Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
denoir

International Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Spokespersons logic is now very easy to list and show as flawed. Thank you for answering my questions.

- Government serves you.

- Businesses always bid for the lowest wage.

- The government wants to support you.

- You have a say in a "Democratic" society and economy.

- Government run businesses are more efficient.

- Capitalism creates its own self supporting laws.

- Capitalism is a dictatorship.

- Nationalization is fair.

These are the points I stress to you.

- Government only serves itself like any other business.

- Free Market provides more options.

- In a real free market, public bribery is against the law.

- If bribery laws are enforced, then capitalists do not create their own laws.

- Fraud is punished.

- All individuals have the right to own thier own property.

- All individuals have the freedom to start their own business.

- In a REAL free market, the economy and government are completely disconnected, except for when a business breaks the law.

- Businesses will always have to provide a high enough wage in order to drive labor and compete with the wages of other businesses.

- Businesses will always have to lower prices to increase demand.

- Hyperinflation, capital destruction, and currency manipulation do not exist.

You seem to focus a lot more on attacking capitalism then educating yourself about communism.

- In democratic communism, the majority rules on everything. Even if its 51% to 49%

- People always vote themselves more money then other people.

- Everybody wants to get rich regardless.

- There is absolutely no competition to justify a better and lower priced product, nor enough competition to make the bureaucracy more efficient.

- Nobody will listen to you, spokesperson.

- Wages continually decrease, but only enough so citizens don't revolt.

- Anything you vote for yourself will often seem unfair to other people, and will quickly be silenced.

- Politicians will lie, and do anything neccessary just to get money, power, and control.

- You no longer have the right to life, liberty, and property.

- The majority makes that decision for you.

- You elect a dictator.

- Game over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spokesperson are you hired or are you really that indoctrinated?

In many former "socialist" countries from the Warsaw Pact the command economy was an economy of scarcity.

What are you thinking why the people demonstrated, why they were taking this risk against the government and secret police?

What about the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and human dignity in socialist or communist countries? There are enough examples how such governments are blinding and scaring their own people.

If you can take a ticket and travel around the world - only be sure that you put down your red glasses before. Practical experience vs. theories ;)

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who's indoctrinated. I criticize what I see, and I am capable of thinking. If I were indoctrinated I would be following the ideals of the ruling class of the country where I live in, and where I grew up. I don't. You probably do. So you're the ones who are indoctrinated. But you can't see it and accuse me of being that.

An economy is always an economy of scarcity, and there are many more important issues than if you can buy the latest plasma TV from Japan or not.

Some people demonstrated because they thought the grass was greener on the other side. Or they were religious, nationalists, fascist, anti-socialist etc. Today a lot of people think it was better before. You would think that 20 years of any rule would've made the countries progress, but no.

Human rights and freedom of speech is much more respected in socialist countries than in capitalists ones.

Read this for example:

June 11th, 2009

Cuba Recognized in the Human Rights Council

On Wednesday June 10, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), presented on February 5 and 9 of 2009. On that occasion, the Cuban delegation was headed by Justice Minister María Esther Reus and current Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez.

During the Council debate, the majority of state and nongovernmental organization representatives that spoke acknowledged the significant achievements of the Cuban people and government in the promotion and protection of all human rights for everyone. Appreciation of Cuba’s cooperation in solidarity and a demand for the end of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States was likewise expressed by the majority.

Our country informed the Council on the follow-up it has been undertaking in the context of the previously drafted constructive and respectful recommendations on cases pertaining to it.

Cuba reaffirmed its commitment to the strengthening of international cooperation on human rights issues and to the UN Human Rights Council, which must be based on the principles of universality, objectivity, impartiality and non-selectiveness.

After 20 years of unjust anti-Cuban manipulations on the issue of human rights in Geneva – defeated in 2007 – the positive outcome of the consideration of the country by the Human Rights Council’s UPR mechanism constitutes an important victory for the Cuban people.

The exemplary achievements of the Cuban Revolution in relation to human rights have been acknowledged once again by the international community. It has not been possible to silence the truth.

- Government serves you.

- Businesses always bid for the lowest wage.

- The government wants to support you.

- You have a say in a "Democratic" society and economy.

- Government run businesses are more efficient.

- Capitalism creates its own self supporting laws.

- Capitalism is a dictatorship.

- Nationalization is fair.

A socialist government serves me. Not a capitalist one.

Planned business are more efficient.

Nationalization doesn't have to be "fair", it's in the interests of a majority.

- Free Market provides more options.

Like what?

- In a real free market, public bribery is against the law.

And it isn't in any kind of society?

- If bribery laws are enforced, then capitalists do not create their own laws.

Capitalism -has- to be enforced through the laws, otherwise you have another kind of system.

- Fraud is punished.

You state the obvious.

- Hyperinflation, capital destruction, and currency manipulation do not exist.

They do. It's built in into the system. Capitalism isn't stable, because it's based on economic anarchy. It's like throwing a dice.

- People always vote themselves more money then other people.

That's laughable. Then why don't people do it in this kind of society?

- Everybody wants to get rich regardless.

Yes, if one has grown up in capitalism, one usually gets capitalist ideals. But not always.

The rest of your points are just biased and non-scientific. You wouldn't get away with those in kindergarten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free market provides more options because there are more competing businesses, more opportunities for employment, and more self reliance.

Yes, bribery is usualy against the law. And so will it in your "government" that you seem to think is so reliable. However, in mine, the population is used to being independent. Unlike your cattle population. Every now and then, the population must revolt to reset system.

You completely take my laws statement out of context. Laws are needed to run any system, but in this one, the capitalists do not have permission to write laws, nor permission to bribe.

On the free market having control of the money supply. Thats just about the most stupid thing you've said so far. They simply do not, as its written in the rules of the free market that control of the money supply is no longer capitalism. As capitalism is defined as using wealth to increase production, to increase demand, and to finaly increase wealth to then start the cycle over again. Increasing wealth is NOT creating money...

In communism, people always try to vote themselves money. Its called voting to raise their wage, or voting to increase welfare. Its pretty popular, and pretty useless. It often only creates stagnation because nobody wants to work when money is free.

Everybody does want to get rich, everybody wants to live. There is a reason why the soviet union collapsed. There is a reason why people want to become politicians.

There are plenty of examples where central economic planning has failed. North korea, soviet union, argentina, united states, france, UK, china, mexico... It will go on. Hyperinflation is a direct result of central economic planning, as a country prints its own money to temporarly survive and support its bad habits, it eventualy leads to an inflationary depression. That is rapid inflation and high unemployment. Food shortages have occured in all these countries because of central economic planning. The great depression and the current depression in the United States were all a result of central economic planning.

You seem to think of the economy as one thing, but its not. The economy is made up of many things. More things then you can think of. The fact you think one central entity can control the entire economy and provide prosperity is arrogant. Only free individuals can make sure that where there is demand, there is production. All the government will try to do is exploit your stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats your take on the Iran situation? There seems like people are protesting alot and won't stop to do it in the near future.

The swedish internet activists are also helping the Iranian people maintain comm's by providing proxy servers so that the Iranian people can access the net and still be able to comunicate even though the regime is trying to block out sites like twitter and facebook ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be a 51% vs 49% scenario.

Which means if the very large minority go ballistic and keep going ballistic they will overthrow the system and then proceed to oppress the other 51%.

Sweden ought to have the good sense to mind it's own business. Everyone is going to have to deal with the winner of this. Whoever it turns out to be.

If Sweden backs the loser, like America did in the last revolution there, you will have gained a bitter enemy that teaches their children to sing "death to Sweden" in schools.

I'm sort of hopeful the current government will be able to sort out some sort of liberal friendly compromises. I think it's more likely that no one will be able to get what they want rather than everyone, or either party.

But er.. I have no idea, I'll make my mind up properly when it's all over.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should probably be mentioned that people with the proxy servers are pirates and do not represent the Swedish government.

Seriously though, I cant understand how you can fear and respect something turning into a oppresive religious dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sort of depends on what the other options are really.

If that oppressive religious dictatorship is an improvement, it's an improvement. Any step in the right direction is a good one.

Life in Iran has been changing fast since the revolution, and for the better.

If the rival factions of the people are unable to find a habitable middle ground, I think it will be much worse for all of them.

With regards to the Swedish, if the actions of the people are not represented by their government, perhaps they should think about rioting too.

If a country has an issue with the actions of another countries populace it is traditionally their government who will be held to account, but then if Iran nukes them, it won't just be their government that gets burnt alive.

Or as is more likely if pro Iranian elements start kidnapping Swedish people and blowing up their intrests abroad, government ministers are the last Swedes likely to be in danger.

We don't represent our people in this matter isn't really an excuse that is going to cut much mustard.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was speaking to a student in the UK who is from Iran about the protests briefly. Lots of activity, especially on e.g. Facebook which although is being blocked is still useful, at least for those abroad. Many other social networks are being blocked too, or specific parts of them. An interesting note he made was that the cost of voting abroad increased drastically this year. Most Iranians abroad were voting for the opposition. No idea how this will swing.

Unrelated, and more country-specific domestic politics, but just saw this on BBC which was quite shocking: SA Rape Survey

"One in 20 men surveyed said they had raped a woman or girl in the last year"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a genocide was going on in another country the rest of the world should just 'mind its own business'? It's obvious by the methods that the Iranian government is using that it's in the wrong here, as if more proof was needed. And supporting a liberal opposition movement in Iran can hardly be equated with with US's support for the dictatorial Shah.

It seems to me that the 'free' countries of the world, if they really value freedom and human rights, are obliged to side with the Iranians and anyone else who opposes their despotic governments in pursuit of a more democratic state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to what came before, what they have is a most democratic government. Getting more democratic every day.

I can't think of any other society currently progressing faster than theirs.

The encouragement of any great social turmoil at this point could quite possibly result in a genocide.

Do you value freedom and human rights enough to sacrifice your political sensebilities?

I hope both sides in Iran do.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were the case that the Iranian government resorted to such measures, i.e., mass killings of its citizens for demanding greater freedom, then the international community and signatories of the Genocide Convention would be obliged to act. It would be a completely counter productive move for the Iranian government to resort to any such measures.

In any case, I don't think any external country really is encouraging unrest in Iran. What's going on there is a result of the government's own oppressive policies. And it may be that it's an improvement upon the previous regime, but that doesn't by any means make it any more valid or worthy of being in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being obliged to act is one thing, being capable of it is another.

Not to mention that any outside threat would pretty much unify them into one cohesive force on the spot. If there is one thing they all hate more than their government, it's us.

As for it's validity, does a large riotous minority have more validity to rule than a quiet majority simply because they are more vocal?

That's not democracy as I understand it. They need to find a happy medium.

The moderates are clearly too large a faction to be ignored, but then so are the conservatives.

Who is fit to rule? In my opinion anyone who can prevent this turning into a full blown civil war 100% meets the criteria. Moderate or conservative, theocrat or democrat. Elected minister or dictator. Anyone who can keep a lid on this passes my valid rulership test.

If oppression is what it takes to stop genocide, then I'm all for oppression. I'm not sure oppression is the answer this time myself, but it's worked before.

Plenty of external countries have been inciting political unrest in Iran for about 30 years now. American and Israeli agents in particular. Recently (this year) there has been a large upsurge of Israeli infiltration in particular and no end of foriegn journalists have been expelled.

Foreign news sources are being censored on the internet.

The BBC even has an Iranian broadcasting channel. We've been beaming propaganda at them for years.

The Swedes apparently have been actively supporting the moderates. Twitter has also, delaying it's server maintenance time while the "rioters" still need it's service to organise their protests.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is a literal translation. It does not guarantee that a majority will rule, simply the strongest most active group of people. And in the case of majoritarian democracy, it is highly flawed, just like its literal definition. When the the majority rules, does it really guarantee freedom? Or is it simply a method of control where the majority denies rights to the minority?

Most of these "democratic" nations often fall into this trap and quickly destroy themselves. But it is important to realize that if its not your country then its none of your business, and you shouldn't intervene with foreign politics. Wars are usually started this way.

If a country revolts and wants a more free nation, then the best way to support that is to implement equal individual rights policies. Just like the now ignored bill of rights in the United States Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@POTS

Yes, that's how WWII began. But I wouldn't for a moment say that resisting the spread of fascism in Europe was the wrong thing to do, even if it wasn't the UK that was invaded. Some wars are necessary, but I don't necessarily think that a war with Iran is what's called for.

You're right about the failings of Democracy, too. And yes, the best way to secure a free country would be to ratify a secular constitution that guarantees individual rights, religious freedom, etc. I think that's a large part of the problem in Iran, that religion is inextricable from politics and the government follows rather authoritarian policies.

@Baff1

I do think the international community could act, for example, by imposing sanctions, arms embargos, etc. I also don't agree that any intervention would lead the Iranians to rally to the side of the government. I'm sure there are those within Iran who would not object to receiving external help from other countries.

If you're content with another dictator coming to power or the same regime remaining in power then you must expect that this unrest will continue, since dictatorial government is the problem in the first place. The only way I can see an authoritarian regime preserving 'peace' in Iran would be by force and that, of course, would defy the point entirely.

