Jump to content

John Stuart Mill

Vested Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Stuart Mill

  • Birthday 11/08/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado

John Stuart Mill's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have some historical basis for desiring independence. South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast of the Georgian SSR and Abkhazia was actually a separate entity in the Soviet Union. They are also ethnically divergent, and don't even share a common tongue. Georgia attempted to annex these unwilling areas after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They fought for their independence and essentially gained it to the Georgians dismay. After the fighting they did push out and kill many ethnic Georgians, but also had atrocities committed on them. Recently, Saakashvili has appealed to Georgian nationalism and outrage over their supposed territory being under hostile control. He had prior to this incident invaded small portions of each region and installed pro-Georgian puppet governments. His often repeated pledge of unification is quite popular among the Georgian masses, some being displaced by the prior conflict. However, his popularity of late had slipped. He won the last election due to a divided opposition who fielded two candidates. His regime was also cited by the U.N for somewhat suspect election practices and intimidation. Saakashvili also cracked down on non-violent protesters throughout Georgia. He may have been attempting to shore up support through his risky gambit in south Ossetia. Perhaps, he hoped to seize the strategic Roki tunnel stymieing Russia before they could respond. The Olympic Games did have the ostensibly more hawkish Putin in Beijing. Russia had warned the U.N that Georgia was planning such a move for month, so it seems odd Saakashvilli thought he could catch them unprepared. He may also have thought that the West would come to his rescue. He has been emboldened by almost a billion dollars in U.S aid to his country of less than 5 million in the past 4 years. The United States has trained his troops and participated in joint military exercises and operations (Iraq). We have also widely supported his bid to join NATO. This may have given him the impression that we would not allow his country to be compromised. What aid he might have expected from the west is unknown, but he should have foreseen reluctance to confront a nuclear power. In any case, Saakashvili made a grave miscalculation as the U.S could exert little influence, and the Russians were obviously prepared for an assault. If one believes in popular sovereignty rather than mere geographic concerns, than Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be allowed to split. South Ossetia had a referendum on independence where over 98 percent voted in favor. Hell, we allowed Kosovo to separate when only 80% of the population were ethnic Albanians. Kosovo was the geographic and historical heart of Serbia, so we shouldn't make exceptions, but rather generally support popular sovereignty. All polling and any objective analysis leads one to the conclusion that both regions would honestly favor independence. In fact, south Ossetia overwhelmingly favors integration with their ethnic brethren in North Ossetia, which would mean a union with Russia. Are the Russians to blame? In part yes, but the fundamental division between the separatists and Georgia exists regardless. The existence of Russian peace keepers essentially froze the conflict. They emboldened the separatists with citizenship, passports and a lifting of economic sanctions. This encouraged limited fighting within the area the Georgian military controlled. The separatists felt safer and wanted to assault the areas forcibly "repatriated" by Saakashvili. A series of minor attacks by both sides occurred for months before the conflict. These involved limited shelling by both sides and small firefights. A single attack in this string of hostilities is what Saakashvili used as an excuse to invade. He declared a unilateral ceasefire and claimed the South Ossetions broke it on the same day. He knew attacks would continue and obviously planned to use the ceasefire as an excuse. Only a fool would declare it unilaterally, and then expect the rebels to follow suit without consultation. Did Russia prod the separatists to attack? Probably not, as they had enough lingering hatred to do so of their own accord. However, they did create a situation that led to the rebel's resurgence. Did they have to aid the separatists? No, but imagine how Russia would look if they allowed Georgia to steamroll the Russian backed region. Russia also has a strong motivation for keeping Georgia divided. It doesn't want a western military alliance that was designed to thwart it at its doorstep. Georgia joining NATO is akin to Mexico joining the Warsaw pact if our roles were reversed. Georgia also did attack the civilian populace by indiscriminately bombing and shelling Tskhinvali. It is obvious to anyone who has witnessed the videos of the area that they went beyond reasonable force. Perhaps Russia's response was too strong, but I doubt anything aside from a complete military collapse would deter the Georgians from causing farther trouble. However, the initial split was made without Russian provocation and subsequent support merely stymied Georgia's attempt to retake the region. These links demonstrate that Saakashvili is no saint. http://hrw.org/reports/2007/georgia1207/ http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7398 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/georgi12229.htm
  2. Obama can woo the masses, and much of what you need is confidence. If people think our country has vision they will be filled with vitality. Industries change their perception of the country and invest; it’s a cycle that builds on itself. For instance, Putin initiated numerous beneficial changes to the Russian economy, but his greatest gift may have been the confidence he exuded. Despite what many believe, growth has been substantial in industry, services and finance. The percentage of their GDP from natural resources is decreasing despite favorable pricing. Was it sudden change in actual governmental action that facilitated this? No, his reforms in the grand scheme of things did little aside from the confidence they engendered. Banks began to flourish in a market were Russians began investing at home. Even the efficiency of the average Russian worker improved under his reign. I’m not commenting on his politics, but rather his incredible ability to rally the Russian people. We could use a charismatic and ambitious man in the white house.
