Ultranationalism

[ThePest179]

Oil: Syria has some oil, but it is not a major oil producer like, say, Saudi Arabia. Besides that, we are starting to get oil from other locations anyway (Fracking, for instance, whether or not it's right is a whole other debate).

When I said oil, I was referring to the Middle East at large. And what better way to get that then with a puppet state?

 

Terrorism: In this case, if the rebels prevail, we will most likely get a terrorist haven out of Syria. Supporting anti Assad forces is doing something to help, not hurt terrorism. I have read some rumblings that one of the motivators behind Syria are the far right Israeli Likud party, and their associated pro Israel lobbies in the US, who want to wipe out any regime opposed to Israel, even if it is in the long term interest for Israel to have a rational (however cruel) state actor like Assad, as opposed to a bunch of irrational Muslim fanatics.

 

Yep, and there's the dilemma. Do we help the terrorists or a brutal tyrant? If we help the Syrian opposition, we run a major risk in the creation of a Sunni extremist state, bent on genocide of the Shiites and Jews, but if Assad wins, we get a similar genocide dilemma with Sunnis, and the risk of a safe haven for Hezbollah and an Iranian ally. And if we do nothing, someone will grow to hate the US for not supporting the losing side, and become a major terrorist, or the losers will spread out through the Middle East to wreck havoc somewhere else, or the winners will unite the region against Israel or the US, etc, etc. There's just too much potential for something bad to happen.

[Tsar Alexander]

Oil: Syria has some oil, but it is not a major oil producer like, say, Saudi Arabia. Besides that, we are starting to get oil from other locations anyway (Fracking, for instance, whether or not it's right is a whole other debate).

When I said oil, I was referring to the Middle East at large. And what better way to get that then with a puppet state?

 

Terrorism: In this case, if the rebels prevail, we will most likely get a terrorist haven out of Syria. Supporting anti Assad forces is doing something to help, not hurt terrorism. I have read some rumblings that one of the motivators behind Syria are the far right Israeli Likud party, and their associated pro Israel lobbies in the US, who want to wipe out any regime opposed to Israel, even if it is in the long term interest for Israel to have a rational (however cruel) state actor like Assad, as opposed to a bunch of irrational Muslim fanatics.

 

Yep, and there's the dilemma. Do we help the terrorists or a brutal tyrant? If we help the Syrian opposition, we run a major risk in the creation of a Sunni extremist state, bent on genocide of the Shiites and Jews, but if Assad wins, we get a similar genocide dilemma with Sunnis, and the risk of a safe haven for Hezbollah and an Iranian ally. And if we do nothing, someone will grow to hate the US for not supporting the losing side, and become a major terrorist, or the losers will spread out through the Middle East to wreck havoc somewhere else, or the winners will unite the region against Israel or the US, etc, etc. There's just too much potential for something bad to happen.

 

 

Oil: I will reiterate I don't think that is a major driving factor. Saudi Arabia, the biggest Arab producer, is relatively secure and able to defend itself (against other Arab states and Iran). There is a domestic energy boom in the US right now (it seems it could just delay peak oil crisis by a few years, but it's still more oil... for now), and even if there was not, there are plenty of other places to get oil from (Russia, Nigeria, Angola, Pacific Islands...). Not to mention the big oil corporations profit when the price of oil is high. I think our main motivator here is more ideological (far right Israeli's, American Neoconservatives, and liberal interventionists).

 

As for the terrorism.... this is why I want to stay out. While I would honestly prefer Assad to prevail, either way the US loses. It's just I'd rather have a rational actor who occasionally threatens Israel than an irrational one threatening America herself via fanatical terrorist action.

[ThePest179]

As for the terrorism.... this is why I want to stay out. While I would honestly prefer Assad to prevail, either way the US loses. It's just I'd rather have a rational actor who occasionally threatens Israel than an irrational one threatening America herself via fanatical terrorist action.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose.

[Tsar Alexander]

As for the terrorism.... this is why I want to stay out. While I would honestly prefer Assad to prevail, either way the US loses. It's just I'd rather have a rational actor who occasionally threatens Israel than an irrational one threatening America herself via fanatical terrorist action.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose.

