The US/Cuba relationship

[Andrew Green]

At this point, I'd have to ask if anyone follows the Showtime series by Penn and Teller, "Bull-****"? They dispell a lot of comon myths, like this one for instance.

Well... what they do is highly biased, completely non-scientific and they fully admit it. Personally I love the show, but they don't dispell anything, they don't even try to. They want people to think for themselves, and personally I think sometimes they put out the name of their show as well at times.

**post edited to comply with MT profanity policy**-Flatlander

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well... what they do is highly biased, completely non-scientific and they fully admit it. Personally I love the show, but they don't dispell anything, they don't even try to. They want people to think for themselves, and personally I think sometimes they put out the name of their show as well at times.

I find the word 'unscientific' gets thrown around a lot when people want to dispute something stated. Especially when what they really are trying to attack is the logical reasoning behind a certain argument.

For example, calling an argument biased doesn't, of necessity, make something 'wrong'. You can biased toward the truth, for example, and be called 'biased'.

What Penn and Teller do is attack illogical beliefs and ideas that don't stand the test of reason. They do it by illustrating their absurdity. As such, they are pretty good at exposing fallacies.

As an aside, I think it's pretty clear that their political bias is decidedly Libertarian in nature. And they do love slaying sacred cows on both sides of the political divide.

In particular, Penn and Teller did an outstanding job of demolishing the confiscatory fantasies of the left in their Gun Control episodes. They equally demolish such right wing sacred cows as religion.

 

[Andrew Green]

Conservation isn't communistic, but the issue has moved FAR beyond conservation, in to some sort Quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific, environmental belief system. Heck, even the terminology has become religious. 'Mother Earth' 'Gaia'.

"Religion is the Opium of the people" ~ Karl Marx, founder of Communism.

I don't think anyone in this thread has used the terms "Mother Earth" or "Gaia", I know I certainly haven't and won't. So this seems a bit of a straw man. But, if you want to bring that into it, I'd have to say religion is far more connected to right-wing US politics, of which you seem to be a supporter, then it is to environmentalism.

But then again, what does religion have to do with any of this?:idunno:

Yes, but it wasn't ME who transformed those things. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle isn't anathema to capitalism. The statement that captialism may have to yield to those things, however, is an attempt to create a doom and gloom scenario where socialism MUST win for us to survive.

No, it is looking at the big picture. Our population is growing, our natural resources are becoming scarce. The current model cannot be sustained indefinately. Even now a good portion of the worlds population is starving and without basic needs being met.

Capitalism, like every system before it, will eventually be replaced. That's simply the way the world works.

The Greeks Fell, the Romans Fell, The British Fell, and eventually... get ready for it... the US will too.

Now it might happen in 50 years, it might happen in 500. But eventually, the US in it's current form, the last remaining super power, will loose that status. It's systems of government and economics will become obsolete and something else will become dominate.

That is not doomsaying, that is history, and choosing to ignore it will pretty much guarantee that it happens, and happens hard. Just like every other country that has been in that position and thought they where there to stay.

 

[Andrew Green]

As an aside, I think it's pretty clear that their political bias is Libertarian in nature.

They openly admit that, as well as the fact that their results are unscientific. Which means they could be knocked down just as easily as the ones they are knocking down.

Fortunately, there are those that do scientifc work on the subjects where the results do mean something.

 

[sgtmac_46]

"Religion is the Opium of the people" ~ Karl Marx, founder of Communism.

I don't think anyone in this thread has used the terms "Mother Earth" or "Gaia", I know I certainly haven't and won't. So this seems a bit of a straw man. But, if you want to bring that into it, I'd have to say religion is far more connected to right-wing US politics, of which you seem to be a supporter, then it is to environmentalism.

But then again, what does religion have to do with any of this?:idunno:

If you actually followed the bit of conversation that upnorth and I had, you'd know the answer to that question. If you want a further discussion, start a thread like upnorth suggested.

No, it is looking at the big picture. Our population is growing, our natural resources are becoming scarce. The current model cannot be sustained indefinately. Even now a good portion of the worlds population is starving and without basic needs being met.