  3. QUOTE (willbb123 @ Jun 19 2008, 10:58 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 06:58 PM) Well, these rural communities are flooded with more frequency. New Orleans was protected by massive levies few thought would break. I have to disagree, It did not just hit "rural communities" while we don't have huge cities, it did hit some of our biggest. This was a 500 year flood. It put down town Cedar Rapids under 6ft of water and practically split Iowa City in half. Our last 500 yr flood was in 1993. (500 year food means there is a .02 percent chance of it happening every year.) We have dams and the water was FEET over the spill ways. New Orleans is below sea level and has hurricanes every year. Aerial video from Cedar Rapids Aerial video from Iowa City and Coralville wb Well, I meant to indicate that their system of levies and dams is less substantial. I’d assume these towns experience minor flooding incidents more regularly. New Orleans being a major metropolitan area had massive levees and huge pumps that were intended to cover most contingencies. The last major flooding occurred in 1965, after which they built sizable levees to protect the city.
  4. QUOTE (liquidglass @ Jun 18 2008, 07:18 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 08:44 PM) QUOTE (liquidglass @ Jun 18 2008, 05:36 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 08:23 PM) In terms of looting, there were far more people in New Orleans and they were condensed. Most of the current flood zones probably don't have top dollar electronics stores. What is some hick going to rob, the feed store? Plus, as I previously mentioned the increased poverty was certainly a factor. You keep preaching "poverty" well that would attest to the original posts assertion that they are unwilling to better their lives and are happy living at a struggling financial point. You're also assuming that the people flooded are 'hicks' and don't have rather expensive electronics stores. This merely proves your lack of intelligence in the matter. Let's, for the sake of your deranged argument say they are hicks, then yes they're going to rob the nearest store. So tractor store, auto parts store, not like anything there is expensive...right? I don't keep current on my tractor knowledge but I'm sure they go for about 1 million +. Whew I'd much rather have a bestbuy next door if I was going to loot. I could grab a $3,000 tv and sell it for $1,000 after water damage. Looting is not bettering your life, poverty "stricken" or not, it's no excuse. I was being rather mean, but i was referring to those who would steel in said areas. In New Orleans one could say, "Thugs have been ransacking the streets." I thought hick was a more appropriate term for miscreants in rural areas. I'm sorry if it came off as offensive towards rural populations. I changed it to not have any negative connotations. I'm assuming small towns don't have large electronics stores. I'm not certain, but my uncle in rural Georgia has to drive a fair distance to reach any real selection. I don't think steeling a tractor or farm equipment would be as easy. They are obviously large and cumbersome. Any tractor if not removed from the flooded area would also require a key. Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification. I wouldn't refer to african americans in new orleans as "thugs" so same goes for white people in rural areas. You're right they are cumbersome, but the parts would pay off tons. Plus keys are kept in side boxes becuase no one is stupid enough to drive off from the cops at 10mph. QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 08:53 PM) QUOTE You keep preaching "poverty" well that would attest to the original posts assertion that they are unwilling to better their lives and are happy living at a struggling financial point. You're also assuming that the people flooded are 'hicks' and don't have rather expensive electronics stores. This merely proves your lack of intelligence in the matter. Let's, for the sake of your deranged argument say they are hicks, then yes they're going to rob the nearest store. So tractor store, auto parts store, not like anything there is expensive...right? I don't keep current on my tractor knowledge but I'm sure they go for about 1 million +. Whew I'd much rather have a bestbuy next door if I was going to loot. I could grab a $3,000 tv and sell it for $1,000 after water damage. Looting is not bettering your life, poverty "stricken" or not, it's no excuse. In regard to poverty I don't think that necessarily indicates a lack of motivation. It's a fact that our system isn't 100% efficient and many qualified individuals can't find work. I never said poverty excused looting, but rather that its conditions caused it. I took the following from something I wrote in the past. People are poor primarily due to their environmental conditions. For instance, I'm upper middle class student who applied mediocre effort and received admission to CU. A poor person would be incapable of receiving a higher education with my credentials. For a member of a deprived family to attend this college they would have to be in the top few percent that