Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: Bush picks Wolfowitz for president of World Bank

  1. #31

    Default

    In the words of George Galloway, that's libel.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    376

    Default

    as satan is not an entity that can be summoned to appear in court, how can he be libelled?

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to rewch For This Useful Post:


  4. #33

    Default

    Someone's settling in rather well, I note.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...576551,00.html

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka
    what do you mean 'yes but'? yes, this is a very good, well researched article presenting unanswerable arguments in a articulate level headed way, but i'm going to indulge in some snide irrelevant point scoring anyway? what's all that about? just admit it. I am oliver craner and i am in league with the devil. come out the satanic closet, you'll feel better about yourself. i am working for satan, go on say it!
    Come on, Monbiot is a complete fruitcake.

    In response to the rest of the thread, even if Wolfie is a US hegemony-perpetuator (a position I don't agree with), what's the problem? I'd much rather have that than a Chinese one...

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    w.yorkshire
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    In response to the rest of the thread, even if Wolfie is a US hegemony-perpetuator (a position I don't agree with), what's the problem? I'd much rather have that than a Chinese one...
    he openly endorses pax americana, so he clearly supports US world dominance. why is this is a problem? have you seen what america has been doing to other countries recently? it's not an issue of either/ or so your last sentence is stupid.

  7. #36

    Default

    OK, give me a realistic alternative.

    Obviously it's not a question of either/or, but for the purposes of a forum...
    Last edited by Paul Hotflush; 27-09-2005 at 03:01 PM.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    w.yorkshire
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Hotflush
    OK, give me a realistic alternative.
    each country concerns itself with dealing with issues inside its own national boundaries and co-operates with other countries in a consistent way that follows international law (rather than wanting to dominate/control them), would be a start.

  9. #38

    Default

    No, I said realistic.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    w.yorkshire
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Hotflush
    No, I said realistic.
    ok then.
    a) give up
    b) mass suicide.

    sheesh.

  11. #40

    Default

    I find when attempting to analyse foreign affairs, there is generally a barrier that people have differing degrees of difficulty passing. It's got two parts to it really: the first being that foreign affairs, much like domestic politics in democracies, are defined by various interest groups (in this case nations) attempting to increase their power at the expense of others. The second part is, for the European liberal, one of realpolitik: the acceptance that the current situation (American dominance) is infinitely preferable to any realistic alternative (the most likely current one being American dominance being replaced by Chinese economic and political dominance). Once you accept that, and try to get over any inherent xenophobia towards Americans in general, you'll have much better chance of making a balanced judgement of events around the world.

    It pretty much boils down to this: no-one's saying the Americans are a picture of virtue, but bloody hell, what about everyone else?! There's nothing lazier than slagging off the yanks.

  12. #41

    Default

    Hotflush, are you spoofing me?

  13. #42

    Default

    LOL! I'm feeling your analysis man. Can't quite be arsed to pitch in with any serious posts of my own, so I'm keeping to sweeping generalisations...

  14. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Hotflush
    the acceptance that the current situation (American dominance) is infinitely preferable to any realistic alternative (the most likely current one being American dominance being replaced by Chinese economic and political dominance).

    ....

    It pretty much boils down to this: no-one's saying the Americans are a picture of virtue, but bloody hell, what about everyone else?!
    So, as matt b said, we should just give up? Just stop trying to make things better, stop criticizing those doing harm, because, hey, who can think of anything better? This is TERRIBLE reasoning, trying to pass off your failure to think outside of the modern political doctrine as "realism." I know k-punk has written a fair amount about this (i believe he calls it "capitalist realism"). But basically, what the hell is this "realism" you seem so keen on? Who defines it? What does it entail? Does this "realism" allow for any sort of actions that are outside of the status quo? Doesn't it basically just state that anything outside the status quo is unthinkable, and shouldn't that maybe worry you a bit?

    Please, tell me what is so "unrealistic" about the US following international law.

    "Realism" is just a huge cop-out, when you've finally given up on trying to improve things, and have decided to disguise your capitulation as pragmatism.

  15. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver craner
    Someone's settling in rather well, I note.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...576551,00.html
    While I'm here I might as well comment on this too, i guess.

    Well, it's nice that Wolfowitz is continuing on with the debt relief program (by no means his idea, of course), I'm very interested to see what strings come attached to all these anti-corruption measures. I have a rather sneaking suspicion that somehow it will all end up involving the classic "hey why don't you open up your markets more to foreign investment, which just may so happen to allow many large american companies--who just may happen to be lead by many of my close friends and associates--to come in and make loads of profits at the expense of local businesses and government." And then maybe some of the good old "hey what do you think your trying to do privatizing your oil industry/health care system/general infrastructure maintenance you communist swags!"

    just a suspicion though...

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bipedaldave
    Please, tell me what is so "unrealistic" about the US following international law.
    The whole concept of international law is ridiculous. Whose values is it built upon? Who enforces it? How can it be enforced evenly? Having laws that apply internationally assumes that conditions can be applied across continents, which is clearly not always the case.

    In any case, the notion that the US is the only country ignoring the current legal setup is absurd. So why don't you guys bang on about the other offenders? Oh yeah, sorry I forgot.


    Quote Originally Posted by bipedaldave
    So, as matt b said, we should just give up? Just stop trying to make things better, stop criticizing those doing harm, because, hey, who can think of anything better? This is TERRIBLE reasoning, trying to pass off your failure to think outside of the modern political doctrine as "realism." I know k-punk has written a fair amount about this (i believe he calls it "capitalist realism"). But basically, what the hell is this "realism" you seem so keen on? Who defines it? What does it entail? Does this "realism" allow for any sort of actions that are outside of the status quo? Doesn't it basically just state that anything outside the status quo is unthinkable, and shouldn't that maybe worry you a bit?
    No-one is suggesting you shouldn't try to make things better, but you have to take account of the conditions. The example of African aid is a good one: if you told aid agencies in the 80s that most of their money would end up in Swiss bank accounts because most African governments are as corrupt as hell and/or too incompetent to spend money effectively they'd have dismissed you as a capitalist, and probably racist, pig. With America now, you're much better off trying to cajole it into changing its ways rather than closing your eyes, hoping it crashes and burns, and leaves us at the mercy of those nice, free speech-loving Chinese.

    The point is, maybe if more of the people that apprently care so much about the less advantaged took acount of what happens in the real world, they might actaully achieve something, rather than getting beaten up by the police at those incredibly productive anti-captialist demonstrations, or sitting on their behinds posting on web forums.
    Last edited by Paul Hotflush; 29-09-2005 at 03:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •