Bush & Putin Clash Over Missile Defense

[CPL.Luke]

bombus any evidence to say that anti-western elements in IRan came after Iran was trying to become like us? the shah tried to westernise the country and was eventually overthrown, if you want to overthrow a pro-western leader; blaming the west for everything isn't a bad idea.

 

It's also not that hard to create anti-western sentiment using anti-semetic arguments such as "why do they have all the money, they must be taking advantage" "they use their wealth to keep power" etc.

 

 

As for nationalization, it may have originally been Iranian oil, but british companies payed for the rights to use the fields, they built infrastructure and carried out all of the tasks required t start exporting oil. Ad then the Iranians took the fields back.

 

This is similar to selling the farming right to your lands, allowing the person you sold the rights too to care for the crops until just before they are supposed to be harvested. And then kicking the farmers off your land and then selling the crops that they grew.

[Pangloss]

Isn't it interesting how the far left insists that what's of the Earth belongs to everyone, EXCEPT when what's being discussed is oil under foreign countries -- then those countries are portrayed as doing something noble and positive when they nationalize. Why is local corruption more noble than a profiteering American oil corporation? Oh right, I remember -- because it's American.

[bombus]

bombus any evidence to say that anti-western elements in IRan came after Iran was trying to become like us? the shah tried to westernise the country and was eventually overthrown, if you want to overthrow a pro-western leader; blaming the west for everything isn't a bad idea.

 

Look, you can find this stuff out for yourself you know! The Shah was put in place by the CIA after Mossadegh was ousted in Operation Ajax. Mossadegh wanted to modernize the county but was a bit too left wing for the West.

 

It's also not that hard to create anti-western sentiment using anti-semetic arguments such as "why do they have all the money, they must be taking advantage" "they use their wealth to keep power" etc.

 

What's anti semetism got to do with it? Iran is opposed too the Isreali state, not Jews (the Isreali state being occupied Palestine to many in the middle east). Anyway, Arabs are Semites too.

 

As for nationalization, it may have originally been Iranian oil, but british companies payed for the rights to use the fields, they built infrastructure and carried out all of the tasks required t start exporting oil. Ad then the Iranians took the fields back.

 

Yeah, and I'm like really sure the Iranians were given a fair deal!!

 

This is similar to selling the farming right to your lands, allowing the person you sold the rights too to care for the crops until just before they are supposed to be harvested. And then kicking the farmers off your land and then selling the crops that they grew.

 

No it's not. Its more like being told that by selling your rights to land you'll be better off, and then realising how much you have been ripped off. I am sure the Iranians had little say in it anyway.

[bombus]

Isn't it interesting how the far left insists that what's of the Earth belongs to everyone, EXCEPT when what's being discussed is oil under foreign countries -- then those countries are portrayed as doing something noble and positive when they nationalize. Why is local corruption more noble than a profiteering American oil corporation? Oh right, I remember -- because it's American.

 

Local corruption? I don't understand how nationalisation is equal to corruption? Please explain? Also, it was mostly British oil companies that lost out in Iran.

[bombus]

For purposes of future discussion, let's all just assume that the West is at fault for every problem in the world.

 

Now what?

 

OK! Just off the top of my head...

 

1. We could stop invading other countries against the wishes of the UN

2. We could stop interfering with the internal politics of other countries and let the respective populations choose who they want to be lead by.

3. We could stop having economic aid to benefit the poorest countries being applied with strings attached such as 'you must privatise all your utilities, education and transport systems' so that Western companies can profit from them.

4. We could stop supporting corrupt regimes just because they 'eat commies for breakfast' regardless of how brutal they are.

5. We could stop selling unstable countries weapons, which enable civil wars, which cause famine, and then act like the good guys by giving the starving populations charity!

6. We could stop encouraging the corrupt governments of Third World countries (supported by the West) to grow cash crops to give the West strawberries in Winter, cheap coffee and bananas and line the pockets of multinationals companies, while paying the workers starvation wages.

7. We could encourage Third World countries to redistrubute land so that poor people can grow food for themselves, rather than cheap coffee for the West, or

8. We could allow coffee bean producing nations to make their own coffee (thus benefit from the increased revenue of processing) instead of banning the sale of anything other than raw coffee beans to the West.

