OP/ED:Who is Organising these Spontaneous Popular Uprisings ?

John isn't captalism inherently meritocratic?

I think you kind of answer your own question in the same reply.

As a famous conspiricist once said "Follow the money" and the money is passed from father to son and new laws are brought in which tax less and make inheritance easier.

Yes, there are meritocratic elements within capitalism simply because evolving technology creates new wealth.

But Capitalism is not democracy, and today democracy isn't even democracy

Why don't you ask the women who will become second class citizens in their own country now that Saddam's goverment who supported gender equality has been booted out the door through murder and destruction?

Have you ever heard of Sharia? I am sure in your views you will be the first to condemn it. We have not helped anything but the change of power to different hands. How are we to judge who is more moral then the last?

We have created a situation where people have 'lost rights' not gained them. It's rather apalling you haven't heard about this. I hope you can come to realize, the Illegal Invasion of a Sovereign State usually only brings trouble for the nation that was invaded and the nation that did the invading.

We should be ashamed of U.S. Unilateral Actions, not proud of them. They show our inability to be in communion with the world nations and to use or Social, Economic, and Military upper hand, as you have stated, to bring about peaceful change in the world. When we pick up the gun, we fail.

quote: Originally posted by mwm1331
The awnser to the threads question is simple. Because we can. We have the power militarily, financially, and socially. We are the worlds leader, and as such we are endowed with certan perrogitives and responibilities.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-3-2005 by 00PS]

Well john the US was never a democracy, at least not a pure democracy, in point of fact, the founding fathers warned us of the dangers inherant in a pure democracy.
However the concept of self rule through elected representation is fmrlu imbedded in every devolped nation, more to the point, it is nearly impossible to have a devolped nation without some form of self rule. Is it surprising that China's economic power increased when they began accepting capitalistic principles, or that the farther they move from comuunism the stronger they get econmically?
Capitalsm is IMHO, the natural economic counterpart to the political idea of democratic self rule. Both are about unfettered choice, ideally. Both are about giving all an opportunity for success. Neither guarantee any form of success as there is no way to do so without violating the core principles of those sytems, Nor are all mens opportunities equal, however both systems are characterised by the fact that all do have some opportunity.
In reference to inheritance laws I must ask why should we deny the right of those who are successful to pass on to thier children addtional opportunites? Isnt the desire to allow your children more opportunites than were extended to you one of the motivatng factors in becomming successful? More importantly isn't the ability to do so a natural law? Isn't the passing of traits which help insure survival to the next generaton the core tenet of evolution?
There will never be true and total equality, even should we pass a 100% death tax and ensure that no man no matter how rich may pass any opprtunities to his children, even if we seized all children at birth and raised them in a state controlled environment designed to give all children exactly equal opportunities, not all would have an equal abillty to capitalise on those opportunities.
However the capitalist sytme on an economic level, much like the democratic system on a politcal level, does ensure that no man will have his opportunites limited by anything other than himself. Any amercan has the abillity to become either the president or a billionaire, most will not, but that is more do to thier own inherant abillities to captialse on those opportunities which they recognise than any form of opression.

Oops, I saw just as many women votng in Iraq as men. In point of fact many women in bothIraq and Afghanistan ran for office as well as voted for those who did. Further more I have seen no evidence of Iraq creating a shria derived legal system.
As for losing rights, how do you figure?

Originally posted by mwm1331
Oops, I saw just as many women votng in Iraq as men. In point of fact many women in bothIraq and Afghanistan ran for office as well as voted for those who did. Further more I have seen no evidence of Iraq creating a shria derived legal system.
As for losing rights, how do you figure?

Sorry, you are going to have to do your own research on that one. It's not my responsibility to educate this. And obcviously we have different viewpoints that comes from our very different experience in life so let's just take a break. I do wish you would read some objective reports on the developments politically, socially and economically that may differ from your perspective, look at them critically of course but please be open to new ideas. Respectfully, -00ps

Oops I do look at it objectvley and gather my informaton from many varied news sources not the least of which are CNN, BBC, ATSNN,Al jazeerra,etc , as for "doing my research for me" you made a statement which I would expect you to be able to back up with verifiable evidence, saying that you could but don't have time to "educate me" is no different than the childhood comeback of "I know but if you don't I'm not gonna tell you"

Actually, if you have to ask me to back it up and cannot say, hmm yes I have seen reports of them but don't know what to think, then I don't want to discuss.