Heh heh. Chicken Little politics. A good portion of the worlds population has ALWAYS been starving. Where have you been? In fact, having a large segment of the earths population that ISN'T starving is the anomaly that we've created. That you believe we 'invented' starvation is merely an indication of your extremely myopic view. Western civilization invented an END to starvation for a large number of people.

Western culture has brought about a level of prosperity never dreamt about in the history of the world. It's funny what a little historical perspective will do to destroy a perfectly silly argument.

Capitalism, like every system before it, will eventually be replaced. That's simply the way the world works.

And that's supposed to mean what, exactly? It may be replaced, but that doesn't mean that what may replace it is an improvement.

The Greeks Fell, the Romans Fell, The British Fell, and eventually... get ready for it... the US will too.

And you'll die, and everyone will die. Those are truisms without a point. Simply arguing that everything 'ends' isn't an argument about anything. It's certainly not an argument about which system is superior to another. For years i've been hearing 'Even Rome fell' as some sort of attack against the US. All great countries fall, but few countries ever become great, and even the ones that don't become great....fall. So that proves that we're doing something wrong, because someday we're going to fall?

That's like calling someone's life, in particular, a failure, because he's someday going to die. Now that's a serious logical fallacy.

Now it might happen in 50 years, it might happen in 500. But eventually, the US in it's current form, the last remaining super power, will loose that status. It's systems of government and economics will become obsolete and something else will become dominate.

Again, I say....So what? You've really built up this whole argument, but it's obvious that you're just spouting slogans that you haven't the slightest idea the meaning of.

That is not doomsaying, that is history, and choosing to ignore it will pretty much guarantee that it happens, and happens hard. Just like every other country that has been in that position and thought they where there to stay.

No, doomsaying is telling people the world is going to end....unless they embrace your political views. Sorry if i'm not that gullible.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The US is just a baby compared to the old crones of Europe.

 

[sgtmac_46]

They openly admit that, as well as the fact that their results are unscientific. Which means they could be knocked down just as easily as the ones they are knocking down.

Fortunately, there are those that do scientifc work on the subjects where the results do mean something.

There is a whole lot that purports to be science....that actually has very little to do with science.

To illustrate this point, perhaps you could enlighten us on your definition of 'science'.

 

[Andrew Green]

Heh heh. Chicken Little politics. A good portion of the worlds population has ALWAYS been starving. Where have you been? In fact, having a large segment of the earths population that ISN'T starving is the anomaly.

And now that things are becoming global perhaps we should be working to improve this....

And that's supposed to mean what, exactly? It may be replaced, but that doesn't mean that what may replace it is an improvement.

Yes it will, it will be replaced because the world changes and it is no longer sustainable. Same reasons it has changed in the past. Democracy works now, it wouldn't have worked in the middle ages. Monarchy worked then, it wouldn't work now.

Feudalism worked then, not now, Capitalism works now, but won't forever.

And you'll die, and everyone will die. Those are truisms without a point. Simply arguing that everything 'ends' isn't an argument about anything. It's certainly not an argument about which system is superior to another. For years i've been hearing 'Even Rome fell' as some sort of attack against the US. All great countries fall, but few countries ever become great, and even the ones that don't become great....fall.

Sure it is, it's arguing that systems of government and economics that allow countries to reach that point eventually become unsustainable and need to be replaced. Current systems will get there, it's just a question of when.

No, doomsaying is telling people the world is going to end....unless they embrace your political views. Sorry if i'm not that gullible.

Well, that happens on both ends... Lately it's been Terrorism.

And it is a fallacy to say the belief is unfounded because of doomsayers, if that is the case so is the current system. "Commies are evil!", "Terrorists are going to wipe us out if we don't get them first!"

You are very mistaken if you think environmentalists have a monopoly on doomsaying...

 

[sgtmac_46]

And now that things are becoming global perhaps we should be working to improve this....

In case you haven't noticed, we have been. The work is slow and dangerous, as there are still quite a few vicious dictators and dictator wannabes causing problems. In addiction, factional disputes and tribalism create situations where societies and peoples are not able to rise above the most basic levels of existence, even with assistance. The problem is more complex than 'give 'em food'.

