US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
Jim the Moron
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:50 pm

Milo wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:26 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:34 pm
On how DEA's efforts were derailed to further the cynical Iran deal . . .

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... stigation/

We have become habituated to the major blunders perpetrated by US foreign policy makers over the decades. But the degree to which an outfit like Hezbollah was allowed to carry out its criminal activities, especially drug trafficking, just to assist an administration's policy of assisting an enemy . . . treasonous.
Especially as they only began such activities, and the US only become aware of them, on the day Obama took office!
Nice try, Milo, but as you well know, slimy US foreign policy types have been sabotaging America's best interests for decades. Maybe in some instances to achieve different goals, but still . . .

When Doc posted this article as a separate thread a couple of weeks ago there was response that Hezbollah was only a concern for the US and Israel. Aside from the fact that the respondent obviously had not read the article, Hezbollah had well before the Obama administration acted as an Islamist threat to civilized societies.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:55 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:09 pm
Sertorio,

Your reluctance to admit the obvious proves that the "Psychologytoday" article I linked to is correct. Most people don't change their minds despite overwhelming evidence against their opinions. This is due to a strong emotional need to believe in whatever we want to believe.

Often it is a simple matter of pride. We all don't like to admit we are wrong. But in your case, you have already said that you do not have pride and I take your word for it. So it must be some other emotional need that makes you disregard the evidence.

Do you yearn for an idyllic childhood where all your needs are taken cared of? Thus, as an adult, you now want the state to take over the role of your parents when you were an infant?

Or do you yearn to find a meaning in life. Most people get it from their religion. Since you have no religion, your meaning in life rests in contributing in some small way to build a Socialist world, which Moses Hess called, the "heaven on earth"?

Or is there something else? Hunger for power perhaps? Are you a politician in Portugal who seek power by promising your voters other people's money? The usual technique employed by leftist politicians is to stoke envy and resentment to those who have higher income.

Or perhaps, you are one of the resentful, disgruntled envious people that leftist politicians prey on to gain votes
Don't try to play the psychologist with me!... I am a very balanced person, have no childhood traumas, am very happy with my life and have a family I love. And I have a job I very much like (teaching). If I favour socialism it's because my deepest principles point in that direction. Society is a community of people who need each other to prosper, and which may not exclude those who, for whatever reason, are less able to contribute materially to the common good. Society is a dynamic entity in an historic perspective. Those who are less able now may have had parents, grand-parents, ancestors who have greatly contributed to the community. Or they may have offspring who will do likewise. If they need the community's assistance to have a decent living, they must get it, as members of that historic community. No one claims for equality, just the assurance of a decent life, with the state (the community) providing whatever is necessary, whether a minimum income, health assistance, a decent education for their children, a roof over their heads. And the costs thereof must be born by the community as a whole, with the richer bearing more of the burden. It's as simple as that...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:10 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:13 am
Portugal, which has a population similar to Cuba, has had, in the past few years, more than 100,000 emigrants each year. I see Cuban emigration a perfectly normal occurence, which will have little to do with the Cuban regime.
And this is where socialists show their true colours. It's not about democratic institutions or individual freedom at all. Socialism, however authoritarian, however repressive, is more important than any other consideration. In the end, so-called democratic socialists have to choose between the two -- and they choose socialism.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:10 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:13 am
Portugal, which has a population similar to Cuba, has had, in the past few years, more than 100,000 emigrants each year. I see Cuban emigration a perfectly normal occurence, which will have little to do with the Cuban regime.
And this is where socialists show their true colours. It's not about democratic institutions or individual freedom at all. Socialism, however authoritarian, however repressive, is more important than any other consideration. In the end, so-called democratic socialists have to choose between the two -- and they choose socialism.
Socialism is all about freedom. But while non-socialists see fredom only as the right to do as one wishes, socialists see freedom mostly as:

- freedom from exploitation
- freedom from hunger
- freedom from poverty
- freedom from unnecessary pain or illness
- freedom from ignorance
- freedom from homelessness
- freedom from violence

Socialists also want freedom of choice, but only as long as the freedom of choice of some will not hinder all others enjoying the freedoms above listed. If by enjoying one's freedom of choice one becomes very rich, then some of that wealth - which often can only be obtained by exploiting other people or depriving them from their rights - must be used for the benefit of the whole community.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Milo » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:55 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:50 pm
Milo wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:26 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:34 pm
On how DEA's efforts were derailed to further the cynical Iran deal . . .

