Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[Dak]

Holy shit you're stupid

"Holy shit" I guess you don't know anything about who Obama has been selecting. So how is grade school?

.
I dunno if you remember, but Obama said that thing where we wouldn't be at war anymore. Now, I dunno about you, but I have an awfully hard time imagining how someone would maintain a police state without a real or imagined external threat; reducing the perceived threat is hardly another step on the road towards fascism.

#1 Yeah presidents never do the opposite of what they promise
#2 Who said it couldn't be internal unrest?
#3 What perceived threat has been reduced?

 

[waif]

1. Considering he's already working on it I'm not too worried.
2. Because there's no actual internal unrest. There would kinda have to be some in order to create a police state.
3. Do you have reading comprehension issues? When we remove our troops from a country and end the war it implies that the threat that nation poses to us is gone. The perceived danger decreases even if the real danger is the same. Would you feel more or less safe right now if we had troops occupying Saudi Arabia?

 

[challenge_everything]

I agree with very little of what Death Aflame and Dakryn have said, but I think they've argued it better than those on the other side who have resorted to ad hominem insults, fallacious lines of argument and displayed a general ignorance about what anarchism actually is. The society of Aboriginal Australians (although barely existing in its original form) is the oldest surviving culture (in terms of remaining virtually unchanged) in the world and yet could be readily described as anarchist or at least highly libertarian given its almost complete absence of hierarchical structures.

It also strikes me that too many people are shackled by an inability to step back from their own society. Neoliberal capitalism as the hegemonic political force is merely an eyeblink in the overall history of humanity and one could argue that as recently as 30 years ago its global supremacy was in doubt. Whilst I can't see it losing that supremacy in my lifetime, there's not necessarily any reason to suppose it is the end of the evolution of political ideology. For example, most Americans don't realise how truly close their country came to a workers' revolution in the 1800s and how easily the last 150 years of history could have been so different.

 

[Dak]

1. Considering he's already working on it I'm not too worried.
2. Because there's no actual internal unrest. There would kinda have to be some in order to create a police state.
3. Do you have reading comprehension issues? When we remove our troops from a country and end the war it implies that the threat that nation poses to us is gone. The perceived danger decreases even if the real danger is the same. Would you feel more or less safe right now if we had troops occupying Saudi Arabia?

#1 Could you show me what he is working on that has you so at ease in your opinion?

#2 /facepalm. Did I say there was now? We are talking up to 8 years in the future and everything you have said has involved in pointing out the very obvious current situation of no police state/civil unrest.

#3 What about what I said hints at a lack of reading comprehension? Iraq was/is not the threat. We are at war with terror, and apparently terror is everywhere. It's the fucking everywhere but nowhere at once bogeyman. Feelings are bullshit, talk about reality. What would troops in Saudi Arabia accomplish? Not to mention, what kind of secure feelings would that supposedly provide anyway? And what the fuck does Saudi Arabia even have to do with the original point anyway?

 

[Valerie]

We at war with terror

You at war with grammar.

 

[Dak]

You at war with grammar.

Fixed

 

[skeptik]

And what the fuck does Saudi Arabia even have to do with the original point anyway?

Really?

 

[waif]

@challenge everything: we have more self-awareness than past generations, I think. That said, I see no reason to assume the current state of affairs is the end of political evolution, but I think it would be silly to think it would be shattered by a recession.

#1 Could you show me what he is working on that has you so at ease in your opinion?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html
He's committed himself to this to the point where it would not be politically feasible for him to not come through.

#2 /facepalm. Did I say there was now? We are talking up to 8 years in the future and everything you have said has involved in pointing out the very obvious current situation of no police state/civil unrest.

And the fact that we're moving away from a police state. Do you think he's gonna spend time undoing the patriot act and then/I] there will be unrest and then he'll turn the country into a police state? Could you explain exactly how you expect the country to turn into a police state? Because so far you've just made some vague dire predictions.

