Discuss Blowback Here

[orion]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
There is a line in On The Road, which was written in 1951 by Jack Kerouac in which Sal makes a comment that he feels like an Arab bomber on his way to blow up New York City.

It seems to me the roots of Arab/Muslim terrorism go back much further than you portray. What you call blow back are merely excuses/justifications used by those that have declared a war on western civilization.

The roots of Islamic extremism are deep AMONG THE EXTREMISTS.

The blow back is in the form of more, normally moderate, Muslims starting to follow the extremists. Extremism wasn’t and isn’t caused by colonization or imperialism. But those things have not only prolonged it, but helped to expand it. Western aggressive interventionism has allowed the extremists to gain many more followers than they normally would have been able to garner.

Normal moderate Muslims don’t fly planes into buildings.

Normal moderate Muslims would be much less likely to become extremists if we stopped pissing them off.

And if you honestly think we can put a complete end to terrorism, you are a fool. Terrorism has and will always exist. We can only control how we react to it. By getting flustered and allowing ourselves to be drawn into many wars we are playing into the terrorists hands. Does anyone know if Foreign Affairs has an online version so I can go look up a really good article on this subject?
[/quote]

I think that a lot of Muslim extrememism stems from the fact that at least the Arab Muslim societies are such backwards shitholes though they were once were far superior to Wester culture.

Unfortunately their unified culture from the Arab peninsula to Marocco, much like imperial China, was a huge disincentive to change and so they just missed the opportunity to evolve which is also the underlying reason for colonialism/ imperialism.

Had they had the same economic means and weapons it would have never happened.

Of course they want what we have and they know their society cannot give it to them. In Saudi Arabia bay watch is a definite political statement.

But, knowing that they have monouvered themselves into a corner must we meddle in their affairs? Exactly because they are irrational they are unpredictable, and they only need an excuse.

As long as they find it, hatred of the West and oil money and military aid supplied by the West is what is keeping their societies together.

[Beowolf]

What they really need is an injection of diversity. In my opinion, democracy and freedom can not exist without diversity of thought, race, and religion.

[IvanDmitritch]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Most people are Socialists at heart. They want a guaranteed job, health care, schools for their kids, and so on. Capitalism is anathema to most, as it involves change. Humans instinctively shun change.

They therefore WANT a big powerful government that will deliver a happy life to them. They WANT cradle to grave security.

The caveat is that they want to control that powerful government by voting, yet such a government attracts the lowest form of humanity to it, people who enjoy exerting control over others. The officials seek way to subvert the votes.

So, we get the modern form of serfdom we have today.

While I think I agree with the jist of your post, would you mind explaining its correlation to “blowback?”

Sure. Creating a mixed economy, a moxture of good (capitalism) and evil (socialism), creates a government that seeks to insert itself where it doesn’t belong. A mixed economy attracts scum into government. The scum seek to expand their power. Does this involve overseas adventures? Sure. Exerting American influence in foreign lands is BOUND to create enemies, blowback.

Of course, that’s simply the price to be paid for having any sort of international business dealings. Would you invest YOUR money overseas if the money was at serious risk? No. That’s why a large military is necessary, to ensure and secure investments.

[/quote]

Gotcha. I think history certainly bears witness to this: wasn’t it during the Jefferson presidency that we first had to use force against Muslim “terrorists” – or, if you prefer, pirates – off the Barbary coast in order to secure economic interests? I’m not aware of any “blowback” from that, though.

Are you saying foreign investment is a mistake? or is it the government’s use of force in securing said investments that is a mistake? I guess I would argue that it isn’t the government’s job – at least it shouldn’t be – to use its power to secure the investments of private individuals. Because if that is indeed the underlying reason for our involvement in so many parts of the world, I think it does little in the long wrong but create a snowball effect: demanding ever increasing involvement in order to put out fires indirectly created by past incursions. If someone wants to take the risk of investing in a country or region rife with “assbackwardness,” (to invent a word) I say let them. I don’t know who said it but “commerce with all nations, alliance with none” – or something to that effect.

[lixy]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
What they really need is an injection of diversity. In my opinion, democracy and freedom can not exist without diversity of thought, race, and religion.[/quote]

They needed the West not to support Islamists and sabotage Arab Nationalism.

[orion]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Most people are Socialists at heart. They want a guaranteed job, health care, schools for their kids, and so on. Capitalism is anathema to most, as it involves change. Humans instinctively shun change.

They therefore WANT a big powerful government that will deliver a happy life to them. They WANT cradle to grave security.

The caveat is that they want to control that powerful government by voting, yet such a government attracts the lowest form of humanity to it, people who enjoy exerting control over others. The officials seek way to subvert the votes.

