I say we won the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[freemehul]

I don't have the economics of it.

I know the Iraq war is draining the US, but thats because Bush was a boneheaded enough to jump into a war that wasn't even connected to the terrorist attack without UN support.

This may be naive maths, but it seems to me that if a single country could maintain the occupation in Afghanistan for a year, then 30 countries could maintain it for at least 30 years.



Won't the family get some sort of coverage for the soldier's death?

The way mortgages work is retarded anyways. If you manage to pay up 90% of your house's value, you should own 90% and the bank should own the remaining 10%.

Then again, the banks are holding the big end of the stick vs the would-be owners (hence the whole "invisible hand" of the market really won't regulate itself here) so it would really be up to the state to do something about it if it weren't too busy appealing to constituents that have been brain washed by the empty rethorics of right wing intellectuals (otherwise, you'd have a bunch of angry poor right wing voters with delusions of upcoming wealth screaming in the streets for their patriotic right to be exploited... if it weren't people's lives that are on the line, it'd be a funny spectacle indeed).



Religions of judeo-christian roots have 2 main things going for them:

1) Love thy neighbor and treat them as you'd want to be treated

2) You will live eternally in happy bliss if you behave yourselves

We can agree that religion the way it is run by the fanatic extreme gives up on theme (1). It becomes worst as religion tries to get involved with politics (really, the whole "religion is not about politics" adage is for religion's own good... you start doing serious politics with religion and you end up with a generation that truly despise the entire religious institution like it happened in the province where I live).

They can still brainwash their young into following theme (2), assuming that they exert strict control over the environment in which they are raised.

The moment you start giving the children real free will on what to believe with alternatives, most will either become agnostic/atheist or religious moderates (meaning they believe in the better aspects of what religion has to offer, but don't think everything the religious texts say is gospel).

Those that become religious moderates will do so only if religion can provide them some sort of emotional solace, which it won't do if it doesn't uphold theme (1).

OK lets go through that 1 by 1, and why I unfortunately disagree with some of this...

1st the coverage isn't high enough to cover subprime interest
2nd if you know 1st is true and unfortunately it is true, then what follows is banks are going bust. Remember the mortgages are piled up onto a big heap. The latter is a perfectly normal behavior under normal circumstances, because as a bank you want to spread risk. However if the heap is big and you don't know who has what cut and unfortuntely it is big, then what you get is a domino effect, where 1 big bank topples and takes the rest with it (and this can still happen). Now stack this up for 30 years (which is a whole generation) and you're talking disaster of a gargantuan proportion.

In that scenario i don't see religious fanaticism becoming the big issue, but I do see nationalism becoming the problem like what happened to Europe in the mid 19th century. People seem to forget this but there were several waves of agricultural crises that hit Europe and the U.S. very hard in the mid 19th century. And remember who are the biggest mortgages takers in a population? Right, it's farmers!

A lot of modern nations came into existence in those years. To name just a few: Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Spain.

And do you know what all of these nations have in common? Think of WW2!

[goodz]

They got screwed over after WW1? Hence the need for WW2. The "allies" or what not caused WW2. Ottoman empire and germany got an impossible to handle peace treaty, another war happened, they recieved a much better peace treaty, despite losing some sovereignty

[Magn]

OK lets go through that 1 by 1, and why I unfortunately disagree with some of this...

1st the coverage isn't high enough to cover subprime interest
2nd if you know 1st is true and unfortunately it is true, then what follows is banks are going bust. Remember the mortgages are piled up onto a big heap. The latter is a perfectly normal behavior under normal circumstances, because as a bank you want to spread risk. However if the heap is big and you don't know who has what cut and unfortuntely it is big, then what you get is a domino effect, where 1 big bank topples and takes the rest with it (and this can still happen). Now stack this up for 30 years (which is a whole generation) and you're talking disaster of a gargantuan proportion.

I fail to see how a soldier paying his mortgage is different from any other worker paying his mortgage.

Obviously, the soldier might die in the field of battle which would stop income and forfeit the house.

I think its unfair for the soldier, but as far as the bank is concerned, they get their money by having kept what the soldier paid for the house so far plus selling the house.

Obviously, if they stretch themselves too thin by providing too many mortgage, they might get into a situation where they have to sell the house for dirt cheap or go bankrupt if many of the mortgages don't pan out, but this is a situation were a robust state will prevent things from degenerating that far.