Also, Western involvement in Iran's politics goes back further than 30 years. The overthrowing of Iran's government in 1953 and the installing of the Shah by Western powers arguably gave the main impetus for the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when people cry out for help will you act or stand idle?

I dunno If I would sacrifice my life but I understand the common people trying to do the little they can to support the passage ways of free communication , Eg the internet :)

And I don't think all the Iranian and other refuges left their countries just because of the Nice swedish winters here :D

maybe it was the rumoured swedish blondes? Or was it the undemocratic way their country was being run and people being sent to joil and harrassed all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The united states has spent trillions and trillions of dollars on wasted "wars". The last honest war was ww2. We've hurt our own domestic people and caused domestic poverty trying to help foreign nations. That is whats messed up, our view that we are "helping somebody". In order for us to help other people, we have to sacrifice our own. It would be nice for us to help other nations, but we simply end up destroying them, and spend trillions getting our selves into debt. We just cant afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated, and more country-specific domestic politics, but just saw this on BBC which was quite shocking: SA Rape Survey

"One in 20 men surveyed said they had raped a woman or girl in the last year"

The link now says "1 in 4". F--k, that country has some seroius issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The united states has spent trillions and trillions of dollars on wasted "wars". The last honest war was ww2. We've hurt our own domestic people and caused domestic poverty trying to help foreign nations. That is whats messed up, our view that we are "helping somebody". In order for us to help other people, we have to sacrifice our own. It would be nice for us to help other nations, but we simply end up destroying them, and spend trillions getting our selves into debt. We just cant afford it.

Look where that position got Ron Paul. I'd like to be more isolationist, but I imagine it would take a truly catastrophic defeat (Far worse than Vietnam, so Iraq isn't going to cut it) to turn the American people as a whole into isolationists. In particular, the power of the American military makes moral crusades inevitable. You can't have that much power sitting around and not expect politicians to want to take the toys out for a spin.

Edited by Sertorius21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look where that position got Ron Paul. I'd like to be more isolationist, but I imagine it would take a truly catastrophic defeat (Far worse than Vietnam, so Iraq isn't going to cut it) to turn the American people as a whole into isolationists. In particular, the power of the American military makes moral crusades inevitable. You can't have that much power sitting around and not expect politicians to want to take the toys out for a spin.

Isolationism and Non-interventionism are not the same thing. Isolationism involves complete shut off of trade with the world. Its more of a economic term than a military one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, example of isolation: In the WW-II, the nations comunity imposed a right sanction on

germany that banned the weapons trading with germany; then, George Prescott Bush

(grandpa of G.W. Bush) intervent with other 3 men (one from the America's Bank) to send

some Remington weapons to the germans, bypassing the "friendly" sea and land barriers to

prevent the germans to adquire more, better or just new war equipment.

By the way, those other 3 men were the same ones that tryed to overthrow the EEUU

president back in the 30s, but they "choosen" a high rank USMC hero from the WW-I to

be "the face" of that "new regime" friend of the nazis and they failed (at that time) in a

miserable way; because as couldn't be in other way... the Marine standed at the side of

his president, elected for the EEUU people. This didn't had any consecuence for those

4 men pointed in a tribunal as the leaders, supporters and ideologysts of that complot,

the charges on 'em were thrown and they were declared as "not guilty" of treason.

The America's Bank had links with the Bormann's network, the Thyessen Krupt and the

former Mushlims Brothers Brotherhood; which in 1956 splitted up in various groups and

now the most famous one is knows as: Al-Qaeda.

There're forms of "isolation" that don't work and will never work and much less when they

have this kind of scum or spoilers making holes in the point of this "strategy". We should

stay as far as we could from internal problems, Iran already had enough of "western culture"

when the EEUU helped the ayatolah to "win the control" of that republic and do many more

things on other places "helping" to create the world that we see now on the TV and worst;

the world that we don't see on the TV... . Let's C ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@POTS

@Baff1

I do think the international community could act, for example, by imposing sanctions, arms embargos, etc. I also don't agree that any intervention would lead the Iranians to rally to the side of the government. I'm sure there are those within Iran who would not object to receiving external help from other countries.

If you're content with another dictator coming to power or the same regime remaining in power then you must expect that this unrest will continue, since dictatorial government is the problem in the first place. The only way I can see an authoritarian regime preserving 'peace' in Iran would be by force and that, of course, would defy the point entirely.

Also, Western involvement in Iran's politics goes back further than 30 years. The overthrowing of Iran's government in 1953 and the installing of the Shah by Western powers arguably gave the main impetus for the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Can the international community place more sanctions on Iran?