achieve full scholarships. Perhaps, some would contend that they could work several jobs and take out exorbitant loans to attend school, but that would only apply to those capable of extreme perseverance. I know that I would not be among those few. You would either need extraordinary intelligence or personal strength to achieve what I have simply been bequeathed. So why because of purely environmental factors do I attend college where many equally capable poor are denied it? They are condemned by system that doesn't treat men according to equality or merit, but rather by the conditions of their birth. They necessitate additional funds in order to be given a similar opportunity. Many other nonfinancial environmental factors also hinder the poor. They have generally worse schools, police and other services. Few qualified individuals wish to work and live in a poor neighborhood. They are exposed to a culture closely associated with the rejection of the greater society. They tend to emphasize the need of their small communities over education. Education is, in fact, discouraged among much of the cultural forces present in poor regions. Criminality is also wide spread among the urban poor. Any involvement in criminal activity limits their chances of leading productive lives. A man beholden to a gang won't feel compelled to go to college. A criminal record and jail time negatively effects their possibility of a finding a stable career. This leads to a downward spiral of criminal behavior and welfare checks. Does anyone truly believe that profits are justified by work? Does Bill gate work several thousand times harder than the average wage earner? No belief should deem one man worth thousands of others. This ideology only services the top few percent, and yet the majority are enslaved by it. I'm curious, what college do you mean by CU? Actually, my family is a working middle class family and I worked hard in hs, got scholarships, grants, etc to attend a private university and I'm the first person to graduate with a 4 year degree from my family. My public high school was shit, where white people were the minority and I could sleep and make A's and still be "the smart kid" My little brother had the same chances and opportunities that I did. Yet he chose differently than me. He joined a gang, did drugs, sold drugs, etc. He's straightened up now and has a kid and is working his ass off to rent his place. What's the difference between me and him? Our choices. While financial, situational, and other environmental factors CAN play a part they are often just an excuse for people who don't want to try. QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 09:20 PM) Crop damage is certainly a problem, but he stated more land and people were affected. I think he was referring to the current human cost, not subsequent price increases. I could probably drag up some article on urbanization to illustrate my point about the destitute moving to cities. I thought it was pretty generally accepted. Look at the great depression people migrated to the cities in mass for food and assistance. A rural area doesn't have the same support system for the poor. For instance, when a man losses his farm and house to foreclosure where does he turn? It's not as though there's a wide variety of jobs and temporary shelter available in a rural area. I understand where you're coming from, my biggest issue was with the fact that you said that urbanization was caused by this. When I took that to mean that cities were formed by poor people coming together to band together. I may have taken it incorrectly and if I did, I withdraw my statements in reference to it. I attend CU boulder. I'm glad you succeeded, but I'm certain it was more difficult for you than me. You and I should have had an equal opportunity to attend college. I don't know if everyone is capable of expending the energy you did. A man like me probably wouldn't have put forth the necessary effort to achieve what you have. There are many men who put forth a much greater effort than I, but were forced to pass up opportunities do to their environment. Perhaps some of the urban poor are lazy, but look at the situation that created them. The odds were stacked against them, and therefore they have limited motivation. In other circumstance the individual could have been a proficient member of society. We place undue blame on the poor for their situation. I think it is more the environment than any inherent laziness that causes poverty. I therefore disagree with the assertion that the "indolent" poor in New Orleans were to blame. If you had no supportive relatives or transportation, who would you look to but the government? In terms of urbanization I only meant to indicate that the poor flock to cities. I believe that the extreme poverty of some citizens in New Orleans certainly added to the disaster. That's part of the reason they couldn't evacuate and subsequently looked helpless.
  5. Thank you for accepting my clarification. I did word that poorly. I bet those tractors also have GPS tracking systems. It probably wouldn't be much of a cost issue considering the price of the machines.
  6. QUOTE (liquidglass @ Jun 18 2008, 05:29 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 07:58 PM) Well, these rural communities are flooded with more frequency. They are aware of the possibility and prepare accordingly. New Orleans was protected by massive levies few thought would break. Most of the towns affected by the recent floods had some warning. Plus, in New Orleans there certainly existed a larger number of homeless and destitute individuals. The city had an undue amount of underprivileged individuals, even when compared to a normal metropolis. People in rural towns generally have some savings that they can fall back on. Life in a Podunk town certainly isn't conducive to homelessness. Those who fall on hard times probably move to the city. At least, that has been an historically important motivation that fueled urbanization. Your assertion that this disaster is bigger is incorrect. Much more land and crops have been affected, but the total property damage was estimated at something like 1.5 billion. Also much fewer people have thus far been affected. Roughly 40,000 have been evacuated thus far, compare that to the 2004 population of New Orleans around 500,000. Remember Katrina also affected much more than New Orleans. Yes it affected more than New Orleans, but we're talking flood damage not hurricane damage to surrounding areas. I'm curious where you're coming up with your statistics. "Rural area people generally having some savings" "Those that fall on hard times....historically move to cities" etc etc. Also yes 40k have been evacuated.....so far, you'd have to look at time tables to figure out an accurate comparison where as you're comparing current figures of something on going with final figures. Beyond any of this, your point is moot as to the motivation and determination of the people involved. Ok let's suppose they had more warning than New Orleans (although I think a big ass hurricane is a pretty good damn warning) So to prepare, what could they do beyond evacuate themselves (which might lower the evacuation number). And your assertion this event is smaller than New Orleans is inaccurate, you're basing it on media coverage not facts. New Orleans: peoples homes were destroyed, tax payer money helped, etc. Current floods: crops and homes were destroyed, tax payer money might help, but here's the KICKER. With food prices already surging higher than we've seen in quite sometime the last thing we need is a shit load of crops being destroyed that would undoubtedly give another blow to the economy. We already pay our taxes.....now we'll have to pay more for food, which is def. a bigger financial/economical distaster than the political disaster of new orleans. Crop damage is certainly a problem, but he stated more land and people were affected. I think he was referring to the current human cost, not subsequent price increases. I could probably drag up some article on urbanization to illustrate my point about the destitute moving to cities. I thought it was pretty generally accepted. Look at the great depression people migrated to the cities in mass for food and assistance. A rural area doesn’t have the same support system for the poor. For instance, when a man losses his farm and house to foreclosure where does he turn? It’s not as though there’s a wide variety of jobs and temporary shelter available in a rural area.
  7. QUOTE You keep preaching "poverty" well that would attest to the original posts assertion that they are unwilling to better their lives and are happy living at a struggling financial point. You're also assuming that the people flooded are 'hicks' and don't have rather expensive electronics stores. This merely proves your lack of intelligence in the matter. Let's, for the sake of your deranged argument say they are hicks, then yes they're going to rob the nearest store. So tractor store, auto parts store, not like anything there is expensive...right? I don't keep current on my tractor knowledge but I'm sure they go for about 1 million +. Whew I'd much rather have a bestbuy next door if I was going to loot. I could grab a $3,000 tv and sell it for $1,000 after water damage. Looting is not bettering your life, poverty "stricken" or not, it's no excuse. In regard to poverty I don’t think that necessarily indicates a lack of motivation. It’s a fact that our system isn’t 100% efficient and many qualified individuals can’t find work. I never said poverty excused looting, but rather that its conditions caused it. I took the following from something I wrote in the past. People are poor primarily due to their environmental conditions. For instance, I’m upper middle class student who applied mediocre effort and received admission to CU. A poor person would be incapable of receiving a higher education with my credentials. For a member of a deprived family to attend this college they would have to be in the top few percent that achieve full scholarships. Perhaps, some would contend that they could work several jobs and take out exorbitant loans to attend school, but that would only apply to those capable of extreme perseverance. I know that I would not be among those few. You would either need extraordinary intelligence or personal strength to achieve what I have simply been bequeathed. So why because of purely environmental factors do I attend college where many equally capable poor are denied it? They are condemned by system that doesn’t treat men according to equality or merit, but rather by the conditions of their birth. They necessitate additional funds in order to be given a similar opportunity. Many other nonfinancial environmental factors also hinder the poor. They have generally worse schools, police and other services. Few qualified individuals wish to work and live in a poor neighborhood. They are exposed to a culture closely associated with the rejection of the greater society. They tend to emphasize the need of their small communities over education. Education is, in fact, discouraged among much of the cultural forces present in poor regions. Criminality is also wide spread among the urban poor. Any involvement in criminal activity limits their chances of leading productive lives. A man beholden to a gang won’t feel compelled to go to college. A criminal record and jail time negatively effects their possibility of a finding a stable career. This leads to a downward spiral of criminal behavior and welfare checks. Does anyone truly believe that profits are justified by work? Does Bill gate work several thousand times harder than the average wage earner? No belief should deem one man worth thousands of others. This ideology only services the top few percent, and yet the majority are enslaved by it.