It is not my responsibility to educate and frankly because of my radical views I am always pushed into a position to do it and please understand it gets tiring.

If you truly haven't heard of things like this then I really think you should be reading some other news rather than what you are reading. There are different perceptions out there.

And, don't forget...many people 'want' you to think a certain way. Propaganda. Try to evade it.

Originally posted by 00PS
Actually, if you have to ask me to back it up and cannot say, hmm yes I have seen reports of them but don't know what to think, then I don't want to discuss.

It is not my responsibility to educate and frankly because of my radical views I am always pushed into a position to do it and please understand it gets tiring.

If you truly haven't heard of things like this then I really think you should be reading some other news rather than what you are reading. There are different perceptions out there.

And, don't forget...many people 'want' you to think a certain way. Propaganda. Try to evade it.

So in other words if I dont agree with you there is no point in you talking to me?
Sounds like someone who is unable to defend thier own postion and knows it. Or someone so fanatical they feel no proof is necessary. Iraqi's have more rights today than they did in 2001, if you can disprove this statement do so, if you can back up your allegations do so, otherwise you are simply talking out of your ass, not unlike the nutjobs who blindly believe the Queen of england is a baby eating reptllian, and I wll give you the same respect I give them.

well if you call me a nujob you will probably get a warn

I've done two threads here at ATSNN on how Iraqi women have had their status change as a result of the war...Do a search, research your own. You feel the burden of proof is on my of course you do, but why don't you have any motivation to research other peoples ideas instead of just sitting comfortably in your own?

Why should I support or research other peoples views? As the one making the statement it is up to you to support it not me.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Why should I support or research other peoples views? As the one making the statement it is up to you to support it not me.

And this is why we can't have open discussion. Because for you it's always arguing.

I am a lincoln Douglas debater. I know about burden of proof. The point is discussion can be and I stress can be different from debate. You want to debate, I'd rather discuss right now.

As a LD debater we have to prepare to debate the negative and affirmative of each side and be able to debate the side we might not necessarily believe in.

Yes that means we research the other person's side so as to have fruitful debate, not meaningless chatter which I regard this as. So MWM1331 I suggest we contact KANO and schedule a nice little debate between ourselves. I think the reoccuring theme between us is USA and the policies and culture of it's administration and the support by it's citizens.

Then I will invest all of my time to debate with you ideas, it's time intensive and I do it correctly, so please stop in this thread and the last pressing me and degrading me just to debate you, you want one, lets get one A REAL ONE.

00ps out

trabslation - You can not support your assertions.

Originally posted by mwm1331
trabslation - You can not support your assertions.

Are you afraid of having a debate in the debate forums moderated by KANO? I feel that is the only way we should communicate. Then and only then will I continue to discuss Ideas with you as I feel and I think others too see it very difficult to talk with you if you think differently then them.

EDIT: Once again please stop degrading me:

#1 nutjob

#2 Sounds like someone who is unable to defend thier own postion and knows it. Or someone so fanatical they feel no proof is necessary

#3 talking out of my *censored*

#4 do you allow others to think for you?

#5 You can not support your assertions

These statements you have made above are not helping any discussion happen. You want to have a debate, be respectful. And this is just a discussion thread, you want a debate, let's move to the debate forum.

I DARE YOU

[edit on 1-3-2005 by 00PS]

Originally posted by 00PS


Once again please stop degrading me:

#1 nutjob

#2 Sounds like someone who is unable to defend thier own postion and knows it. Or someone so fanatical they feel no proof is necessary

#3 talking out of my *censored*

#4 do you allow others to think for you?

#5 You can not support your assertions

These statements you have made above are not helping any discussion happen. You want to have a debate, be respectful. And this is just a discussion thread, you want a debate, let's move to the debate forum.

