101–110 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Erik Prince famously donated his company's time during that era.
No, we didn't do a war so that Blackwater could secretly profit from it. We did it because Cheney felt like doing one for emotional and ideological reasons.
Life’s pretty good, guys. It’s been good when I was a little child playing in the mud. It was good when I was on my one hour ride to school. It was good when I first cut my flesh to the bone and watched my dad sew it up. It was good when a girl I had a crush on didn’t feel that way about me. It was good when I nearly failed Algebraic Geometry because I didn’t have what it took. It was good when I almost didn’t get an…
It's nice of evolution to imbue some people with these false views. I hope your kids inherit the earth so people with more realistic outlooks don't have to be born and suffer through it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The life possible in San Francisco is possible in large part because of the entropy it externalizes to "somewhere else", a place many in SF and the US more generally prefer to ignore, and which includes Bangladesh, alongside as much of the "global south" San Francisco is not rich because Bangladesh is poor. This idea is not only wrong, but dangerous. I’m stuck in America because my parents and grandparents in Bangl…
I'm not endorsing victimhood or saying that Bangladesh is poor because the US is rich. It was badly phrased if that is how it reads, for that I apologize. I'm saying the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countries all around the globe by immoral means. It is not unique in this. This is not the only reason the US is rich or the only reason any other is not. I'm also saying that this is a really bad…
I don't believe that.
Like most countries, the US has a community of professionals in government dedicated to the country's national security and this class of professionals has often done harm around the world by trying to increase the US's national security when it is already more secure than most countries are. For example, the US's overreaction to 9/11. For example, the US's overthrowing of Communist governments in the third world during the Cold War.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not endorsing victimhood or saying that Bangladesh is poor because the US is rich. It was badly phrased if that is how it reads, for that I apologize. I'm saying the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countries all around the globe by immoral means. It is not unique in this. This is not the only reason the US is rich or the only reason any other is not. I'm also saying that this is a really bad…
>the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countries all around the globe by immoral means. I don't believe that. Like most countries, the US has a community of professionals in government dedicated to the country's national security and this class of professionals has often done harm around the world by trying to increase the US's national security when it is already more secure than most countries ar…
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countries all around the globe by immoral means. I don't believe that. Like most countries, the US has a community of professionals in government dedicated to the country's national security and this class of professionals has often done harm around the world by trying to increase the US's national security when it is already more secure than most countries ar…
And yet the historic record shows numerous examples of the US overthrowing democratically elected parties to be replaced by thugs and patsies for the US. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... etc.
Often those things made the US considerably poorer, e.g., the US intervention in Vietnam, e.g., when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy.
During the Cold War, the US encouraged international trade to show the world the benefits of trade and of capitalism and as a bribe to try to get and to keep countries in our military coalition against the Soviets. Often the encouragement and the bribe included Washington's opening up the US consumer market to imports (i.e., without tariffs). But it did those thing for national security reasons (i.e., stopping the spread of communism) not because the US needs to import anything or to export anything or to steal anything from overseas to be the richest country.
Yes, international trade makes the US richer than it would be without the trade, but the US would still be the richest country even if it did zero international trade: its not like China or Germany whose economies are highly reliant on international trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the historic record shows numerous examples of the US overthrowing democratically elected parties to be replaced by thugs and patsies for the US. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... etc.
It does: but the US did those things for national security goals, not to make the US richer. Often those things made the US considerably poorer, e.g., the US intervention in Vietnam, e.g., when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. During the Cold War, the US encouraged international trade to show the world the benefits of trade and of capitalism and…
Security and being rich are part and parcel of the same coin.
> when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy.
Or, alternatively, recirculated trillions of US taxpayer dollars into US weapons, US mercanaries, US personnel, and fed pork barrels where directed by US lobbyists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely. In a way ideology is what shapes our reality so you can never be fully free of it. It’s like saying “I’m not political”, it’s also a political statement/stance. Personally I came up with my own flavour of practical Taoism as ideology; something like Konrad from the bridge trilogy
Yes I agree with all that and for the record, I was being a bit cheeky. Personally, I think it's dogma that belongs in the bin, rather than ideology. I can't really say it's based on anything empirical, but to me, ideology is almost meant to be critically analyzed where as dogma is based on strict acceptance. I'd summarize my feelings by saying ideology is presented whereas dogma is dictated, if that makes any sense.
Dogma is what you follow blindly and don’t question, whereas ideology while still rigid you can examine and shape according to your own personal values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does: but the US did those things for national security goals, not to make the US richer. Often those things made the US considerably poorer, e.g., the US intervention in Vietnam, e.g., when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. During the Cold War, the US encouraged international trade to show the world the benefits of trade and of capitalism and…
The Iranian coup d'état was literally about allied control of oil to secure control of global flow of oil and energy related wealth. Security and being rich are part and parcel of the same coin. > when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. Or, alternatively, recirculated trillions of US taxpayer dollars into US weapons, US mercanaries, US personnel,…
Since the world is complicated and people are creative and opportunistic about how they try to make money, certain American individuals and certain small conspiracies of Americans probably tried to make money off of the US's interventions in other countries, but the US government as a whole basically never has -- at least not in the last 100 years.
While the US economy was dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf (approximately from 1957 to 2020) it used military force and pressure on governments to ensure American companies could buy Persian Gulf oil, but those American companies always paid the going price for the oil: Washington never tried to arrange so that any American interest got oil from overseas for free or for less than the fair price for the oil.
So I still haven't seen any example in this thread of Washington's extracting any wealth from the rest of the world other than through free trade, i.e., trade in which the non-American half of the trade entered into the trade voluntarily. (And again the US economy doesn't even need to engage in any free trade with the rest of the world for the US to be the richest country.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countries all around the globe by immoral means. I don't believe that. Like most countries, the US has a community of professionals in government dedicated to the country's national security and this class of professionals has often done harm around the world by trying to increase the US's national security when it is already more secure than most countries ar…
And yet the historic record shows numerous examples of the US overthrowing democratically elected parties to be replaced by thugs and patsies for the US. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... etc.
We did that for ideological reasons. The U.S. was already one of the richest countries in the world per capita at the time of the founding. It was about as rich per capita in 1800 as India is today (in nominal dollars).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does: but the US did those things for national security goals, not to make the US richer. Often those things made the US considerably poorer, e.g., the US intervention in Vietnam, e.g., when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. During the Cold War, the US encouraged international trade to show the world the benefits of trade and of capitalism and…
The Iranian coup d'état was literally about allied control of oil to secure control of global flow of oil and energy related wealth. Security and being rich are part and parcel of the same coin. > when it wasted many trillions of dollars over 20 years in trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. Or, alternatively, recirculated trillions of US taxpayer dollars into US weapons, US mercanaries, US personnel,…
No the two things are quite different. There are many rich countries (Singapore, Denmark, Taiwain, etc.) that don't have extensive security operations around the world. The U.S. uses its wealth for ideological reasons, not to become richer. This is something that people with a third-world mindset have the hardest time understanding about the U.S.