Explosion in London Underground

[Daaaaave]

ahahahahahahahahaha 7th most cited author in history.

love to see the research work behind that factoid. e

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

I still don't see anything wrong with what the BBC did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's fine for them to run inaccurate stories as long as you like the sound of said stories?

[mr.moustache]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

a public news agency decides it doesn't want to be part of the 4th estate anymore and engages directly in politics and you don't find that unsettling, even if you agree with their position? the bbc was as blatantly biased as fox news, bet you can find something wrong with themm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well our government were fighting a war that could be argued to be illegal, someone had to say something.

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

a public news agency decides it doesn't want to be part of the 4th estate anymore and engages directly in politics and you don't find that unsettling, even if you agree with their position? the bbc was as blatantly biased as fox news, bet you can find something wrong with themm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know much about the BBC's misgivings in this particular case, but the thing that scares me is the intent for people to politically control these channels.

Here in Denmark politicians from the parliamentary basis of the current government that are on the board of our equivalent of the BBC have said 'You should be able to tell that there's a new majority in Denmark', meaning the covereage of DR (the BBC equivalent) should be slanted politically.

I find such a development much more scary than news outlets - public or otherwise - engaging in something on their own. Treating the BBC's coverage as hyperbolic could be a way to stitch it up with political control.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache:

Originally posted by mr.moustache:

I guess it's a matter of opinion. At some point though, Iraq's weapons were vastly over-estimated by Mr Blair, and I'm glad that someone had the balls to point it out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, it wasn't Mr. Blair did the estimating. That'd be MI6.

[A-Team]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I still basically disagree. people who read chomsky are as much dittoheads as people who listen to rush. chomsky has never changed a mind in his life, he preaches to his own choir. , </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as the 7th(?) most cited author in history he must have a pretty big f*cking choir in that case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rush is the most popular radio talk show host in America, what's it got to do with anything? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha. you can't see the difference between having a good radio audience and being somewhere between Freud and Hegel in terms of academic citations?

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache:

Well our government were fighting a war that could be argued to be illegal, someone had to say something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, it's wake-up time. There is no such thing as an illegal war.

[A-Team]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

ahahahahahahahahaha 7th most cited author in history.

love to see the research work behind that factoid. e </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Moshi Moshe Mohammed]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I still basically disagree. people who read chomsky are as much dittoheads as people who listen to rush. chomsky has never changed a mind in his life, he preaches to his own choir. , </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as the 7th(?) most cited author in history he must have a pretty big f*cking choir in that case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rush is the most popular radio talk show host in America, what's it got to do with anything? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha. you can't see the difference between having a good radio audience and being somewhere between Freud and Hegel in terms of academic citations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure Chomsky isn't just 7th in a Googlebattle?

p.s. he did practically invent an entire enormous field of modern linguistics.

[Sir Bert Preast]

Most quoted Top 25?

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.moustache:

Well our government were fighting a war that could be argued to be illegal, someone had to say something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, it's wake-up time. There is no such thing as an illegal war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's walking egg shells in this case, because the UN charter both defends the impregnable souvereignty of its member nations, but has also institutionalised a nation's right to self-defence (which is what the Americans claim they were/are doing).

Furthermore there's also some patchy phrases in that charter that have been used to justify humanitarian interventions in the 90s, hence why the concept of souvereignty was already under much pressure before the Iraq war.

[Sir Bert Preast]

Exactly. International law is still not up to the job.

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

[...] being somewhere between Freud and Hegel in terms of academic citations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where are people like Max Weber, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim in those lists?

And no one wants to answer my question from before it seems

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

Exactly. International law is still not up to the job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you don't want it to be?

[Daaaaave]

personally, I'm not a big fan of International law? One of those ideas that sound good on paper but turn out to be a crock of ****. Like the League of Nations.

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen:

And you don't want it to be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell yes! I know everyone thinks I'm a nazi, but I actually want to see one world, all humanity pulling together and all that ****. I just see the world united under the western model of civilisation rather than the muslim or French one.

[A-Team]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

[...] being somewhere between Freud and Hegel in terms of academic citations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where are people like Max Weber, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim in those lists?

