Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
godzilla

Its official, Trump broke the law

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes

2. You don't like him?

1. It certainly shows why the safer, more peaceful world we were promised when the Soviet Union fell, never came to pass! Globalists have a way of glossing over capitalist economics and trying to make everything about political ideology and theorizing. But, warfare is the most profitable business opportunity for bankers and industrialists to engage in. The big rhetorical innovation of the globalization era has been the liberal warmongers who feign grave concerns for human rights and suffering (except for citizens in countries they want to blow up....like Libya, Syria, Yemen...even Ukraine). 

Multimillion dollar missiles are only good for a single use. Not using them means Raytheon and other manufacturers receive fewer orders, since stockpiles are only allowed to grow so high. So, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics etc., are going to make sure they have money flowing in to buy their favorite politicians and media....prattling on endlessly about foreign threats to US security. I imagine a conversation going something like: we need to get behind some idiot for our presidential candidate who will argue that America needs yet another two aircraft carriers!  The most expensive obsolete weapon out there today.

2. Nope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Right To Left said:

1. It certainly shows why the safer, more peaceful world we were promised when the Soviet Union fell, never came to pass!

2. Globalists have a way of glossing over capitalist economics and trying to make everything about political ideology and theorizing.

3. But, warfare is the most profitable business opportunity for bankers and industrialists to engage in. The big rhetorical innovation of the globalization era has been the liberal warmongers who feign grave concerns for human rights and suffering (except for citizens in countries they want to blow up....like Libya, Syria, Yemen...even Ukraine). 

4. Multimillion dollar missiles are only good for a single use. Not using them means Raytheon and other manufacturers receive fewer orders, since stockpiles are only allowed to grow so high. So, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics etc., are going to make sure they have money flowing in to buy their favorite politicians and media....prattling on endlessly about foreign threats to US security. I imagine a conversation going something like: we need to get behind some idiot for our presidential candidate who will argue that America needs yet another two aircraft carriers!  The most expensive obsolete weapon out there today.

2. Nope!

1. Well...why ?  And you don't think the world is more peaceful than in the 1980s ?  Why do you think that ?  Proxy wars throughout the world aren't happening anymore.

2. What is a globalist ?  Usually when I ask, I get nothing.  Sometimes I can get a definition ... but it will fit anyone who works in an international context, ie. every government or major company.  And in that case, it turns out everyone is a globalist.  In fact, I suspect globalist is defined as "someone RtL does not like".  So Soros is a prime globalist, but the Koch Brother(s) not... etc.

3. Like... who ?  Like Trump ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States–Saudi_Arabia_arms_deal

4. Yes, this is the system.  I don't know who you're skewing here, though, as all the presidents tend to provide rich funding for a strong military...  They can afford to, so not much to do about that... except a cultural movement for peace and disarmament which works with security interests sometimes even...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael H the term globalist  I think means people who believe in free trade agreements and do not favour using tariffs to protect domestic producers and their prices from  foreign producers selling  the same product cheaper in Canada. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rue said:

Michael H the term globalist  I think means people who believe in free trade agreements and do not favour using tariffs to protect domestic producers and their prices from  foreign producers selling  the same product cheaper in Canada. 

Indeed! There was a time when those of us who were young Star Trek fans, were looking forward to an "Earth Federation" beginning with the UN or something very similar. What we weren't aware of was that globalism or globalization would remain a goal and future project for international capitalism and finance. And the largest banks and corporations who saw the whole world as their market wanted a GATT and regional trade pacts to step over national boundaries freely as they moved capital and production to whichever place was cheapest and brought the best return on investment....and had the lowest taxes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 6:27 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well...why ?  And you don't think the world is more peaceful than in the 1980s ?  Why do you think that ?  Proxy wars throughout the world aren't happening anymore.

Are you serious? You think the world is more peaceful today? How many active wars are brewing today compared to 10, 20 or 40 years ago? War has never been a more profitable enterprize than it is today. And high tech weaponry + the addition of mercenary 'security forces' on the ground, has eliminated the need for America to send its own troops in to fight and die for the corporate sponsors of war. That makes it a lot more appealing and acceptable at home when the only Americans dying are the "other one percent," as they're sometimes referred to....the kids from small towns and urban squalor where the military is the only real career option for most. 

I don't know what you're smoking when you declare that "proxy wars aren't happening anymore,"  because the genocidal ground troops sent in to mop up and slaughter in Libya, Syria and I would say Ukraine's rightwing Nazi squads like Pravy Sektor also, are paid forces advancing the aims of the US and its allies...including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.. 