  8. QUOTE (liquidglass @ Jun 18 2008, 05:36 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 18 2008, 08:23 PM) In terms of looting, there were far more people in New Orleans and they were condensed. Most of the current flood zones probably don't have top dollar electronics stores. What is some hick going to rob, the feed store? Plus, as I previously mentioned the increased poverty was certainly a factor. You keep preaching "poverty" well that would attest to the original posts assertion that they are unwilling to better their lives and are happy living at a struggling financial point. You're also assuming that the people flooded are 'hicks' and don't have rather expensive electronics stores. This merely proves your lack of intelligence in the matter. Let's, for the sake of your deranged argument say they are hicks, then yes they're going to rob the nearest store. So tractor store, auto parts store, not like anything there is expensive...right? I don't keep current on my tractor knowledge but I'm sure they go for about 1 million +. Whew I'd much rather have a bestbuy next door if I was going to loot. I could grab a $3,000 tv and sell it for $1,000 after water damage. Looting is not bettering your life, poverty "stricken" or not, it's no excuse. I was being rather mean, but i was referring to those who would steel in said areas. In New Orleans one could say, "Thugs have been ransacking the streets." I thought hick was a more appropriate term for miscreants in rural areas. I'm sorry if it came off as offensive towards rural populations. I changed it to not have any negative connotations. I'm assuming small towns don't have large electronics stores. I'm not certain, but my uncle in rural Georgia has to drive a fair distance to reach any real selection. I don't think steeling a tractor or farm equipment would be as easy. They are obviously large and cumbersome. Any tractor if not removed from the flooded area would also require a key.
  9. QUOTE (TheScotsman @ Jun 18 2008, 10:54 AM) So, we had katrina, New Orleans floods, people looting every store they can, the superdome gets wasted, the federal gov't/fema pump millions into the people, hand out prepaid debit cards, find homes/emergency trailers... the list goes on... and we still hear losers in the media whining about how bad it still is, how much is not fixed (no doubt at taxpayer expense)... every now and then we see an interview with some jackass whining about how bad off they are, but I never see them doing anything to make their own lives better. On the other hand, Iowa & Missouri are a mess, the flooded area is dramatically larger, (4+ million acres at last count) more people affected and I have yet to see any of them hording into an arena with their hands out, begging for federal emergency trailers, debit cards, and taxpayer-paid hotels for 6 months. Even more, rather than looting they are helping each other save homes/property. building flood control, Even some plugging holes in dykes with their hands while COE personnel back-filled the damage. Other than the fact New Orleans populace doesn't seem too motivated to do for themselves, and thinks they are entitled to sitting back while the rest of the nation does it all for them, what do you suppose is the difference? The news media has hinted at a socio-racial aspect to the difference between how a disaster is handled, but I refuse to believe the colour of ones dermal layers make them want to live in a dump. In terms of looting, there were far more people in New Orleans and they were condensed. Most of the current flood zones probably don't have top dollar electronics stores. The major cities have been largely spared. For instance, much of Iowa City remained above water and their drinking supply was unaffected. This leads to a stable police presence that can thwart looters. What is some farmer or rural dweller going to rob, the feed store? Plus, as I previously mentioned the increased poverty was certainly a factor.
  10. Well, these rural communities are flooded with more frequency. They are aware of the possibility and prepare accordingly. New Orleans was protected by massive levies few thought would break. Most of the towns affected by the recent floods had more warning. Plus, in New Orleans there certainly existed a larger number of homeless and destitute individuals. The city had an undue amount of underprivileged individuals, even when compared to a normal metropolis. People in rural towns generally have some savings that they can fall back on. Life in a Podunk town certainly isn't conducive to homelessness. Those who fall on hard times probably move to the city. At least, that has been an historically important motivation that fueled urbanization. More sparsely populated areas probably have a greater proportion of car owners. They obviously don’t have the same mass-transit options that exist in a major city. This fact probably eased any evacuation. Plus, the floods rose relatively slowly compared to the sudden flooding in a hurricane. Your assertion that this disaster is bigger is incorrect. Much more land and crops have been affected, but the total property damage was estimated at something like 1.5 billion. Also much fewer people have thus far been affected. Roughly 40,000 have been evacuated thus far, compare that to the 2004 population of New Orleans around 500,000. Remember Katrina also affected much more than New Orleans.
  11. QUOTE (mushrat @ Jun 12 2008, 06:12 PM) Mya Saray. single piece cast stems, screw in ports and purge valve..nothing to break. I wholeheartedly agree with mushrat’s comment. I could bludgeon someone to death with my stem. I’ve used several KMs (Hafa and Tri-Metal) and own a Syrian and Egyptian. I’ve never broken any, but the Mya stem is far heavier and I can’t imagine it ever breaking. I also think any perceived smoking difference between KMs and Myas is purely psychosomatic. The glass on some of the newer models did have problems, but you probably have spare bases anyways. You can also get their stems with non-mya bases at various retailers, or just go acrylic. If you want the toughest stem imaginable get a Mya. That being said, I’m sure KMs or quality built Egyptians will stand up to most abuse. Myas stems are probably tougher than anyone but a lounge requires. There are plenty of solid pipes highlighted in the review section.