9. We should stop selling the Third World DDT, Malathion and other dangerous pesticides that have been banned in the West.

10. We should stop using depleted uranium tipped shells on middle eastern battlefields, which cause cancers in children for generations after their use.

11. We could stop selling torture equipment to brutal corrupt regimes in the Third World

12. We could ban the import of unsustainable rainforest timber etc thus saving the rainforests and preventing indiginous 'Indians' from losing their land and culture, and save the forests biodiversity.

 

Is that enough or would you like some more:-)

[CPL.Luke]

bombus if you would read more carefully you'll notice that I was drawing a comparison between the arguments of anti-semitism, and the arguments placed against the west by various anti-western groups around the world.

 

as for the mosaddeq I will direct you to this section from wikipedia.

 

Due to a multitude of disagreements with his former allies, especially the communists and Islamists, and disagreements with the Shah and with the parliament over his handling of the talks regarding compensation of the British side, he dissolved the parliament using a referendum to avoid impeachment. This act was characterized as unconstitutional by some of his closest allies as well as opponents, and led to the Shah's dismissing him from office on August 16, 1953 [4][5][6][7][8]. Mossadegh later insisted that the text of the constitution was subject to interpretation, and that his actions had been in accordance with its spirit rather than its text [9]. He eventually was removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

As you can see he wasn't exactly well liked at the time, and while it certainly wasn't the job of the US and Britain to deal with him, I would venture to guess that the coup would have happened anyway.

 

As for nationalization, it may have originally been Iranian oil, but british companies payed for the rights to use the fields, they built infrastructure and carried out all of the tasks required t start exporting oil. Ad then the Iranians took the fields back.

Yeah, and I'm like really sure the Iranians were given a fair deal!!

 

 

and what does that have to do with it? they could have been given the worst deal on the planet and it still wouldn't matter, the rights were sold and maybe the government got a raw deal (which was composed of an autocrat at the time) the people got the same benefit that they always would have, more jobs.

 

Now if you were a car salesman and you let a customer negotiate you down to a price that was far lower than you could mae money off of, but you still old it to him. would you show up at his house the next day and take it back?

[Pangloss]

Local corruption? I don't understand how nationalisation is equal to corruption? Please explain? Also, it was mostly British oil companies that lost out in Iran.

 

I wasn't responding to your posts about Iran; I'm off on a tangent.

 

Anyway, name one nationalized oil industry that has not had to deal with charges of corruption.

[Pangloss]

I'd like to respond to these complaints from a political perspective. In other words, this reply is not directed towards bombus in particular, but rather to the way these issues are paraded about by the far left.

 

1. We could stop invading other countries against the wishes of the UN

 

The plurality of this statment (again, this is commonplace, not just something from bombus) should be explained. The implication is that we've done this a lot. Are there a dozen Iraqs that I'm not aware of? We had unilateral multinational support for Afghanistan and the Gulf War, so I'm not seeing the plurality of this complaint. But maybe I'm in error?

 

 

2. We could stop interfering with the internal politics of other countries and let the respective populations choose who they want to be lead by.

 

In other words, we should fund the United Nations, but not participate in it. And we should continue to provide billions in foreign aid, but not say anything about how it is spent, even if that means it all goes to dictators because nobody bothered to try and stop it. Isn't that obviously too simplistic?

 

In point of (political) fact, nearly everyone, not just the far left, wants us to "intefere" in politics of other countries (i.e. participate). The complaint (again, as typically voiced) is not that we interfere, but that we don't interfere in the correct manner (as prescribed by whomever the complainers happen to be this week).

 

Does anybody actually think Africa can clean up its own act? How's that worked out in the past?

 

 

3. We could stop having economic aid to benefit the poorest countries being applied with strings attached such as 'you must privatise all your utilities, education and transport systems' so that Western companies can profit from them.

 

Ask any foreign aid worker, even ones who've voted Democrat all their lives, and they'll tell you that you can't bring a 3rd world nation into the 21st century by throwing it a stack of cash. It takes infrastructure, checks and balances, education, solid logistics, and people who know what they're doing.

 

You know what we call that? A corporation.

