|
Best Friends posted:We have global hegemony because we have an unbelievably powerful economy and we won WWII. Some people can say one or the other but only we can say both, and more critically, only we could say both in 1946. It's not because Washington is full of super geniuses. After the world witnessed both Afghanistan and Iraq I'm not sure how the "the CIA is running the Middle East" narrative lives on in any form. America is garbage at doing anything but spending huge volumes of money and blowing people up. These skills enable us to do things like give material support for certain local actors, which is huge, and blow up countries, which is also huge. I'm not saying America is powerless. I am just saying that the idea America is what is keeping democracy from the Middle East in 2015 is absurd. Not just for the fact that U.S. policy for the past 20 years has been to try to support democratic or nascent democratic institutions (incompetently, as always). But even if we were trying full on to destroy democracy in the Middle East, we wouldn't know who to target. We're only having limited success destroying ISIS and those guys carry flags with them, and blowing up people is one of the only things we have a proven positive track record on. Duder, nobody had even been advancing the argument that the US fully controls all of the Middle East down to the last camel breeder before you brought it up. If you'd stop strawmanning it'd be nice.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Sergg posted:This is an excellent point and I wish more people would realize that local actors are far more important, but that would actually require people to research and find out who those local actors are. And not to be pedantic, but Britain was more involved with overthrowing the democracy in Iran with us just going along for the ride for the most part. Latin America on the other hand had been hosed far more by the US than the ME has yet LA is probably doing a bit better than the ME all things being equal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:And not to be pedantic, but Britain was more involved with overthrowing the democracy in Iran with us just going along for the ride for the most part. I was going to point that out too but I'd say it was closer to a 50/50. Britain was loving with Iran for a long time destroying their economy, blockading their ports etc. and promoting sectarianism, but once Eisenhower became convinced to go ahead with it, it happened very quickly. I would confidently say that it would not have happened without US support. That coup actually left the Shah in total and utter awe at the US' power for the rest of his life. A Winner is Jew posted:Latin America on the other hand had been hosed far more by the US than the ME has yet LA is probably doing a bit better than the ME all things being equal. Weeeelll there are still some nasty nasty legacies, most notably in Central America. Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have some of the highest murder rates on the planet to this very day, although a big part of that is total lack of their gun control legislation up until recently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Yeah, but being completely inept and incompetent is not really in line with the reality of the US setting up client states across the world, even if they don't prove to last forever. Not having a 100% command economy control over these territories doesn't mean the US state is exclusively made up of Mr. Beans', who just happened to stumble haplessly into the role of global hegemony. The posters who are arguing for US incompetency are coming from a heavily skewed perspective that was cultivated by the liberal US media after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In this narrative, these wars were total disasters because the US failed to achieve its stated objective of establishing democracy and stability in the region. What this narrative omits is the possibility that a) this was never possible by an American invasion and b) it was not the actual objective of the invasion anyway. The US has been extraordinarily successful in some measures in ME over the recent decades and you can tell this by trying to count strong, stable and well-organized opponents against US hegemony. The grand exception (as it is always) is Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Mossadegh wasn't really "democratically elected." He was voted in by the parliament and appointed by the shah. Everything after that point was more of a personal power struggle between the shah and Mossadegh than the battle of freedom vs imperialism like people like to portray it. Mossadegh burned a ton of bridges with the powerful in Iran by giving himself almost dictatorial powers, and then watching the country go bankrupt. Its biggest effect on Iran was just the fact that a Western government was involved in overthrowing an official in an Iranian government, and Iranians were already very against Western and Russian imperialism in the country. So when the revolution rolled around, it was one of many rallying cries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:It seems odd that the people defending Assad seem to have more in common with those who were tortured to death than any other group in Syria. Catching up with the thread, but just in case you aren't already sated, this article goes into Hafter: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