  12. QUOTE (gaia.plateau @ Jun 11 2008, 07:30 AM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 10 2008, 10:15 PM) You forget it wasn't America's intention to promote democracy, but rather to stop communism. But it was America's professed and propounded intention, and the commonly understood intention by mainstream anti-revisionist academics. Reread the Truman Doctrine. [/size]QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 10 2008, 10:15 PM) [size="3"]We adopted what was deemed a pragmatic approach by supporting virtually any anti-communist forces. To say the cold war wasn't about substantive differences in ideology is foolish.Meant to be a non-sequitur? At any rate I guess it's a good thing I said that it had little to do with it, as opposed to nothing to do with it. Anti-Communist forces are functioning and free democratic states, such as Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, and Grenada before the US government overthrew them and replaced them with brutal, facist, military dictatorships who neither opposed nor supported communist forces in any way, but simply kept the foreign and domestic policies of the country in question favourable to the economic interests of the present US-based transnational corporations. QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 10 2008, 10:15 PM) When you say we aided communist states I can only think of China. We only opened relations with them to deepen the Sino-soviet split. This was intended as a pragmatic move to strike a blow at the U.S.S.R. The U.S was hoping to woo china and damage the greatest communist threat. I was thinking specifically of the USSR, actually. Think back to the relationship between Kennedy and Kruschev, and the ways in which Kennedy acted to deliberately bolster and support the Soviet sphere of influence. The Cold War was in many ways more of a cooperation between the USA and USSR, than it was a competition or conflict. It had to appear as those things, obviously, to 1) continue to foster public support for expensive military operations, and 2) keep the international community from focusing on the completely illegal, illegitimate and immoral actions of both superpowers in the periphery. QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 10 2008, 10:15 PM) Both the U.S and Soviet Union almost always made decisions in line with their general ideology (i.e. Capitalism/Communism). This can be seen in the various wars waged throughout the period. Vietnam and Korea were obvious attempts to halt communist expansion. This was Truman's famed policy of containment. On the soviet side the Afghan war was an attempt to prop up a newly elected communist and socialist legislature. The president began making moves against the newly elected body, and the afghan governing body allegedly asked for help. I disagree with this, but will neither cavil endlessly nor put in the time to dig up primary sources to refute. PM me if you'd like a full rebuttal to this, complete with documented sources. To me the Truman doctrine was primarily aimed at communism not totalitarianism. In any case, the policy adopted wasn’t one of promoting democracy but stopping communism. Ostensibly it was about protecting free peoples and democracy, though in reality it marked the beginning of containment at almost any cost. Hell, at the time Truman proposed support for turkey their democracy was questionable at best under Ismet Inönü. I didn’t mean to suggest that all our actions were in the interest of containing communism, though many were. We also wanted to benefit our general interests where we could. However, those were not directly related to the cold war. Your mentioning of Grenada is interesting. We entered after a revolution ousted the prior president. They called themselves the people’s provisional government and were certainly communists. Regan even believed that they were building a soviet airbase and used that to partially legitimize the war. Now in Guatemala Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was aligned against the U.S and it influence despite professing capitalism. He instituted land reform that was decried as communistic by the west. Another decision we disliked was his legalization of their communist party. With our interests threatened (i.e. American business interest like united fruit) it was only natural that we acted. None of your other examples illustrate what you probably hope. The Cold War didn’t determine every geopolitical decision. Sometimes we were merely trying to benefit ourselves regardless of its impact on communism. However, because we didn’t always focus on communism doesn’t indicate that a true antagonistic relationship didn’t exist. Suppose I hate my neighbor, do I spend every last second trying to thwart him? What relationship between Kennedy and Khrushchev? Sure, they met and talked, but they accomplished little. Few would consider the partial test ban treaty emblematic of some greater relationship. What about the Cuban missile crises. That affair was largely the cause of Khrushchev’s fall from grace in the Soviet Union. Obviously, the two regimes weren’t particularly close. Plus, Khrushchev tried to dramatically reduce his spending on armed forces by relying on ICBMs. So your argument concerning their shared interest in propagating defense spending seems flawed. Khrushchev wanted and did shift more resources to general economic development. Look, our cooperation with the soviets was limited at best. The two powers did not exist in some conspiracy to carve up the world. However, the soviets did have the desire to create a global socialist movement. Just look at their seal, which is a hammer and sickle over the world. Their leaders genuinely believed in socialism, even though many had probably abandoned some of the utopianism in Marx. These views led to a genuine fear from the western world. An ideology that has revolution and absorption of all other governments at its core is a threat to other nations. It wasn’t even as much about imperialism for the soviets as spreading their almost religious socialist zeal. Has there ever been a conflict more divisive? Communism vs. Capitalism Atheism vs. Christianity