So, we get the modern form of serfdom we have today.

While I think I agree with the jist of your post, would you mind explaining its correlation to “blowback?”

Sure. Creating a mixed economy, a moxture of good (capitalism) and evil (socialism), creates a government that seeks to insert itself where it doesn’t belong. A mixed economy attracts scum into government. The scum seek to expand their power. Does this involve overseas adventures? Sure. Exerting American influence in foreign lands is BOUND to create enemies, blowback.

Of course, that’s simply the price to be paid for having any sort of international business dealings. Would you invest YOUR money overseas if the money was at serious risk? No. That’s why a large military is necessary, to ensure and secure investments.

[/quote]

Bullshit.

If they cannot secure their own country, do not invest there until they can.

By protecting even the worst assholes that provide “stability” (see SA), you remove any incentive for them to change.

It is just a fancy way of protecting the investments of some people at the cost of others, like bailing out failed companies.

[orion]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
What they really need is an injection of diversity. In my opinion, democracy and freedom can not exist without diversity of thought, race, and religion.

They needed the West not to support Islamists and sabotage Arab Nationalism.[/quote]

An then what?

They are still stuck in the 12th cebtury.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Most people are Socialists at heart. They want a guaranteed job, health care, schools for their kids, and so on. Capitalism is anathema to most, as it involves change. Humans instinctively shun change.

They therefore WANT a big powerful government that will deliver a happy life to them. They WANT cradle to grave security.

The caveat is that they want to control that powerful government by voting, yet such a government attracts the lowest form of humanity to it, people who enjoy exerting control over others. The officials seek way to subvert the votes.

So, we get the modern form of serfdom we have today.

While I think I agree with the jist of your post, would you mind explaining its correlation to “blowback?”

Sure. Creating a mixed economy, a moxture of good (capitalism) and evil (socialism), creates a government that seeks to insert itself where it doesn’t belong. A mixed economy attracts scum into government. The scum seek to expand their power. Does this involve overseas adventures? Sure. Exerting American influence in foreign lands is BOUND to create enemies, blowback.

Of course, that’s simply the price to be paid for having any sort of international business dealings. Would you invest YOUR money overseas if the money was at serious risk? No. That’s why a large military is necessary, to ensure and secure investments.

Bullshit.

If they cannot secure their own country, do not invest there until they can.

By protecting even the worst assholes that provide “stability” (see SA), you remove any incentive for them to change.

It is just a fancy way of protecting the investments of some people at the cost of others, like bailing out failed companies.

[/quote]

I can actually agree with Orion concerning SA. Though for different reasons, I think. Screw 'em.

Yes, if the Sauds fall an even more fanatical group of Islamists will take control. I don’t doubt that for a damned moment, trust me. But let them fall, and let the more fanatical behead, market bomb, oppress and brutalize their way to power. Let religious minorties and women suffer under an even greater yoke. Let them export an even greater amount of terrorism, more blatantly. Let the moderate muslims cower and fall silent under the new head cheese.

No nation building this time though, when we eventually go to war against them over the actions of their proxy armies. They’ll have to live with the consequences of not policing themselves. Iraq and Afghanistan will be the only muslim nations I’ll continue to support (though not forever) in such an effort. I’ll refrain from hijacking this thread with reasons why I’m making exceptions for those countries.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Most people are Socialists at heart. They want a guaranteed job, health care, schools for their kids, and so on. Capitalism is anathema to most, as it involves change. Humans instinctively shun change.

They therefore WANT a big powerful government that will deliver a happy life to them. They WANT cradle to grave security.

The caveat is that they want to control that powerful government by voting, yet such a government attracts the lowest form of humanity to it, people who enjoy exerting control over others. The officials seek way to subvert the votes.

So, we get the modern form of serfdom we have today.

While I think I agree with the jist of your post, would you mind explaining its correlation to “blowback?”

Sure. Creating a mixed economy, a moxture of good (capitalism) and evil (socialism), creates a government that seeks to insert itself where it doesn’t belong. A mixed economy attracts scum into government. The scum seek to expand their power. Does this involve overseas adventures? Sure. Exerting American influence in foreign lands is BOUND to create enemies, blowback.

Of course, that’s simply the price to be paid for having any sort of international business dealings. Would you invest YOUR money overseas if the money was at serious risk? No. That’s why a large military is necessary, to ensure and secure investments.

Bullshit.

If they cannot secure their own country, do not invest there until they can.

By protecting even the worst assholes that provide “stability” (see SA), you remove any incentive for them to change.

It is just a fancy way of protecting the investments of some people at the cost of others, like bailing out failed companies.