 

 

4. We could stop supporting corrupt regimes just because they 'eat commies for breakfast' regardless of how brutal they are.

 

Why shouldn't we should support whatever regimes further our national interest? After all, that's what every other country on the face of this planet does.

 

But ok, there's a commonly-made case that we should lead by example, and I'm all for that. But, interestingly enough, this would contradict the earlier point about not interfering in foreign affairs. Because, like it or not, by not stepping up and saying something when governments go bad, we are indirectly supporting their continuance. Or at least that's what we're accused off (the rise of Hamas being a commonly utilized example).

 

 

5. We could stop selling unstable countries weapons, which enable civil wars, which cause famine, and then act like the good guys by giving the starving populations charity!

 

This common complaint is an example of guilt by association. Who is "we"? And why are "we" responsible for redirected arms shipments that are, more often than not, already illegal?

 

 

6. We could stop encouraging the corrupt governments of Third World countries (supported by the West) to grow cash crops to give the West strawberries in Winter, cheap coffee and bananas and line the pockets of multinationals companies, while paying the workers starvation wages.

 

Ignoring the conflicting overtones from earlier complaints, let me just focus on the end of that statement. In general when this happens with American companies the resulting wages are not "starvation wages" at all, and in fact result in local economic improvement.

 

How else do you expect the local economy to improve? Would it really improve faster if we just threw cash at it, or left it alone? Those are the only two alternatives you've mentioned here (and the only two commonly mentioned in these sorts of complaints).

 

 

7. We could encourage Third World countries to redistrubute land so that poor people can grow food for themselves, rather than cheap coffee for the West, or

 

Wait, I thought we were supposed to leave them alone? Wouldn't that be interference?

 

 

8. We could allow coffee bean producing nations to make their own coffee (thus benefit from the increased revenue of processing) instead of banning the sale of anything other than raw coffee beans to the West.

 

 

You got me there, I can't counter this point, not knowing the first thing about it.

 

 

9. We should stop selling the Third World DDT, Malathion and other dangerous pesticides that have been banned in the West.

 

While we're at it, can we un-ban DDT for domestic use? I'd like to use it in my own yard, since there's no evidence that there's anything actually harmful about it.

 

And I thought Malathion was still used in the US. Did I miss something?

 

 

10. We should stop using depleted uranium tipped shells on middle eastern battlefields, which cause cancers in children for generations after their use.

 

A fairly well-documented issue of growing concern for people who live in areas where such shells have been used (such as present-day Iraq). I can't find any fault here.

 

 

11. We could stop selling torture equipment to brutal corrupt regimes in the Third World

 

That's a new one on me. Interesting.

 

 

12. We could ban the import of unsustainable rainforest timber etc thus saving the rainforests and preventing indiginous 'Indians' from losing their land and culture, and save the forests biodiversity.

 

We import timber? I thought we grew it all ourselves (increasing, rather than decreasing, domestic forestation in the process). But hey, maybe you know something I don't know. Could be a valid point here.

 

 

Is that enough or would you like some more:-)

 

Wow. It's not every day that I get to respond to a boiler-plate litany of ideological insanities. That was fun! Please provide more!

 

I've told you before, bombus. The world is just not black and white like it is when people listen to Air America (or Conservative Talk Radio). It's gray.

[bombus]

I'd like to respond to these complaints from a political perspective. In other words, this reply is not directed towards bombus in particular, but rather to the way these issues are paraded about by the far left.

 

Originally Posted by bombus View Post

 

1. We could stop invading other countries against the wishes of the UN

 

The plurality of this statment (again, this is commonplace, not just something from bombus) should be explained. The implication is that we've done this a lot. Are there a dozen Iraqs that I'm not aware of? We had unilateral multinational support for Afghanistan and the Gulf War, so I'm not seeing the plurality of this complaint. But maybe I'm in error?

 

Well, isn't Iraq enough? Anyway, what about VIETNAM!

 

 

2. We could stop interfering with the internal politics of other countries and let the respective populations choose who they want to be lead by.

 

In other words, we should fund the United Nations, but not participate in it. And we should continue to provide billions in foreign aid, but not say anything about how it is spent, even if that means it all goes to dictators because nobody bothered to try and stop it. Isn't that obviously too simplistic?

 

The key word there was 'AND'. If we're doing what the people want there's no problem is there!

 

In point of (political) fact, nearly everyone, not just the far left, wants us to "intefere" in politics of other countries (i.e. participate). The complaint (again, as typically voiced) is not that we interfere, but that we don't interfere in the correct manner (as prescribed by whomever the complainers happen to be this week).

 

Well, why don't we start doing what's best for the people, instead of what's best for us.

 

Does anybody actually think Africa can clean up its own act? How's that worked out in the past?

 

Chicken and the egg situation here. I actually think Africa is perfectly capable of cleaning up its act once we bugger off and stop messing them about. Funny how they were fine 'til we got there.

 

3. We could stop having economic aid to benefit the poorest countries being applied with strings attached such as 'you must privatise all your utilities, education and transport systems' so that Western companies can profit from them.

 

Ask any foreign aid worker, even ones who've voted Democrat all their lives, and they'll tell you that you can't bring a 3rd world nation into the 21st century by throwing it a stack of cash. It takes infrastructure, checks and balances, education, solid logistics, and people who know what they're doing.

 

You know what we call that? A corporation.

 

We could set up non-profit making trusts to deliver the work, rather than sucking the aid back out in the form of profits for western companies.

 

 

4. We could stop supporting corrupt regimes just because they 'eat commies for breakfast' regardless of how brutal they are.

 

Why shouldn't we should support whatever regimes further our national interest? After all, that's what every other country on the face of this planet does.

 

But ok, there's a commonly-made case that we should lead by example, and I'm all for that. But, interestingly enough, this would contradict the earlier point about not interfering in foreign affairs. Because, like it or not, by not stepping up and saying something when governments go bad, we are indirectly supporting their continuance. Or at least that's what we're accused off (the rise of Hamas being a commonly utilized example).

 

And look where its got us - 9/11 remember that? Re: interfering, as said before, fine if we are doing what the people actually want/really need.

 

 

5. We could stop selling unstable countries weapons, which enable civil wars, which cause famine, and then act like the good guys by giving the starving populations charity!

 

This common complaint is an example of guilt by association. Who is "we"? And why are "we" responsible for redirected arms shipments that are, more often than not, already illegal?

 

'We' are the West, who make the weapons. If all arms manufacturers were nationalised or forbidden from making profits or selling arms to other countries much of this nonsense would cease.

 

 

6. We could stop encouraging the corrupt governments of Third World countries (supported by the West) to grow cash crops to give the West strawberries in Winter, cheap coffee and bananas and line the pockets of multinationals companies, while paying the workers starvation wages.

 

Ignoring the conflicting overtones from earlier complaints, let me just focus on the end of that statement. In general when this happens with American companies the resulting wages are not "starvation wages" at all, and in fact result in local economic improvement.

 

How else do you expect the local economy to improve? Would it really improve faster if we just threw cash at it, or left it alone? Those are the only two alternatives you've mentioned here (and the only two commonly mentioned in these sorts of complaints).

 

I really don't want to be patronizing BUT I think you don't know enough about global economics for me to reply properly without giving you a very long lecture. Suffice it to say that in many (but maybe not all) examples the people DO NOT benefit from growing cash crops.

 

 

7. We could encourage Third World countries to redistrubute land so that poor people can grow food for themselves, rather than cheap coffee for the West, or

 

Wait, I thought we were supposed to leave them alone? Wouldn't that be interference?

 

A refer you to the answer I said above

 

 

8. We could allow coffee bean producing nations to make their own coffee (thus benefit from the increased revenue of processing) instead of banning the sale of anything other than raw coffee beans to the West.

 

 

You got me there, I can't counter this point, not knowing the first thing about it.

 

There's loads of unfair trade rules like that imposed by the WTO, IMF and World Bank.

 

 

9. We should stop selling the Third World DDT, Malathion and other dangerous pesticides that have been banned in the West.

 

While we're at it, can we un-ban DDT for domestic use? I'd like to use it in my own yard, since there's no evidence that there's anything actually harmful about it.

 

And I thought Malathion was still used in the US. Did I miss something?

 

DDT unharmful!? Have you never heard of Silent Spring? Malathion might still be used in the US (but I doubt it). It's banned in most developed countries - it's a nerve gas developed by the Nazis!

 

 

10. We should stop using depleted uranium tipped shells on middle eastern battlefields, which cause cancers in children for generations after their use.

 

A fairly well-documented issue of growing concern for people who live in areas where such shells have been used (such as present-day Iraq). I can't find any fault here.

 

Glad to hear it!

 

 

11. We could stop selling torture equipment to brutal corrupt regimes in the Third World

 

That's a new one on me. Interesting.

 

Been done for years, usually called 'Aid'

 

 

12. We could ban the import of unsustainable rainforest timber etc thus saving the rainforests and preventing indiginous 'Indians' from losing their land and culture, and save the forests biodiversity.

 

We import timber? I thought we grew it all ourselves (increasing, rather than decreasing, domestic forestation in the process). But hey, maybe you know something I don't know. Could be a valid point here.

 

Yup, tropical hardwood

 

 

Is that enough or would you like some more

 

Wow. It's not every day that I get to respond to a boiler-plate litany of ideological insanities. That was fun! Please provide more!

 

I've told you before, bombus. The world is just not black and white like it is when people listen to Air America (or Conservative Talk Radio). It's gray

.

 

I am the gray polluting your black and white! You are sounding like an extremist. It's like arguing with someone who believes in Intelligent Design! You er..don't... do you???

[bombus]

bombus if you would read more carefully you'll notice that I was drawing a comparison between the arguments of anti-semitism, and the arguments placed against the west by various anti-western groups around the world.

 

Sorry, me reading too fast!

 

as for the mosaddeq I will direct you to this section from wikipedia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

As you can see he wasn't exactly well liked at the time, and while it certainly wasn't the job of the US and Britain to deal with him, I would venture to guess that the coup would have happened anyway.

 

Mossadegh was very popular with most of the Iranian people, and is still thought of as a hero by many.

 

 

 

and what does that have to do with it? they could have been given the worst deal on the planet and it still wouldn't matter, the rights were sold and maybe the government got a raw deal (which was composed of an autocrat at the time) the people got the same benefit that they always would have, more jobs.

 

Now if you were a car salesman and you let a customer negotiate you down to a price that was far lower than you could mae money off of, but you still old it to him. would you show up at his house the next day and take it back?

 

Can you imagine if a corrupt US government sold all US oil rights in the early 1900's (for example) to, say Russia, without consulting the US citizens, and Russia then took most of it for themselves, and took all the profits from what they sold.

 

Would the US public just sit and take it like a bunch of pussies and say "Well it was all legal so it's just fine by me!" Of course not!!

[CPL.Luke]

well again the average citizen would have only gotten the benefits of extra jobs in the area around the oil supply, and of course added industrial centers for processing andexporting the oil, which then leads to additional buisness ventures etc.

 

 

In the end it doesn't matter a whole heck of alot whether a russian or an american own the oil fields to the average american, out of curiosity how many of america's natural resources, factories, and buisnesses do you think are owned by americans?

 

Furthermore in america the government would not have the right to sell the oil fields in most cases, only the peple who discovered the oil/ owned the land it was under would have that right in most cases. In the case of Iran the Shah owned the land (him being a type of king) and as such the rights to the oil were his. Or it was something else related to his legal rights in the matter truthfully I do not know. But again it doesn't make much difference whether or not the oil was owned by an Iranian.

 

I wonder however what the benefit of the nationalization of the oil has been to the Iranian people, and what extra benefits they get from the nationalization of their oil fields. I wouldn't be surprised if the only difference the Iranian people saw was a larger arms budget.

 

Mossadegh was very popular with most of the Iranian people, and is still thought of as a hero by many.

 

I wonder how many popular leaders are threatened with impeachment then dissolve the parliament, have lost most of their allies, and have the communist party angry with them subsequent to nationalizing industries.

[Pangloss]

Well, isn't Iraq enough? Anyway, what about VIETNAM!

 

Well I could make bones about the international support that did exist for Vietnam, but even if we bypass that point, that would be a grand total of... two. You're right. That's plurality. I stand disgracefully corrected. What a vast history of evil villainy we have.