  13. QUOTE (gaia.plateau @ Jun 9 2008, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (Exile @ Jun 8 2008, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (MeHT @ Jun 8 2008, 05:32 PM) Define 'cold war'? Democrats vs. Commies? We'll see how China holds up. US force-feeding its culture down the throats of the rest of the world? Don't think we'll see an end to that soon. More ramblings to follow later, if interested. The war to end the spread of communism. The Cold War had very little to do with communism and democracy... you can see that in the ways that the USSR cooperated with democracies, in the ways that the USA cooperated with communist states, in the ways that the USA overthrew democracies while protecting communist states, and in the ways that the USSR denied help to communist states but gave it to democracies. The Cold War was in many ways a front, an occasionally hostile competition between the two fledgling imperial powers under which they could extend their geopolitical and economic power vampirically across the periphery. Since that's basically still happening, Read: Iraq, in a way no, the Cold War is not over, if it ever really existed in the first place. You forget it wasn't America's intention to promote democracy, but rather to stop communism. We adopted what was deemed a pragmatic approach by supporting virtually any anti-communist forces. To say the cold war wasn't about substantive differences in ideology is foolish. Did we have such an enormously antagonistic relationship with England or Germany when they were our only competitors? No, there was something fundamentally different in regard to our affairs with C.C.C.P. However, certainly the fact that they were an opposing power block was a factor regardless of ideology. When you state, "it wasn't about communism or democracy" you are right. It was a competition primarily between economic visions. For instance, Finland was democratic, but allied itself largely with the soviet bloc. Despite the exaggerated fear mongering the west felt threatened by the communist challenge to capitalism. Even though the Soviets weren't really communists, they definitely had a socialist system. Obviously, capitalists abroad feared their assets being taken by a powerful state. When you say we aided communist states I can only think of China. We only opened relations with them to deepen the Sino-soviet split. This was intended as a pragmatic move to strike a blow at the U.S.S.R. The U.S was hoping to woo china and damage the greatest communist threat. Both the U.S and Soviet Union almost always made decisions in line with their general ideology (i.e. Capitalism/Communism). This can be seen in the various wars waged throughout the period. Vietnam and Korea were obvious attempts to halt communist expansion. This was Truman's famed policy of containment. On the soviet side the Afghan war was an attempt to prop up a newly elected communist and socialist legislature. The president began making moves against the newly elected body, and the afghan governing body allegedly asked for help. Now to answer the question of whether a conflict continues, I would say no. There are lingering social issues and antagonism remaining from the cold war, but the world is fundamentally different. The Russians may be resurgent, but they no longer offer a competitive world view. They are also largely tied to Europe and others by market relations. Even Putin during his presidency advocated a multi-polar world. Of course, he wanted Russia to be a pole, but thought the time of a one or two pole world was ending. Do economic relations neutralize them as a threat? Probably, though countries like Germany have attacked others they had strong economic ties to. However, they simply aren't a global movement anymore. They simply don't have the influence they once commanded. Their so called friends may include China, India, North Korea and perhaps Iran, but the bonds that ties them are week at best. I don't believe a loose system of alliances can present the coherent threat necessary for a cold war. It will never have the same us vs. them mentality.
  14. QUOTE (TheScotsman @ Jun 3 2008, 07:51 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 3 2008, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (TheScotsman @ Jun 3 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 2 2008, 09:55 PM) Small companies running electric lines? A monopoly is really required in utilities, whether governmental or private. How many electric and water lines is it feasible to build and maintain. Do you know the cost of such infrastructure? How would companies even manage to woo new customers? "Hello, this is Excel energy calling to offer a new power plan; we will rewire your house to connect to our system for the onetime offer of 500 dollars." That is why everyone in a wide vicinity of you shares the same power and water companies. It's simply the only solution, and it precludes small companies. It was after the power system in California was deregulated that prices surged around 5000 percent. A company that has a de-facto monopoly will raise prices to an absurd degree without regulations. Plus, I have never heard of a business owner being so hassled. Some regulations are absurd, but I can't see something affecting your 2 inch pool, or requiring you to paint over sand. Perhaps, the bureaucrats sensed your displeasure and made things difficult. Well, they could also have been idiots, but that doesn't comment on the regulations but rather people in general. I am on a small company's power system, and they own their own transmission lines (OtterTail power) When I had the lines run both Alante (or whoever those guys are) and Ottr gave separate offers, Ottr was .03/Kwh cheaper, and they paid for the lines. So much for no competition, I think you should give them a call and tell them they can't own their own lines because they are small, eh? I can get the toll free number for you! On the other hand, from what we are starting to hear about crude oil speculation, it's time for some regs, on that market... we are all getting taken for a ride. OSHA inspectors are well known for being cock-knockers, now I just tell them to get the hell out W/O a