 

 

Exactly, in the end we still lose either way. But there are some key point's I think you are missing here, especially on Iran:

 

I would not really call it Iranian "hegemony." Hegemony was when the US in the mid to late 1990s had total full spectrum dominance, and no other nation on earth could really oppose it via conventional military means, or economic influence.

 

First off, Iran has problems, like difficulty purchasing modern weapons (they get some, but if you look at their air force inventory for instance, still not all that fantastic).

 

On top of that, the Iranian economy is fragile, gas prices are high (believe it or not!), and there is a lot of discontent with weak economic performance.

 

On top of that, you have the brain drain which began with the fall of the Shah, but has just continued. Iran has difficulty maintaining enough well educated people to advance science and technology.

 

Militarily, they have some capabilities. But these are limited, for instance (and this is coming from a USNA grad, and a man who did a tour in the Persian Gulf), the Iranian Navy could inflict some damage to the US Navy if the Iranians hit first in a surprise attack. But besides that, their Naval forces can't do too much. Air force was already talked about. In general, Iran can't really project power.

 

Finally, Iran can never achieve hegemony because there are other powerful Islamic world nations that oppose it, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The US is also allied with all three of these nations, and if need be can move in to inflict damage upon Iran.

 

Iran, in a conflict might get some help from Russia, but this would most likely limited to supplying weapons. I doubt we would see any Russian troops (maybe some special forces) or planes in Iran. The day's when Russia/USSR could deploy up to 60,000 men to the Mideast in one week, are over. Russia could only deploy a few thousand paratroopers outside of Russia, if that.

[ThePest179]

As for the terrorism.... this is why I want to stay out. While I would honestly prefer Assad to prevail, either way the US loses. It's just I'd rather have a rational actor who occasionally threatens Israel than an irrational one threatening America herself via fanatical terrorist action.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose.

 

 

Exactly, in the end we still lose either way. But there are some key point's I think you are missing here, especially on Iran:

 

I would not really call it Iranian "hegemony." Hegemony was when the US in the mid to late 1990s had total full spectrum dominance, and no other nation on earth could really oppose it via conventional military means, or economic influence.

 

First off, Iran has problems, like difficulty purchasing modern weapons (they get some, but if you look at their air force inventory for instance, still not all that fantastic).

 

On top of that, the Iranian economy is fragile, gas prices are high (believe it or not!), and there is a lot of discontent with weak economic performance.

 

On top of that, you have the brain drain which began with the fall of the Shah, but has just continued. Iran has difficulty maintaining enough well educated people to advance science and technology.

 

Militarily, they have some capabilities. But these are limited, for instance (and this is coming from a USNA grad, and a man who did a tour in the Persian Gulf), the Iranian Navy could inflict some damage to the US Navy if the Iranians hit first in a surprise attack. But besides that, their Naval forces can't do too much. Air force was already talked about. In general, Iran can't really project power.

 

Finally, Iran can never achieve hegemony because there are other powerful Islamic world nations that oppose it, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The US is also allied with all three of these nations, and if need be can move in to inflict damage upon Iran.

 

Iran, in a conflict might get some help from Russia, but this would most likely limited to supplying weapons. I doubt we would see any Russian troops (maybe some special forces) or planes in Iran. The day's when Russia/USSR could deploy up to 60,000 men to the Mideast in one week, are over. Russia could only deploy a few thousand paratroopers outside of Russia, if that.

 

I stand corrected. Iran would still be somewhat difficult to handle, but victory is assured in a conventional war (an irregular one, however...).

[Tsar Alexander]

snip

 

Exactly, in the end we still lose either way. But there are some key point's I think you are missing here, especially on Iran:

 

I would not really call it Iranian "hegemony." Hegemony was when the US in the mid to late 1990s had total full spectrum dominance, and no other nation on earth could really oppose it via conventional military means, or economic influence.