fspades posted:b) it was not the actual objective of the invasion anyway. I'm pretty sure it was one of the main objectives, which actually makes it that much more hilarious and tragic. I guess we're conflating the absolute incompetence of the Bush administration with the long-term policies of the state department and intelligence services? You've got a much better case of criticism of the US vis-a-vis our support of already existing dictatorships and oppressive monarchies. Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, what's left of the current Iraqi government et. al.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I was going to point that out too but I'd say it was closer to a 50/50. Britain was loving with Iran for a long time destroying their economy, blockading their ports etc. and promoting sectarianism, but once Eisenhower became convinced to go ahead with it, it happened very quickly. I would confidently say that it would not have happened without US support. That coup actually left the Shah in total and utter awe at the US' power for the rest of his life. Actually it couldn't have happened without US support. Churchill was all geared up to have the British do the groundwork as soon as the US signed off on the coup, but Mossadegh pre-empted him by accident by cutting off diplomatic ties with the UK and thus forcing the British legation to leave Iran, which left the british without anyone to direct the operation in the country. The US actually inherited a lot of native former British agents in Iran, which helped tremendously. EDIT: Volkerball posted:Mossadegh wasn't really "democratically elected." He was voted in by the parliament and appointed by the shah. Everything after that point was more of a personal power struggle between the shah and Mossadegh than the battle of freedom vs imperialism like people like to portray it. Mossadegh burned a ton of bridges with the powerful in Iran by giving himself almost dictatorial powers, and then watching the country go bankrupt. Its biggest effect on Iran was just the fact that a Western government was involved in overthrowing an official in an Iranian government, and Iranians were already very against Western and Russian imperialism in the country. So when the revolution rolled around, it was one of many rallying cries. And by the way, what is this horseshit? You can be democratically elected without being directly elected. If this wasn't the case, the US wouldn't have had a democratically elected president ever. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:So which is it, is United States foreign policy completely inept and incompetent or are Americans masterful manipulators single-handedly keeping democracy blossoming in the Middle East? You don't need to be a masterful manipulator to finance coups so as to get more-or-less obedient puppet dictators in power of countries where the democratic elections resulted in a regime that wanted to nationalize its oil extraction business, depriving American and British oil companies from a steady cash-flow. All you need to be is a country with a lot of money and a lot of military wares. In fact, it's the reverse. Masterful manipulation is letting these countries democratically vote for whoever they want, even communists; and yet make sure that they preserve your interests nonetheless. ascendance posted:Having read an actual interview with Assad, he comes across as much more personable and nicer than say, Bibi. An overflowing septic tank comes across as much more personable and nicer than Bibi. Assad's still an amoral tyrant with the blood of his country on his hand. Volkerball posted:Mossadegh wasn't really "democratically elected." He was voted in by the parliament and appointed by the shah. Everything after that point was more of a personal power struggle between the shah and Mossadegh than the battle of freedom vs imperialism like people like to portray it. Mossadegh burned a ton of bridges with the powerful in Iran by giving himself almost dictatorial powers, and then watching the country go bankrupt. Its biggest effect on Iran was just the fact that a Western government was involved in overthrowing an official in an Iranian government, and Iranians were already very against Western and Russian imperialism in the country. So when the revolution rolled around, it was one of many rallying cries. Mosaddegh's increased powers came in reaction to the economic crisis instigated by Britain through its blockade. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I was going to point that out too but I'd say it was closer to a 50/50. Britain was loving with Iran for a long time destroying their economy, blockading their ports etc. and promoting sectarianism, but once Eisenhower became convinced to go ahead with it, it happened very quickly. I would confidently say that it would not have happened without US support. That coup actually left the Shah in total and utter awe at the US' power for the rest of his life. Churchill was lobbying heavily for the coup but couldn't because he was cock-blocked, but the US resisted going forward with it until we were also giving an equal slice of the oil pie to Britain when they wanted to keep everything to themselves originally... so say 60-40. We're still totally on the hook for supporting the Shah up till 79 when he was brutal as gently caress though but the initial overthrow I'd say was more British than American. And what I meant by central america not being totally hosed is that I know I will easily see places like Machu Picchu,, Calixtlahuaca, Xochicalco, and Chichen Itza within my lifetime... the Pyramids not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Mossadegh wasn't really "democratically elected." He was voted in by the parliament and appointed by the shah. Everything after that point was more of a personal power struggle between the shah and Mossadegh than the battle of freedom vs imperialism like people like to portray it. Mossadegh burned a ton of bridges with the powerful in Iran by giving himself almost dictatorial powers, and then watching the country go bankrupt. Its biggest effect on Iran was just the fact that a Western government was involved in overthrowing an official in an Iranian government, and Iranians were already very against Western and Russian imperialism in the country. So when the revolution rolled around, it was one of many rallying cries. Dude Mossadegh was a baller. He enjoyed immense popularity with normal Iranians. This is what he did as soon as he became Prime Minister: "The new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.[29]" When Mossadegh was fired, there were mass protests and violent strikes all over the country in every major city, and after 5 days the Shah had him reinstated. What did he do when they gave him emergency powers? "With his emergency powers, Mosaddegh tried to strengthen the democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy's powers,[42] cutting the Shah's personal budget, forbidding him to communicate directly with foreign diplomats, transferring royal lands back to the state and expelling his politically active sister Ashraf Pahlavi.[40] In January 1953, Mosaddegh successfully pressed Parliament to extend his emergency powers for another 12 months. With these powers, he decreed a land reform law that established village councils and increased the peasants' share of production.[41] This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector, replacing it with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Mosaddegh saw these reforms as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party, which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants." And he watched the economy go bankrupt because the 2nd largest navy in the world was blockading their ports for an entire year. Yes he made eventual enemies out of the clerics because Mossadegh was secular, so there still would've been a power struggle with them, but you can't blame Mossadegh for that poo poo, man. Mossadegh was a straight-up gee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:
Freeing the murderer of his equally democratic predecessor and giving him a medal is not a sign of respect for democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I'm pretty sure it was one of the main objectives, which actually makes it that much more hilarious and tragic. I guess we're conflating the absolute incompetence of the Bush administration with the long-term policies of the state department and intelligence services? Bush administration also operated within the parameters of the well-oiled and well-staffed machine that we call the US government. This organization have certain strategic interests and institutional characteristics, and it is explicitly built in such a way that the elected leadership can't mess with it too much. I find the claim that everything that went wrong with Iraq war was because of few morons at the top as very naive. After how many times something must be repeated before we can say it's intentional? I always found it very puzzling that Americans can believe all kinds of conspiracies, corruption, and collusion with special interest groups when it comes to their domestic issues, but when the subject turns to international matters the same government is discussed as if they were bumbling idiots with good intentions. fspades fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:And by the way, what is this horseshit? You can be democratically elected without being directly elected. If this wasn't the case, the US wouldn't have had a democratically elected president ever. You really gonna compare the electoral college to the equivalent of the house of representatives electing the president? The former relies on public support while the latter relies on political coalitions and backroom deals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Looks like the constant expansion of Kobani Canton after ISIL's hilariously fast retreat has ended for now, and has been replaced by a battle for control of the M4 highway: It makes sense that both sides would want to keep control of the highway, roads are super crucial for transporting food/supplies/arms/people/everything, basically. Also, an update on the Qara Qawzak bridge destruction:  Oh yeah, and the first school in Kobani has re-opened, in the first step in getting life back to some sort of normalcy there:   Most of the images fall somewhere between awesome and  -worthy since the buildings are being used as-is without any repairs done on them:    On the one hand, it's awesome that life is returning to normal in Kobani; on the other hand holy poo poo does that scream "unsafe". Still, it's not like there are any better options right now. God knows it's still better in Kobani than somewhere like Aleppo. fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Dude Mossadegh was a baller. He enjoyed immense popularity with normal Iranians. This is what he did as soon as he became Prime Minister: And in '63 the Shah gave women the right to vote. I don't have any issues with the guy, but it didn't seem like he was that much different than the Shah, and their differences were mostly due to a power struggle over how to deal with foreign countries asserting their strength in Iran. Both were secular and both did some positive things and some negative things for Iran. And both were incompatible with the clerical establishment that eventually overthrew the government. I think the revolution was inflamed by Ajax, but it probably would've happened without it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You understand that countries that appear to you to be "ruined" and "out of control", like Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti and Honduras, are actually working exactly as intended? In one case you have warlords competing to bring the cheapest tantalum and diamonds to multinational companies so they can have arms money, and in Haiti and Honduras the persistent poverty, violence and lack of democratic control leads to a desperate populace that has to work for pennies. The American military may attempt to contain some of the violence and chaos so other important things don't get destabilized, but they much prefer a ruined and weak Middle East ruled by Sisi, House of Saud and a handful of greedy dictators who dont' care about their people than one with a stable, democratic governments who might decide to reevaluate their arrangements with BP and Exxon. This is true for Latin America in the 20th century, but it is definitely not true for most of the world generally and the middle east specifically right now. Neither modern capitalism nor the modern United States of America profits better from impoverished shitholes versus functional market economies. With cold war "death squads or the reds" logic out the window the U.S. has the strongest interest in a functional, prosperous world so that we can sell other people Coca Cola and Microsoft Windows and they in turn can buy our treasury bills. In Latin America there is still intertia from the 20th century cold war and prior "defend the fruit companies" policies but that does not apply to the Middle East, and if you can show how in the past 20 years the U.S. has been the force preventing democracy there, I would love to see it. Cerebral Bore posted:Duder, nobody had even been advancing the argument that the US fully controls all of the Middle East down to the last camel breeder before you brought it up. If you'd stop strawmanning it'd be nice. That's true. The argument being made is that the U.S. is what's actively preventing the blossoming of democracy in the Middle East, because something something evil capitalism. This is not the case. My argument is that we couldn't do that even if we tried. Additionally it's worth noting we aren't actually trying to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
A feeling of deep unease here. Stay dull, Dhahran - Dammam - Khobar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You really gonna compare the electoral college to the equivalent of the house of representatives electing the president? The former relies on public support while the latter relies on political coalitions and backroom deals. The elected Parliament nominating a Prime Minister and the candidate getting into office after Royal Assent is obtained is literally, and I mean that as literally literally, the same loving process ad the UK uses to select its executive. I know that admitting that you're wrong is hard for you, but come the gently caress on man. CeeJee posted:Freeing the murderer of his equally democratic predecessor and giving him a medal is not a sign of respect for democracy. So? Is Ford pardoning Nixon a sign of the US not being a democracy as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
fspades posted:Bush administration also operated within the parameters of the well-oiled and well-staffed machine that we call the US government. This organization have certain strategic interests and institutional characteristics, and it is explicitly built in such a way that the elected leadership can't mess with it too much. I find the claim that everything that went wrong with Iraq war was because of few morons at the top as very naive. After how many times something must be repeated before we can say it's intentional? So, if the Iraq war and occupation by and large went according to plan, do you think those 2 trillion dollars were well spent? Why you think the United States wanted Iran running Iraq? I have so many questions. edit - also who said anything about the U.S. having good intentions in Iraq? Best Friends fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The elected Parliament nominating a Prime Minister and the candidate getting into office after Royal Assent is obtained is literally, and I mean that as literally literally, the same loving process ad the UK uses to select its executive. I know that admitting that you're wrong is hard for you, but come the gently caress on man. The English Prime Minister isn't able to give himself sweeping powers controlling the entire government, or it wouldn't be very democratic at all. Also that system is a bit of a relic, but it can still be done properly enough to be representative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:So, if the Iraq war and occupation by and large went according to plan, do you think those 2 trillion dollars were well spent? Why you think the United States wanted Iran running Iraq? I have so many questions. Who do you think pocketed those dollars? And who do you believe will come out stronger after this civil war? The administration in Baghdad or the US-friendly regional government in North Iraq? Indeed, if the Baghdad government was really a puppet regime of Iran, then this whole ISIS boondoggle was a blessing in disguise for US interests. Makes you think... And Sergg said that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Fairly passive posted:A feeling of deep unease here. Stay dull, Dhahran - Dammam - Khobar. What's going on? Is this related to the US closing its embassy and consulates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
fspades posted:Who do you think pocketed those dollars? And who do you believe will come out stronger after this civil war? The administration in Baghdad or the US-friendly regional government in North Iraq? Indeed, if the Baghdad government was really a puppet regime of Iran, then this whole ISIS boondoggle was a blessing in disguise for US interests. Makes you think... You actually think the U.S. wants Iran to be running Iraq? That's insane. I don't even have a response to that. Your logic is just standard conspiracy theory logic of "the powerful are infallible, therefore whatever they did was smart and intentional."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The English Prime Minister isn't able to give himself sweeping powers controlling the entire government, or it wouldn't be very democratic at all. Also that system is a bit of a relic, but it can still be done properly enough to be representative. And neither was Mossadegh; The Majlis voted for that poo poo. Again, this is literally the way that emergency powers are enacted in any other democratic state. But hey, as long as you get to avoid admitting that you're wrong who cares about anything else, right? If it follows from your statement that basically all of Western Europe isn't actually democratic at all is a small price to pay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Oh, and none of your fearmongering about Islamic tyrany even begins to explain why Sisi has cracked down on thousands of secular democratic protestors. Of course. I don't want to be cynical about the motives of secular Egyptians, but it is important to their cause in the long run that they don't become too closely associated with Sisi, since he will be an impediment to democracy in the long run. But for the moment, even if some of the non-Islamist pro-democracy protesters are targeted by his government and vice-versa, they are tacit allies against a political force that is very frightening (since long before Daesh burst onto the scene) and can put down deep roots very quickly. It's rather similar to how Assad is tacitly allied with Daesh itself even though he's never stopped bombing them; Daesh has focused on destroying his opposition while Assad assumes a defensive posture, and their presence makes the west averse to aiding any Syrian opposition. Thanks to al-Qaradawi's habit of giving sloppy rhetorical handjobs to the memory of Adolph Hitler, I'm tempted to make a USA/USSR in WW2 analogy, but those two actually got along pretty well until near the end (thanks FDR!). ...in a roundabout way, the democratic opposition/Sisi situation is not dissimlar to how Morsi would have been a de-facto ally of Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud, since the MB's stance on I/P generally boiled down to "Terrorism is loving awesome, we support you 100% HAMAS. Your  strategy of stockpiling piss-rockets and launching them whenever you want to give Likudniks and the Jewish Home Party a popularity boost is sure to lead to swift resolution of your grievances, because it's worked so loving well for the past 30 years". Conversely, of course, the Israeli right wing is indispensable for firing up the supporters of Islamist parties and garnering them support. There's good news on that front though. Thanks to all of the arabs in Israel who aren't idiots working to achieve justice through democratic action and international pressure (and no thanks to HAMAS), the Israeli right-wing parties are on the verge of suffering a historic defeat. I don't think it is too optimistic to expect genuine rolling-back of the settlements sooner rather than later, despite the 'moderate' face the Zionist Union has put on for the elections. It won't happen overnight of course, but Islamist and militant movements have only ever made the issue worse. Volkerball posted:Iran is really unique. The Muslim Brotherhood is mostly intertwined with democratic movements in the rest of the region, and while they're Islamist, they don't operate anything like the clergy system in Iran. Any movement that the Muslim Brotherhood can't be dis-entwined from doesn't merit an ounce of support from the west. The sooner the west can get that message across to all the activists of the middle east, the better. Also, out of curiosity to the thread in general: would you rather be an Egyptian christian living in rural Egypt under Sisi (or Mubarak if you prefer), or Morsi? Assume you also have a sister for the purpose of this thought exercise. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:And neither was Mossadegh; The Majlis voted for that poo poo. Again, this is literally the way that emergency powers are enacted in any other democratic state. I know not being a little bitch is hard for you, but could you try framing an argument without throwing in a bunch of condescending stabs? I don't even know who you are. I have no issues admitting when I'm wrong and I've done it multiple times in this thread. I don't know a whole lot about Mossadegh coming to power, but my overall point is that people portray Mossadegh as this knight in shining armor for Iran who was overthrown by the greedy West which sparked the Iranian revolution and here we are, which doesn't take into account the Iran/Iraq War, the clerical establishments role in pre-revolutionary Iran, or the attempts by Mossadegh to consolidate power for himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:What's going on? Is this related to the US closing its embassy and consulates? I don't know and yes. Many things are closed or mysteriously cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I know not being a little bitch is hard for you, but could you try framing an argument without throwing in a bunch of condescending stabs? I don't even know who you are. I have no issues admitting when I'm wrong and I've done it multiple times in this thread. I don't know a whole lot about Mossadegh coming to power, but my overall point is that people portray Mossadegh as this knight in shining armor for Iran who was overthrown by the greedy West which sparked the Iranian revolution and here we are, which doesn't take into account the Iran/Iraq War, the clerical establishments role in pre-revolutionary Iran, or the attempts by Mossadegh to consolidate power for himself. I call you an idiot because you are an idiot. As in the ancient greek definition of the word. Also I'm saying you're evidently not qualified to opine on the matter (EDIT i.e. the causes of the Iranian Revolution of 1979) in an informed way since you don't actually know anything substantial about Iranian history in general and the Mossadegh era in particular. Finally I note that you still haven't been able to admit that you were wrong on this one. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Dude, just as a heads-up, you were the first one in this conversation to start talking about anyone fully controlling Mideast politics. Yeah, that's certainly not something I've implied. It's impossible and a waste of resources to fully control everything, all you need to do is shove people in the direction you want to go and attempt to contain the chaos a little bit. Whether that's helping out with a coup in Iraq or Iran, knocking out a former ally who isn't doing what you want, giving weapons and aid to the parties you want to remain in power (with the understanding they'll use them against leftists), these policies can maintain hegemony and control over resources without "controlling the politics." Volkerball posted:I know not being a little bitch is hard for you Cut it out with the gendered slurs OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I call you an idiot because you are an idiot. As in the ancient greek definition of the word. It's clearly more important to you to try and look like the super smartest person in the room rather than actually have a debate, so no, I will not get down on a knee and bow to your mental prowess, o cerebral bore. Do you think the '79 revolution and the current state of Iran is a direct result of Ajax?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:This is true for Latin America in the 20th century, but it is definitely not true for most of the world generally and the middle east specifically right now. Neither modern capitalism nor the modern United States of America profits better from impoverished shitholes versus functional market economies. With cold war "death squads or the reds" logic out the window the U.S. has the strongest interest in a functional, prosperous world so that we can sell other people Coca Cola and Microsoft Windows and they in turn can buy our treasury bills. I partially disagree. The continuation of the capitalist cycle has two prerequisites: 1) Areas that have the sufficient money to absorb capitalist output. This does not necessarily mean populations of workers; as Andrew Kliman points out, you can shift a large majority of production-for-profit to inter-industry (that is, producing the means of production, or facilitating production in some way) and still have a functioning capitalist economy. 