I DARE YOU

[edit on 1-3-2005 by 00PS]

Oops The more you post the lower my opinion of you becomes, this post perfectly llustrates your seeming inabillity to understand the written word. for example you claim I called you a "nutjob" however upon reading what I actually wrote,

Iraqi's have more rights today than they did in 2001, if you can disprove this statement do so, if you can back up your allegations do so, otherwise you are simply talking out of your ass, not unlike the nutjobs who blindly believe the Queen of england is a baby eating reptllian, and I wll give you the same respect I give them.

You wll see that I did not call you a nutjob rather I called those who beleve the queen of Englad s a baby eating reptillian nutjobs and compared your practice of making statements wthout provding proof of the accuracy of those statements to thier habit of doing the same. The comment "talking out of your ass" is an accepted way of stating in common terms that you are makng statements which are both inaccurate and unsupported, again ths is not an insult simply an obeservation. I fail to see how asking you whether or not you allow others to think for you can be considered degrading? I did not state that you do so I asked if you do. Furthermore I have yet to see you offer any evidence as to your assertions despite repeated requests for you to do so, and can only logically assume that you can not. Untill such a tme as you do provide evidence of your assertions I am completly justified in judging you unable to do so.

Basic readng comprehenson is required to understand any artcle, book, or essay, Based on the quoted post you do not demonstate the abillity to do so, this is also not an insult merley an observation based on your complete misunderstandng of rather simple sentances.

Again you are degrading me stating I don't have basic reading comprehension.

You are rude. Please, refer any future dialogue to me as a request to KANO for a debate in the debate forum.

And again you fail to demonstate basic reading comprehension, I stated that you have failed to demonstrate basic readng comprehension, not that you do not have it.

00PS, mwm1331, please take any personal conflicts you have to u2u, or a more appropriate venue, and let this thread get back on track.

Who is Organising these Spontaneous Popular Uprisings ?

John bull 1, you are theorizing on the "assumption" that all "spontaneous popular uprisings" are being funded by the US government. At least that's what I understand you are trying to say, but i don't see you offering much proof to back up what you are saying, you are using some pictures from the same "media" that you are critizicing to try to make your point, and just giving small hints that groups such as "Pora" are some sort of covert group being paid by the government of the US, but again without much information to back up what you say.

But, you knew there would be a but, if we use your same line of reasoning, all those demonstrations which are made against the US must be backed up and funded by those countries which want to overthrow the US government. Or somehow these demonstrators against the US and it's policies are exempt from being funded by oppresive regimes?



[edit on 1-3-2005 by Muaddib]

Well, if you're after definate proof of covert agency funding of opposition groups I've mentioned then I'm sorry.
However, here are some snippets which took only a minute or two to find.

I also want to say that I'm not criticising the established media i'm just pointing out their role in the grand scheme of things.

Originally posted by Muaddib
John bull 1, you are theorizing on the "assumption" that all "spontaneous popular uprisings" are being funded by the US government. At least that's what I understand you are trying to say, but i don't see you offering much proof to back up what you are saying, you are using some pictures from the same "media" that you are critizicing to try to make your point, and just giving small hints that groups such as "Pora" are some sort of covert group being paid by the government of the US, but again without much information to back up what you say.

As for evidence, there is plenty. Heck, read what the American Rep had to say about it.
www.house.gov...

And the Guardian, UK
www.truthout.org...

It's public knowledge that the US has a tendency of funding dissident groups, which is ironic since there tend to be minorities. It hopes to get enough people to form an "government in exile" and install that government when the situation is right. Unfortunetly, that "government" rarely has enough support internally, PM Allawi being the best example.

Originally posted by Muaddib
But, you knew there would be a but, if we use your same line of reasoning, all those demonstrations which are made against the US must be backed up and funded by those countries which want to overthrow the US government. Or somehow these demonstrators against the US and it's policies are exempt from being funded by oppresive regimes?

On the contrary, most of the demonstrations against the US (with obvious exceptions such as some of the Saddam ones) do seem to be quite geniune. Whether or not there are inspired by "propaganda" is up to debate but i have never seen reports of organisations paying others to start anti-US demonstrations. Frankly, none of them can be bothered.

The U.S have participated in some infamous coups recently, Venezuela being the prime example.