Azarkon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azarkon
-
-
Hmm, my present view is that gun control doesn't do much to prevent these sorts of major massacres, but probably does cut down on the number of fatalities due to violent crimes in general.
-
Do things like this happen in Europe?
-
It's pretty close to how they imagine it, except you have to realize that helping people is a secondary concern for the "surgeon" in the picture. The neocons want, foremost, to the rule the world, which in less extravagant terms means that they want the US to dominate in every sphere of power and never be told "no." They want nothing less than full spectrum dominance on this earth and beyond - and that's straight from the horse's mouth.
Inherently, there's nothing special about what they want. The Romans and the Persians wanted the same thing. So did the European powers. And in the process of achieving what each empire imagined to be its destiny, they accomplished great things that are instrumental to modern history. The Romans did build roads through barbarian lands, and the Persians did bring a sophisticated culture. The European powers did force the world to modernize, and science did become the sway of day. If we were to bracket the evils each empire committed and focus only on the good, why, we'd all be imperialists.
My problem with the neocons is not, thus, that their imperial ambitions are unusual - but that as imperialists they are incompetent and cruel. Not only have they failed to achieve their geopolitical quest, but they have dragged down millions of lives and a nation's reputation with them. Worse, they are apathetic and show no remorse, believing that the ends will justify the means, even when the ends are out of reach. As politicians they are closer to the bureaucratic Mandarins than the popular Caesars, and while Mandarins are practical for the rule of an empire, they cannot bring it about. That requires people with greater charisma and force of character than is currently present in the Bush administration. It also requires a clear and realistic vision of peace amidst the shock and awe of war, which again the current administration lacks with its constant backpedalling on what the job "is" and when it will be "done."
History remembers the great conquerors, sometimes as heroes - but history has only scorn for the great failures, who in their ineptitude and ignorance of their ineptitude have caused atrocities such that the world trembles beneath. Power in hands that do not deserve to wield them is the cause of true villainly. But my grief is not reserved for the neocons and their tragedy. No, what's more tragic is the nation they've tricked to do their bidding, which must bear the consequences of their failures.
I'm also frustrated that society itself has become apathetic, of which political apathy is but a part - that's a different topic, however.
-
Depends on what sort of war we're talking about. All-out? US. Half-assed attempt at policing? China.
-
"as of right now there's no evidence that Syria had any hand in it."
There's also evidence that Iraq destroyed all its WMD that they admitted to having so we should just believe it vanished into thin air? Hmmm..
Dictators admit to having WMDs all the time. It's called a bluff. Regardless, even if Saddam did have WMDs, justifying an invasion based on it is rather shoddy, as our reaction to North Korea has shown.
-
Walsingham: stuff
It seems that you are very invested in arguing that the US was in the right, and I'm not sure why. The WMD transfer issue is certainly plausible, but can be argued either way, and as of right now there's no evidence that Syria had any hand in it. So why put stock in this sort of theory? But more importantly, the one tenuous link in the entire chain is the relationship between Saddam having WMDs and the War on Terror. The theory seems to be that the way to get rid of terrorism was to invade and dominate an Arab crescent stretching between Israel and Pakistan, yet it seems to me that this is an awfully futile way to go about doing it. The more you invade, the more people will resist, and the more legitimate their resistance becomes. Surely the Pentagon think tanks have not missed the simple fact that martyring terrorist organizations would only bolster their cause. Unless you could control and pacify the population of the entire Middle-East, which the neocons seem to believe that they could, the US's endeavors in the Middle-East were doomed to tragedy - not only for the US, which for all its hue and cry over monetary costs and soldiers' lives has lost little compared to those we invaded, who will live with the aftermath for decades to come.
Personally, if I were to put stock in a theory of why we turned the War on Terror into a war to invade and displace troublesome regimes in the Middle-East, I'd rather believe this: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID13Ak06.html. At least geopolitics make sense from the perspective of those in power. I could believe a government led astray by its quest for hegemony; believing that it went to war solely for the sake of good will and/or money to fill an already overflowing coffer (in terms of the Bush family and its connections), is, I think, much harder. It'd require faith not only in Bush's incompetence, at least, but that of his entire administration, and somehow I doubt everyone there is that stupid.
-
If only that was what happened.
-
How long was this expansion in development, and who headed it all this time?
-
Not right. Obligation.
Question: You are in your house. You here someone being attacked in your neighbouring house, what do you do? It's not your house. It's not really your business 'cause it doens't involve you. Do you sit there, and do nothing? Or do you go and help (or call the police) if you can?
I know what I'd do.
Outside of arrogance or self worth; what makes borders different than houses?