#3 What about what I said hints at a lack of reading comprehension? Iraq was/is not the threat. We are at war with terror, and apparently terror is everywhere. It's the fucking everywhere but nowhere at once bogeyman. Feelings are bullshit, talk about reality. What would troops in Saudi Arabia accomplish? Not to mention, what kind of secure feelings would that supposedly provide anyway? And what the fuck does Saudi Arabia even have to do with the original point anyway?

The part where you didn't understand the word "perceived."
People don't think rationally. If you tell them the sun will burn out in 5 million years this will concern many of them until they realize that in fact that's not really their biggest problem. When we pull out of Iraq it feels like we're not at war, we don't have troops committed overseas, and the newspapers aren't full of "5 american troops killed in suicide bombing" and that feels way less threatening.
As for the Saudi Arabia thing, that was a hypothetical example. The idea was you'd feel less safe because we were at war when in fact the danger to you is the same. Forget it.

 

[Dak]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html
He's committed himself to this to the point where it would not be politically feasible for him to not come through.

Iraq is old news, of course he is pulling out. That does not mean we aren't going to be at war.As I said before, we are still going to be chasing the terror bogeyman all over the globe
Obama's Change

And the fact that we're moving away from a police state. Do you think he's gonna spend time undoing the patriot act and then/I] there will be unrest and then he'll turn the country into a police state? Could you explain exactly how you expect the country to turn into a police state? Because so far you've just made some vague dire predictions.

I did some web crawling, saw nothing about him undoing the Patriot Act. My prediction is vague because it hinges on a "national emergency" which could be anything. A 9-11 2.0, a threat from a sovereign nation, a natural disaster etc.

The part where you didn't understand the word "perceived."
People don't think rationally. If you tell them the sun will burn out in 5 million years this will concern many of them until they realize that in fact that's not really their biggest problem. When we pull out of Iraq it feels like we're not at war, we don't have troops committed overseas, and the newspapers aren't full of "5 american troops killed in suicide bombing" and that feels way less threatening.
As for the Saudi Arabia thing, that was a hypothetical example. The idea was you'd feel less safe because we were at war when in fact the danger to you is the same. Forget it.

We have troops all over the place, so it would be irrational as hell to feel any more or less safe because we had some in SA as well. How this whole rational/perceived safety arguement does have to do with a police state is something along the lines of:
If the situation is perceived bad enough, the population will be HAPPY with a police state in the right orchestrated or otherwise situation.

Personally, I agree with Benjamin Franklin on the safety/liberty issue.

 

[cookiecutter]

I agree with very little of what Death Aflame and Dakryn have said, but I think they've argued it better than those on the other side who have resorted to ad hominem insults, fallacious lines of argument and displayed a general ignorance about what anarchism actually is. The society of Aboriginal Australians (although barely existing in its original form) is the oldest surviving culture (in terms of remaining virtually unchanged) in the world and yet could be readily described as anarchist or at least highly libertarian given its almost complete absence of hierarchical structures.

It also strikes me that too many people are shackled by an inability to step back from their own society. Neoliberal capitalism as the hegemonic political force is merely an eyeblink in the overall history of humanity and one could argue that as recently as 30 years ago its global supremacy was in doubt. Whilst I can't see it losing that supremacy in my lifetime, there's not necessarily any reason to suppose it is the end of the evolution of political ideology. For example, most Americans don't realise how truly close their country came to a workers' revolution in the 1800s and how easily the last 150 years of history could have been so different.

I also disagree with Death Aflame and the idea of Anarchism, but I agree with this post. V5, Anarchism has a long history as a political philosophy. In the late 19th century the Anarchists were so passionate they started assassinating world leaders. Their goal was to elicit an authoritarian reaction which would then trigger an anarchist revolution. Needless to say it didn't work but they knocked off quite a few important people (President McKinley, Tsar Alexander II)

Sorry for the history lesson, but this is about all I can bring to this discussion and you might as well have some grounding in the facts before you make erroneous claims.