None of the existing sanctions seem to be working.

Im content with a dictator coming to power if he can stop the unrest.

But I'm content eitherway, I don't live there. No one I love lives there.

It should not be lost on your that Arhamedinejad was not the Ayatollahs prefered candidate in the election before this. When Arhamedinejad was originally elected it was inspite of the Ayatollahs wishes. The ruling council didn't get their way last time. It's not a top down dictatorship or even a top down theocracy. He was the "Mousavvi" of the election 5 years ago, only unlike Mousavvi today, he won it.

The idea that Iran is under the rule of some despotic dictator is frankly laughable.

If you don't respect the democratically elected wishes of the country just because you don't personally happen to agree with their choice or governments policies, the problem is with you, not them.

I agree that western involvement in Iran has a long history. I notice the Ayatollah singled out Britain today. LOL.

Somehow I'm failing to feel indignant about his comments.

I also concur with the above statements about democracy, the protection of minorities is an intrinsic principle. As is consentual rule. In order to remain a democracy the Iranian government has to get the moderates onside with the system, even if they are not onside with the ruling party. If they won't respect the results of the poll, then there is no longer any democracy in Iran.

when people cry out for help will you act or stand idle?

That would depend on who they are, what I am able to do to help and what it would cost me to do so.

One thing is for sure, I wouldn't talk about helping when I was planning to do nothing. That's not something I go in for.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

The link now says "1 in 4". F--k, that country has some seroius issues.

(1-4 has raped, 1-20 has raped in the last year.)

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not be lost on your that Arhamedinejad was not the Ayatollahs prefered candidate in the election before this.

All candidates that can be voted for in Iran are preferred candidates of the Ayatollahs. After all there is not a bit of democracy in the Iranian System.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the same in my democracy too. The political hierarchies choose the candidates, we just get to vote from the available choice they make.

Not that I would be willing to defend Britain as an especially democratic country at this time either.

The difference in Iran is that the head of state in Iran personally endorses one candidate before each election, which doesn't happen here.

This time he endorsed Arhamedinejad, who won by a landslide.

Last time he endorsed Arhamedinejads rival, but Arhmedinejad won by a landslide then too.

America has a better system where you vote for the actual presidential candidate yourself I believe.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Baff1

Well, if a conflict were to break out in Iran, we could probably stop Russia and China from selling them weapons with which to massacre their people.

And Iran is a theocracy and that's why its laws are based on Islamic precepts. Also, the Iranian government may not be as bad as North Korea's but it's still pretty bad when it tells its people how to dress or what music they can listen to. It also kills people for changing their religion from Islam.

The part about not 'respecting' the democratic wishes of some of Iran's people is rather fatuous. You see, it's not just 'my problem' or my bias against their government's policies that's the problem. Rather, I see the problem as being the fact that the Iranian government does oppress its people. It does stone women for adultery, it does kill people for apostasy, it does kill people for being homosexual.

I'm sure you understand that just because a group of the population may approve of this, it still doesn't make it right. It's not about some cultural relativism, it's about morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been trying to stop Russia and China selling Iran weapons for the last 30 years.

We've never managed to yet.

My countries laws are based on Christian precepts. My head of state is head of the church. Prime ministers are not allowed to be Catholic.

When you look at all the genocides between the conflicting religions of nearby countries like Israel and Iraq, you've got to conceed that a unified national religion is of some small benefit to a society such as theirs. It's not an entirely stupid concept.

You should also be aware that Iran allows for other religions in it's society. The Jewish faith for example is a practising and legal religion in Iran.

I understand that you do not feel homosexuality or adultery is a crime, and tht you do not feel it is a crime worthy of execution. I also understand that you don't like their methods of execution. I feel the same.

But your morals are a product of your culture, as are mine, and not some intrinsicly higher state of enlightenment.

Likewise I also do not find hanging, electrocution, firing squads or lethal poisoning in any way moral.

I don't agree with outlawed abortion, torture or euthanasia either.

And yet plenty of countries do these sorts of evil things.

Just because something is morally right for me, doesn't mean it is morally right for every one.

I'm not a fascist.

My morality doesn't allow me to force my belief system onto other people who do not share it.

I wish them to be free to choose for themselves, just as I wish my own society to be free to choose ours.

The Iranian people make and enforce their own laws.

They do so under a democratic system. They have an advanced judicial system.

Just because you don't share their principles and sensebilities, doesn't make you any more moral than them. It doesn't make your society any more just than theirs.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×