Yes it will, it will be replaced because the world changes and it is no longer sustainable. Same reasons it has changed in the past. Democracy works now, it wouldn't have worked in the middle ages. Monarchy worked then, it wouldn't work now.

Again, what you are saying is entirely irrelavent. That the world changes is a true statement, said without context. That democracy will some day be replaced by something else, is true. But that's far from saying that it will be an improvement. If it's not going to be an improvement, it's best to put it off as long as possible. It's like saying 'Someday i'm going to die, so I might as well die now'.

Feudalism worked then, not now, Capitalism works now, but won't forever.

And it works fine now. It's the best of all possible systems now. Your argument doesn't support changing it right now. You and I will likely be dead before we move on to 'something else'. Nations fall, we die, nature of the universe. Doesn't mean we have to suffer now.

Sure it is, it's arguing that systems of government and economics that allow countries to reach that point eventually become unsustainable and need to be replaced. Current systems will get there, it's just a question of when.

That's a fallacious argument. There is no system that lasts for ever....but some are better than others. Again, yours is an argument devoid of perspective.

Well, that happens on both ends... Lately it's been Terrorism.

Terrorism is a real threat, but not a threat to human existence. Environmental issues are a sometimes real threat, but not a threat to human existence. It's the leap to 'The sky is FALLING the sky is FALLING' that I take issue with. We can deal with terrorists and we can deal with environmental questions, without getting hysterical.

And it is a fallacy to say the belief is unfounded because of doomsayers, if that is the case so is the current system. "Commies are evil!", "Terrorists are going to wipe us out if we don't get them first!"

Well Commies are evil, but that's besides the point. :rofl:

Further, terrorists aren't going to 'wipe us out' but they are going to kill Americans, as they have already done. Again, you miss the point entirely. Allow me to illustrate the difference.

I can say that the air in a certain area needs to be cleaned up to improve the quality of life there. That is reasonable. I can say that terrorists need to be brought to justice or killed before they can attack us, as they've stated they want to do. Again, that is also reasonable.

However, if I take those positions and say 'We're destroying the planet with our greed and gluttony' that's dogma, and a completely unreasonable statement. It's not different than saying 'God destroyed New Orleans because of sin and wickedness'.

You see the comparison? You see how environmentalism becomes a religion? It goes from an understanding that sometimes human activities can have unintended consequences, then it turns in to a moral crusade. I've even heard many truly wacko environmentalists decry the fact that humans exist to 'despoil the planet'. Truly astounding.

You are very mistaken if you think environmentalists have a monopoly on doomsaying...

Did I say they had a monopoly? What I said, my little friend, was that they have become quasi-religious wackos just the same as those nuts who claim that God destroyed New Orleans because of homosexuality.

It's nothing but an indication that certain types of people can turn any position in to a 'Religion'.



At any rate, if you want to further discuss 'Environmentalism: Quasi-Religion?' start a thread, as we've seriously drifted from Cuba.

 

[Andrew Green]

In case you haven't noticed, we have been. The work is slow and dangerous, as there are still quite a few vicious dictators and dictator wannabes causing problems. In addiction, factional disputes and tribalism create situations where societies and peoples are not able to rise above the most basic levels of existence, even with assistance. The problem is more complex than 'give 'em food'.

Well, using similar reasoning, It's more complex them bomb them until they "get it right" and base there systems on the model of the most powerful nation.

Has it occured to you that maybe, there is even the smallest chance, that dictatorships might be NEEDED in some places. Like in Europe 500 years ago. Democracy wouldn't have survived. Maybe, right now, some places are just not suited for anything but a dictatorship.

Part of becoming global has got to be accepting, not "correcting" other beliefs. The UN has almost unanimously condemed the Embargo against Cuba. Do you think that it is fixing the problem? Wouldn't opening up trade be better help then forcing them into poverty?

Again, what you are saying is entirely irrelavent. That the world changes is a true statement, said without context. That democracy will some day be replaced by something else, is true. But that's far from saying that it will be an improvement. If it's not going to be an improvement, it's best to put it off as long as possible. It's like saying 'Someday i'm going to die, so I might as well die now'.