 

[waif]

@Dakryn: /facepalm

A natural disaster?
"OH SHIT, A TORNADO! I need you to inform on your neighbors in case they're tornado sympathizers."

As for Iraq...yeah, we're pulling out. And he's willing to talk to Iran. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY!) we could still wind up at war in another country, but we've seen no signs of that and a lot of signs that he'll resist that.

On the third point...YES, that's what I was saying. Conversely, if people perceive the situation to be not as bad they WON'T put up with a police state. And pulling troops out of Iraq makes the situation seem:
A) More dire
B) Less dire
C) OH SHIT OH SHIT THINK HARD MAYBE LESS DIRE?

@Cookie:
In general I agree that people were too quick to dismiss anarchism (I don't think it's gonna accomplish anything but still...). However, it seems odd that you defend it by talking about an anarchist plot to assassinate world leaders. Because that tends to make me regard it as lunatic fringe stuff for people with bunkers under the dog shed.

 

[Dak]

@Dakryn: /facepalm

A natural disaster?
"OH SHIT, A TORNADO! I need you to inform on your neighbors in case they're tornado sympathizers."

Don't be asinine. I am not talking about localized natural disasters. I am talking about things like The Yellowstone Caldera and The New Madrid Fault, with cataclysmic potential. And you ignored the other options of open attacks. You are also probably ignorant of the fact that various anonymous powers have the ability to control the weather and cause earthquakes. Which makes the above mentioned scenarios even more likely if natural [processes] get "tripped".

As for Iraq...yeah, we're pulling out. And he's willing to talk to Iran. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY!) we could still wind up at war in another country, but we've seen no signs of that and a lot of signs that he'll resist that.

Oh Really?

Not to mention, prior to 9-11 it didn't look like we were going to war either.

On the third point...YES, that's what I was saying. Conversely, if people perceive the situation to be not as bad they WON'T put up with a police state. And pulling troops out of Iraq makes the situation seem:
A) More dire
B) Less dire
C) OH SHIT OH SHIT THINK HARD MAYBE LESS DIRE?

I wasn't aware people have considered anything about Iraq a dire threat to the US civilian population since the WMDs failed to make their appearance. You are failing to make a point with this.

 

[waif]

David Booth - proven psychic- had a vision in March of 2003. He saw himself in space,
looking down on the earth. He saw a dark, planetary object coming from the south end
of earth - out of the southern Hemisphere. As this planetary object came past earth,
the size of which would fit between the earth and the moon - he saw the western end of
the U.S. blow up with fire and blasts of smoke and ash. From there, the whole earth
rippled. Yellowstone had blown up.

Damn. You've beaten me with pure facts.
I'm actually laughing right now.

Of course the only way to hunt down one man is to invade country after country until you find him.
Also, the nation simply will not support another Iraq. Another Afghanistan, on the other hand, would be fine. Something in which we have a clear objective and exit strategy. I don't mind if we go to war if we have all that and a good cause - the U.S. military kicks fucking ass. But nobody will support something like Iraq. So I'm really not worried about getting stuck in another quagmire and obviously we're getting out of Iraq. So on that account I'm not concerned.

My point with Iraq:
We are not moving towards a police state because
The government's ability to maintain a police state depends on its ability to make its citizens afraid of the rest of the world and by pulling out of Iraq Obama makes the world seem safer which makes people less afraid and thus reduces his ability to create a police state.

 

[Zephyrus]

Afghanistan has an exit strategy? Clearly our objective has yet to be neutralized.

We're not a police state and never will be so long as we have a democracy to any degree. We won't be like Athens who had tyranny only because Sparta beat them and installed an oligarchy.

Fuck there I go again, sorry.

 

[waif]

Well, we had an objective anyways.
I seem to remember the war ending for a while. They had a government. We took the troops out.
Then the fucking Taliban had to go and blow down our house of straw. Jackasses.