 

First off, Iran has problems, like difficulty purchasing modern weapons (they get some, but if you look at their air force inventory for instance, still not all that fantastic).

 

On top of that, the Iranian economy is fragile, gas prices are high (believe it or not!), and there is a lot of discontent with weak economic performance.

 

On top of that, you have the brain drain which began with the fall of the Shah, but has just continued. Iran has difficulty maintaining enough well educated people to advance science and technology.

 

Militarily, they have some capabilities. But these are limited, for instance (and this is coming from a USNA grad, and a man who did a tour in the Persian Gulf), the Iranian Navy could inflict some damage to the US Navy if the Iranians hit first in a surprise attack. But besides that, their Naval forces can't do too much. Air force was already talked about. In general, Iran can't really project power.

 

Finally, Iran can never achieve hegemony because there are other powerful Islamic world nations that oppose it, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The US is also allied with all three of these nations, and if need be can move in to inflict damage upon Iran.

 

Iran, in a conflict might get some help from Russia, but this would most likely limited to supplying weapons. I doubt we would see any Russian troops (maybe some special forces) or planes in Iran. The day's when Russia/USSR could deploy up to 60,000 men to the Mideast in one week, are over. Russia could only deploy a few thousand paratroopers outside of Russia, if that.

 

I stand corrected. Iran would still be somewhat difficult to handle, but victory is assured in a conventional war (an irregular one, however...).

 

In a conventional war.... probably (though, this would likely be a massive military operation which would require brining back the draft, or activating all the reserves and stop losing like crazy), though, Iran is large. It is about the size of the US Northeast, with around 70 million people, and it is very mountainous (unlike Iraq, which was mostly flat), perfect terrain to inflict losses on the enemy. While I agree the US would most *likely* win the conventional stage of the war, cost matters. Iran may not have much in terms of power projection, but I do think they have some ability to defend their homeland.

 

As for the guerilla warfare... oh yeah, we'll be fucked (at least if we try to spread western values and change society like we do in Afghanistan, for instance).We might be looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties over the long run, and large scale conscription if you wanted to really occupy that nation. I am not a military expert at all (though I am trying to sign up for the Navy), but for some reason the number 500,000 comes to mind to establish some sort of credible occupation/nation building force. Possibly more.

[ThePest179]

In a conventional war.... probably (though, this would likely be a massive military operation which would require brining back the draft, or activating all the reserves and stop losing like crazy), though, Iran is large. It is about the size of the US Northeast, with around 70 million people, and it is very mountainous (unlike Iraq, which was mostly flat), perfect terrain to inflict losses on the enemy. While I agree the US would most *likely* win the conventional stage of the war, cost matters. Iran may not have much in terms of power projection, but I do think they have some ability to defend their homeland.

 

As for the guerilla warfare... oh yeah, we'll be fucked (at least if we try to spread western values and change society like we do in Afghanistan, for instance).We might be looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties over the long run, and large scale conscription if you wanted to really occupy that nation. I am not a military expert at all (though I am trying to sign up for the Navy), but for some reason the number 500,000 comes to mind to establish some sort of credible occupation/nation building force. Possibly more.

 

Exactly. It would be much worse if Iran acquired nuclear capability as well. But that's another story. Also, I see a potentially horrifying pattern here: In Syria, protests cumulated in a bloody crackdown followed by war. A similar pattern seems to be evolving in the Ukraine (albeit, less bloody).

[Tsar Alexander]

In a conventional war.... probably (though, this would likely be a massive military operation which would require brining back the draft, or activating all the reserves and stop losing like crazy), though, Iran is large. It is about the size of the US Northeast, with around 70 million people, and it is very mountainous (unlike Iraq, which was mostly flat), perfect terrain to inflict losses on the enemy. While I agree the US would most *likely* win the conventional stage of the war, cost matters. Iran may not have much in terms of power projection, but I do think they have some ability to defend their homeland.