 

 

Well, why don't we start doing what's best for the people, instead of what's best for us.

 

Exactly. Like I said, the position you're espousing is that what's best for people in other countries is more important than what's best for the United States and its citizens. In all things, and at all times.

 

 

I actually think Africa is perfectly capable of cleaning up its act once we bugger off and stop messing them about. Funny how they were fine 'til we got there.

 

Well first of all there's never BEEN a time when "we" weren't there yet. You do realize that Africa wasn't discovered by Christopher Columbus 1492, right? And, um, you do realize that Africa is the point of origin for the human race? And, um, you do realize that the northern coast was consistently co-habited by "Western" cultures (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, etc) in ancient times?

 

But even if you focus on the last 3k years and sub-Saharan Africa, they had domestic slavery, autocratic regimes, class inequality, brutal repression, religious zealotry and short life spans, all in plenty of abundance, long before Europeans (or even Romans or Egyptians) showed up.

 

BTW, do you know much about the history of Africa, bombus?

[CPL.Luke]

Well, why don't we start doing what's best for the people, instead of what's best for us.

Exactly. Like I said, the position you're espousing is that what's best for people in other countries is more important than what's best for the United States and its citizens. In all things, and at all times.

 

hah you know its funny right now I'm reading "atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand and the entire book is about why that sort of philosophy makes for a very bad society. however I suppose that in the end its a moral dilemma between the philosophy of collectivism and the philosophy of objectivism.

 

I highly recommend the book by the way.

[Sisyphus]

 

I highly recommend the book by the way.

 

You'll get over it.

[CPL.Luke]

thats unfortunate, I'm on page 200 or so and it seems to still be getting better (although it is altogether too drawn out, its very interesting)

[Pangloss]

I don't care what anyone says, Atlas Shrugged a great work, and saying that doesn't make you an idealist or a capitalist (I know outright socialists who aren't ashamed to admit they loved it). Some of my favorite books were written by extremists; doesn't mean I agree with their philosophy.

 

Of course, there are also valid complaints about Rand's prose, but no book is perfect, and it's not a standard-definition novel anyway. It's whole purpose was to espouse that philosophy, so one should expect the characters to "wax philosophical" from time to time. And at least two of those lengthy diatribes are outright classics. (The 50-page Galt speech at the end is a bit much, IMO, but Francisco's mid-book speech about "money and the root of all evil" is pure genius.)

 

But then I actually enjoy freaky extremist literature so what do I know. I live for angry rants, powerful posts and slam poetry. What can I say.

[Pangloss]

Malathion might still be used in the US (but I doubt it).

 

It appears to still be quite legal. See separate thread here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27163

 

As for DDT, I stand by what I said earlier. Studies from scientific results are mixed at best. That's a cause celeb, not a definitive scientific conclusion. "Silent Spring" is great stuff for motivating the environmentalists. But for finding the truth of the matter, not so much.

[bombus]

I wonder how many popular leaders are threatened with impeachment then dissolve the parliament, have lost most of their allies, and have the communist party angry with them subsequent to nationalizing industries.

 

I stand by what I said, and if you do enough research you'll find out that I was right. You have been reading western propaganda.

[bombus]

It appears to still be quite legal. See separate thread here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27163

 

As for DDT, I stand by what I said earlier. Studies from scientific results are mixed at best. That's a cause celeb, not a definitive scientific conclusion. "Silent Spring" is great stuff for motivating the environmentalists. But for finding the truth of the matter, not so much.

 

Hah, well I suppose your beloved US government doesn't really give a damn about you! What a surprise.

 

DDT poisons fish, affects fecundity in top predators, especially birds, and is persistent in the environment. How can you possibly not know this?

[bombus]

Well I could make bones about the international support that did exist for Vietnam,

 

Oh yeah, among who exactly? China? NO, Soviet Union? NO.

 

but even if we bypass that point, that would be a grand total of... two. You're right. That's plurality. I stand disgracefully corrected. What a vast history of evil villainy we have.

 

Apart from the fact that there are plenty more (research it yourself) why not say that to the millions who have lost loved ones as a result. You with your cosy pampered life are prepared for children to die to keep you in SUVs. You should be ashamed!