In that scenario i don't see religious fanaticism becoming the big issue, but I do see nationalism becoming the problem like what happened to Europe in the mid 19th century. People seem to forget this but there were several waves of agricultural crises that hit Europe and the U.S. very hard in the mid 19th century. And remember who are the biggest mortgages takers in a population? Right, it's farmers!

A lot of modern nations came into existence in those years. To name just a few: Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Spain.

And do you know what all of these nations have in common? Think of WW2!

The radicalism in Afghanistan is tied a lot more to religious ideas than nationalistic ones.

Those suicide squads in the planes died for religion, not nation.

[freemehul]

The radicalism in Afghanistan is tied a lot more to religious ideas than nationalistic ones.

Those suicide squads in the planes died for religion, not nation.

when we're gone it will no longer be tied to religion seeing how all sides are muslims in afghanistan, but the socalled northern alliance hasn't got the same ethnicity as the Pashtun supporters of the taliban in the south

[goodz]

Im just going to talk about the american dream for a bit.

Let me start with a few quotes that represent our great nation:
The late, great Colonel Sanders once said, "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."

No matter how drunk and disorderly my life was, i could always taste my fried chicken, and that let me keep grounded knowing it could always be worst.

[freemehul]

I fail to see how a soldier paying his mortgage is different from any other worker paying his mortgage.

Obviously, the soldier might die in the field of battle which would stop income and forfeit the house.

I think its unfair for the soldier, but as far as the bank is concerned, they get their money by having kept what the soldier paid for the house so far plus selling the house.

Obviously, if they stretch themselves too thin by providing too many mortgage, they might get into a situation where they have to sell the house for dirt cheap or go bankrupt if many of the mortgages don't pan out, but this is a situation were a robust state will prevent things from degenerating that far.

they're near the bottom end of society, 3rd decentile of income classes. Remember if you can't get a job in the market, you're going to end up in the military, at least that's how it is in the United States. 1st and 2nd are screwed anyway, they'll never get it better, but 3rd decentile, they still have hopes and dreams. That's what is different about soldiers.

[freemehul]

They got screwed over after WW1? Hence the need for WW2. The "allies" or what not caused WW2. Ottoman empire and germany got an impossible to handle peace treaty, another war happened, they recieved a much better peace treaty, despite losing some sovereignty

actually you completely missed the point! I guess I was just way too subtle.

Let me explain why that is wrong and what is the point I made.

-1st of all Spain never got screwed over in WW1, they were neutral, so was Romania
-Ottoman Empire no longer existed in WW2 and the Turkish republic founded by Ataturk was neutral in WW2

so what I'm saying is learn your history ;)

now back to my point...

List of independent countries that send troops to support Hitler's operation Barbarossa:
-Germany
Despite the fact that Hitler is an Austrian, he was of course chancellor or should I say dictator of Germany. Do I need to go on about this psychopath or does goodz know this infamous person? ;)
-Italy
Hitler's biggest ally in Europe, hey Mussolini may have come from a socialist family with a socialist background, but he was the first true fascist. He was the first at everything, first at ruthless elimination of his political adversaries, first to topple the old regime, first to commit genocide (first to use gas on the people in Ethiopia (killing a quarter million, but hey small potatoes compared to Hitler, right?)).
-Spain
Despite the fact that Spain was supposedly neutral in WW2, Franco did send a regiment or two in support of Hitler. He send millions of his own people abroad, in fear of what was to come. Allegedly more than half a million of those refugees ended up in concentration camps in France, Germany and Poland (and do I need to point out that this wasn't just Jews, but also Spaniards).
-Romania
Romania had its own fascist regime, not many people that know this. I guess you goodz are one of them, who are completely ignorant of this.
-Hungary
Hungary had Miklos Horty, who started out as an admiral in the Austrian navy, yes Austria did have a navy, even though that empire was mostly landlocked. That navy was stationed in what is now the modern nation of Croatia (along with so many other former Yugoslavian countries a fine example, of what nationalism has in store when let loose). He became dictator of Hungary after the collapse of the Austrian Hungarian empire after WW1 and the subsequent collapse of the communist revolutionary regime.

Not that I think of the Taliban as truly evil, but compared to these guys, they're petty and pathetic criminals.