This analogy really sucks. If your neighbor was being attacked by a burglar, and he asks for help - sure, you'd be morally obligated to do so and he'd thank you for it. But if your neighbor was fighting with his wife, and you bust in with charges of domestic abuse that leads to his arrest, you could easily earn both their ire and worsen the situation. It's true that Saddam was a bad man and deserved to be removed from power, but if the result of doing that is a civil war that would consume millions of lives, destabilize the region, and erode the US's image and influence on the world stage... Well, you get the picture.
It's not so much that morality is totally relative. It's more that the real world doesn't work as it does in the movies or games. Sometimes the worst of things could be done with the best of intentions. Just because you know what's right, does not mean you know how to attain it. Therein lies the difference between a moral man, of which there are billions, and a wise one, of which there are only few.
-
My impression is that it's not the game developers who are in charge...
-
There is no telling yet as to whether capitalism will lead us down the same path of disaster, just delayed. I suppose that's the only way by which civilizations can actually change - by trial and error.
-
So you'd prefer racism, sexism, and ethnocentrism?
Ha, so you are a racist, a sexist and an ethnocentric unless you swallow cultural socialism? Fascinating.
My scant understanding of history seems to point out to the fact racism, sexism and ethnocentrism were already being eliminated before the socialist reconstruction of western culture. Please, feel free to explain what exactly did we gain from adopting that ****...
My scant understanding of history is that socialism refers to an economic, and not a cultural, construct. Political correctness, feminism, and multiculturalism are cultural movements, and thus at a slant with what I was referring to.
Labor rights and fair practice is closer to what I'm talking about.
-
On the topic of socialism - Western societies today have many socialist policies, and they seem to work reasonably well in producing the society we have now.
Explain how Political Correctness, Feminism, Multiculturalism and other socialist atrocities are working 'well' within our current social system...
So you'd prefer racism, sexism, and ethnocentrism?
-
The quotes are all out of context and I often do... judicious editing.
You're right, though. Bioware has made a point (or at least Dave has) to say that the game is not about dragons, and that they chose the title "Dragon Age" for other reasons. I just found it funny that they had to justify this decision to players since so many assumed that a game called Dragon Age would be all about dragons.
-
Fine, you got me
A poor attempt to stir up controversy, on my part, and Sand actually pointed it out in his first post: democracy and capitalism are two different things. China could benefit from Western democracy, and it could also benefit from capitalism ASSUMING it adopts policies (some might call them socialist) that prevents rampant capitalist exploitation. The problem is that these aspects of capitalism are not transferring over, because Western capitalists are actively working against them. My rationale for posting this is that "China bashing" (and assigning the blame to foreign governments in general) needs to take into account the role of Western capital in China, and that we need to have a clear perspective of what unchecked capitalism, as in this case, entails. Frankly, my latter posts are probably a better summary of what I see as the real issues than the OP.Essentially - if China is the future of capitalism, then we're in for a rough ride. But it's not about blaming the Chinese government - as the article writes, they tried to reform workers' rights, but failed because of corporate demands. So really, the problem lies with big business and the particularly exploitive form of Western capitalism that they represent. Something needs to be done to curtail the clout of multinational corporations on the global level, as you can't depend on them to police themselves. Failing that, we become proof for the Maoists of why Western capitalism is bad.
-
There are dragons during this age, as one would fairly expect. The game is not about dragons, however, and the main character has no special relation to them. Nor are they some dominant feature of the world or the story
We get it. It's not about dragons. It's just the Dragon Age
-
I wouldn't call a game generic based just on its setting. However, as I said on the Codex boards, it's too early to say whether it'll be a winner, also.
-
To make that argument, you'd have to explain your stance
Why is it absurd? -
On the topic of socialism - Western societies today have many socialist policies, and they seem to work reasonably well in producing the society we have now. Many would argue that China currently has a more extreme form of capitalism than people in the West, with minimum workers' rights and sweatshops in the name of profit. Where would you rather live?
-
So you are just parroting their opinion? Is this your opinion, or not?
I think I went a bit further than the article (since it made no allusion to the "future of capitalism"), but pertaining to the part you quoted, yeah.
-
Thats why China currently has the edge over India, and thats why China will lose this edge to countries like Pakistan and Thailand if it adopts socialist measures.
But what is the cost of having that edge? China's edge comes from making itself attractive to foreign investment, but the investors are there to exploit the cheap labor. Laws that attempt to rectify labor exploitation are lobbied against by the corporations, who threaten to de-invest should workers get their say. So we have a situation in which the average Chinese worker is faced with the prospect of permanent poverty, since the moment they attempt to rise above it, the investors in question pick up and leave for the next third world ghetto.
Does it seem right to you what the corporations are doing (creating permanent sweatshops in the third world) in the name of profit?
