Alternative Thoughts

[metallicdistort]

Indeed, it's all speculation really, lacking solid evidence. I think we should forget about stuff like that, and concentrate on the issues on hand that we know exist.

 

[Ocelot2010]

Yeah, I was watching Zeitgeist's thing on the Federal Reserve, and it trailed off into conspiracy theories about the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11...

I wanted to know about why the Federal Reserve is bad!

 

[metallicdistort]

Zeitgeist is a load of bollocks, don't take most of the things it says seriously. However, sometimes it makes good points, the stuff about the Lusitania is true, but most of the rest of it is made up of halftruths and pure lies, and has been repeatedly debunked.

 

[Ocelot2010]

I don't, it's boring and it sounds more like a high school project than any sort of professional documentary.

 

[metallicdistort]

Haha so true, a highschool project where the student didn't do any research, so made up half of their "evidence"

 

[Ocelot2010]

Yeah, although I had found the Federal Reserve to already be crooked before I even watched Zeitgeist, never liked those fucks. I just was wondering if there was anything else about them that I should know, all I got was theory and evil bankers.

 

[metallicdistort]

I'm not really that knowledgeable about the Federal Reserve, so I probably won't be able to tell you anything you don't already know. Podgie might be able to however

 

[Ocelot2010]

Control of the money supply is a dangerous thing really. I know that they actually printed and loaned money to European and other overseas central banks, without the consent of congress, the rest of the government, the people, and don't even know what the money would be used for. Money amounted to half a trillion.

 

[metallicdistort]

Yeah, I don't believe private organisations should be able to control a country's money supply

 

[Ocelot2010]

They technically have no legal right to exist either.

 

[metallicdistort]

I'm not too sure about that tbh. Although originally, it may've been an illegal entity, I think congress may have protected it legally now. Then again, I'm not an expert on it.

 

[Ocelot2010]

I've never understood how Keynesian economics has helped anything.

 

[metallicdistort]

Well that's something we could spend hours debating about, but I'll leave it out. However, wouldn't the abolition of the federal reserve mean that it would be replaced with a publicly controlled money supply, which would be Keynesian economics?

 

[Ocelot2010]

I would rather control of the money supply be left up to a congressional controlled treasury, with a gold (and other precious metals like silver, platinum, palladium) standard set in place.

 

[metallicdistort]

Surely that would still be Keynesian?

Such a system wouldn't work for us in the UK, after Labour sold so much of our gold

 

[Ocelot2010]

Not necessarily with a specie backed currency to prevent the printing of money. Countless supporters (if not all) of the Austrian School of thought embrace the gold standard.

 

[metallicdistort]

It seems that war with Iran is getting closer and closer. The right wing press over here are already seemingly attempting to stir up hatred against Iran.

 

[Ocelot2010]

The main reason I believe the invasion of Iraq can be justified is because of the tyranny of the Ba'athist regime we overthrew, which was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and severe abuses of the human rights of many others.

The main argument is whether this justifies "policing" another country, but as a utilitarian, I believe that the benefit of freeing the people of Iraq from Ba'athist rule outweighs that we are allegedly breaking international law (although I do not think we are, as technically the 2003 invasion was just a continuation of the first Gulf War). I believing that tyranny should be opposed in all situations, regardless of whether we are involved or not, as often, we are the only ones with the power to stop it.

The same also applies for the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan needed to be liberated from the Taliban, and democratically, our involvement is supported by the people of the country. However, the main problem with that war is that we can't get access into Pakistan, so the big members of Al Qaeda are just operating from there.

I do oppose the fact that we have abused these situations though (with the resource comandeering and all that), but in the end, the results are justified.

While I agree, look at the government in Afghanistan, how long until Karzai becomes the next dictator? He's already accepted communists and "former" Taliban into his cabinet.

 

[metallicdistort]

While I agree, look at the government in Afghanistan, how long until Karzai becomes the next dictator? He's already accepted communists and "former" Taliban into his cabinet.

I imagine he'll probably be assasinated by then I haven't actually heard of any communists being in his cabinet, do you mean soviets or genuine socialists? Imo socialism would be very beneficial for Afghanistan. But the US would never allow this.

 

[metallicdistort]

Whoa to the second paragraph.

I'm saying the liberations wouldn't be necessary if we didn't get involved in the first place. But hey, let's take it to the Alternative Thoughts thread so this one doesn't get derailed.

The Ba'ath party still would've been in power in Iraq (unless Iran defeated Iraq) even if we hadn't've got involved in the first place, and the Islamic extremists would've still seized power in Afghanistan too, without our help. Either way, we can't undo history, and liberation was needed.