[Magn]

when we're gone it will no longer be tied to religion seeing how all sides are muslims in afghanistan, but the socalled northern alliance hasn't got the same ethnicity as the Pashtun supporters of the taliban in the south

Similar problems as in Iraq then.

Still, nationalists tend to be somewhat pickier about their fights than fundamentalists who think the rest of the world got it wrong and is evil.

Its the lesser of two evils.

they're near the bottom end of society, 3rd decentile of income classes. Remember if you can't get a job in the market, you're going to end up in the military, at least that's how it is in the United States.

Yeah, the poor toiling, hurting and dying to substain the standard of living of the wealthy. What else is new?

I guess mandatory military service like they do in some countries has its benefits.

You think twice about going to war when its your kid or grand kid who's about to put their life on the line.

1st and 2nd are screwed anyway, they'll never get it better, but 3rd decentile, they still have hopes and dreams. That's what is different about soldiers.

There are still real opportunities out there, but no thanks to the many vultures trying their best to squash all opposition and secure a permanent place on top for their dynasty all the while pretending that the policies they are pushing for are meant to increase opportunities for upward mobility.

Lets face it, unless productivity goes up all the time (which is happening now, but not in the long term as it can't be sustained by the planet), someone getting richer means that someone else is getting poorer.

At some point, you'll have to tweak the system to insure some sort of equilibrium (like guaranteed minimum standard of living, maximum wealth someone is allowed to have and such).

[freemehul]

Similar problems as in Iraq then.

Still, nationalists tend to be somewhat pickier about their fights than fundamentalists who think the rest of the world got it wrong and is evil.

Its the lesser of two evils.



Yeah, the poor toiling, hurting and dying to substain the standard of living of the wealthy. What else is new?

I guess mandatory military service like they do in some countries has its benefits.

You think twice about going to war when its your kid or grand kid who's about to put their life on the line.



There are still real opportunities out there, but no thanks to the many vultures trying their best to squash all opposition and secure a permanent place on top for their dynasty all the while pretending that the policies they are pushing for are meant to increase opportunities for upward mobility.

Lets face it, unless productivity goes up all the time (which is happening now, but not in the long term as it can't be sustained by the planet), someone getting richer means that someone else is getting poorer.

At some point, you'll have to tweak the system to insure some sort of equilibrium (like guaranteed minimum standard of living, maximum wealth someone is allowed to have and such).

this is all prefectly true

but the problem with nationalism is that it is at forefront of what comes next, which is the bigger of two evils if you compare it to fundmentalism.

That's the problem with today's leaders and politicians, noone is looking at the long term, it's all short term crisis management.

If you do this, you're usually playing to lose on a strategic level. This is what worries me greatly.

[Hrothgar]

this is all prefectly true

but the problem with nationalism is that it is at forefront of what comes next, which is the bigger of two evils if you compare it to fundmentalism.

That's the problem with today's leaders and politicians, noone is looking at the long term, it's all short term crisis management.

If you do this, you're usually playing to lose on a strategic level. This is what worries me greatly.

I totally agree. Way to much short term thinking involved. And not just internationally/diplomatically - at every level. Economic. Social. It's all whack with people trying to figure out what to do about next year, instead of 25 years from now.

[Magn]

this is all prefectly true

but the problem with nationalism is that it is at forefront of what comes next, which is the bigger of two evils if you compare it to fundmentalism.

That's the problem with today's leaders and politicians, noone is looking at the long term, it's all short term crisis management.

If you do this, you're usually playing to lose on a strategic level. This is what worries me greatly.

I totally agree. Way to much short term thinking involved. And not just internationally/diplomatically - at every level. Economic. Social. It's all whack with people trying to figure out what to do about next year, instead of 25 years from now.

While nationalism can lead to great stupidity (war, narrow definition of a real countryman's attitude, lack of international cooperation to get things done the right way, the national equivalent of racism), short term thinking is not one of them.

The culprit is twofold:

1) Limited lifespan... you have a good chunk of the voting block that won't be around in the next 25 years. Politicians have to take that chunk into account.

The above is the minor culprit. The bigger culprit:

2) Politicians are elected for less than a handful of years before re-election!

That means several things:

a) Long term plans are hard to execute, because power changes hands and politicians have different agendas

b) Politicians need to make sure that they do things that will make them look good every few years. They don't have much incentive to do something that will make them look less good, but will make their successors shine in a decade or two.