 

[Dak]

Damn. You've beaten me with pure facts.
I'm actually laughing right now.

Of course the only way to hunt down one man is to invade country after country until you find him.
Also, the nation simply will not support another Iraq. Another Afghanistan, on the other hand, would be fine. Something in which we have a clear objective and exit strategy. I don't mind if we go to war if we have all that and a good cause - the U.S. military kicks fucking ass. But nobody will support something like Iraq. So I'm really not worried about getting stuck in another quagmire and obviously we're getting out of Iraq. So on that account I'm not concerned.

My point with Iraq:
We are not moving towards a police state because
The government's ability to maintain a police state depends on its ability to make its citizens afraid of the rest of the world and by pulling out of Iraq Obama makes the world seem safer which makes people less afraid and thus reduces his ability to create a police state.

I know there are better links on both scenarios that are sans psycho-bullshit but I was in a hurry. Regardless, the Yellowstone Caldera and the New Madrid fault are both ticking time bombs which you laughed off, not to mention ignoring the potential for forced "natural" catastrophies.

The government does not need and external threats for martial law. Internal unrest/threats, potential or actual, is a much more likely reason for a police state.

Again, I am not aware of any Americans afraid because of troops being in Iraq, other than the family members of those deployed for their relative's safety.

We have been in a quagmire in Aghanistan for longer than Iraq, just with less troops, but that will change according to Obama.

The war on "terror" will only stop when we run out of money to borrow, at which point we will have way more pressing worries than the terror bogeyman we won't ever catch/stop.

 

[Vinnolation]

Yeah, just give Canada a few states, like Alaska, Maine, ...No, give us it all, and we will fix your overpopulation problem by launching everyone into space, to Mars, maybe?

 

[Death Aflame]

@Cookie:
In general I agree that people were too quick to dismiss anarchism (I don't think it's gonna accomplish anything but still...). However, it seems odd that you defend it by talking about an anarchist plot to assassinate world leaders. Because that tends to make me regard it as lunatic fringe stuff for people with bunkers under the dog shed.

It does place it in a clearly negative light, but nonetheless those things have happened. I think it is important that people try to understand what Anarchism is, before they dismiss it. The history lesson helps slightly, but gives little to no insight into the ideas behind the politics--which is essentially to eliminate centralized power/dominance in favor of direct/pure democracy forms. It is also highly anti-capitalist, but that doesn't mean it is some form of fantastic primitivism (although there is an obscure branch of this in anarchist thought, though I disagree with it for the reason that it would cause genocide on a mass scale).

 

[waif]

@Dakryn: you were in a hurry, so you used absolutely ridiculous bullshit? "Oh, I was busy, so I'll just give you some stuff that's counterproductive to my point by making it look like something cooked up by guys with tinfoil hats."

As for internal unrest: right, so if there's a rebellion we could wind up with a police state. On the other hand, my point was that we're moving away from a police state. So basically you're implying by offering that as evidence that we're moving towards a police state that you think a massive civil unrest is likely in the near future.
To which I'd have to say "NO."

Now then, does it make you feel more or less secure when you pick up a newspaper (assuming you do so) and see a picture of a marketplace bombing in Iraq? Less, yeah? It doesn't scare you, you don't piss yourself, but you feel less secure. Now, if those pictures stopped, would it make you feel more or less secure? Needless to say this is mostly subconscious.

 

[cookiecutter]

@Cookie:
In general I agree that people were too quick to dismiss anarchism (I don't think it's gonna accomplish anything but still...). However, it seems odd that you defend it by talking about an anarchist plot to assassinate world leaders. Because that tends to make me regard it as lunatic fringe stuff for people with bunkers under the dog shed.

I was just trying to prove that anarchism was a real political movement that had a long history. It is not as V5 suggested just the absence of government as in Somalia. That said it is a political movement I do not agree with or support.