Until the West loses economic dominance (possibly to China or even an Arab state if they get their shit together which is highly unlikely) and the consequent 'end of empire'.
How would an Arab state move past the "West" economically?
How would a cheap labor state move past the "West" economically?
I am not saying we are invincible, I have just yet to see a logical argument made that the "end" is near. Little more than the other side of the apocalyptic coin.
Quote:
It should not be viewed lightly imo or, if it happens, ignored or downgraded no matter who it is.
So I guess you concede that Saddam also killed people so your first argument is moot?
Mostly Iraqis??? Do the thousands who have died at the hands of "smart bombs", cluster bombs or 500 lb. bombs not count?
Thousands of innocent Iraqis have died... I think you have it backwards. Then add to that almost 1000 Americans...and hopefully we'll wise up come November and make the neocons accountable.
Yeah yeah, we all know the system is flawed. Vote for Bushnader(sorry but a vote for Nader at this point in our history is a wasted vote...for Bush)or vote Bush out period? I think it's a no-brainer. One step at a time. It would be stupid not to listen to the advice of people who have served the country both Rep and Dem like the people of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change and the many others who are strongly advocating a Bush Admin. exit.
And what componds this problem is that the changes brought about by the most recent information revolution has tricked people into thinking they are more informed than they really are. This has even evolved into the more sinister form of rebellion against established intellectual checks and balances, as can be observed in the recent major pseudo-science surge. Some people actually believe that groups outside of these established systems have more validity simply because they are outsiders and, therefore, appear to be grassroots opposition to the "elite" of whatever field they are trying to operate in.
This mechanism reinforces false beliefs. Whereas in the past one's access to wacko ideas, conspiracy theories and pseudo-science was limited, the illusion of the internet has bred new life to this kind of ignorance.
A very good point. I suspect we are deluding ourselves into believing we're "more informed" than any past generation. We equate advancements in technology with advancements in our general understanding of things, when we don't really understand at all. The inner workings of everything from economies and nations, to planets and people are lost on us. We are contextually illiterate, or are fast becoming that way.
Truthfully, I believe young adults and mature home owners in this country don't want to understand more, because that would require them to stop whatever it is the fill their time with and read. Or take a class at the local college or debate their neighbors. We don't want to do that as a nation. We've become mentally soft. Don't squeeze the Charmin!
We can't be bothered with such things, and in the end we're going to pay for it. We've already begun paying for it, quite obviously....
We equate advancements in technology with advancements in our general understanding of things, when we don't really understand at all.
I think you put this perfectly. Understanding requires critical thinking skills, something that technology can't provide. Increased communication only gives the illusion of better understanding, and when emphasis is shifted to information aquisition instead of analysis we just end up with a higher volume of noise. Combine this with large sections of the population mistaking the noise for understanding and, therefore, license to make authoritative judgements, and we get a feedback look. Now we even appear to have growing attacks on the scientific method. What's next, disproving logic?
Comments
Until the West loses economic dominance (possibly to China or even an Arab state if they get their shit together which is highly unlikely) and the consequent 'end of empire'.
How would an Arab state move past the "West" economically?
How would a cheap labor state move past the "West" economically?
I am not saying we are invincible, I have just yet to see a logical argument made that the "end" is near. Little more than the other side of the apocalyptic coin.
It should not be viewed lightly imo or, if it happens, ignored or downgraded no matter who it is.
So I guess you concede that Saddam also killed people so your first argument is moot?
Well, electricity was on 24/7,
No it wasn't. link
1991: 9,500 MW
2003 (pre): 5,000 MW
2003/4 (post): 3,600-4000 MW
The electricity situation is a little worse than it was before the war.
schools were operational, people could go from city to city without fear of attack etc.
They went from fearing Saddam's regime to fearing others. The switch to new fears.
Buildings are still in ruins after a year.
Buildings have been in ruin since the UN's horrific 1991 war against the Iraqi people. Gulf War 2.0 was relatively harmless on infrastructure.
It isn't - it's the same. I think I said that.
Scribam segovius 6/18/2004 - 5:09AM
1) Iraq is far worse than before by any measurement other than the simplistic one of 'Saddam is out of power'.
Eh?
I would possibly have supported the removal of SH by some other POTUS (of either party) than Bush.
And this outlines why you will lie to support and backpedal from your own arguments. It isn't about the facts, it is about the shrubbery.
Thousands of innocent Iraqis have died... I think you have it backwards. Then add to that almost 1000 Americans...and hopefully we'll wise up come November and make the neocons accountable.
Yeah yeah, we all know the system is flawed. Vote for Bushnader(sorry but a vote for Nader at this point in our history is a wasted vote...for Bush)or vote Bush out period? I think it's a no-brainer. One step at a time. It would be stupid not to listen to the advice of people who have served the country both Rep and Dem like the people of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change and the many others who are strongly advocating a Bush Admin. exit.
Originally posted by giant
And what componds this problem is that the changes brought about by the most recent information revolution has tricked people into thinking they are more informed than they really are. This has even evolved into the more sinister form of rebellion against established intellectual checks and balances, as can be observed in the recent major pseudo-science surge. Some people actually believe that groups outside of these established systems have more validity simply because they are outsiders and, therefore, appear to be grassroots opposition to the "elite" of whatever field they are trying to operate in.
This mechanism reinforces false beliefs. Whereas in the past one's access to wacko ideas, conspiracy theories and pseudo-science was limited, the illusion of the internet has bred new life to this kind of ignorance.
A very good point. I suspect we are deluding ourselves into believing we're "more informed" than any past generation. We equate advancements in technology with advancements in our general understanding of things, when we don't really understand at all. The inner workings of everything from economies and nations, to planets and people are lost on us. We are contextually illiterate, or are fast becoming that way.
Truthfully, I believe young adults and mature home owners in this country don't want to understand more, because that would require them to stop whatever it is the fill their time with and read. Or take a class at the local college or debate their neighbors. We don't want to do that as a nation. We've become mentally soft. Don't squeeze the Charmin!
We can't be bothered with such things, and in the end we're going to pay for it. We've already begun paying for it, quite obviously....
Originally posted by Moogs
We equate advancements in technology with advancements in our general understanding of things, when we don't really understand at all.
I think you put this perfectly. Understanding requires critical thinking skills, something that technology can't provide. Increased communication only gives the illusion of better understanding, and when emphasis is shifted to information aquisition instead of analysis we just end up with a higher volume of noise. Combine this with large sections of the population mistaking the noise for understanding and, therefore, license to make authoritative judgements, and we get a feedback look. Now we even appear to have growing attacks on the scientific method. What's next, disproving logic?