It will be a improvement, given the other conditions of the world at the time. 500 years ago Democracy would not have been a improvement, it wouldn't have worked.

Let's try a different annalogy then your "I'm going to die" one. How about "I have cancer and am dieing, treatment will suck so I should put it off as long as possible."

And it works fine now. It's the best of all possible systems now.

In your opinion.

That's a fallacious argument. There is no system that lasts for ever....but some are better than others. Again, yours is an argument devoid of perspective.

Well, I'd say it's the other way around. I am trying to look at other perspectives, while you seem only able to accept a Right-wing US POV.

So in your opinion this is it, the world will never get any better then the US with a Conservative government?

Terrorism is a real threat, but not a threat to human existence.

Well, I'd say environmental ones are a bigger threat then terrorism, which by the way, seems to be coming from people so convinced that the US way of life is evil that they will sacrifice there life to play even a small part in disrupting it.

Ok, they are crazy, but they are also as sure you are wrong as you are sure they are.

Environmental issues are a sometimes real threat, but not a threat to human existence.

More so then terrorism.

Although I don't think many people claim that all human life will be wipped out any time soon, except for religious extremists.

It's the leap to 'The sky is FALLING the sky is FALLING' that I take issue with. We can deal with terrorists and we can deal with environmental questions, without getting hysterical.

Yep, that we can. Key word bit there is "deal with". Environmentalism is not something to be ignored, not put off for the future.

Well Commies are evil, but that's besides the point. :rofl:

And they say the same about you. What makes you right and them wrong?

Further, terrorists aren't going to 'wipe us out' but they are going to kill Americans, and they have already done. Again, you miss the point entirely. Allow me to illustrate the difference.

And there people are being killed by the actions of Americans. How many civillians in the US have died because of US strikes? A lot more then have died in the US from terrorist strikes.

So there is that perspective thing again. From theirs, the US is the evil one.

However, if I take those positions and say 'We're destroying the planet with our greed and gluttony' that's dogma, and a completely unreasonable statement. It's not different than saying 'God destroyed New Orleans because of sin and wickedness'.

Can you point to the post in this thread that claimed those things, I must have missed it. Pointing to extremists to win a argument is very flawed logic.

You see the comparison. You see how environmentalism becomes a religion.

It's nothing but an indication that certain types of people can turn any position in to a 'Religion'.

So... religion is bad?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, using similar reasoning, It's more complex them bomb them until they "get it right" and base there systems on the model of the most powerful nation.

I never claimed it was simple. I have made very indepth arguments about what is required in dealing with terrorists. Go back and read them.

Has it occured to you that maybe, there is even the smallest chance, that dictatorships might be NEEDED in some places. Like in Europe 500 years ago. Democracy wouldn't have survived. Maybe, right now, some places are just not suited for anything but a dictatorship.

You said it yourself. All systems die eventually. It's now the point in history when despotism dies. That's an inadvertant point you didn't want to make, i'm sure, but it's about the most coherent interpretation of the argument you've presented.

Part of becoming global has got to be accepting, not "correcting" other beliefs. The UN has almost unanimously condemed the Embargo against Cuba. Do you think that it is fixing the problem? Wouldn't opening up trade be better help then forcing them into poverty?

That's like saying 'Part of being a good neighbor is ignoring it when my neighbor beats his wife and molests his kids'. It doesn't hold water.

As for the embargo in particular, you haven't read all my posts. I think the embargo is a bad idea at this period in time. I think we can get Castro out quicker at this point, by engagement. At any rate, Cuban communism won't survive Castro by much.

It will be a improvement, given the other conditions of the world at the time. 500 years ago Democracy would not have been a improvement, it wouldn't have worked.

Irrelavent. Democracy was first developed by the Greeks far longer ago than that. The Republic, likewise, far predates European Feudalism.

As for what replaces democracy being an 'improvement' history has shown that not to be true. Feudalism was not an 'improvement' over Athenian democracy or Republican Rome.

Let's try a different annalogy then your "I'm going to die" one. How about "I have cancer and am dieing, treatment will suck so I should put it off as long as possible."

Oh, you could try that if you want to obfuscate the point. However, that presumes Democracy and Capitalism are a disease, rather than an entity. Which simultaneously betrays your bias and destroys your argument.