 

As for the guerilla warfare... oh yeah, we'll be fucked (at least if we try to spread western values and change society like we do in Afghanistan, for instance).We might be looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties over the long run, and large scale conscription if you wanted to really occupy that nation. I am not a military expert at all (though I am trying to sign up for the Navy), but for some reason the number 500,000 comes to mind to establish some sort of credible occupation/nation building force. Possibly more.

 

Exactly. It would be much worse if Iran acquired nuclear capability as well. But that's another story. Also, I see a potentially horrifying pattern here: In Syria, protests cumulated in a bloody crackdown followed by war. A similar pattern seems to be evolving in the Ukraine (albeit, less bloody).

 

Maybe, but I would argue those nations are meant to fall apart. Syria is a mishmash of Sunni's and Shia's and Kurds and all kinds of other groups. Syria (as we know it now) was just a construct invented by the French after the Great War to maximize their empire.

 

Ukraine had the same thing to it done (in a way) by Russia. Western Ukrainians are much more independence oriented than Eastern Ukrainians. If I remember correct, the west is also Catholic, while the east is Eastern Orthodox. And all this is ignoring the fact even more groups live in Ukraine, such as Tatars and Russians in Crimea. A lot of Western Ukraine belonged to Poland at one point before WWII. So I don't think a nation like that can really survive and be stable.

 

Also, the pattern you describe is what I was proposing in the first place. Most of it has to do with exploding national and religious sentiments which are shaking up the traditional nation states we have known since 1945.

[ThePest179]

Maybe, but I would argue those nations are meant to fall apart. Syria is a mishmash of Sunni's and Shia's and Kurds and all kinds of other groups. Syria (as we know it now) was just a construct invented by the French after the Great War to maximize their empire.

 

Ukraine had the same thing to it done (in a way) by Russia. Western Ukrainians are much more independence oriented than Eastern Ukrainians. If I remember correct, the west is also Catholic, while the east is Eastern Orthodox. And all this is ignoring the fact even more groups live in Ukraine, such as Tatars and Russians in Crimea. A lot of Western Ukraine belonged to Poland at one point before WWII. So I don't think a nation like that can really survive and be stable.

 

Also, the pattern you describe is what I was proposing in the first place. Most of it has to do with exploding national and religious sentiments which are shaking up the traditional nation states we have known since 1945.

 

The term "Balkanization" fits very well in this context.

[Tsar Alexander]

Maybe, but I would argue those nations are meant to fall apart. Syria is a mishmash of Sunni's and Shia's and Kurds and all kinds of other groups. Syria (as we know it now) was just a construct invented by the French after the Great War to maximize their empire.

 

Ukraine had the same thing to it done (in a way) by Russia. Western Ukrainians are much more independence oriented than Eastern Ukrainians. If I remember correct, the west is also Catholic, while the east is Eastern Orthodox. And all this is ignoring the fact even more groups live in Ukraine, such as Tatars and Russians in Crimea. A lot of Western Ukraine belonged to Poland at one point before WWII. So I don't think a nation like that can really survive and be stable.

 

Also, the pattern you describe is what I was proposing in the first place. Most of it has to do with exploding national and religious sentiments which are shaking up the traditional nation states we have known since 1945.

 

The term "Balkanization" fits very well in this context.

 

Exactly.

 

I will provide a better response later, right now I am busy absorbing the first ever Seahawk Superbowl victory....

[Tsar Alexander]

Watching this right now....

 

RxQshxrkR9M

[Ross Scott]

I think it produces a destructive cycle. You try and win the cheap points by focusing on social, not economic issues first. Since public attention to the fine points of economics is diverted, the government and big corporations begin messing with the system to gear it towards better self gain, slowly degrading the middle class in the process.

 

As the middle class declines, the politics becomes more radical (I call it the urban hipster-rural white trash dichotomy, you may call it something else ), however by this point people become too focused on social issues, and can't really do anything meaningful in regards to trade policy, wages, etc.

I agree, for me personally, a lot of social issues in politics I think of more as noise than anything else. I think the most important issues are ones that affect BILLIONS of people, not small factions. Since the USA has the world reserve currency, our economic issues really do have that kind of impact.

 

America is not fully "dominated" by anyone.

