Europe's train wreck in slow motion

[edward777]

I'm sure you know that Al Jazeera isn't any better. And the fact that this story apparently doesn't get attention in any responsible centrist or center right publication is pretty telling.

Well, how much of the "center right" in the USA has reported on the US government facilitating the smuggling of guns to Mexican drug lords until just recently?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffre...urious-scandal

Second - actually, yeah. I do. Why wouldn't they? What cause do you have to suggest they don't? Are you suggesting they're all just misanthropes...or?

Well, we could always make reference to Mad Albright's comments regarding Iraqi sanctions: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o"]END WAR: Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It; UN Sanction Genocide - YouTube[/nomedia]

Or Hilary getting practically orgasmic over Kadaffi being killed: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in05uFkapBI"]Hillary ClintonThe Bitch Laughs About Gaddafi's Death - YouTube[/nomedia]

But I think the best evidence is the USA's unconditional support of the most repressive regime in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) and how the US backed them as well as Yemen's harsh crackdowns on protests during the so-called Arab Spring. Human rights is only invoked when a nation that does not march to the drums of US foreign policy does bad things. Selective morality is not morality.

[oxcoug]

Well, how much of the "center right" in the USA has reported on the US government facilitating the smuggling of guns to Mexican drug lords until just recently?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffre...urious-scandal



Well, we could always make reference to Mad Albright's comments regarding Iraqi sanctions: END WAR: Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It; UN Sanction Genocide - YouTube

Or Hilary getting practically orgasmic over Kadaffi being killed: Hillary ClintonThe Bitch Laughs About Gaddafi's Death - YouTube

But I think the best evidence is the USA's unconditional support of the most repressive regime in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) and how the US backed them as well as Yemen's harsh crackdowns on protests during the so-called Arab Spring. Human rights is only invoked when a nation that does not march to the drums of US foreign policy does bad things. Selective morality is not morality.

Your posts on this are getting more confusing, not less. Are we talking about Albright and Clinton? I thought we were talking about Cameron and Sarkozy.
Or ...... do you just like to bundle everyone holding a high level governing position in any western country into one basket?

And that paragraph on repressive regimes in the Middle East is more than a little muddled. While I'm not totally clear on what you're arguing I will simply point out that (a) US foreign policy is not monolithic - it changes with each administration, sometimes in a complete about face - so any critique that generalizes US foreign policy as doing any one thing is no critique at all; (b) selective morality is better than no morality - and in foreign policy you can't tackle everything at once and sometimes there are only two evils to choose between. The fact that Egypt is now careening toward a militarized theocracy is evidence of how liberal assumptions (people should be able to determine their own governments) can often produce illiberal outcomes - you want us to stop backing Saudi Arabia? Then you have an obligation to suggest a plausible outcome as to what will arise if the Kingdom collapses.

[edward777]

Your posts on this are getting more confusing, not less. Are we talking about Albright and Clinton? I thought we were talking about Cameron and Sarkozy.
Or ...... do you just like to bundle everyone holding a high level governing position in any western country into one basket?

And that paragraph on repressive regimes in the Middle East is more than a little muddled. While I'm not totally clear on what you're arguing I will simply point out that (a) US foreign policy is not monolithic - it changes with each administration, sometimes in a complete about face - so any critique that generalizes US foreign policy as doing any one thing is no critique at all; (b) selective morality is better than no morality - and in foreign policy you can't tackle everything at once and sometimes there are only two evils to choose between. The fact that Egypt is now careening toward a militarized theocracy is evidence of how liberal assumptions (people should be able to determine their own governments) can often produce illiberal outcomes - you want us to stop backing Saudi Arabia? Then you have an obligation to suggest a plausible outcome as to what will arise if the Kingdom collapses.

There is not a dime's worth of difference between globalist interventionists like Cameron, Obama or Sarkozy. They are not in it for helping the working/middle class. I hate to say it but Noah Chomsky is basically right about the ruling elite in most western societies.