warrant, and they never seem to come back with one. Minnesota is certainly not indicative of the nation at large. The power company you refer to has only 128,500 customers and services rural areas. In a rural environment you have a great deal of space to extend lines, and most new buildings necessitate a new grid connection. In an urban environment multiple power companies would simply be infeasible. They would have to tear up countless roads and other obstacles to service a single new customer. Plus, who would want their yard dug up to change power lines and power meters. The power meter is usually owned by the company you contract with. I challenge you to find an urban power provider with real competition. Most people live in urban areas, and that is really what I'm concerned with. So the vast majority would do better with a regulated power scheme. I keep telling everyone here this is a different world, stuck in a time warp from 1972. Phone carriers compete without changing lines. What make you think electrical utilities can not manage the same? Arizona has attempted to deregulate utilities, but so far it's not come off... on the other hand, it hasn't resulted in mass power problems like the land o'fruits & nuts. As for urban areas with active competition, lets try, well, make it a BIG area. How about New York? A Con-Ed service area customer has their choice of no less than 19 providers. Is that a big enough example? Phone companies are forced to share lines with competitors. They also have to share their lines with internet providers. This is a form of government regulation known as forced access. Companies can use other lines at regulated rates according to the telecommunications act of 1996. It currently only applies to old fashioned telephone lines. Its effects haven’t been quite as pervasive as hoped. For instance, in my area I have a choice of quest or quest. Now I could use cable, but that uses a different system. With cable I have a choice of Comcast or Comcast. Even if you use a different internet phone service you’ve paid for the access through Comcast. The few choices available through traditional telephone lines are due to government regulation. Your Con-ed example doesn’t serve your argument. Consolidated Edison still has a monopoly on the transmission system. Without regulation they could charge companies utilizing that system whatever they please. The problem is the company that owns the infrastructure, not necessarily the power generators. As I said, two competing systems would be infeasible in such an environment. In regard to any normal competition being possible amongst utilities see Natural Monopoly. In New York you have different energy providers all using Edison’s system and you surely pay for it. For any real competition distribution must be owned by the state. They would then allow any company to contract with individuals. It’s either that, or a company is forced to allow others use of their property at little or no charge. I believe forced access is beneficial, but also has significant problems. Why should a company maintain the line in a neighborhood mostly using a competitor’s product? The motivation to service the infrastructure declines as they concern themselves with wooing customers. In the end both prospects involve the government in ways you’re probably less than pleased with.
  15. QUOTE (TheScotsman @ Jun 3 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (John Stuart Mill @ Jun 2 2008, 09:55 PM) Small companies running electric lines? A monopoly is really required in utilities, whether governmental or private. How many electric and water lines is it feasible to build and maintain. Do you know the cost of such infrastructure? How would companies even manage to woo new customers? "Hello, this is Excel energy calling to offer a new power plan; we will rewire your house to connect to our system for the onetime offer of 500 dollars." That is why everyone in a wide vicinity of you shares the same power and water companies. It's simply the only solution, and it precludes small companies. It was after the power system in California was deregulated that prices surged around 5000 percent. A company that has a de-facto monopoly will raise prices to an absurd degree without regulations. Plus, I have never heard of a business owner being so hassled. Some regulations are absurd, but I can't see something affecting your 2 inch pool, or requiring you to paint over sand. Perhaps, the bureaucrats sensed your displeasure and made things difficult. Well, they could also have been idiots, but that doesn't comment on the regulations but rather people in general. I am on a small company's power system, and they own their own transmission lines (OtterTail power) When I had the lines run both Alante (or whoever those guys are) and Ottr gave separate offers, Ottr was .03/Kwh cheaper, and they paid for the lines. So much for no competition, I think you should give them a call and tell them they can't own their own lines because they are small, eh? I can get the toll free number for you! On the other hand, from what we are starting to hear about crude oil speculation, it's time for some regs, on that market... we are all getting taken for a ride. OSHA inspectors are well known for being cock-knockers, now I just tell them to get the hell out W/O a warrant, and they never seem to come back with one. Minnesota is certainly not indicative of the nation at large. The power company you refer to has only 128,500 customers and services rural areas. In a rural environment you have a great deal of space to extend lines, and most new buildings necessitate a new grid connection. In an urban environment multiple power companies would simply be infeasible. They would have to tear up countless roads and other obstacles to service a single new customer. Plus, who would want their yard dug up to change power lines and power meters. The power meter is usually owned by the company you contract with. I challenge you to find an urban power provider with real competition. Most people live in urban areas, and that is really what I’m concerned with. So the vast majority would do better with a regulated power scheme.
×
×
  • Create New...