In your opinion.

It's all our opinions. Though, you'll be hard pressed to point to an era or a system in history that did more good, for more people than our present system. In fact, i'd say that task will be impossible, so you won't undertake it but, instead, simply ignore it.

Well, I'd say it's the other way around. I am trying to look at other perspectives, while you seem only able to accept a Right-wing US POV.

No, you aren't trying to accept 'other perspectives' you have an absolutist view. You dislike the, so-called 'Right-wing US POV' and, hence, in your mind it is, by definition ALWAYS wrong. Further, you identify with anyone else who agrees with your basic premise on the 'Right-wing US POV', no matter how vile or distasteful they are. 'The enemy of my enemy, is my friend'. It's utterly transpartent, so don't go patting yourself on the back yet for your 'open minded' reactionary belief system.

So in your opinion this is it, the world will never get any better then the US with a Conservative government?

That's certainly not what I said at all, though it's obviously what you're hoping i'd say. What i'm saying is that western society, in general, to include the US, Canada, and western Europe, have successfully brought more prosperity to it's own people, using similar systems of government, than has ever been possible in the history of the world. That's what i'm saying. Can it be improved on? Certainly, but nothing you've suggested will improve it.

Well, I'd say environmental ones are a bigger threat then terrorism, which by the way, seems to be coming from people so convinced that the US way of life is evil that they will sacrifice there life to play even a small part in disrupting it.

Well, you could claim that, but it's based more on your personal biases than any real objective view of the threat. The detonation of a nuclear device in a major population area, for example, or a nuclear exchange in the middle east, would cause environmental damage on a scale undreamed of. The oil wells burned by Saddam in the first Gulf War caused environmental damage to an extent we've still not come to grips with yet.

The point, however, is that absolutists like you, want to make it an either/or thing. To quote John Kennedy 'We can do this and the other thing'.

Ok, they are crazy, but they are also as sure you are wrong as you are sure they are.

Are you?

More so then terrorism.

So you claim, though, again, it lacks any rational certainty. It's more a of a belief on your part

Although I don't think many people claim that all human life will be wipped out any time soon, except for religious extremists.

Well, that's kind of my point. Environmentalism has become a religion. They even have 'Doomsday' beliefs.

Yep, that we can. Key word bit there is "deal with". Environmentalism is not something to be ignored, not put off for the future.

Thank you for illustrating a point i've been trying to make. Belief in conservationism and responsible stewardship of resources is a reasonable position. 'Environmentalism' however, is a dogmatic belief. Even you have confused those very terms. 'Environmentalism' has become a religion, where fact and reality take a backseat to the 'belief'.

And they say the same about you. What makes you right and them wrong?

That question points to you as well. Though, it's obvious you couldn't pick up on the tongue and cheek nature of my 'commies are evil' statement. Again, since you're so interesting in taking the position of questioning 'how I know i'm right' maybe you could enlighten me about how you know YOU'RE right. If you truly believed the question when you asked it, and it wasn't just a debate ploy, you'll answer 'I don't know i'm right'.

And there people are being killed by the actions of Americans. How many civillians in the US have died because of US strikes? A lot more then have died in the US from terrorist strikes.

A lot more people in the US have died from US airstrikes? I'm sure that's not what you intended to say. Maybe you could clarify.

So there is that perspective thing again. From theirs, the US is the evil one.

But, there again, I apply your earlier analogy that systems fall and die. Islamic fundamentalism represents an anachronistic view on the world. It's time it 'fell' as you already claimed all things do. The 21st century should be the century of world democracy. You can have the 22nd century to designate as it's collapse.

Can you point to the post in this thread that claimed those things, I must have missed it. Pointing to extremists to win a argument is very flawed logic.

First of all, the 'pointing to the extremism argument is flawed' argument is humorous coming from you, because that's been the majority of your arguments up to present, so you might want to reconsider that statement.

Secondly, we were discussing environmentalism, and that's not an 'extreme' statement among environmentalists. In fact, it's a common theme 'We're destroying the planet'.

So... religion is bad?