-
Everybody complains about human rights in China, and one of the top complaints has always been the presence of sweatshops and working conditions that would, in the West, be considered illegal and inhumane. When it comes down to it, it's always the fault of the Communist government. After all, if Western democracy and capitalism were in charge, things would be alot better in China.
Right?
Where did you get that idea?
Did you read the article I linked?
-
what everyone fails to realize is that china is in the same, actually worse, situation than the US was 100 years ago. we had sweatshops then. we had poor conditions. but we also had a legal right to form unions (which are now unnecessary, btw), and did. guess what, no more sweatshops. poor conditions are relegated to very infrequent circumstances (and often uncovered and dealt with).
There is a difference between exploiting one's own voting country men and the faceless, huddled masses of third world countries. The trend that I find problematic is the corporations' ability to use its clout to influence political decisions in poorer countries, and to pit said nations' workers against each other in a drive to keep prices down. Say, for instance, that Chinese workers "rise up" against unfair practices - all a transnational corporation would have to do is reinvest elsewhere, where conditions are more favorable. If developing economies are based upon investment, then presumably this threat is serious enough for most developing nations to submit to corporate demands. And if they don't? Well, someone else probably will, and then they'd be left in the dust (and no politician could allow that to happen and still keep power).
The only plausible form of resistance is for the workers of the entire world to unite (sound like Communism?) and set standards by which corporations can operate. Yet, I don't see this happening, at least not as it did when the only relevant people were from the same country. A bit of nationalism ("who cares about the Chinese? They're our rivals anyhow!") can go a long way in realizing the dream of a permanent underclass.
Intellectuals call this form of capitalism neo-colonialism, and while they often exaggerate its effects, I don't think it's a good idea to ignore their arguments. The idealistic view of capitalism is that it can do nothing but elevate a society in terms of wealth and development. If you adopt this view, then China is merely going through "growing pains" that would inevitably subside as it becomes just as advanced and developed as the US. Yet I see an alternative route, which is that *parts* of China would become exceedingly rich - as rich as any in the West - while the rest would remain poor, forming the foundations of a underclass that would, in turn, facilitate the development of such a underclass elsewhere in the world - even in developed nations.
The evidence for such a route is not exactly scarce, given the widening wealth gap. I think that if you asked people in the US who worked 40-50 years ago, many of them would express the view that back then work was alot easier to find, jobs were alot less competitive, and livelihoods more secure. So what happened? Is globalization really making the whole world rich, or is it just redistributing wealth in such a way as to validate Marx's view of history as a class struggle?
-
Everybody complains about human rights in China, and one of the top complaints has always been the presence of sweatshops and working conditions that would, in the West, be considered illegal and inhumane. When it comes down to it, it's always the fault of the Communist government. After all, if Western democracy and capitalism were in charge, things would be alot better in China.
Right?
http://atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/ID05Cb01.html
"In March 2006, the Chinese government, with considerable popular backing, proposed a new labor law with limited but significant increases in workers' rights. But the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Shanghai, the United States-China Business Council, and US-based global corporations are lobbying to gut the proposed law. They have even threatened to leave China for such countries as Pakistan and Thailand if the law is passed.
Their aggressive tactics appear to have had an impact. Last December, the Chinese government released a revised draft of the Labor Contract Law with significant changes in contract, collective bargaining, severance, and other rights guaranteed for Chinese workers that would favor corporate interests. "
Marxists may be wrong about many things, but perhaps they were right about one thing - big businesses are not our friends. While labor rights have made significant gains in the US, all that means is that the men in suits will look elsewhere for people to exploit. And if not China? Then, as the corps indicate, they'll just move to Pakistan, or Thailand. So long as money is involved, there will always be some poor third world country to exploit - and just you wait, once the big businesses leave and China's economy collapses, they'll be begging them to come back. Maybe they'll even work for free, and become slaves.
Is the future of capitalism corporate-sponsored dictatorship? Well, maybe the Democrats will put a stop to this non-sense.
Or maybe the Chinese were better off with socialism, after all...
A poor attempt to stir up controversy, on my part, and Sand actually pointed it out in his first post: democracy and capitalism are two different things. China could benefit from Western democracy, and it could also benefit from capitalism ASSUMING it adopts policies (some might call them socialist) that prevents rampant capitalist exploitation. The problem is that these aspects of capitalism are not transferring over, because Western capitalists are actively working against them. My rationale for posting this is that "China bashing" (and assigning the blame to foreign governments in general) needs to take into account the role of Western capital in China, and that we need to have a clear perspective of what unchecked capitalism, as in this case, entails. Frankly, my latter posts are probably a better summary of what I see as the real issues than the OP.
karma
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Karma shall strike you mods for steering the thread off-topic