2) The continual buoying of the overall rate of profit (that is, the ratio of profit compared to investment), either through decreases in the costs of the means of production (including wages/salaries), the destruction of capital value, or the emergence of new markets/profitable areas of production. Number two presents a real problem, because there simply aren't that many new avenues of profitable production left. The overall rate of profit for U.S. corporations, despite the post-WWII environment (which, I think is fair to say, has been one of absolutely incredible innovation and market-opening) still continued to decline overall. Furthermore, the implementation of Keynesian policies in the majority of Western governments (at least as far as protecting investors) has dramatically reduced the capital value that otherwise would have been destroyed in post-WWII economic downturns. The result of this is that the only thing really left is lowering costs, which has predominantly been done through the exportation of labour to poorer countries where the reserve army of labour is larger, compliance costs (safety and regulations) are lower, and where one can, overall, produce much more cheaply. Capitalism certainly does want affluent areas that can absorb the commodities and services produced, but it equally, if not more so, wants poor areas that "can't say no" that are governed by groups whose interests align with those of the capitalists. When this is no longer the case, international capital will move on. The growth of China's middle class is an example of this phenomenon in action: companies are leaving China for Vietnam, with the sole reason being that the Chinese are starting to demand higher wages for the work that they do. An impoverished country with a dictatorial government is actually the best case scenario for a capitalist, because they can make tremendous profits due to the costs they save on the means of production (primarily labour). Even without a centralized government, capitalists can still extract resource wealth for cheap: look no further than the Democratic Republic of Congo for an example. Vermain fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:This is true for Latin America in the 20th century, but it is definitely not true for most of the world generally and the middle east specifically right now. Neither modern capitalism nor the modern United States of America profits better from impoverished shitholes versus functional market economies. Depends on the industry. Primary resource extraction (logging, mining, etc.) can benefit tremendously from warlordism and a lack of government control. There's no one to enforce workers' rights, cutting down a rainforest, or prevent you from dumping toxic byproducts into rivers. The textile industry actively seeks out impoverished countries where workers' rights and democratic institutions are weak, where they can more easily employ children, work people for too long and not have to worry about safety or environmental concerns. You're naively parroting Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand when you suggest that markets want or need stability. Many of the biggest industries (electronics manufacturing, gem trade, textiles) thrive on poverty, chaos and warfare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:This is true for Latin America in the 20th century, but it is definitely not true for most of the world generally and the middle east specifically right now. Neither modern capitalism nor the modern United States of America profits better from impoverished shitholes versus functional market economies. With cold war "death squads or the reds" logic out the window the U.S. has the strongest interest in a functional, prosperous world so that we can sell other people Coca Cola and Microsoft Windows and they in turn can buy our treasury bills. In Latin America there is still intertia from the 20th century cold war and prior "defend the fruit companies" policies but that does not apply to the Middle East, and if you can show how in the past 20 years the U.S. has been the force preventing democracy there, I would love to see it. It's nice to restrict to the latest 20 years, as if it erases the past, but resentment tends to linger on much longer. And given how America brought democracy to Iraq (with a perfect five-step plan: step one, bomb previous regime out of existence; step 2: establish the barest absolute necessities, viz. a stock market and nothing else; step 3. hand over the country to genocidal murder squads; step 4. ??? step 5. oh my god everything is on fire) I don't think you're gonna be called Sam the Democracy Bringer soon. Volkerball posted:I know not being a little bitch is hard for you, but could you try framing an argument without throwing in a bunch of condescending stabs? I don't even know who you are. I have no issues admitting when I'm wrong and I've done it multiple times in this thread. I don't know a whole lot about Mossadegh coming to power, but my overall point is that people portray Mossadegh as this knight in shining armor for Iran who was overthrown by the greedy West which sparked the Iranian revolution and here we are, which doesn't take into account the Iran/Iraq War, the clerical establishments role in pre-revolutionary Iran, or the attempts by Mossadegh to consolidate power for himself. Why should a discussion on Mosaddegh take into account the Iran-Iraq War?