Quote

2. What is a globalist ?  Usually when I ask, I get nothing.  Sometimes I can get a definition ... but it will fit anyone who works in an international context, ie. every government or major company.  And in that case, it turns out everyone is a globalist.  In fact, I suspect globalist is defined as "someone RtL does not like".  So Soros is a prime globalist, but the Koch Brother(s) not... etc.

No, I think I defined it as a 100% corporate governance of the world as an end goal, while national governments, international organizations concerned with mundane, unimportant issues to the wealth class -- world peace, combating climate change etc., get insignificant funding, media attention or political interest as a result. 

When it comes to the oligarchs like Soros and Charles Koch (the one who's still alive), they may differ on social issues --- race, minority rights, gay rights, women's rights etc., but when it comes to the flow of money around the world, taxes and trade issues, they're on the same team!

Quote

Did I say there weren't rightwing warmongers and war profiteers.....Donald may be in both categories for that matter. What I don't recall seeing before the 90's was liberal warmongers...calling for first -- sanctions, economic blockades, bombing and then land invasion for regime change.

Quote

4. Yes, this is the system.  I don't know who you're skewing here, though, as all the presidents tend to provide rich funding for a strong military...  They can afford to, so not much to do about that... except a cultural movement for peace and disarmament which works with security interests sometimes even...

Like I said before, when the Soviet Union collapsed into 15 separate nations, and Communist China became more capitalist than communist, there was a much ballyhooed "Peace Dividend" that the lucky occupier in the White House inherited in 1992. But, instead of a peace dividend, there was a military buildup to fight smaller, regional wars, which translates as countries that are still not getting with the plan that international finance was in charge, and smaller nation-states had to privatize public lands and public services as well. 

In more recent times, US military and surveillance dept. budgets doubled within two years of 9-11, and after several years of fighting little skirmishes in the Arab World,, the US needed to breathe new life into the cold war concept of Big Power Conflict...that requires fighter jets, nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers. Anyone's guess whether the strategists who called for a more than one trillion dollar buildup of America's nuclear weapons forces think they should try to win a nuclear war with Russia or China...depending on which party is in power in Washington.

Still, the liberal warhawk, using R2P doctrine as an excuse to go to war against a foreign leader who's in the way....like Gadaffi, for humanitarian reasons is something that is a fairly recent, but highly lucrative innovation of the past 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound aroused by the rhetoric of  Putin and exhibit a need to illustrate  any alliance between Klingons and the Federation  is treasonous. 

No doubt this is caused by  manifestation of a thought pattern originating from an inherited genetic trait your species has not  yet evolved past.

Your thoughts are  quite illogical. Cooperation for mutual benefit is  both logical and efficient in managing resources. Your distrust of other species while understandable is illogical.

 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2020 at 9:19 PM, Right To Left said:

1. Are you serious? You think the world is more peaceful today? How many active wars are brewing today compared to 10, 20 or 40 years ago?

2. War has never been a more profitable enterprize than it is today. And high tech weaponry + the addition of mercenary 'security forces' on the ground, has eliminated the need for America to send its own troops in to fight and die for the corporate sponsors of war. That makes it a lot more appealing and acceptable at home when the only Americans dying are the "other one percent," as they're sometimes referred to....the kids from small towns and urban squalor where the military is the only real career option for most. 

3. I don't know what you're smoking when you declare that "proxy wars aren't happening anymore,"  because the genocidal ground troops sent in to mop up and slaughter in Libya, Syria and I would say Ukraine's rightwing Nazi squads like Pravy Sektor also, are paid forces advancing the aims of the US and its allies...including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.. 

4. No, I think I defined it as a 100% corporate governance of the world as an end goal, while national governments, international organizations concerned with mundane, unimportant issues to the wealth class -- world peace, combating climate change etc., get insignificant funding, media attention or political interest as a result. 

 

1.  Very serious and I almost can't believe you would suggest otherwise.  Even the proxy wars of the 70s and 80s brought more death (Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola) than we have today.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years

2. Well, sort of.  Selling weapons is powerful, but even looking at the politics of 'slam dunk' wars like Iraq and Afghanistan shows us that these endeavours are not popular.  

3. I'm not familiar with all of these examples, but they are certainly (in general) not in the league of the Contras or others that were funded by the US and USSR.  For example: Syria has a leader that, while opposed by the US, is not really a puppet of the Russian regime either.

