, this clash of civilizations carries, for all sides, historical baggage dating back to the earliest wars between European Christendom and the very first Islamic jihad -- all ca. 700 CE. So we are perhaps witnessing the re-emergence of an unresolved dispute -- and its successors, well past the seventh generation -- which is in its 1300th year of existence!

In these forums, I am ALWAYS asking, "what is a civilization", knowing full well that there is no comprehensive answer, but even our OT rants have served to ask/question --

1. Is there an "Islamic" Civ vs. a "Juedeo-Christian" civ?

2. Is either really a single Civ?

3. Do America and Europe make up one cultural Civ or not -- for that matter, does EITHER Europe or America make up a single Civ?

The thread's initial, well-posed question, about some opposition to an Arab Civ, has led to this, as we are forced to examine, up close and ugly, the first titanic rift between what have historically been different Civs, in our lifetimes -- and it has a 1300 year pedigree, to boot.

So you see it's all very, very much on-topic, for we are all questioning what a "Civilization" is, in a non-academic manner, for the very first time.

So kudos to everyone who has thoughtfully participated, no matter what his or her opinion.

Peace, Salaam, Shalom,

Ozymandias

Traelin · November 7, 2002, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
If any of you want to figure out where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, check out this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It is a test that breaks from the typical left/right categorization and uses 2-dmensional categories. I thought it was accurate and liked it; I don't know if you'll agree with it.

I get a rating of economics: -6 and authoratarian/libertarian: -6.26. Exactly where I think I am; mix of anarchism and socialism

NOTE: If you are not comfortable, don't describe your scores.

KoalaBear33

Pretty nifty. I scored a -1.12 on econ and -1.28 on authoritarian/libertarian. I guess I am pretty centrist, and way far right compared to you guys.

ilcattolico · November 7, 2002, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Traelin

Pretty nifty. I scored a -1.12 on econ and -1.28 on authoritarian/libertarian. I guess I am pretty centrist, and way far right compared to you guys.

I scored:

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 5.64

sabrewolf · November 7, 2002, 19:31

oh my oh my, il cattolico... you're not very fond of freedom, aren't you

but i must ask you guys, not to post political answers in this thread. it's more off topic than anything before in here...
please do it in following thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=66890

thanks!

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 07:04

Quote:

Originally posted by roalan
Bull those foreign investors invest to make money period. If I gert any benifit it is from corporate taxes earned from them. I doubt the foreign investors even pay US taxes on their profits. They send NO $ for any US needy. As for oil you can believe it when the oil Co. can come up with something else but profits are to good to switch. If you are old enough to rem,ember Nixon he wanted the oil co. to develope fuel from Shale. They ignore him. If they had done something like that we would be of the oil standard today.
I scored Eco.-4,25 and Auth/Lib .067 Not as right wing as you thought.

You know, a couple of days after 9/11 Guliani(mayor of NYC) actually got in front of the cameras and said please stop sending us stuff, to the entire world. The thing was we were flooded with support, we had too many fireman, too many cops, too much equipment, they even asked people to stop giving blood, I was turned away from 2 hospitals in Brooklyn. This support came mostly from neighbouring states but also from around the world. It was pretty amazing after a catastrophe like that, but it goes to show you exactly how rich and stable we are compared to the rest of the world that we can deal with a catastrophe so quickly. Why are we so suprised that we don't get much monetary support from France? Why are we suprised that we give so much. I guess share the wealth would be too radical a thing to say on this thread, but I would expect it.

if Roalan is left-wing and Traelin is centre what does that mean for the US.

roalan · November 8, 2002, 13:49

Yes you are correct 9/11 was about the only time other countries help us on site.I believe maybe some fire fighters are helping in the western fires? But 99.9% of the time we go it alone. Also a number of foreign people were killed in 9/11 so it would be only natural for a country to help out.
I am NOT a left wing. test results Ec. L/R -4.25 andAuth /Lib +.067 most people who took this test were far more in the -minus area then me.and my Auth/Lib is a plus. I feel I am a slightly right conservative.
When you pick out 9/11 as the one tome that we had outside help thats like "who is the best ball player ever" And most people vote( because they are young) Barry Bonds. But these people nevwr say Babe Ruth play or Joe. D T. Williams or Jackie RobimsonPlus many others. They never saw Ty Cobb hit 420 in one year etc. So they call the player they saw as the best when that is not the case. Bonds had a great year 73 HR. One year and steroids my have played a part. Ruth etc. had many years the dead ball era year he hi 59 HR's he also batted 398. The same with the top songs ever. Young voters only know waht is popular in the few years they have been listening but songs that go back 3-50 years ago sold millions of records .So saying that in 9/11 others hekped is great what about the last 100 years where were they then?

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 14:06

You skipped my most important point. I asked why are we suprised that France doesn't give money to the richest country in the world? or that we give more money in international support then any other country(I'm not sure you could say per capita, can anyone find figures for this?)? We ARE the RICHEST country in the world. I simply don't see the significance of saying we give the most money so we deserve to be tre... I should HOPE we give the most money since we HAVE the most.

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 14:07

I don't know Roalan, -4.25 thats pretty far left.

You're not embarrassed are you