Our political system is doomed to short sightedness, because we leave too much room for elite accommodation and the system doesn't reward the elite for being selfless.

We have 2 choices:

1) Tweak the system to reward the elite for thinking long term (hard)

2) Take power away from the elite and give it to the people through a system of participatory democracy (ie, you open up forums, invite anyone that will come, discuss things over and take citizen's inputs... bridge the gap between the decision makers and the electorate).

Until we do that, western nations will have a system that is not a whole lot better than an enlightened and benevolent dictatorship (and in some areas worse, at least a dictator is leader for life and can think long term).

Unfortunately, that would require a will to change that probably won't happen until the **** really starts to hit the fan. That is basic mainstream human nature (resisting change until given a strong incentive to embrace it).

[freemehul]

While nationalism can lead to great stupidity (war, narrow definition of a real countryman's attitude, lack of international cooperation to get things done the right way, the national equivalent of racism), short term thinking is not one of them.

The culprit is twofold:

1) Limited lifespan... you have a good chunk of the voting block that won't be around in the next 25 years. Politicians have to take that chunk into account.

The above is the minor culprit. The bigger culprit:

2) Politicians are elected for less than a handful of years before re-election!

That means several things:

a) Long term plans are hard to execute, because power changes hands and politicians have different agendas

b) Politicians need to make sure that they do things that will make them look good every few years. They don't have much incentive to do something that will make them look less good, but will make their successors shine in a decade or two.

Our political system is doomed to short sightedness, because we leave too much room for elite accommodation and the system doesn't reward the elite for being selfless.

We have 2 choices:

1) Tweak the system to reward the elite for thinking long term (hard)

2) Take power away from the elite and give it to the people through a system of participatory democracy (ie, you open up forums, invite anyone that will come, discuss things over and take citizen's inputs... bridge the gap between the decision makers and the electorate).

Until we do that, western nations will have a system that is not a whole lot better than an enlightened and benevolent dictatorship (and in some areas worse, at least a dictator is leader for life and can think long term).

Unfortunately, that would require a will to change that probably won't happen until the **** really starts to hit the fan. That is basic mainstream human nature (resisting change until given a strong incentive to embrace it).

over the years I've come to realize participatory democracy isn't all that it is cracked up to be. I'm too much of a geographer to not realize that you can't have everyone participate in the process, which leads to another problem... where do you draw the border, who can join and who can't join? All you end up with is smaller and more divided communities. It may work fine for citystates in ancient Greece, but it doesn't work in today's world.

[Magn]

over the years I've come to realize participatory democracy isn't all that it is cracked up to be. I'm too much of a geographer to not realize that you can't have everyone participate in the process, which leads to another problem... where do you draw the border, who can join and who can't join? All you end up with is smaller and more divided communities. It may work fine for citystates in ancient Greece, but it doesn't work in today's world.

Well, if you want to avoid the corruption that power brings, you have two main choices: You can either spread out the power or instate someone that is as close to incorruptible as you can get to be dictator for life.

I think the former option is better.

Does participatory democracy creates some problems that must be solved? Yes. However, I think the problems that participatory democracy creates are easier to solve than the problems our current "democratic" system creates.

Now, to go into your argumentation in more details...

I'm too much of a geographer to not realize that you can't have everyone participate in the process, which leads to another problem...

Technically, not everyone would show up.

However, if you actively promote the forums and provide ample information prior to the event, you can count on 10% to 30% showing up which is a good sample.

Those that want a voice will show up. The rest don't have anything to say anyways.

where do you draw the border, who can join and who can't join?

Everyone of legal voting age.

All you end up with is smaller and more divided communities. It may work fine for citystates in ancient Greece, but it doesn't work in today's world.

Na, you hold a direct forum for smaller entities like cities who then directly elect representatives to participate in higher forums encompassing higher level entities at regular intervals (more than once every 4 years).

A big part of the deal is to instill discussion. Have various people bring their experiences to the table, have experts bring their opinion... combine those experiences to bring forumites up to speed on the issues and help them grasp the nuances of various problems and their solutions. Once the electorate gets a clearer picture draw from the collective experiences of the masses, figure out more directly what the population really wants.

Discussions on the higher level forums would be public so that those that are elected for higher level forums are held directly accountable to the lower ones (ie: they discussed issues with their electorate in the lower level forums along with strategies to use to combat those issues... did they own up to what was decided in their decision making?).