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's clearly more important to you to try and look like the super smartest person in the room rather than actually have a debate, so no, I will not get down on a knee and bow to your mental prowess, o cerebral bore. Pretend that I posted that giant expanding ironicat gif here. Volkerball posted:Do you think the '79 revolution and the current state of Iran is a direct result of Ajax? Yes, first by bringing about the political conditions necessary for the revolution, i.e. the Shah's rule with its economic inequality and repression from SAVAK and its catering towards the hated americans (which had not existed prior to the truth of Ajax, americans were actually well liked in Iran at that point). Autocracy combined with the ruler being regarded as a foreign puppet who caters to a country that most people hate should be a familiar recipe for eventual disaster that anyone could spot. As a quick example, the Shah wouldn't have been able to pocket all of that sweet oil money without being an absolute ruler. This was one of the primary causes why he lost popular support in the prelude of the Revolution. Another would be the hell of a lot of people that SAVAK disappeared. Anyhow, all of the aforementioned factors were direct results of Ajax. Secondly it caused the revolution by giving literally every single one of the opposition organizations that carried out the revolution a motive to support the revolution under all circumstances. The motives of the National Front, the Freedom Movement of Iran and other liberal opposition organizations and how they were affected by Ajax were self-evident, since they literally were Mossadegh's party or his former supporters. The motive of Tudeh should be self-evident since they had been cracked down on hard, unlike under Mossadegh who tolerated them based on the principle of freedom of political expression. Likewise Mossadegh never suppressed political Islam, rather he had quite a lot of support from the religious establishment until the British began bribing Ayatollahs to denounce Mossadegh during the Ango-Iranian oil conflict. So we can see that some or all of the motivation for literally all major opposition groups to support a revolutionary movement was again caused by Ajax It's actually really uncommon that you can find such a direct link between two historical events like Ajax and the Iranian Revolution. I'd actually suggest to everyone ITT to go crack open a history book on the subject, it's a fascinating read. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Wait, somebody is saying that Ajax didn't play a direct part in the 1979 revolution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Depends on the industry. Primary resource extraction (logging, mining, etc.) can benefit tremendously from warlordism and a lack of government control. There's no one to enforce workers' rights, cutting down a rainforest, or prevent you from dumping toxic byproducts into rivers. The textile industry actively seeks out impoverished countries where workers' rights and democratic institutions are weak, where they can more easily employ children, work people for too long and not have to worry about safety or environmental concerns. You're naively parroting Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand when you suggest that markets want or need stability. Many of the biggest industries (electronics manufacturing, gem trade, textiles) thrive on poverty, chaos and warfare. I think this argument fails when we look at the electronics industry in Latin America, where Intel chose to build a processor factory in Costa Rica (now 10th largest world exporter), which has the best environmental policies, strongest democracy and highest wages in the region. Nobody wants to make a billion dollar investment in a country that might explode in 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think this argument fails when we look at the electronics industry in Latin America, where Intel chose to build a processor factory in Costa Rica (now 10th largest world exporter), which has the best environmental policies, strongest democracy and highest wages in the region. Nobody wants to make a billion dollar investment in a country that might explode in 6 months. About that...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think this argument fails when we look at the electronics industry in Latin America, where Intel chose to build a processor factory in Costa Rica (now 10th largest world exporter), which has the best environmental policies, strongest democracy and highest wages in the region. Nobody wants to make a billion dollar investment in a country that might explode in 6 months. I think that plant actually is a pretty good evidence for the argument, since Intel shut it down about a year ago and moved most of its stuff to China, Vietnam and Malaysia. e: f;b Anyhow, while your argument that nobody wants to make a billion dollar investment in a country that might explode in 6 months is true, a company will prefer a country where it's easier to exploit the labour force if it has a choice between several countries that probably won't explode in the nect 6 moths. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
How we can live in a world where Kissinger threatens to make an example out of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and then the US Government follows up by paying noted Islamofascist Madmen Zia Al-Huq (who overthrew and executed Bhutto) and Osama Bin Laden (who you probably know) while they, respectively, enact the hadood laws and create modern Islamic Global Terrorism, and still hear this kind of discourse is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:01
|
|