welcome to the CoG network!
Colony of Gamers
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-25-2012, 02:13 AM   #11
Reelya
Colonist
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxes View Post
I laughed.

But real talk, why can't they help clear up Mexico problem. Unfortunately Walter White and Hank Schrader is fictional and can't clear out all cartel matters. Sure they aren't threatening to nuke the world, but it's still a huge mess.
Marijuana legalization in the USA. There's 90% of Mexican cartel profits gone. Also, with less drug trafficking that cuts the need for the illegal gun trade down.

On the military research, Is there any specific reason government funding of tech which might have civilian applications down the track absolutely has to involve killing people for it to be effective? Let's just say government funded science, rather than either/or military/private. There's more options on government programs to develop technology, just the USA isn't pursuing new ideas in this direction.

I also think USA should be far more selective on military engagements, given that existence of strong militaries around the world encourages a level of stability, it's debatable how much certain military operations by the USA for it's own interests have helped or hindered stability.

Noam Chomsky discusses the term "destabilization" and "stability" and their use by the State Department and in the American media. Basically, "stability" is whatever keeps USA in control of a regions politics, even if it totally disrupts the life of the people there and causes tensions. "destabilization" is anything which diminishes American influence even if it reduces the likelihood of armed conflict in a region.

Hence, diplomatic efforts by Venezuela and Iran, including aid to their neighbors, are said to be "destabilizing", and American invasions or coups/civil wars the USA backs, are said to bring "stability".

It's an interesting coded use of language in the American corporate media for many decades.

http://www.newint.org/features/2011/...ook-interview/

Quote:
With regard to the threat of Iran, there is a very authoritative answer, provided by military and intelligence reports to Congress in April 2010.

They say that the threat of Iran is not a military threat. Iran has virtually no offensive military capacity. Its military spending is quite low, of course a minuscule fraction of US military spending, but also pretty low by regional standards. They point out that the goal of Iranian military strategy is to try to defend the borders of the country and, in case they’re attacked, to try to delay invading forces sufficiently so as to permit a negotiated settlement.

‘The US doesn’t care one way or the other what the government is like. It wants it to follow orders to improve stability.’
They discuss the question of whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons and say that if they are – which they don’t know – the goal would be deterrence to prevent an attack on Iran. That’s basically the story.

What then is the threat? Well, the threat is also explained. The primary threat is that Iran is engaged in destabilizing its neighbours. It’s trying to increase its influence in surrounding countries, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is, of course, involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is not destabilizing. That’s stabilizing.

The US is there to improve stability and, if Iran tries to have influence in its neighbouring countries, that’s destabilizing.
For that matter, is there much evidence that wars America has won since WWII have created stability? America lost Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, but was much more successful in Korea, yet is Korea more stable than Indochina today?

Guatemala 1954 was highly dubious, overthrowing a democratically elected government and imposing a genocidal dictatorship, at the behest of a multinational fruit plantation company.

Also, was the Afghanistan Mujahedeen government back into power by USA more stable or better for the people than the socialist government of Afghanistan backed by the Russians? The Russians were compelled to even that theater due to a treaty they had signed with the local government, which built schools, hospitals, universities. America overthrew that regime and, then you got the Taliban as a result.

Last edited by Reelya; 03-25-2012 at 02:28 AM.
Reelya is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
// Google Analytics - Must remain as a separate script // External Source Executed