I would disagree, I think America is dominated by big money. In 2013, over 3 billion dollars were spent on lobbying. We have more millionaires in congress than any point in history. I've read that since the recession, 95% of our economic gains have gone towards the upper 1%. Our system is essentially rigged to snuff out third parties. In my opinion, that's not democracy. I've read before that nowadays we essentially have the one-party system, the party of business, with two different factions.

 

I mean our answer to the 2008 financial crisis was to essentially bail people out, slap on the wrist penalties for most companies, nobody went to jail, and no serious legislation was passed to prevent the same thing from happening all over again. HSBC was found guilty of laundering money (and CONTINUING to do so) for Al-Qaeda, the Mexican cartel, and many other criminal organizations, yet the only penalty was a fine of 5 weeks of profit for them. No one went to jail over that and the justice department even came out and said it was afraid to press harsher penalties for fear of damaging the economy. It's essentially an admission that large banks are above the law. I think neither the left nor right establishments are seriously going to challenge this order, because they're also being funded by it. The only people who are serious about wanting to stop corruption in our system are essentially radicals now, as the mainstream just accepts it and debates things like social issues instead.

[BTGBullseye]

America is not fully "dominated" by anyone.

I would disagree, I think America is dominated by big money. In 2013, over 3 billion dollars were spent on lobbying. We have more millionaires in congress than any point in history. I've read that since the recession, 95% of our economic gains have gone towards the upper 1%. Our system is essentially rigged to snuff out third parties. In my opinion, that's not democracy. I've read before that nowadays we essentially have the one-party system, the party of business, with two different factions.

 

I mean our answer to the 2008 financial crisis was to essentially bail people out, slap on the wrist penalties for most companies, nobody went to jail, and no serious legislation was passed to prevent the same thing from happening all over again. HSBC was found guilty of laundering money (and CONTINUING to do so) for Al-Qaeda, the Mexican cartel, and many other criminal organizations, yet the only penalty was a fine of 5 weeks of profit for them. No one went to jail over that and the justice department even came out and said it was afraid to press harsher penalties for fear of damaging the economy. It's essentially an admission that large banks are above the law. I think neither the left nor right establishments are seriously going to challenge this order, because they're also being funded by it. The only people who are serious about wanting to stop corruption in our system are essentially radicals now, as the mainstream just accepts it and debates things like social issues instead.

I do have to agree with you there... Unfortunately the only "radicals" that want to do anything to fix the situation are the "extremest right". (people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or me)

[ThePest179]

I do have to agree with you there... Unfortunately the only "radicals" that want to do anything to fix the situation are the "extremest right". (people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or me)

 

Not necessarily. The efforts of Obama himself prove that (some) on the left want to fix the problem, and while the far right do want to fix the problem, some of their solutions are not necessarily the best (although what is the best is up for debate).

 

I mean our answer to the 2008 financial crisis was to essentially bail people out, slap on the wrist penalties for most companies, nobody went to jail, and no serious legislation was passed to prevent the same thing from happening all over again. HSBC was found guilty of laundering money (and CONTINUING to do so) for Al-Qaeda, the Mexican cartel, and many other criminal organizations, yet the only penalty was a fine of 5 weeks of profit for them. No one went to jail over that and the justice department even came out and said it was afraid to press harsher penalties for fear of damaging the economy. It's essentially an admission that large banks are above the law. I think neither the left nor right establishments are seriously going to challenge this order, because they're also being funded by it. The only people who are serious about wanting to stop corruption in our system are essentially radicals now, as the mainstream just accepts it and debates things like social issues instead.

 

So America is steadily turning into an oligarchy. Actually makes a lot of sense given you evidence, Ross, and the current Red-baiting methods only add to the sense that business rules America.