4. Ok, well then the Republocrats would be enemy #1 to you, while Greta Thunberg would be an ally then.

 

So you're a different sort, I guess, in that you are using the language of the populists literally.  A globalist is, to you, ACTUALLY a globalist.  Well good for you, sincerely, in knowing how to use language.  You're a cut above just based on that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Very serious and I almost can't believe you would suggest otherwise.  Even the proxy wars of the 70s and 80s brought more death (Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola) than we have today.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years
 

Not that they weren't big, bloody wars, but where are they mentioned in the Vox article you linked? The only one I see on the chart is the Cambodia Genocide, which certainly was significant, but you're telling me that there's no chance of similar large scale slaughter today! A time when the US has unleashed Saudi Arabia to kill and starve out as many Yemenis as they like....without any notice by the western world's media! Aside from a few independent cranks, nobody is reporting on what goes on in Yemen today....except for when they claim to have carried out a major missile attack that disabled a crucial Saudi refinery and oil terminal. Aside from that, war crimes today don't make the news if they don't conflict with American geopolicy interests....only when they threaten the "exceptional" nation.

If you do any more than casually glossing over Vox's puff piece for neoliberal global expansionism, you might notice that even Vox has to hedge their bets during a time when world order and its absurdly indebted armed enforcer are teetering on the brink of collapse!

I'm thankful that Vox had the good sense to include a rebuttal that many of us would have been looking for anyway: an embedded link is for an earlier Vox article:  This fascinating academic debate has huge implications for the future of world peace   which features research by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (The Black Swan) and Pasquale Cirillo...who are able to drive trucks through the selective inclusions and categorizations of statistical data by today's most renowned (and most richly rewarded) spokesman for the New Order - Stephen Pinker. Pinker's other research on earlier civilizations and especially pre-modern hunter-gatherer communities is nothing short of racist and totally deplorable! But even dealing with modern history, accepting Pinker's theories means accepting his measurements of peaks and valleys and what should be and what should not be important. One thing never found in irrationally optimistic tomes like Pinker's is any acknowledgment of modern day sanctions warfare that the US...especially under Trump are applying more and more frequently and excluding more and more products...including medicines, in a time of pandemic! Still barely makes the news that the US has ramped up sanctions including medicine against Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and other targets for eventual US invasion.  I don't expect to see anything resembling a 'peaceful world' as long as there is a global empire and a supporting global business and finance community which are desperate to keep the present system functioning and able to maintain control of global trade and business. 

Quote

2. Well, sort of.  Selling weapons is powerful, but even looking at the politics of 'slam dunk' wars like Iraq and Afghanistan shows us that these endeavours are not popular.  

Doesn't matter whether or not they're 'popular' as long as western mainstream media and information sources refrain from doing much reporting on the size and continued rapid growth of weapons and arms manufacturing industries....which Canada plays a smaller though not insignificant part in also! 

It would stand to reason that 'if the world is getting more peaceful and less warlike' the US Government wouldn't be spending increasing amounts of money on its war budgets! But that's the costs of empire.

Quote

3. I'm not familiar with all of these examples, but they are certainly (in general) not in the league of the Contras or others that were funded by the US and USSR.  For example: Syria has a leader that, while opposed by the US, is not really a puppet of the Russian regime either.

Russia apparently considered Syria important enough to risk being drawn in to the proxy war to overthrow Assad. I don't know if there is anything to the story beyond rumors...but supposedly, Vlad Putin was outraged when his close friend and expected heir - Medvedev, signed on to supporting the NATO air war against Gaddaffi in Libya in 2011. And after their ground forces - a ragtag collection of competing Islamist mercenaries( sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE) were flown in to Libya ended up creating a bloodbath that led to the mass exodus of Libyans and foreign workers in small boats trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe...Vlad wasn't about to let the same thing happen again to the only remaining Russian ally in the Middle East. 

So, where are we now in the Global War On Terror?  One trend that has become very real today is that when possible US targets start finding themselves loaded up with more and more sanctions and may have already experienced attempted military coups and instant rebel attacks, they are much better prepared for the inevitable final push by the US regime change industry and not surprising  the targets of regime change now are still hanging on! And that of course means the fighting and dying doesn't end!

Quote

4. Ok, well then the Republocrats would be enemy #1 to you, while Greta Thunberg would be an ally then.

Yes, though I wanted to scrutinize the Greta Thunberg phenomena when it all started, since there is no way anyone can become the world's biggest celebrity and appear all across international media without vested interests working behind the scenes. What I gather about Greta is that some of the corporate sponsored foundations really wanted Greta as their mascot, but that would require her toning down her environment message which is not corporate-friendly or even warm to the notion many big green groups have that new "green" technologies are the key to a better future. If Greta can't be turned to someone important's economic advantage, her star will fade and she will appear less and less in the headlines...which is what seems to be happening already!  But, as best I can guess, I don't think becoming a star was ever one of her goals or dreams!

