Rachel Maddow Talkin Shit about Obama+Indefinite Detention[Warning, political thread]
- Thread starter xmcp123
- Start date
- Status
Not like the IMF, not like the World Bank. John Perkins? Nope, haven't heard of him, but I think I'll read his books and watch Zeitgeist.
The Lisbon Treaty was not ratified. So what. The EU is not a country. It is a multilateral trade agreement with high enough integration to almost make it a political union. What is missing, is the constitution. I don't see a point in rushing that. The member countries have stable domestic policies anyway.
Japan's former Ministry of International Trade and Industry was a bureaucratic agency consisting of non-elected bureaucrats. It was successful because it was meritocratic.
I am restating my arguments hoping that you will acknowledge them.
Some current reading:
Reding wants globally responsible, privatised ICANN - Foreign - The Sofia Echo Details how it could be done.
European Union Asks Obama To Free ICANN Shows how it is a current issue.
Gaining a Stake in Global Internet Governance: The EU, ICANN and Strategic Norm Manipulation -- Christou and Simpson 22 (2): 147 -- European Journal of Communication Didn't read this one, but it seemed official
We can discuss the much more interesting economics side of this after I finish preparing a presentation for tomorrow.
Interesting sources - thanks for posting it. If I have time, I'll read the economic study published from the European Journal of Communication (i.e. the last link).
Sounds pretty bad ass and it's produced by a fairly respected University (the University of Warwick):
Gaining a Stake in Global Internet Governance
The EU, ICANN and Strategic Norm Manipulation
George Christou [SIZE=-1] Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK, g.christou@warwick.ac.uk [/SIZE]
Seamus Simpson
[SIZE=-1] Department of Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University, Faculty of Humanities, Law and Social Science, Geoffrey Manton Building (off Oxford Rd), Manchester M15 6LL, UK, s.simpson@mmu.ac.uk [/SIZE]
The global governance of the Internet and the influence that the EU is able to exert in international governance institutions are two important topics that this article brings together in the context of the EU's relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), created in 1999 to manage strategically valuable technical resources and functions of the Internet. Employing Schimmelfennig's model of rational action in international institutional contexts, the article explores how the EU acted to secure its interests within an organizationally constrained environment. While ICANN was formed through an essentially rationalist process where the EU accepted a less than first-best outcome in return for a stake in its governance, a dialectical relationship thereafter developed where the EU accepted and adapted ICANN's key norms but also asserted its material interests through rhetorical action due to its relatively weak position at ICANN's inception.
--
I'm mostly curious about "Schimmelfennig's model of rational action"
Perhaps I'll google it when I am taking a breather!
That's pretty much the future as governments try to control all digital transmission and reception of data. We're going to have black markets and data havens.
@ Turb - reminds me, rather strangely of Schimmelfennig's model of rational action:
Haha
Sorry, Couldn't resist that - if you are offended, now you know how most WF chicks feel when you guys randomly throw boob pics around....
You know this forum is strangely liberating for a woman......
That's it, you're going on ignore. I can't take any more of your gay posts. Yeah I know you're a chick but your posts are still gay by virtue of random half naked men and stupidly sized/colored fonts.
Don't say it if you don't mean it! Also, why is it that you men can dish it but you can't take it?!
Thank God for liberated Scandinavian Men=Demi Gods...oh and that guy Midas Touch who really should start a fan club
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-...-lead-near-death-experience-2.html#post536087
Back on topic...None of you guys sitting behind your computer all day pushing Make a million with Google rebills will ever understand what it's like to be shot at by some 50 year old Iraqi then have to chase him down to his house full of 2 generations of his family. You then have to pull this fat hairy mutherfucker out of the house with his grandkids crying and the rest of the women of the family crying and screaming at you.
Sure the guy isnt wearing an enemy uniform. Sure he isnt really a member of a state sponsored military but he still tried to kill me all the same and we were still in a war zone all the same. Again...maybe I should have just blown his fuckin head off and we wouldnt have to worry about him living in Gitmo.
What is really fucked is that the fucker that tried to kill me has a better life at Gitmo than my cousin that is in a US prison for minor drug charges.
Sure the guy isnt wearing an enemy uniform. Sure he isnt really a member of a state sponsored military but he still tried to kill me all the same and we were still in a war zone all the same. Again...maybe I should have just blown his fuckin head off and we wouldnt have to worry about him living in Gitmo.
What is really fucked is that the fucker that tried to kill me has a better life at Gitmo than my cousin that is in a US prison for minor drug charges.
I wonder if you would feel the same way about it if your roles were reversed. I'm not trying to be clever. I really wonder if people ever think about, "what if someone invaded my country? would I try to start shit with them?" given that you have experience with one half of the situation.
If we ever invade Canada for their oil and then go to war with Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Canada, Egypt, France, Italy, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom as Iraq did after invading Kuwait for their oil, and then if we willfully decide not to hold up our part of the bargain after surrendering, maybe we will find out.
But to be honest, if Obama invades Canada for their oil and as a result we bring the world into a mini world war and then tell inspectors to fuck off for thirteen years after our surrender, I'll probably sort of understand when one of those countries has had enough and decides to settle it themselves. Besides, by then Obama will have probably taken all of our guns and I'm not gonna try to fight tanks and shit with a sling shot.
Dude, they're Canadians. Just throw a hockey puck in the other direction and they'll retreat.
arty-smiley-004:Iraq did not invade Kuwait for oil. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. Saddam tried to negotiate to get them to stop, and IIRC asked the US to mediate.
He was basically left to either attack Kuwait or let the Kuwaitis drain Iraqi oil. That doesn't justify it, but there was all sorts of shenanigans, including the fabricated footage about the babies taken out of the incubators and shit, that got played up huge to mobilize an international reaction.
Ironically, Kuwait got 11 Iraqi reserves after the war was over. No one said Saddam was particularly bright.
I can dig that. I was hoping to get the perspective of a professional soldier though. I mean, he's been there and had to deal with people shooting at him and shit. I can't imagine what that would be like (being the iraqi or the soldier). I was curious to know what he thinks about if he was in that situation, having been on it from the other side, what his response might be. Don't fuck around with heavily armed troops? Fuck with them more effectively? Stay inside and chill out?
I had someone pull a gun on me once, I nearly shit my pants. If I had to kill or be killed, that would be crazy for me. I can't even begin to imagine what that would be like. I know when the gun was on me, I have never felt more alive. I was never more focused or aware of the sound of my own heart beating. Everything stood still.
I am "Humbled" by your compliment!!
You are a "GODDESS" who graces the WF :glowingeyes_sml: Swine with your presence!!! (I think that Turbolap could be your sister!!)
Sincerely.
MT
P.S. My pictorial reply to this thread:
You are a "GODDESS" who graces the WF :glowingeyes_sml: Swine with your presence!!! (I think that Turbolap could be your sister!!)
Sincerely.
MT
P.S. My pictorial reply to this thread:
Bullshit. He invaded Iran in the 80s, and then later, Kuwait, because he wanted to control more of the middle east's oil.
This is what I don't understand: when the US goes to war or invades a country there is absolutely no justification and any attempt to build a case for it is rejected out of hand. On the other hand, when the enemy, in this case the country that the US invaded, invades another country -- which happens to be the provocation that ultimately lead to the invasion by the US -- mitigating circumstances are searched for and justifications are found. Even if you say it's not an attempt to justify it, that's exactly what it is.
Let me list the countries again that went to war against Iraq in 1990 for invading Kuwait:
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Canada, Egypt, France, Italy, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
All those countries apparently didn't buy the slant drilling claim or thought that an invasion by Iraq was unjustifiable enough that they would either send there armies into war or give support to armies to wage war against Iraq.
Take particular note of all the middle eastern countries, the ones that are supposed to hate the US, yet fought with us against another predominantly arab, middle eastern country. Why did they fight with us? Because they were worried that Saddam would ultimately come after them.
BTW, those countries I mentioned that fought against Saddam were only the belligerents, according to wikipedia, here's the full coalition:
United States
Saudi Arabia
United Kingdom
Egypt
France
Syria
Morocco
Kuwait
Oman
Pakistan
United Arab Emirates
Canada
Qatar
Bangladesh
Italy
Australia
Netherlands
Niger
Sweden
Senegal
Spain
Bahrain
Belgium
South Korea
Afghanistan
Argentina
Czechoslovakia
Greece
Poland
Philippines
Denmark
New Zealand
Hungary
Norway
United States
Saudi Arabia
United Kingdom
Egypt
France
Syria
Morocco
Kuwait
Oman
Pakistan
United Arab Emirates
Canada
Qatar
Bangladesh
Italy
Australia
Netherlands
Niger
Sweden
Senegal
Spain
Bahrain
Belgium
South Korea
Afghanistan
Argentina
Czechoslovakia
Greece
Poland
Philippines
Denmark
New Zealand
Hungary
Norway
I don't want to get into a pissing battle on this, I hate arguing over foreign policy. It never turns out good.
If you check the books cited in the first article, or the just read the CSNMonitor article there is a lot more to the story than Saddam invading Kuwait for oil. Remember, Saddam did ask the State Department to get involved, they claimed it was a regional issue and not their problem. That alone would undermine the premise that he snuck attacked, or that his first option was military action.
I'm not a Saddam fan. He was a brutal evil man. I am morally opposed to all aggression. But that doesn't mean the media campaign about the incubators for example was true. In fact, it was completely untrue and used to drum up international outrage to get the UN to act.
In a dispassionate manner, I'm trying to make the point that the historical record as understood by the casual person, is not factually accurate. There is no value judgment
I'm not blaming the US. I'm not blaming the UN. Perhaps they acted on bad intel, perhaps as the one article suggests, it was a concidence of errors within the leviathan state, similar to the 9/11 hijackers being targeted by the FBI for flight training, but somewhere in the system, that information was not acted on. This happens in massive firms and in monolithic governments because the transmission of knowledge has to travel longer distances from command to execution, and inevitably you get the problems of the telephone game, where the transmission loses integrity at each hop in the chain of command.
Anyway, I don't want to talk foreign policy if possible. It gets way too heated too fast and I am here to blow off a little steam, PM friends and make some monies online. No hard feelings, and peace.
- Status