And no one wants to answer my question from before it seems </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a list here. (don't quote)

Anyway, I'm only using it to show that Chomsky's influence as an intellectual goes way beyond the scope of simply preaching to the converted.

[drunkrob]

It's time for military service. We have an army of chavs standing around with little to do. Let them go happy slap some terrorists.

The nations, not so blest as thee,

Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall,

Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;

While thou shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

[MattyT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

I just see the world united under the western model of civilisation rather than the muslim or French one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

colonialism

[Sir Bert Preast]

The sons of the prophet were hardy and bold,

And quite unaccustomed to fear,

But the bravest of these was a man, I am told

Named Abdul Abulbul Amir

This son of the desert, in battle aroused,

Could spit twenty men on his spear.

A terrible creature, both sober and soused

Was Abdul Abulbul Amir

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

personally, I'm not a big fan of International law? One of those ideas that sound good on paper but turn out to be a crock of ****. Like the League of Nations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to hear more of your reasons if possible

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

Hell yes! I know everyone thinks I'm a nazi, but I actually want to see one world, all humanity pulling together and all that ****. I just see the world united under the western model of civilisation rather than the muslim or French one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is included in the term civilisation? It's just I felt sick to my guts when Pia Kjærsgaard, leader of Danish People's Party, the day after 9/11 said 'There's one civilisation, ours' in the Danish parliament.

Does this have any relation to Samuel Huntington?

[Moshi Moshe Mohammed]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

[...] being somewhere between Freud and Hegel in terms of academic citations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where are people like Max Weber, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim in those lists?

And no one wants to answer my question from before it seems </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a list here. (don't quote)

Anyway, I'm only using it to show that Chomsky's influence as an intellectual goes way beyond the scope of simply preaching to the converted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The author of the article lists Chomsky as a linguist, and the majority of his citations, I would bet, are in the area of linguistics where he is an unchallenged iconic figure, rightfully so.

[Daaaaave]

a 20 year old list lasting only 7 years using one specific source.

checkmate mon frere. l

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattyT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast:

I just see the world united under the western model of civilisation rather than the muslim or French one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

colonialism </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said NOT the muslim or French model.

[Daaaaave]

mate, it comes down to basically we sit on our asses and do nothing about zimbabwe because south africa still has a hard on for mugabe for sticking two fingers up to whitey and we need a concensus among every ****water nation in the world to do anything. y

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

There's a list here.

Anyway, I'm only using it to show that Chomsky's influence as an intellectual goes way beyond the scope of simply preaching to the converted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the list is from 1976 to 1983 and it's only concerned with 'arts and humanities', ie. no social sciences for instance.

Such an index is hard to do, and many have failed. There's no weighting of the article's importance. Some journals of a subject are more important and more respected than others.

Lenin got more citations than Chomsky - is he and his teachings important in every day life today? The first list on there goes Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible (as a whole), Plato, Freud, Chomsky. The second one has a man by the name of Roland Barthes in sixth spot and ahead of Chomsky - has anyone heard of him?

I'd like to see an index concerned solely with philosophy, and then we'll see if Chomsky ranks as highly.

[A-Team]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

a 20 year old list lasting only 7 years using one specific source.

checkmate mon frere. l </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the first thing that came up with a google search. I'm sure there's dozens more but I can't be arsed.

Look you basically don't like what Chomsky says about your beloved country so you attempt to discredit him at every opportunity. And that's fair enough because he's often full of sh*t but to deny his influence as an intellectual is simply disingenuous.

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

mate, it comes down to basically we sit on our asses and do nothing about zimbabwe because south africa still has a hard on for mugabe for sticking two fingers up to whitey and we need a concensus among every ****water nation in the world to do anything. y </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It'd be interesting if Jason the Yank came in here now, because I can't help but be supportive of humanitarian operations and as everything it's a process. The UN has delivered successful humanitarian interventions.

And the UN is about to be reformed, hopefully making it a more effective body. I hope we both agree that it is needed?

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A-Team:

It was the first thing that came up with a google search. I'm sure there's dozens more but I can't be arsed.

Look you basically don't like what Chomsky says about your beloved country so you attempt to discredit him at every opportunity. And that's fair enough because he's often full of sh*t but to deny his influence as an intellectual is simply disingenuous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Influence as an intellectual on the world, or on academic circles? There's a world of difference.