Quote

So you're a different sort, I guess, in that you are using the language of the populists literally.  A globalist is, to you, ACTUALLY a globalist.  Well good for you, sincerely, in knowing how to use language.  You're a cut above just based on that.

I tryB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Right To Left said:

 Not that they weren't big, bloody wars, but where are they mentioned in the Vox article you linked? The only one I see on the chart is the Cambodia Genocide, which certainly was significant, but you're telling me that there's no chance of similar large scale slaughter today!

  

They are there in the graph.  I'm not saying there's no chance that a big war will break out but countering your implicating question that things aren't peaceful today relative to the recent past.  It's really a question of numbers.

The rest of your post expresses some thoughts about the nature of the world today.  It's not that I disagree with it entirely, but I have nothing to say to those points.  Based on numbers, we are far less violent in terms of world conflict.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 10:21 AM, Michael Hardner said:

They are there in the graph.  I'm not saying there's no chance that a big war will break out but countering your implicating question that things aren't peaceful today relative to the recent past.  It's really a question of numbers.

The rest of your post expresses some thoughts about the nature of the world today.  It's not that I disagree with it entirely, but I have nothing to say to those points.  Based on numbers, we are far less violent in terms of world conflict.  

 

The only thing that stops a BIG war right now depends on how long this recent disease pandemic delays any such big, bold strategies like a big power war! The theorists about a peaceful and prosperous 21st century have a lot of back-tracking and excuse-making already. Most of what they do is ignoring some of the smaller wars and genocides going on that don't get barely reported in western media......Yemen being an obvious example! Look how peaceful everything is.....as long as we ignore the fighting and dying and mass migrations going on in places we don't care about!

The main driver of the Big War is the US, because they've allowed their government to be taken over by weapons makers and contractors who profit directly from war, as well as the financiers of war who enrich themselves by financing the combatants and employing disaster capitalism to feed of the remains of nations ravaged by war....like vultures wearing three piece suits! 

The critics of Stephen Pinker...the primary philosopher and social theorist behind this notion that humans are savages by nature being tamed by civilization.....market driven-neoliberalism in our time, point out that anyone with a different or even contrary long view of human history can drive a truck through Pinker's optimistic futurism. Pinker conjures up a techno-driven free trading future by jerryrigging scattered deep history records of the distant past to present a prehistorical narrative of "killer apes." He's not the first to do this, but by building it into a story that tickles the ears and strokes the ego's of so many of today's billiionaires that attend Davos meetups every year (except this year maybe)....telling them that the system they've played a big role in creating, which heaps the multitude of rewards upon them, it's a story that will get repeated all across major media, while the contrarians are stuck in the shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Right To Left said:

1. The only thing that stops a BIG war right now depends on how long this recent disease pandemic delays any such big, bold strategies like a big power war!

2. The theorists about a peaceful and prosperous 21st century have a lot of back-tracking and excuse-making already. Most of what they do is ignoring some of the smaller wars and genocides going on that don't get barely reported in western media......Yemen being an obvious example! Look how peaceful everything is.....as long as we ignore the fighting and dying and mass migrations going on in places we don't care about!

3. The main driver of the Big War is the US, because they've allowed their government to be taken over by weapons makers and contractors who profit directly from war, as well as the financiers of war who enrich themselves by financing the combatants and employing disaster capitalism to feed of the remains of nations ravaged by war....like vultures wearing three piece suits! 

4. The critics of Stephen Pinker...the primary philosopher and social theorist behind this notion that humans are savages by nature being tamed by civilization.....

5. He's not the first to do this, but by building it into a story that tickles the ears and strokes the ego's of so many of today's billiionaires that attend Davos meetups every year (except this year maybe).... 

1. Hyperbole and thread drift.

2. Based on your prediction that we are at risk, though, not based on facts like the decline in world poverty, hunger, and lack of actual military conflicts as per the VOX graph.  "Peaceful" isn't a measure of how you, RtL, FEEL about tension in the world - it can be measured in casualties which are ebbing.  