As for bringing up Egypt why not deal with the hell that is now Libya? Maybe because the media ignores that one since the corporations are making their money? Come on, really...who cared about the Libyan people in the west? Who cares about the 50,000+ people killed so Europe could get its oil?

[oxcoug]

Who cares about the 50,000+ people killed so Europe could get its oil?

Ah - the old oil line, A conspiratorial favorite!

There is not a dime's worth of difference between globalist interventionists like Cameron, Obama or Sarkozy.

This is silly enough of a claim that I'll just roll my eyes and let it go. Esp the part abt Chomsky being right abt "ruling elites." Good lawd.

[edward777]

So you suppose things are different nowadays? Also, was this just a crazy conspiracy believer?

http://www.mormonchronicle.com/churc...of-government/

I regret to say, indeed I am almost ashamed to say, that at the moment, our military branches seem in almost complete control of our own government. They appear to dominate Congress, and under the circumstances, we may assume they are in sufficient control of our foreign relations to be able to set the international scene. To us who do not know, it looks clear that we are today getting the same sort of propaganda of half-truths, told in the same evasive ways, with equivalent hints and dark forebodings that preceded the last war. We are not justified in doubting, on the facts, we have, that we of the United States are, for the first time in our history, under a real threat from our military arm, and that if the plans of the militarists carry, we shall become as thoroughly militarized as was Germany at her best, or worst. Certain it is we are being generously dosed with that sovereign narcotic, which designing militarists have in the past always administered to their peoples, the doctrine that to ensure peace we must maintain a great army and gigantic armaments. But this ignores, indeed conceals, the unvarying historical fact that big armies have always brought, not peace, but war which has ended in a hate that in due course brings another war.

[edward777]

Ah - the old oil line, A conspiratorial favorite!

So why did those tens of thousands of people die then?

This is silly enough of a claim that I'll just roll my eyes and let it go. Esp the part abt Chomsky being right abt "ruling elites." Good lawd.

I will answer that with a quote from the founder of public relations and modern advertising Edward Bernays. If you have not heard of him that is no surprise...all he did was create modern consumerism.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."

[oxcoug]

So why did those tens of thousands of people die then?

What people? Where? When?

I will answer that with a quote from the founder of public relations and modern advertising Edward Bernays. If you have not heard of him that is no surprise...all he did was create modern consumerism.

You have a weird approach to conversation. Do you think knowing about Bernays is some kind of special knowledge? Super awesome quote. I can summarize my response to it in his native language.... na und?

Or if you prefer the English: How is it an answer to the concrete questions I'm asking? What does it mean? What does it prove? Or in brief: So what? (Answers: It's not. Not much in the this context. Nothing. Excellent question.)

[edward777]

What people? Where? When?

Libyans in Libya last year.

You have a weird approach to conversation. Do you think knowing about Bernays is some kind of special knowledge? Super awesome quote. I can summarize my response to it in his native language.... na und?

Or if you prefer the English: How is it an answer to the concrete questions I'm asking? What does it mean? What does it prove? Or in brief: So what? (Answers: It's not. Not much in the this context. Nothing. Excellent question.)

I brought up Chomsky who, while generally seen as left-leaning, is an expert on power as well as the language of manipulation. I had merely said he seems to get it right in regards to the western leaders and you mocked it. So I brought in Bernays since he said the same things as Chomsky, except he thought manipulation by corporations and politicians was acceptable.

Today we have a society not so concerned with politics as it is about politicians. Perfect environment for manipulation and that is why we are getting the kind of self-serving people rising to the top. So again if the mechanics of molding the public mind are the same in the west then is it a surprise we get the same experts at half-truths getting elected?

While this is a comedy sketch it carries a true message:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ5cGYBV2TQ"]Whitest Kids U'Know: Clint Webb - YouTube[/nomedia]

[taekwondave]

Go on. Tell me that handshake doesn't look familiar

[SCcoug]

Go on. Tell me that handshake doesn't look familiar

[Maximus]

that cant be real

[FMCoug]

that cant be real

Why not? Illuminati!