[Daaaaave]

the dane also has a problem with your list, discredit him too.

mate, I have stated the reasons I dislike chomsky and simply saying it's due to him badmouthing america is simply puerile. his "influence as an intellectual" is mainly among students and hippies who read his books already knowing what he will say and they agree with it, then they congratulate each other for how profoundly intellectual they are and don't do a f*cking thing.

my issue with chomsky isn't what he says, it's that he doesn't do a f*cking thing, his readers don't do a f*cking thing, to "read chomsky" is the end to the means. it's f*cking pathetic. intellectuals are sh*t

[Sir Bert Preast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

intellectuals are sh*t </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

\o/

[Jeroen Thijssen]

Any news on Carmen?

[Daaaaave]

I joined the military specifically due to my belief in humanitarian operations. But I don't see what the UN or international law has to do with that. Liberia asks the US for help, the US sends help. The UN may congratulate themselves for providing the forum or whatever, but they're the ones who allowed the circumstances to develop where the Liberians had the ask the US for help and 99.9999999% of their member nations suddenly have a doctor's appointment when it comes to providing boots on the ground to support whatever ineffectual resolution they come up with.

Every country (Jacques, that includes the US) acts out of self-interest. Most of the time, it ends up flouting international law one way or the other. then, and this is my favorite part, many other countries don't mind the breaches in international law because they benefit from it. now, am I talking about the US invading iraq and the "coalition of the willing", iraq flouting its oil for food plan and the neighboring countries selling its black market oil, or russia, china, and france selling weapons systems and fiber optic communications to iraq's military?

the answer is: it doesn't make any difference. people care according to their own personal biases and political beefs.

[Daaaaave]

I've not talked to nic today, red amigo.

[Keyser]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

the dane also has a problem with your list, discredit him too.

mate, I have stated the reasons I dislike chomsky and simply saying it's due to him badmouthing america is simply puerile. his "influence as an intellectual" is mainly among students and hippies who read his books already knowing what he will say and they agree with it, then they congratulate each other for how profoundly intellectual they are and don't do a f*cking thing.

my issue with chomsky isn't what he says, it's that he doesn't do a f*cking thing, his readers don't do a f*cking thing, to "read chomsky" is the end to the means. it's f*cking pathetic. intellectuals are sh*t </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's so going in as my from :*)

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I joined the military specifically due to my belief in humanitarian operations. But I don't see what the UN or international law has to do with that. Liberia asks the US for help, the US sends help. The UN may congratulate themselves for providing the forum or whatever, but they're the ones who allowed the circumstances to develop where the Liberians had the ask the US for help and 99.9999999% of their member nations suddenly have a doctor's appointment when it comes to providing boots on the ground to support whatever ineffectual resolution they come up with.

Every country (Jacques, that includes the US) acts out of self-interest. Most of the time, it ends up flouting international law one way or the other. then, and this is my favorite part, many other countries don't mind the breaches in international law because they benefit from it. now, am I talking about the US invading iraq and the "coalition of the willing", iraq flouting its oil for food plan and the neighboring countries selling its black market oil, or russia, china, and france selling weapons systems and fiber optic communications to iraq's military?

the answer is: it doesn't make any difference. people care according to their own personal biases and political beefs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You echo what a man like Robert Gilpin has said, which can be paraphrased to: 'Not until we have an affinity with the world as a whole, with humanity, rather than with a state and a people, there won't be a successful international society with international laws.' He also has a sh-it point, IMHO, when he says that the only thing we'd die for is the state we live in, but never mind.

Again, I want to look at it more as a process than as a monolith of diamong material. The window of opportunity for actually huddling together internationally hasn't been there for more than 15 years. As much as I'd like for some international solidarity to develop quickly, disabling the tribal mentality that has been the basis (and the reason for survival) of human life since we damn nearly died out as a species in Africa takes far longer than that.

I think the current peacecreating mission in Congo is a good example of us moving in a direction which is more endearing than the anarchy-vision of Gilpin and his ilk.

I guess you won't agree with my sentiment that there's a process underway that means 'it'll always be like that' won't always be like that?

[A-Team]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

my issue with chomsky isn't what he says, it's that he doesn't do a f*cking thing, his readers don't do a f*cking thing, to "read chomsky" is the end to the means. it's f*cking pathetic. intellectuals are sh*t </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what do you propose he does exactly?

[K-uglen]

Daaaaave, you like your intellectuals the way of Jean Paul Sartre then? (maybe a tad too far in the other extreme)

[Daaaaave]

I have to apologize because I do not seem to have the ability to quote.

"the only thing we'd die for is the state we live in" I believe is essentially correct. from my own experiences, I have had a difficult time getting people to understand the humanitarian power the US military could have if utilised properly. Mainly, they cannot bend their heads around "our boys" and what "our boys" are doing. People actually have less troubles, it seems, going to Iraq to secure an oil source to pay for our addiction to gasoline than to help another people.

The window of opportunity for gathering internationally has been around since 1919. And even before then, you would have several nations coming together for treaties and settle disputes and inevitably it would come down to self benefit. Sykes-Picot did more to f*ck up the Middle East than 5 USA's could ever hope to accomplish.

I believe in peace creating and using the power, the influence, and the *luxury* we have in coming for 1st world industrialised nations to help other people come up. I believe you do as well. But I'm also certain you realise that we are both in the minority and the realities of the situation mean that our ideologies are far more ideal than pragmatic. it is one of the only areas in which I allow myself to be idealistic because it's just too depressed to concentrate too much on what our fellow citizens are willing to make *other* people go through to protect "their way of life".

As for intellectuals, I dislike the academician intellentsia, to borrow some hearty socialist terminology. I despise people who contrive to know what's best for the world having spent most of their lives sequestered away from the world as much as possible. Generally speaking, I prefer the Twains who have lived life, their cynicism comes from experience, not snobbery. I must admit though that while I received the full American university liveral arts education, I never cared enough about many of the intellectuals and philosophers to really discern ones ideology from the other. They were all ******** artists, to a greater or lesser degree.

[K-uglen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

"the only thing we'd die for is the state we live in" I believe is essentially correct. from my own experiences, I have had a difficult time getting people to understand the humanitarian power the US military could have if utilised properly. Mainly, they cannot bend their heads around "our boys" and what "our boys" are doing. People actually have less troubles, it seems, going to Iraq to secure an oil source to pay for our addiction to gasoline than to help another people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I just don't want to believe that is true, but I'd rather think of it another way. The emotional tie bar none that we have is to our next-of-kin, our family. People have for thousands of years lived as family units without having a state to 'upload' their affinities into. The state, I believe, has constructed this affinity, in presenting a frame that made the individual more secure; if the only ones you feel alike is your family and next-of-kin, you won't feel as secure as you will if you feel your next-of-kin could potentially be everyone within a given area or territory.

If the affinity to the state is a creation, I can't help but ask in naïvity: Why can't an affinity with humanity as a whole be created? (with a big fu-ck off time frame for it to develop of course).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The window of opportunity for gathering internationally has been around since 1919. And even before then, you would have several nations coming together for treaties and settle disputes and inevitably it would come down to self benefit. Sykes-Picot did more to f*ck up the Middle East than 5 USA's could ever hope to accomplish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not very familiar with the Middle East (I try to block out the news from there, the inevitability of it all pi-sses me off), but does Sykes-Picot refer to the English doing their border-drawing trick among other things to stitch an area up they were leaving?

It's an interesting fact I find, that when people harp on about today being an unprecedented era of relations among countries, that the level of international trade before WWI was comparable to what it is now, the time before WWI being seen as the height of the souvereign state.

My dislike of and disagreement with the underlying logic of being selfserving is more emotional than anything, which annoys me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe in peace creating and using the power, the influence, and the *luxury* we have in coming for 1st world industrialised nations to help other people come up. I believe you do as well. But I'm also certain you realise that we are both in the minority and the realities of the situation mean that our ideologies are far more ideal than pragmatic. it is one of the only areas in which I allow myself to be idealistic because it's just too depressed to concentrate too much on what our fellow citizens are willing to make *other* people go through to protect "their way of life". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Pragmatism not idealism'

I'm (quite) a bit younger than you and haven't experienced as much, so I probably tend more towards an idealistic/naïve slant in most things.