I can actually agree with Orion concerning SA. Though for different reasons, I think. Screw 'em.

Yes, if the Sauds fall an even more fanatical group of Islamists will take control. I don’t doubt that for a damned moment, trust me. But let them fall, and let the more fanatical behead, market bomb, oppress and brutalize their way to power. Let religious minorties and women suffer under an even greater yoke. Let them export an even greater amount of terrorism, more blatantly. Let the moderate muslims cower and fall silent under the new head cheese.

No nation building this time though, when we eventually go to war against them over the actions of their proxy armies. They’ll have to live with the consequences of not policing themselves. Iraq and Afghanistan will be the only muslim nations I’ll continue to support (though not forever) in such an effort. I’ll refrain from hijacking this thread with reasons why I’m making exceptions for those countries.[/quote]

Pottery Barn rule?

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:

Pottery Barn rule?[/quote]

Break it you bought it? Nope. Let’s say it’s a choice, a chance, if you will.

[The_Mage]

Blowback? Yes everything has the unintended consequences.

If we react to extremism there are going to be negative reactions. But it is also true that there will be negative reactions if we do not.

Just like when the government took on the mafia. The mafia fought back. Many police and FBI lost their lives due to taking on the mafia. Does that mean we should leave organized crime alone?

When the Ottoman Empire fell, the blowback was that one man came up with the theory that the Muslims were failing only because they were not following following the doctrines as absolutely. This was where Muslim extremism began. And about 100 years later here we are.

Now the question is what is the blowback if we use force to keep Iran from having nukes? What are the consequences if we don’t?

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:

They needed the West not to support Islamists and sabotage Arab Nationalism.[/quote]

Hard to do when the Arab Nationalists were anti-Western and mostly pro-Soviet.

[lixy]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hard to do when the Arab Nationalists were anti-Western and mostly pro-Soviet.[/quote]

Of course they were. Their lands were occupied by the West not the Soviets.

Most of them were non-aligned though.

[Magnate]

[quote]orion wrote:
An then what?

They are still stuck in the 12th cebtury.

[/quote]

Am I supposed to give two shits that a region of the world has not advanced on pace with another? I don’t see why the burden of their failed society is placed on the successful regions of the world.

What about parts of Africa? There are tribal groups there, far behind the 12th century, should we move in and try to make them advance to modern day too?

[Headhunter]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
There is a line in On The Road, which was written in 1951 by Jack Kerouac in which Sal makes a comment that he feels like an Arab bomber on his way to blow up New York City.

It seems to me the roots of Arab/Muslim terrorism go back much further than you portray. What you call blow back are merely excuses/justifications used by those that have declared a war on western civilization.

The roots of Islamic extremism are deep AMONG THE EXTREMISTS.

The blow back is in the form of more, normally moderate, Muslims starting to follow the extremists. Extremism wasn’t and isn’t caused by colonization or imperialism. But those things have not only prolonged it, but helped to expand it. Western aggressive interventionism has allowed the extremists to gain many more followers than they normally would have been able to garner.

Normal moderate Muslims don’t fly planes into buildings.

Normal moderate Muslims would be much less likely to become extremists if we stopped pissing them off.

And if you honestly think we can put a complete end to terrorism, you are a fool. Terrorism has and will always exist. We can only control how we react to it. [/quote]

By being craven and begging them to please leave us alone? By never fighting back because it might ‘piss them off’?

Testosterone Cyp and Enan are cheap. Get some soon!!!

[Headhunter]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Would you invest YOUR money overseas if the money was at serious risk?

Do you HAVE to invest your money overseas?

On a side note, my mum likes investing in sub-Saharan Africa. You know, the kind of places where you get a coup every month. It’s extremely risky but the pay-offs are immense.[/quote]

No, but undeveloped economies offer good rewards, esp if you can get them rolling, as in Southeast Asia.

You should like international investing Lixy: Without the 3rd world would suffer immensely.

[lixy]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No, but undeveloped economies offer good rewards, esp if you can get them rolling, as in Southeast Asia. [/quote]

I wasn’t actually expecting you to answer that, but it’s refreshing to see some intellectual honesty.

Look, if you don’t like a country, don’t invest in it. It’s certainly not the job of the government to kill and bomb people to make you invest. We kept hearing about how Chavez’s reforms hurt oil companies. They tried to oust him, they cried and screamed like little girls and complained that their multi-billion dollar profit will fall. Yet, when all said and done, they came back begging for a piece of the pie.

It’s about choice, respect, and sovereignty.

You should like international investing Lixy: Without the 3rd world would suffer immensely.

International investments? Sure.

At gunpoint? Like hell I don’t!

[Headhunter]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No, but undeveloped economies offer good rewards, esp if you can get them rolling, as in Southeast Asia.

I wasn’t actually expecting you to answer that, but it’s refreshing to see some intellectual honesty.

Look, if you don’t like a country, don’t invest in it. It’s certainly not the job of the government to kill and bomb people to make you invest. We kept hearing about how Chavez’s reforms hurt oil companies. They tried to oust him, they cried and screamed like little girls and complained that their multi-billion dollar profit will fall. Yet, when all said and done, they came back begging for a piece of the pie.

It’s about choice, respect, and sovereignty.

You should like international investing Lixy: Without the 3rd world would suffer immensely.

International investments? Sure.

At gunpoint? Like hell I don’t![/quote]

The trouble with international investing is that some thug comes down from the jungle and simply decides to ‘nationalize’ your investment. Not only is that immoral, but it is the common people who suffer — the thug deposits the assets in a Swiss account and no one will invest in that country any longer.

If you ran a mutual fund, Lixy, would you put any of your investors’ hard-earned money into Venezuela? Sudan? Iran? Nigeria? Zimbabwe? No, you would not. That would be irresponsible.

Why do you think Africa is mostly a shit pit? Even people with money THERE seek to get it out as quickly as possible. Who wants to give their wealth to Robert Mugabe?

I think if your life savings had been confiscated by Hugo Chavez (aka Satan), you’d be the first one screaming for the United States Marines to go in and recover your hard-earned money.

But wait, don’t you want to help the poor people of Venezuela? LMAO!!!

[lixy]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I think if your life savings had been confiscated by Hugo Chavez (aka Satan), you’d be the first one screaming for the United States Marines to go in and recover your hard-earned money [/quote]

Chavez has waaayyy more legitimacy than your president, so don’t even go there.

The people of Venezuela gave him a mandate to reform things and that’s what he is doing. He ran on a Bolivarian platform and his actions are consistent with his campaign promises.

If a greedy suburban American invests money in Venezuela and he loses it, tough luck. Nobody forced him/her to take the risk of foreign markets when he/she could have put it in a local bank and collected interest on it. The people of Venezuela realized that they were being pillaged and demanded change. I say good for them!

[The_Mage]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Chavez has waaayyy more legitimacy than your president, so don’t even go there.[/quote]

Bush won 2 elections, Chavez won 1, and faked one. Quit the propaganda.

The people of Venezuela gave him a mandate to reform things and that’s what he is doing. He ran on a Bolivarian platform and his actions are consistent with his campaign promises.

Yes, he fooled the people, and now they have to live with their choice, unless they rise up, and I doubt that will happen soon.[quote]

If a greedy suburban American invests money in Venezuela and he loses it, tough luck. Nobody forced him/her to take the risk of foreign markets when he/she could have put it in a local bank and collected interest on it. The people of Venezuela realized that they were being pillaged and demanded change. I say good for them![/quote]

Lets see. If you invest, you are greedy? Steeling is good?

Sounds like your politics are based on jealousy. Anyway do not think of a savings account as an investment. It can make the difference between retiring securely, or in poverty.

[lixy]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Bush won 2 elections, Chavez won 1, and faked one. Quit the propaganda. [/quote]

Propaganda? The 2000 election was as close a win as it gets. Chavez’s victory was a landslide (and I don’t mean that in the “American politics” sense - I mean REAL landslide). The subsequent election was monitored by a myriad of neutral international governments and agencies and declared clean. Despite a razor thin margin and a fierce controversy surrounding the results, not a single monitoring organization or foreign government confirmed Bush’s victory.

Yes, he fooled the people, and now they have to live with their choice, unless they rise up, and I doubt that will happen soon.

He sure turned out to be a son of a stitch, but that’s no reason to send in the Marines as HH is calling for, now is it?

Lets see. If you invest, you are greedy? Steeling is good?

The welfare of the starving Venezuelans takes precedence over the 62" flat-screen TV the foreign investor was going to buy.

You invest money in foreign markets when you have food on your table and a roof over your head. A typical investor in the case HH was talking about, has a car, a bank account, a computer, a fridge, etc…
Most of the Venezuelans who elected Chavez don’t have any of those things. They barely make ends meet and often go hungry for lack of financial resources.

You don’t NEED to invest your savings (that’s a keyword here) in Venezuela.

Sounds like your politics are based on jealousy. Anyway do not think of a savings account as an investment. It can make the difference between retiring securely, or in poverty.

Yeah, yeah, we’re jealous of your freedoms, money, and over-sized dicks.