[Ross Scott]

I do have to agree with you there... Unfortunately the only "radicals" that want to do anything to fix the situation are the "extremest right". (people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or me)

Your last sentence comes across like hyperbole man. I largely see voices like Limbaugh and Hannity as PART of the big money, they're some of the channels for it on the right wing side. Are they calling for prosecution and penalties of illegal by the banks? Do they speak out against unfair tax avoidance of large corporations (like Google, General Electric, Exxon, Apple, etc. all paying single digit or less in taxes?). What is their solution for people in poverty? Do they speak out against CORPORATE welfare (for instance? How would they solve the current problems we have? From what I know of Hannity and Limbaugh, their stances are a lot of the noise that gets in the way of more serious debate. I mean I even found a link of him defending Super PACS, which I see as a signficant step towards moving power away from the average voter towards big money. To give them credit though, I did some research and noticed he DOES speak out against quantitative easing, so kudos for that, although I think that's incorrect framing QE as a liberal issue, many liberals hate QE also, just apparently not the Obama administration. This is kind of what I mean about the "noise" however. The way QE is being used I think is highly irresponsible, but the thing is both Obama AND Romney were in favor of maintaining the status quo with the federal reserve. So calling it "liberal" or "conservative" I think is intellectually dishonest and is just playing people against each other. An issue like that is essentially independent of both sides, since again, I think both republicans and democrats are more or less at the call of big money.

 

Plus, the second part of your sentence says to me either you were just speaking off the cuff, or else you may be ignorant of the actual extremist left. I think this could be terminology however. I want to be clear, if we're not talking social issues, I don't consider any of the Obama administration or even most of modern day democrats to be the radical left. I see them as highly centrist, in some categories more right wing than Republican candidates of the past. When I hear "radical left" I'm thinking of Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, etc. I can guarantee all of those people very much wish to remedy our current situation and have been trying their best for years. Bernie Sanders (an independent)

where he's essentially mocking them by saying sarcastically (and loudly to them) how our Congress is acting like our most important priority above all else, is tax cuts for billionaires. Anyway, you may not agree with all of their stances or routes to a solution, but I think saying the extremist left doesn't want to do anything about our situation is totally false. I think the MAJORITY of people want to change the situation, but there is so much misinformation and obfuscation that it's unlikely to happen without drastic actions.

 

Not necessarily. The efforts of Obama himself prove that (some) on the left want to fix the problem, and while the far right do want to fix the problem, some of their solutions are not necessarily the best (although what is the best is up for debate).

I may as well piss everybody off equally, but I think Obama has given lip service towards more fairer economic opportunities and little else. Looking at JUST his economic history, I don't see a world of difference between him and Bush. I can't know what goes on his head, but personally I think he's largely a puppet and doesn't have anything approaching realistic solutions for our most serious problems. He can give a good speech and say he'll do something, but in terms of what he's actually done or his current plans are, I think they're piecemeal at best, regressive at worst. Some may blame an obstructionist congress for holding him up, but I think that's a cop out. If a president TRULY gave a damn, he would implore more of the American people directly, explain what he wants to do, how he plans to do it, and get legislation so simple made that anyone trying to spin it off towards the interest of big money would look corrupt as hell. You CAN shine a light on corruption if you really want to, and the president has one of the most powerful offices in America. Then again, if he actually DID do that, he might get assassinated, so again, it's hard for me to know what's going on in his head, but I think holding up Obama as a model of what the left-wing wants in terms of economic policy is a farce.

[Tsar Alexander]

@ Ross:

 

It depends on the social issue, though I agree to some rather large extent. I would basically agree that economics leads the pack in terms of nation collapsing issues, but just below that are cultural issues and relations (meaning, relations between regions, races, religions, etc) which can in many cases be just as important as economics, and quite frankly, I think all of them influence each other.

My view of America, using these three cobbled together categories would be something like this:

 

Cultural Revolution: 1965 to 1989: Initially a spirit of social liberalism swept this nation, and it took out a lot of traditional notions with it. Granted, the sexism and racism probably needed to go, but it also took away some better ideas such as the importance of community and nation. Sometime later, to complete the economic version of the "me" revolution, we get Ronald Reagan, who slashes taxes, and enacts proto-free trade agreements, and heavily deregulates the US economy, setting the stage for financialization, and later financial crash.

 

Identity/Relations Revolution: The rise of uncontrolled immigration changes the characters of many of America's regions. The new policy is about multiculturalism and maintaining separate cultures within one nation, which is moving away from traditional ideas of assimilation. Meanwhile, to partially counterbalance this, GOP politicians adopt a "southern strategy." This potent mix of minority identity politics and Southern angst, overplayed with many other issues, causes politics to be gridlocked, sometimes over largely symbolic issues.

 

Economic Crisis: We are living this one now. Reaganomics is exhausting itself, and economic woes are hitting hard. Economic failure causes an increase in racial tensions and political radicalism (at least symbol wise, god forbid we actually try and challenge Wall Street!)

 

People cooperate in so much as they have money (or a common enemy, but that is for another time...). A friend of mine who was from an upper middle class Californian neighborhood that was highly mixed, said that it was all good, but the key term here is middle class. Now look what happens when we don't have middle class people with middle class values all trying to live together:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/25/local/la-me-0126-compton-20130126

 

I am just going to come out as the most far right person here, and say it: I just don't think that America's racial relations are really manageable anymore. All the previous things that made it sort of work (the good economic growth, the ability of rich white people to move to suburbs away from people they didn't like while paying lip service to certain policies, the common enemy (USSR), the more or less moderate politics ) are gone or going. I don't try and really attack any particular group with this comment, but it seems on all sides, there is just increasing amounts of hate and suspicion, and there is really no way to deescalate that short of brining back the entire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_fyIoittsw and putting Americans under the threat of shared nuclear annihilation again .

 

As for domination, you were right actually, I do believe the rich dominate us. I meant domination more by a particular political faction. The GOP and Democrat's are just puppets in my opinion.

 

Sorry if all that sounded like a garbled nonsensical string of comments.

[BTGBullseye]

My opinion is that everyone has the right to their own opinion. (in other words, you can't really offend me with an opinion)

 

Are they calling for prosecution and penalties of illegal by the banks? Do they speak out against unfair tax avoidance of large corporations (like Google, General Electric, Exxon, Apple, etc. all paying single digit or less in taxes?). What is their solution for people in poverty? Do they speak out against CORPORATE welfare (for instance? How would they solve the current problems we have?

How often do you listen to their radio shows? They actually do cover all that... (and it's pretty comprehensive opinions too if you pay attention, but I don't have the time right now to find their opinions and put them here) The only problem with getting anything made into law, is that the 'status quo Democrats' control the majorities in the house, the senate, and the presidency... (kinda keeps all the good ideas from being able to be passed)

 

From what I know of Hannity and Limbaugh, their stances are a lot of the noise that gets in the way of more serious debate.

It's only 'noise' because when they try to put it through in a bill, they are ridiculed by Democrat controlled media, and the the Dem controlled (in every area possible) government refuses to vote favorably on the bill. (Hannity was seriously considering running for president last time to see if he could change it)

 

I mean I even found a link of him defending Super PACS, which I see as a signficant step towards moving power away from the average voter towards big money.

Didn't look like he voiced his opinion on it either way to me. Try to keep his personality in mind... He's highly sarcastic most of the time, and loves to talk about ANYTHING that might annoy the Democrats. (he may even be referencing something from a previous show or book in there, as he frequently does without informing you) From my point of view, he didn't say whether he supported or opposed it, he just informed us of the ruling.

 

To give them credit though, I did some research and noticed he DOES speak out against quantitative easing, so kudos for that, although I think that's incorrect framing QE as a liberal issue, many liberals hate QE also, just apparently not the Obama administration. This is kind of what I mean about the "noise" however. The way QE is being used I think is highly irresponsible, but the thing is both Obama AND Romney were in favor of maintaining the status quo with the federal reserve. So calling it "liberal" or "conservative" I think is intellectually dishonest and is just playing people against each other. An issue like that is essentially independent of both sides, since again, I think both republicans and democrats are more or less at the call of big money.

I haven't read/heard enough about QE to have a strong opinion on it yet, so I won't say anything concerning it.