It is when it clowds reason, and becomes 'dogma'. There's a tendency among the left to condemn only Christianity for dogmatic belief. The left excuses much dogma, so long as it isn't christian dogma. Environmentalism has become, less about reasonable environmental protections, and more about a religious belief system.

Of course, that fits a theory of mine that when we attack the classic religions, Christianity for example, new religious beliefs rise to take their place. There are some types of people who can't live without religious like dogmatic beliefs.

 

[Andrew Green]

That's like saying 'Part of being a good neighbor is ignoring it when my neighbor beats his wife and molests his kids'. It doesn't hold water.

So the US is better? It's not being accused of human rights issues? Doesn't excecute it's own people?

As for what replaces democracy being an 'improvement' history has shown that not to be true. Feudalism was not an 'improvement' over Athenian democracy or Republican Rome.

At the time, yes it was. The world changed, and neither of those two systems worked anymore. Religion took over and the Dark Ages began. Science became heresy and the church had all the cards, it was larger and more powerful then either of those.

Don't forget that 90% of the Roman empire was made up of slaves. The Dark Ages, while not our proudest time, may have been a neccessary step along the way.

It's all our opinions. Though, you'll be hard pressed to point to an era or a system in history that did more good, for more people than our present system. In fact, i'd say that task will be impossible, so you won't undertake it but, instead, simply ignore it.

That is very subjective and depends on your point of view. If you where in one of the countries that have been destroyed by US related actions would you think so? Probably not.

No, you aren't trying to accept 'other perspectives' you have an absolutist view. You dislike the, so-called 'Right-wing US POV' and, hence, in your mind it is, by definition ALWAYS wrong. Further, you identify with anyone else who agrees with your basic premise on the 'Right-wing US POV', no matter how vile or distasteful they are. 'The enemy of my enemy, is my friend'. It's utterly transpartent, so don't go patting yourself on the back yet for your 'open minded' reactionary belief system.

Thank you for telling me what I believe, I wouldn't have thought it was that, but if you say so...

have successfully brought more prosperity to it's own people, using similar systems of government,

Look outside those borders, the world is bigger then just western culture.

The point, however, is that absolutists like you, want to make it an either/or thing. To quote John Kennedy 'We can do this and the other thing'.

Well, I do find it funny that you are calling me a absolutist

 

[sgtmac_46]

So the US is better? It's not being accused of human rights issues? Doesn't excecute it's own people?

Western culture is superior to any that has come before in it's ability to provide the most good for the most people. I make that claim, and I make unashamedly. Further, you've yet to make an argument that even tries to assail that fact. The best you've done is to ask silly questions such 'Well, uh, are you saying the US is the best?'.

I'm saying that western culture has been more successful at creating more good for more people, in an imperfect world, than has ever been possible before. Attack that claim, if you can.

Also, don't compare the execution of murderers to firings squads that shoot people who simply possess a banned book or imprisons people for being homosexuals. It shows you as being completely devoid of perspective.

At the time, yes it was. The world changed, and neither of those two systems worked anymore. Religion took over and the Dark Ages began. Science became heresy and the church had all the cards, it was larger and more powerful then either of those.

Ignorance became more powerful than either of those. Which suggests that wide-spread ignorance is the biggest threat to democracies.

Don't forget that 90% of the Roman empire was made up of slaves. The Dark Ages, while not our proudest time, may have been a neccessary step along the way.

A necessary step? You presume much in thinking that the Dark Ages was a 'progression'. I'd call it a ratchet step backwards in the advance of civilization. An objective view of history supports that claim. The Roman Empire was far more advanced and sophisticated than the Dark Ages. History is not always on a constant march forward.

Moreover, slavery didn't end with the Roman empire, nor decline during the Dark Ages.

That is very subjective and depends on your point of view. If you where in one of the countries that have been destroyed by US related actions would you think so? Probably not.

Silly. Objectively, the US and other western nations have provided, again, more good for more people than any other systems in history. You want to turn it in to a subject discussion of individual perspectives, because you know that objective statement is hardly assailable as it stands. You cannot point to another period in history or another nation in history that has accomplished so much good for so many. However, the world remains an imperfect place, with imperfect choices.

You prefer to deal with 'individual perspectives' that serve your theories. It's clear you'd prefer not to deal with the statement as it stands.

Thank you for telling me what I believe, I wouldn't have thought it was that, but if you say so...

Save the righteous indignation. If you don't believe that, please say so. Though, I suspect, you can't really defend to the contrary.

Look outside those borders, the world is bigger then just western culture.

Yes, and much of it outside the borders of western culture is violent, brutal and primitive. To say that western civilization has brought civilization to it's pentacle so far, is no exaggeration. Perhaps you could point to another civilization that has done so much for so many, so as to refute my point.

Perhaps, you could point to one of those nations 'outside those borders' in that 'bigger world' that represents the achievement of providing more good for more people than currently accomplished in western civilization. Moreover, you might examine that the most successful nations that fall outside the sphere of what constitutes the western world who are most successful AT providing the most good for the most people......have embraced the western model. Japan comes to mind.

Well, I do find it funny hat you are calling me a absolutist

Oh, I believe you are a a bit of an absolutist. I also suspect that you're also a bit of a contrarian....But that's beside the point.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Capitalism, like every system before it, will eventually be replaced. That's simply the way the world works.

The Greeks Fell, the Romans Fell, The British Fell, and eventually... get ready for it... the US will too.

Organiztions eventually fall, but not always the method of organization.

The Romans fell and the Greeks fell, but Democracy or Republics or Emporers or Kings. as means of government, did not really. We still have democracies, republics, monarchies, dictatorships, etc..

 

[Bigshadow]

A good portion of the worlds population has ALWAYS been starving. Where have you been? In fact, having a large segment of the earths population that ISN'T starving is the anomaly that we've created.

Western culture has brought about a level of prosperity never dreamt about in the history of the world. It's funny what a little historical perspective will do to destroy a perfectly silly argument.

Yes, very true! It is also true that the Western culture's infinite capacity of compassion will bring about it's own demise as a powerful culture.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I dont think that power and compassion are exclusive. You can be compassionate and still be able to project power. The US military is one of the most powerful on the planet and IMO, as an entity, one of the most compassionate, as much as the media may like to point out the bad parts, theres no other military that goes to greater lengths to avoid unnecessary death or destruction, that tries harder to rebuild their enemies countries (Gernamy and Japan come to mind). And in general, compared to the longer and bloodier histories of the rest of the world, we as a nation may have a little blood on our hands, the rest of the major powers of the world are swimming in it.

 

[Bigshadow]

I dont think that power and compassion are exclusive. You can be compassionate and still be able to project power. The US military is one of the most powerful on the planet and IMO, as an entity, one of the most compassionate, as much as the media may like to point out the bad parts, theres no other military that goes to greater lengths to avoid unnecessary death or destruction, that tries harder to rebuild their enemies countries (Gernamy and Japan come to mind). And in general, compared to the longer and bloodier histories of the rest of the world.

I totally agree!

 

[jdinca]

I dont think that power and compassion are exclusive. You can be compassionate and still be able to project power. The US military is one of the most powerful on the planet and IMO, as an entity, one of the most compassionate, as much as the media may like to point out the bad parts, theres no other military that goes to greater lengths to avoid unnecessary death or destruction, that tries harder to rebuild their enemies countries (Gernamy and Japan come to mind). And in general, compared to the longer and bloodier histories of the rest of the world, we as a nation may have a little blood on our hands, the rest of the major powers of the world are swimming in it.

Well put.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just because we don't like a form of government in a neighboring country doesn't mean we can try to take the moral high ground and impose our political system onto them.

Very true, it has been the US imposing its political system on to South American countries that has given rise to many a South American Terrorist organization.

As far as Communism goes as a political system, it looks good on paper but it never truly works well. It tends to take forget about the reality of human greed and motivation.

As for Cuba, I hardly think Castro is a direct threat, not even if he combined with countries from South America. They could possibly mount terrorist campaigns, but where is the benefit to Cuba in attacking the US?

 

[Bigshadow]

As far as Communism goes as a political system, it looks good on paper but it never truly works well. It tends to take forget about the reality of human greed and motivation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Communism either. I like nationalism.