3. Only since 1941 or ?

4. Primary ?  I was trying to remember the earliest philosopher I could think of that spoke of something like this and I had to break down and Google.. I only went as far back as Aristotle. "the legal system of the city-state makes human beings just and virtuous and lifts them from the savagery and bestiality in which they would otherwise languish" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html

5. Ah ok good.

This is thread drift full-on now.   Again, you aren't wrong or right, IMO, in a lot of your condemnations here but they're mostly opinions about the way we are heading.  As for the topic at hand, Trump broke the law, IMO, but not enough to be removed through the domestic process... and you think that 'business as usual' is immoral anyway, I think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Hyperbole and thread drift.

2. Based on your prediction that we are at risk, though, not based on facts like the decline in world poverty, hunger, and lack of actual military conflicts as per the VOX graph.  "Peaceful" isn't a measure of how you, RtL, FEEL about tension in the world - it can be measured in casualties which are ebbing.  

3. Only since 1941 or ?

4. Primary ?  I was trying to remember the earliest philosopher I could think of that spoke of something like this and I had to break down and Google.. I only went as far back as Aristotle. "the legal system of the city-state makes human beings just and virtuous and lifts them from the savagery and bestiality in which they would otherwise languish" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html

5. Ah ok good.

This is thread drift full-on now.   Again, you aren't wrong or right, IMO, in a lot of your condemnations here but they're mostly opinions about the way we are heading.  As for the topic at hand, Trump broke the law, IMO, but not enough to be removed through the domestic process... and you think that 'business as usual' is immoral anyway, I think.

 

It takes two to drift!  Remember, this all started 3 months ago when someone was apparently outraged that Donald Trump wasn't sufficiently warlike and not providing enough guns and missiles for the Ukraine Gov in Kiev to attack and kill rebels in the eastern part of their country. I thought that in itself makes it worth examining why these ongoing wars have so much bipartisan support in US government and media. That calls into question notions that present drivers of world events can somehow lead to a more peaceful world. 

I could have got into a lot of other criticisms of the "Happy Days Are Here Again" narrative for the future, like the failure to consider any US/NATO operations officially titled as 'fighting terrorism' to be in fact - state sponsored terrorism themselves. Libya and Syria for example.  My main objection in 2. and 3. is that when it comes to the economic value of warmaking by imperial powers who face no significant threat of being attacked and overrun by enemies; it goes through fluctuations over time, as former 3 star general - Smedley Butler, wrote in 1934 "War Is A Racket," he viewed his stellar military career that began in his youth as being a foot soldier for corporate power- mining companies, banana plantation growers etc. who had an interest in using the US Government to overthrow regimes that did not fill their wish list, and sent guys like Smedley off to fight and die on their behalf and lead younger men to do likewise. So, after becoming America's most decorated soldier, Smedley Butler became one of the few to have enough insight to examine his career in the Marines and the motives of those above him to ordered him in to battle from the Spanish-American War through to the Banana Wars in Central America before he retired and wrote a book about his own thoughts on who sent him to war and why! 

And Aristotle was just another shit who grew up and lived in a slave-holding empire where men of his class did not/nor have to do any real work! So he could while away the hours and the days pondering the wonders of the universe, pontificating on the state of the world and why there was evil. BUT, the reason why no modern day scientist or philosopher can take Aristotle as a voice of authority is because one of his core beliefs was that great minds (such as his) could learn everything that was essential about the world, about human nature and how societies should be governed by just unleashing their great minds to think and discover the answers to all of the problems of the universe....no experimentation required!

So, no surprise, Aristotle like every "great man" of history who was born into a life of class privilege considers working class and slave class to be lesser humans who are animalistic by nature, and must be tamed by the rules and laws that govern 'civilization.'  This standard upper class framing of the 'lower classes' is found throughout Judeo-Christian culture and right through the Enlightenment of the western European imperial powers that provide Pinker's secular humanist framing of a view of humanity that we are depraved unless modernity shapes our behaviour. 

The flipside of the depraved man perfected by civilization began with Jean Jacques Rousseau who read accounts of the early explorers in the tropics regions of Africa, the Americas and Indonesia, and presented a near universal message of surprisingly peaceful and happy natives (on first contact at least) who appeared to be living in a garden of eden paradise already, confounding the priests who went along to save souls of the heathens! 

From this radical perspective, neither profit-driven capitalism nor new inventions will perfect us. Instead we have to recapture the values and ways of life of our ancestors...who led simple lives, not accumulating anything more than what they needed or had use for. Since many are discovering that this hiatus in the rat race provided by the Covid Pandemic has made a lot of people re-examine what is and is not important in their lives, many have a chance to simplify their lives in ways they likely would not have wanted to try before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...