 

Exactly. Like I said, the position you're espousing is that what's best for people in other countries is more important than what's best for the United States and its citizens. In all things, and at all times.

 

People in Third World countries are just as important as US Citizens my friend.

 

Well first of all there's never BEEN a time when "we" weren't there yet. You do realize that Africa wasn't discovered by Christopher Columbus 1492, right? And, um, you do realize that Africa is the point of origin for the human race? And, um, you do realize that the northern coast was consistently co-habited by "Western" cultures (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, etc) in ancient times?

 

Well, I was really talking about the industrialized western nations and sub-saharan Africa. We didn't really start much there until the 1800s. North Africa is part of the Mediterranean culture.

 

But even if you focus on the last 3k years and sub-Saharan Africa, they had domestic slavery, autocratic regimes, class inequality, brutal repression, religious zealotry and short life spans, all in plenty of abundance, long before Europeans (or even Romans or Egyptians) showed up.

 

Oh right, so it's fine for us to carry on the tradition. Well yeah, and the Jews have been oppressed throughout history so Hitler was right to carry on this grand tradition was he? Look, as you point out Africa was the cradle of humanity. Man has been living in Africa for 100,000 years. Funny how all of a sudden they can't seem to feed themselves.

 

BTW, do you know much about the history of Africa, bombus?

 

I guarantee, far more than you my friend:-)

[ParanoiA]

Hah, well I suppose your beloved US government doesn't really give a damn about you! What a surprise.

 

No, no, my country loves me very much. With me dead, how do they make money?

 

Anyway, according to the article:

 

Does Malathion Pose Risks to Human Health?

 

Malathion can be used for public health mosquito control programs without posing unreasonable risks to the general population when applied according to the label. EPA has estimated the exposure and risks to both adults and children posed by ULV aerial and ground applications of malathion. Because of the very small amount of active ingredient released per acre of ground, the estimates found that for all scenarios considered, exposures were several times below an amount that might pose a health concern. These estimates assumed that a toddler would ingest some soil and grass in addition to skin and inhalation exposure. However, at high doses, malathion, like other organophosphates, can overstimulate the nervous system causing nausea, dizziness, or confusion. Severe high-dose poisoning with any organophosphate can cause convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and death.

 

Is that a lie?

[bascule]

(feel free to move this to another thread if you feel the need)

 

I don't care what anyone says, Atlas Shrugged a great work, and saying that doesn't make you an idealist or a capitalist (I know outright socialists who aren't ashamed to admit they loved it). Some of my favorite books were written by extremists; doesn't mean I agree with their philosophy.

 

It depends what you're looking for. When I read it (circa age 15) I loved it. I also loved Battlefield Earth.

 

My philosophical/moral foundations as well as taste in literature have grown considerably since then.

 

Rand asserts that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life. This is a diction error, but one that underlies all of Rand's writing: traditional ideas about morality are wrong, and morality should be redefined in a way that is the diametrical opposite of its traditional meaning (good/evil based exclusively around outcomes which affect one's self with others completely cut out of the picture)

 

From the perspective of mainstream philosophy, Objectivists are amoral. This is because "morality" typically deals with how we relate with others, whereas in Objectivism morality is completely inwardly focused with no consideration for others (to the point that Dagny Taggart, one of the protagonists, murders a bit character who is incapable of making a snap decision, in a situation which is ostensibly justifiable under her philosophy)

 

I've seen Objectivists try to argue that the philosophy is similar to Utilitarianism (both philosophies are based around maximizing desirable outcomes) with "what's best for myself" used in lieu of "what's best for everyone". That said, the philosophy advocates disregard for the well-being of others, and in that sense is devoid of anything mainstream philosophers would consider to be a moral code.

 

"Every man for himself!" is not a moral philosophy.

 

Of course, there are also valid complaints about Rand's prose, but no book is perfect, and it's not a standard-definition novel anyway.

 

I've found it quite odd that Rand would use historical fiction as a soapbox for a moral philosophy. It's ingenious, in that people can be drawn towards her philosophy through her crappy prose and her wooden apotheosis-of-idealic-capitalist characters. It's a similar approach to that of most religious texts (e.g. the Bible)

 

I've talked about this before, but my great falling out with Rand was when I discovered that Atlas Shrugged is a historical allegory, and began studying mid-19th century U.S. history, which included the majority of the "robber barons" Rands characters were based on (Dagny Taggart as Cornelius Vanderbilt, Hank Rearden as Andrew Carnegie, Midas Mulligan as J.P. Morgan)

 

As far as historical allegories go, Atlas Shrugged is terrible. Rand draws nothing from the lessons of history, instead using a historical canvas to paint a distorted view of the world. Contrast this against an excellent historical allegory like Animal Farm, which is powerful, succinct, and beautifully written.

 

Rand could certainly learn from Orwell's rules for writers. Namely:

 

• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  

 

Atlas Shrugged needn't be >1000 pages. I'd owe the length of the work to Ayn Rand's verbose and bombastic writing style, one I'd regard as similar to L. Ron Hubbard's. Both books make for fun, quick reads (despite their gargantuan length) because both writers spell out the exact intended interpretation and forego the traditional literary use of extensive symbolism. In this respect both books are quick reads compared to shorter but substantially more complex books (it took me an order of magnitude more time to read Gravity's Rainbow, which is approximately 3/4 the length of Atlas Shrugged)

 

That said, I don't find it too coincidental that a reader poll taken at The Modern Library ranked 2 Ayn Rand works followed by an L. Ron Hubbard work on the top of their list. Both books are by authors with a somewhat fanatical following:

 

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

 

Contrast with the board's list, which provides more standard faire (Joyce, Nabokov, Faulkner, Huxley, Pynchon, Steinbeck, Orwell) and omits Rand and Hubbard's works entirely.

[ParanoiA]

Oh yeah, among who exactly? China? NO, Soviet Union? NO.

 

Isn't that like making a case for no international support for our invasion of Afganistan because Al Quada didn't support it?

 

You with your cosy pampered life are prepared for children to die to keep you in SUVs. You should be ashamed!

 

As should you for sacrificing your children so you can type on this board with your computer you're reading this with.

 

People in Third World countries are just as important as US Citizens my friend.

 

No one in a third world country would agree with that. And you wouldn't lecture them about it either...just the west.

 

Funny how all of a sudden they can't seem to feed themselves.

 

No kidding. You'd think they'd have that figured out by now...

 

I guarantee, far more than you my friend

 

This testosterone knowledge competition is really getting annoying. Why don't you two march 10 paces and then turn and fire your smartest nugget of knowledge on the subject? Then we'll all decide which of you is the weiner...

[bombus]

Isn't that like making a case for no international support for our invasion of Afganistan because Al Quada didn't support it?

 

Er...No

 

 

 

As should you for sacrificing your children so you can type on this board with your computer you're reading this with.

 

Hardly equivalents now are they. It is possible to have computers and not sacrifice the future. It's very hard to bomb civilian areas and miss people!

 

 

No one in a third world country would agree with that. And you wouldn't lecture them about it either...just the west.

Not sure what you're trying to say there. Apart from the fact that you are not really in a strong position to say what a person in a third world country might think, it's irrelevent anyway. The point is IMHO their lives are just as important as anyone in the West.

 

No kidding. You'd think they'd have that figured out by now...

 

They have, but we won't let them.

 

 

This testosterone knowledge competition is really getting annoying. Why don't you two march 10 paces and then turn and fire your smartest nugget of knowledge on the subject? Then we'll all decide which of you is the weiner...

 

Fair enuff. I shall stop being drawn.

 

I've also had enough of this debate. I'm getting nowhere arguing against rampant fundamentalist capitalists! I might as well pick a fight with creationists! But... PLEASE open your minds and question your own opinions as much as mine.

[bombus]

No, no, my country loves me very much. With me dead, how do they make money?

 

Anyway, according to the article:

 

 

 

Is that a lie?

 

(Sorry, saw this and had to reply...)

 

Well, very probably not a lie, but we are learning a lot about organophosphates and how even very low doses can affect the nervous systems of people who are in contact with them regularly. Also, Agent Orange was said to be safe as well!

 

But regardless of this, in the doses used in the third world to keep thrips off oranges (which only mark the skin, but do not actually harm the fruit) they are far more dangerous to human health.