I guess I'm not that when it comes to military action though. I can't help but feel it's a cop-out for the extreme left to on the one hand criticise military action in the name of humanity, and on the other hand complain about developing countries being stuck within stifling structures.

The problems aren't solved only by throwing money at them; in reality a true marxist would probably curse her/himself before having a sentiment like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for intellectuals, I dislike the academician intellentsia, to borrow some hearty socialist terminology. I despise people who contrive to know what's best for the world having spent most of their lives sequestered away from the world as much as possible. Generally speaking, I prefer the Twains who have lived life, their cynicism comes from experience, not snobbery. I must admit though that while I received the full American university liveral arts education, I never cared enough about many of the intellectuals and philosophers to really discern ones ideology from the other. They were all ******** artists, to a greater or lesser degree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about a classic like Kant?

Marx, much as people may dislike his theories, didn't sit in an ivory tower all his life, but he was actually a good journalist, describing conditions for workers in the 1800s.

What you wrote about the snobbery I can't help but relate to. I've been in uni for two years, but countless are the times were I've felt like a dimwitted boy from the countryside (which I am, the latter at least). There is so much theory for the sake of theory, and that's fine in some respects - the people who are good at that sh-it do inspire and influence the thinking of others etc.

I've never read Mark Twain, so I can sadly not relate to what he's written and how.

I'm a bit stuck in between the two, though. On the one hand I'm sick to death of the academic snobbery and the know-it-all attitude of many (ESPECIALLY in my course, but I guess there's a tradition for that). But on the other hand I'm sick of the half-arsed attempts at appearing clever, throwing random comments about events about without having looked into them - that is what happens where I come from, the place and milieu. You justify being 'better' than the 'academic fogheads' simply by saying you know better, not by argument.

Gah, went on a bit of a rant there.

[Bouncerboy13]

ITV Trevor McDonald doing his usual documentary on yesterday

[Daaaaave]

I'll try to answer more in depth when I get home from work, but simply

1) I believe one way to go forward is to make all member countries manditorily give a proportional number of troops to UN peacekeeping/UN duty because if you want to vote with the big boys, you've got to put butts on the line too. Also: to keep waffling and cronyism more to a minimum, rules should be drafted in which UN involvement also becomes mandatory. South Africa doesn't like us getting involved with Zimbabwe? Too bad. Rules say unfair elections, jailing the press, and using food as a political weapon necessitates involvement. It's not a question of should we get involved in Darfur and who should go, but we must get involved in Darfur and everyone goes. Just imagine the way that would bring into sharp focus the entire world's attention on such a location with each country's press railing their leaders to put a stop to it to "bring their boys home".

2) for the past several months, people have been bemoaning the death of dhoyt and the rise of daaaaave. between you and I, we basically killed this here fred and by and large, it was a return to my dhoyt posting style and is also a large part of why I don't post in that manner anymore. playing the antagonist may not be as intellectually rewarding, but it doesn't typically kill threads either. and I still manage to get a point in here and there.

[K-uglen]

1) is a very good point. I will pull out Congo as an example again, because less than 10% of the troops there are from 'the West' IIRC.

2) Sorry about bringing your Jekyll/Hyde out, I'm usually perfectly capable of killing threads on my own But I'm glad you replied nonetheless

[Moshi Moshe Mohammed]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I'll try to answer more in depth when I get home from work, but simply

1) I believe one way to go forward is to make all member countries manditorily give a proportional number of troops to UN peacekeeping/UN duty because if you want to vote with the big boys, you've got to put butts on the line too. Also: to keep waffling and cronyism more to a minimum, rules should be drafted in which UN involvement also becomes mandatory. South Africa doesn't like us getting involved with Zimbabwe? Too bad. Rules say unfair elections, jailing the press, and using food as a political weapon necessitates involvement. It's not a question of should we get involved in Darfur and who should go, but we must get involved in Darfur and everyone goes. Just imagine the way that would bring into sharp focus the entire world's attention on such a location with each country's press railing their leaders to put a stop to it to "bring their boys home".