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... stigation/

We have become habituated to the major blunders perpetrated by US foreign policy makers over the decades. But the degree to which an outfit like Hezbollah was allowed to carry out its criminal activities, especially drug trafficking, just to assist an administration's policy of assisting an enemy . . . treasonous.
Especially as they only began such activities, and the US only become aware of them, on the day Obama took office!
Nice try, Milo, but as you well know, slimy US foreign policy types have been sabotaging America's best interests for decades. Maybe in some instances to achieve different goals, but still . . .

When Doc posted this article as a separate thread a couple of weeks ago there was response that Hezbollah was only a concern for the US and Israel. Aside from the fact that the respondent obviously had not read the article, Hezbollah had well before the Obama administration acted as an Islamist threat to civilized societies.
Two things:

- it's clearly a continuation of business as usual, not something peculiar to the Obama presidency
- slimy deals are the reason for a foreign affairs department

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:54 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:10 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:13 am
Portugal, which has a population similar to Cuba, has had, in the past few years, more than 100,000 emigrants each year. I see Cuban emigration a perfectly normal occurence, which will have little to do with the Cuban regime.
And this is where socialists show their true colours. It's not about democratic institutions or individual freedom at all. Socialism, however authoritarian, however repressive, is more important than any other consideration. In the end, so-called democratic socialists have to choose between the two -- and they choose socialism.
Socialism is all about freedom. But while non-socialists see fredom only as the right to do as one wishes, socialists see freedom mostly as:

- freedom from exploitation
- freedom from hunger
- freedom from poverty
- freedom from unnecessary pain or illness
- freedom from ignorance
- freedom from homelessness
- freedom from violence

Socialists also want freedom of choice, but only as long as the freedom of choice of some will not hinder all others enjoying the freedoms above listed. If by enjoying one's freedom of choice one becomes very rich, then some of that wealth - which often can only be obtained by exploiting other people or depriving them from their rights - must be used for the benefit of the whole community.
In other words, socialists don't want freedom, they want safety. I'm not saying safety is bad, but things should be called what they are.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:40 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:54 pm

In other words, socialists don't want freedom, they want safety. I'm not saying safety is bad, but things should be called what they are.
Semantics. Can one be free without being safe? Or, in other words, is it worthwhile being "free" without being safe? I am free to do as I wish, I am free to choose the people who will rule over me but, in spite of that, I am without work, I am hungry, I can't get medical assistance, I can't afford sending my children to school, I am homeless... While it is conceivable that people may be safe but not free, that's not what socialism is striving for. The ideal of libertarian socialists is conciliating safety with freedom. It is true that many so-called socialist regimes have given a very low priority to freedom, in the liberal sense of the word, but that must not always be the case. By giving preference to cooperatives and workers self management, libertarian socialists hope to socialize the economy without recourse to nationalization. And building democracy from the ground up - through local and regional bodies - may avoid democracy simply becoming a stage towards oligarchy.

neverfail
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:57 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:40 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:54 pm

In other words, socialists don't want freedom, they want safety. I'm not saying safety is bad, but things should be called what they are.
Semantics. Can one be free without being safe? Or, in other words, is it worthwhile being "free" without being safe? I am free to do as I wish, I am free to choose the people who will rule over me but, in spite of that, I am without work, I am hungry, I can't get medical assistance, I can't afford sending my children to school, I am homeless... While it is conceivable that people may be safe but not free, that's not what socialism is striving for. The ideal of libertarian socialists is conciliating safety with freedom. It is true that many so-called socialist regimes have given a very low priority to freedom, in the liberal sense of the word, but that must not always be the case. By giving preference to cooperatives and workers self management, libertarian socialists hope to socialize the economy without recourse to nationalization. And building democracy from the ground up - through local and regional bodies - may avoid democracy simply becoming a stage towards oligarchy.
Your case sounds quite reasonable to me sertorio.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by cassowary » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:00 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:10 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:13 am
Portugal, which has a population similar to Cuba, has had, in the past few years, more than 100,000 emigrants each year. I see Cuban emigration a perfectly normal occurence, which will have little to do with the Cuban regime.
And this is where socialists show their true colours. It's not about democratic institutions or individual freedom at all. Socialism, however authoritarian, however repressive, is more important than any other consideration. In the end, so-called democratic socialists have to choose between the two -- and they choose socialism.
Socialism is all about freedom. But while non-socialists see fredom only as the right to do as one wishes, socialists see freedom mostly as:

- freedom from exploitation
- freedom from hunger
- freedom from poverty
- freedom from unnecessary pain or illness
- freedom from ignorance
- freedom from homelessness
- freedom from violence
Socialism leads to exploitation (Fatty Kim's slave labor), hunger (people in Venezuela are eating rats), poverty (look what happened in Cuba, N Korea and Venzuela), poor heatlth (N Koreans are stunted. The defector was found with worms in his stomach). As for ignorance, homelessness and violence, the cities in the US with the greatest poverty, lousy schools and crime are Democratic (America's leftist party) run cities. A better example of all three is Fatty Kim's North Korea. Ignorance? Check. The people believe Fatty Kim is some sort of god. Violence? Check. Very violent regime.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by cassowary » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:16 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:55 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:09 pm
Sertorio,

Your reluctance to admit the obvious proves that the "Psychologytoday" article I linked to is correct. Most people don't change their minds despite overwhelming evidence against their opinions. This is due to a strong emotional need to believe in whatever we want to believe.

Often it is a simple matter of pride. We all don't like to admit we are wrong. But in your case, you have already said that you do not have pride and I take your word for it. So it must be some other emotional need that makes you disregard the evidence.

Do you yearn for an idyllic childhood where all your needs are taken cared of? Thus, as an adult, you now want the state to take over the role of your parents when you were an infant?

Or do you yearn to find a meaning in life. Most people get it from their religion. Since you have no religion, your meaning in life rests in contributing in some small way to build a Socialist world, which Moses Hess called, the "heaven on earth"?

Or is there something else? Hunger for power perhaps? Are you a politician in Portugal who seek power by promising your voters other people's money? The usual technique employed by leftist politicians is to stoke envy and resentment to those who have higher income.

Or perhaps, you are one of the resentful, disgruntled envious people that leftist politicians prey on to gain votes
Don't try to play the psychologist with me!... I am a very balanced person, have no childhood traumas, am very happy with my life and have a family I love. And I have a job I very much like (teaching). If I favour socialism it's because my deepest principles point in that direction. Society is a community of people who need each other to prosper, and which may not exclude those who, for whatever reason, are less able to contribute materially to the common good. Society is a dynamic entity in an historic perspective. Those who are less able now may have had parents, grand-parents, ancestors who have greatly contributed to the community. Or they may have offspring who will do likewise. If they need the community's assistance to have a decent living, they must get it, as members of that historic community. No one claims for equality, just the assurance of a decent life, with the state (the community) providing whatever is necessary, whether a minimum income, health assistance, a decent education for their children, a roof over their heads. And the costs thereof must be born by the community as a whole, with the richer bearing more of the burden. It's as simple as that...
Ah! You are Socialist because of altruism. Why didn't I think of that before? It is not a yearning for an idyllic childhood where all your needs are taken cared of by your parents. Nor is it envy and resentment against those who have more than you do. Nor is it a hunger for power. It is altruism.

Well I can help you on that. No matter if you are rich or poor, there will always be someone richer or poorer than you. Portugal is a First World country. Even a poor Portuguese has more than the majority of people in the world. According to World Hunger Project, 815 milion people in the world go to bed hungry each night.

I believe that the first step to realizing your Socialist vision must be taken by you, yourself. So start redistributing your wealth to those less fortunate than you in the world. Give generously. Help them to gain a decent life, roof over their heads, healthcare, and a good education. .This of course, requires money. Your Socialist method is redistribution of wealth. So start your redistribution by donating your money.

Here is a list of charities:

Caritas Portuguesa
Compassion Brazil
Project Favela Rio

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], SteveFoerster and 6 guests