 

Plus, the second part of your sentence says to me either you were just speaking off the cuff, or else you may be ignorant of the actual extremist left. I think this could be terminology however.

It probably is the understanding of the terminology. I've had misunderstandings like that in the past.

 

I want to be clear, if we're not talking social issues, I don't consider any of the Obama administration or even most of modern day democrats to be the radical left.

And that's the thing. The current version of the 'radical left' is only about 'social issues', and hoarding power.

 

I see them as highly centrist, in some categories more right wing than Republican candidates of the past.

Right and left doesn't correspond to Democrats or Republicans, and hasn't for over 50 years. (it used to, but there's some kind of conspiracy or something going on trying to confuse people)

 

When I hear "radical left" I'm thinking of Noam Chomsky,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky%27s_political_views

According to that, his views are very moderate... Actually quite similar to my own, and even to those of Limbaugh and Hannity. (though his opinion on war is a bit different)

 

Chris Hedges,

A socialist.

 

Bernie Sanders,

Another socialist.

 

Robert Reich,

The only true leftist on your list...

 

etc.

I find no reference to this person on Google.

 

I think the MAJORITY of people want to change the situation, but there is so much misinformation and obfuscation that it's unlikely to happen without drastic actions.

Very true.

[ThePest179]

 

Are they calling for prosecution and penalties of illegal by the banks? Do they speak out against unfair tax avoidance of large corporations (like Google, General Electric, Exxon, Apple, etc. all paying single digit or less in taxes?). What is their solution for people in poverty? Do they speak out against CORPORATE welfare (for instance? How would they solve the current problems we have?

How often do you listen to their radio shows? They actually do cover all that... (and it's pretty comprehensive opinions too if you pay attention, but I don't have the time right now to find their opinions and put them here) The only problem with getting anything made into law, is that the 'status quo Democrats' control the majorities in the house, the senate, and the presidency... (kinda keeps all the good ideas from being able to be passed)

Yes, just blame the democrats for everything. It's much easier than actually admitting there's a problem that Republicans cause.

 

From what I know of Hannity and Limbaugh, their stances are a lot of the noise that gets in the way of more serious debate.

It's only 'noise' because when they try to put it through in a bill, they are ridiculed by Democrat controlled media, and the the Dem controlled (in every area possible) government refuses to vote favorably on the bill. (Hannity was seriously considering running for president last time to see if he could change it)

Ah, yes. "liberal/leftist bias" in the mainstream media. Read this article:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_Bias

 

 

The current version of the 'radical left' is only about 'social issues', and hoarding power.

Excuse me?

 

I see them as highly centrist, in some categories more right wing than Republican candidates of the past.

Right and left doesn't correspond to Democrats or Republicans, and hasn't for over 50 years. (it used to, but there's some kind of conspiracy or something going on trying to confuse people)

Conspiracy theorist!

 

Chris Hedges,

A socialist.

 

Bernie Sanders,

Another socialist.

Red-baiting! This is why we can't do a damn thing about the rich's growing power or corruption: you're called a communist/socialist.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Guest (see edit history)

[Tsar Alexander]

I don't mean to be a moderator, but I think at this point, we need a thread split, since this is becoming more about global finance than the original topic (which is fine by me, but I think in that case a new thread would be better so we are all on the same page).

[Ross Scott]

BTGbullseye: I really think our terminology is getting mixed up. When you say "left wing", what do you mean? Because I see it as kind of a spectrum leading from mild to extreme:

 

modern Democrats = very mild left wing, more left on social issues, not really left wing at all in economic issues now, or in words only

People with socialist leanings = (Chris Hedges, Bernie Sanders) more "traditional" left wing, but considered radical nowadays

People with communist leanings = extreme left wing, not very realistic in my opinion

Anarchists = extremist left wing, Noam Chomsky is actually a flavor of this

 

So when you say "extreme left wing" or "radical left" that automatically excludes all democrats in my mind. Something like the Green Party could be considered more radical or extreme left wing. I disagree when you say they're about hoarding power, they're more about trying to level the playing field.