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's actually a great idea, except it gets back to the problem that there is no one to enforce compliance... Nor is applying the same criteria to all states at all plausible -- I'd like to see anyone try and force UN troops into N. Korea, for example... Armed UN troops that actually do something may often only spark the tensions further... There's also the problem of UN troops being in the way -- as you know Israel, for instance, vehemently opposes UN presence in W. Bank for this reason -- the UN presence will shield the Hamas folks from Israeli tanks, but it won't shield Israeli civilians from a sneaky bomber.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

2) for the past several months, people have been bemoaning the death of dhoyt and the rise of daaaaave. between you and I, we basically killed this here fred and by and large, it was a return to my dhoyt posting style and is also a large part of why I don't post in that manner anymore. playing the antagonist may not be as intellectually rewarding, but it doesn't typically kill threads either. and I still manage to get a point in here and there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fwiw speaking what's actually on your mind as you did in the last few pages here is far more interesting than being antagonistic/clever.

[mr.moustache]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I'll try to answer more in depth when I get home from work, but simply

1) I believe one way to go forward is to make all member countries manditorily give a proportional number of troops to UN peacekeeping/UN duty because if you want to vote with the big boys, you've got to put butts on the line too. Also: to keep waffling and cronyism more to a minimum, rules should be drafted in which UN involvement also becomes mandatory. South Africa doesn't like us getting involved with Zimbabwe? Too bad. Rules say unfair elections, jailing the press, and using food as a political weapon necessitates involvement. It's not a question of should we get involved in Darfur and who should go, but we must get involved in Darfur and everyone goes. Just imagine the way that would bring into sharp focus the entire world's attention on such a location with each country's press railing their leaders to put a stop to it to "bring their boys home".

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's actually a great idea, except it gets back to the problem that there is no one to enforce compliance... Nor is applying the same criteria to all states at all plausible -- I'd like to see anyone try and force UN troops into N. Korea, for example... Armed UN troops that actually do something may often only spark the tensions further... There's also the problem of UN troops being in the way -- as you know Israel, for instance, vehemently opposes UN presence in W. Bank for this reason -- the UN presence will shield the Hamas folks from Israeli tanks, but it won't shield Israeli civilians from a sneaky bomber.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

2) for the past several months, people have been bemoaning the death of dhoyt and the rise of daaaaave. between you and I, we basically killed this here fred and by and large, it was a return to my dhoyt posting style and is also a large part of why I don't post in that manner anymore. playing the antagonist may not be as intellectually rewarding, but it doesn't typically kill threads either. and I still manage to get a point in here and there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fwiw speaking what's actually on your mind as you did in the last few pages here is far more interesting than being antagonistic/clever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately - It's nice to know what makes you tick.

[Daaaaave]

1) to have your own troops on the line would dissuade the russias, chinas, and pakistans of the world from arming north korea both with conventional and nbc weapons, so part of the problem would never have arisen in the first place.

2) israel doesn't want the un in the way because they are just that. in the way. turn them from ineffective meat puppets to an armed, competent peacekeeping force with real teeth›

[Daaaaave]

I may be antagonistic, but not that clever?

"you think too much of me kid, I'm not that clever" \o/ \o/ \o/Å’

[Jason the Yank]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JonnyZuko:

I dont think pulling troops out of Iraq is an option.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is.

I would much rather see our troops back in the U.S., beefing up our joke that is border security.

Along the Arizona border, it's so porous that a group of ranchers banded together because the federal government can't do its job. The same federal government that whined, "Oh, that's not right. You shouldn't be doing that. You need to leave it to us professionals."

At a minimum, 2/3 of the cargo containers coming through US ports are *not* inspected. I'd rather see US soldiers checking those than being a neocon "honeytrap" in Iraq or defending Germany from the Soviet Union.

[Jason the Yank]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zvonimir Boban:

Lucky he overslept as I was about 10 seconds away from being sent to Guantanamo Bay </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tortune at Gitmo mostly consists of making the jihadis look at pornography. The horror.

[Moshi Moshe Mohammed]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I may be antagonistic, but not that clever?

"you think too much of me kid, I'm not that clever" \o/ \o/ \o/Å’ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

;-)

i think one of the things i've learned from discussions around here is that once you get the smart users here to actually freely talk about whats on their mind (DJ, Cranker, Ensign, Kuglen, etc) you find out there's really not all that much difference between the various positions, and that the whole business of "left-wing" vs "right-wing" and euros vs yanks is really just a bunch of b.s. once you get down to it.