Europe submits voluntarily

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong on all counts. The dictator was installed to try ending tribal feudalism. That goes for most Islamic majority nations. Also, all these seas of crude oil that the Middle East floats on was developed by the West as the Arabs had no idea of what to do with it.

You're confusing the Ottoman empire with Islam. Up until the CIA backed Shah's coup de etat Iran's economic development mirrored central Europe and Scandinavia. And was on the same level of development. Both economically and civically. It transitioned to democracy in the same way Sweden did. A little at a time. In an orderly fashion. At the same time in history.

The Sunni Islamic Middle-East is the way it is, to a large extent because it was under Ottoman rule. And the last 200 years of Ottoman rule was incredibly dysfunctional. While Iran, mostly had their house in order. So you can't compare Iran with any other Middle-Eastern country. They had very different starting points. Also... Iran was never colonised by anybody. It's always been independent. A large problem in ex-colonial countries is that anything western is associated with evil. Iran doesn't have that problem.

But Mossadegh was a socialist. Which was so trendy at the time he was in power. So his rule would probably have been an economic disaster for Iran. But I think that the Iranians would have figured it out and booted him... democratically. They really didn't need the help of CIA, MI6 or the Shah, to fix their economy. Sweden didn't. Sweden also went the socialist route at that time.

He got the boot for being in the Soviet block.

- - - Updated - - -

Some think the root causes of all this migration are not relevant.

The US terrorist attack of Iraq is the root cause of all this migration we see today.

That is the reason we are seeing it.

Iraq has nothing to do with the economic migrants from Africa.

 

[untermensche]

Iraq has nothing to do with the economic migrants from Africa.

No that is still the lingering effects of European Colonialism.

Where do you think those Africans get their weapons?

They do not manufacture them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And he didn't see it as stealing. Iran had entered into a bad deal. He did what Trump is doing now.

Except he hadn't. Rather, the reality of the deal had changed. Oil had become far more valuable than when the deal was made. The deal should be evaluated based on what was known when it was made.

 

[untermensche]

And he didn't see it as stealing. Iran had entered into a bad deal. He did what Trump is doing now.

Except he hadn't. Rather, the reality of the deal had changed. Oil had become far more valuable than when the deal was made. The deal should be evaluated based on what was known when it was made.

Bullshit.

That is the attitude of the Imperialist.

"Fuck you you little peasants!"

"The deal we made with that dictator you never elected is the deal that stands!"

"We decide what deal stands!"

"Fuck you you little peasants and your democratic ideas!"

"We decide what ideas stand!"

"Here's a fucking brutal dictator that supports us not you!"

"How do you like that you fucking little peasants!"

 

[DrZoidberg]

The image of India as a poor nation is no longer true. It's an image from the 1960'ies. India is a high tech nation now. There's large parts of India now indistinguishable from any modern industrialised nation. Only about 15% of Indians now count as extremely poor. That's a meteoric rise in wealth. And they're not slowing down.

Indistinguishable??

One of my yardsticks for whether a nation is modern is the water. Can I drink the tap water? If not, it's not yet a modern nation even if it has some trappings of a modern nation.

Well... the tap water in large parts of USA is shit. So I don't think that applies. The rule is the more socialist a country is the better the tap water. Which is why tap water in Europe is better than in USA.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And he didn't see it as stealing. Iran had entered into a bad deal. He did what Trump is doing now.

Except he hadn't. Rather, the reality of the deal had changed. Oil had become far more valuable than when the deal was made. The deal should be evaluated based on what was known when it was made.

No. It was a remarkably bad deal when the Shah entered into it. Famous for its day. . I think it's safe to assume that he was leaned on by the Brittish government. It was at peak Brittish imperialism. There's just no way that deal wouldn't mostly have been a protection racket. Mossadegh had no reason to honour it. I fully support Mossadegh here. It was wrong of USA to intervene.

The worry was that Iran would enter the Soviet sphere of influence. That's the only thing this was about. But a sovereign nation must be able to make those decisions for itself.

In the cold war USA were not the good guys. The sides were a bad side and a worse side

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The image of India as a poor nation is no longer true. It's an image from the 1960'ies. India is a high tech nation now. There's large parts of India now indistinguishable from any modern industrialised nation. Only about 15% of Indians now count as extremely poor. That's a meteoric rise in wealth. And they're not slowing down.

Indistinguishable??

One of my yardsticks for whether a nation is modern is the water. Can I drink the tap water? If not, it's not yet a modern nation even if it has some trappings of a modern nation.

Well... the tap water in large parts of USA is shit. So I don't think that applies. The rule is the more socialist a country is the better the tap water. Which is why tap water in Europe is better than in USA.

I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about safety.

And I've been in plenty of second world countries--none of which you could drink the tap water.

 

[bilby]

Well... the tap water in large parts of USA is shit. So I don't think that applies. The rule is the more socialist a country is the better the tap water. Which is why tap water in Europe is better than in USA.

I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about safety.

And I've been in plenty of second world countries--none of which you could drink the tap water.

Remind me, which country is Flint, Michigan in?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well... the tap water in large parts of USA is shit. So I don't think that applies. The rule is the more socialist a country is the better the tap water. Which is why tap water in Europe is better than in USA.

I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about safety.

And I've been in plenty of second world countries--none of which you could drink the tap water.

Remind me, which country is Flint, Michigan in?

Whataboutism.

Normally, first world = the water is safe. Not first world = the water most likely isn't safe.

 

[untermensche]

Remind me, which country is Flint, Michigan in?

Whataboutism.

Normally, first world = the water is safe. Not first world = the water most likely isn't safe.

Not first world means victim of the first world.

That is what those terms mean.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remind me, which country is Flint, Michigan in?

Whataboutism.

Normally, first world = the water is safe. Not first world = the water most likely isn't safe.

Not first world means victim of the first world.

That is what those terms mean.

In the old days everyone was basically third world.

The first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to capitalism.

The second world nations are the ones that took the path of communism.

The current third world nations are the ones that took the path of fucked-up government. (And the second world is also fucked-up government, just of a different type.)

 

[bilby]

Remind me, which country is Flint, Michigan in?

Whataboutism.

Normally, first world = the water is safe. Not first world = the water most likely isn't safe.

So are you saying that the USA is not a first world country, or that Flint is not in the USA?

My pointing out a conclusion that follows directly from your premises is not whataboutism.

 

[untermensche]

Not first world means victim of the first world.

That is what those terms mean.

In the old days everyone was basically third world.

The first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to capitalism.

The second world nations are the ones that took the path of communism.

The current third world nations are the ones that took the path of fucked-up government. (And the second world is also fucked-up government, just of a different type.)

The US has a fucked up government.

Do you know what is in the White House?

The US government is a monstrosity. It is thoroughly corrupted by wealth and only answers to the sick desires of the wealthy.

We are just apes, nothing more.

And today the greedy self-centered immoral apes rule.

It does not have to be like this.

 

[Jokodo]

Not first world means victim of the first world.

That is what those terms mean.

In the old days everyone was basically third world.

The first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to capitalism.

The second world nations are the ones that took the path of communism.

The current third world nations are the ones that took the path of fucked-up government. (And the second world is also fucked-up government, just of a different type.)

That's a pretty fairy tale, but a fairy tale it is.

It would be way closer to the truth to say that "[t]he first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to mercantilism".

One of the ways in which "first world" countries actively suppressed the development of autochthonous industries in the "third world" in the post-colonial era was by means of export subsidies. Export subsidies don't make any short-term economic sense - effectively, they amount to giving your useful produce away below its production cost -, and they're the opposite of free market capitalism. But they serve the long-term purpose of keeping the competition out of business.

Another is making aid and cooperation agreements conditional on buying stuff from your country's industries. That's essentially denying them to buy from the best bidder. Another clear violation of the tenets of capitalism.

And when that doesn't help, toppling a government that won't sign those agreements is always an option.

 

[bilby]

Not first world means victim of the first world.

That is what those terms mean.

In the old days everyone was basically third world.

The first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to capitalism.

The second world nations are the ones that took the path of communism.

The current third world nations are the ones that took the path of fucked-up government. (And the second world is also fucked-up government, just of a different type.)

That's a pretty fairy tale, but a fairy tale it is.

It would be way closer to the truth to say that "[t]he first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to mercantilism".

One of the ways in which "first world" countries actively suppressed the development of autochthonous industries in the "third world" in the post-colonial era was by means of export subsidies. Export subsidies don't make any short-term economic sense - effectively, they amount to giving your useful produce away below its production cost -, and they're the opposite of free market capitalism. But they serve the long-term purpose of keeping the competition out of business.

Another is making aid and cooperation agreements conditional on buying stuff from your country's industries. That's essentially denying them to buy from the best bidder. Another clear violation of the tenets of capitalism.

And when that doesn't help, toppling a government that won't sign those agreements is always an option.

...and then you can bill them for the cost of the ammunition you fired at them:

The British punished Khalid's supporters by forcing them to pay reparations to cover the cost of shells fired against them and for damages caused by the looting, which amounted to 300,000 rupees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

 

[angelo]

Not first world means victim of the first world.

That is what those terms mean.

In the old days everyone was basically third world.

The first world nations are the ones that rose above that due to capitalism.

The second world nations are the ones that took the path of communism.

The current third world nations are the ones that took the path of fucked-up government. (And the second world is also fucked-up government, just of a different type.)

The US has a fucked up government.

Do you know what is in the White House?

The US government is a monstrosity. It is thoroughly corrupted by wealth and only answers to the sick desires of the wealthy.

We are just apes, nothing more.

And today the greedy self-centered immoral apes rule.

It does not have to be like this.

Yes, you're right. It could be so much better if America adopted communism, or even Marxism, anything but a capitalist democracy, right!

 

[untermensche]

The US has a fucked up government.

Do you know what is in the White House?

The US government is a monstrosity. It is thoroughly corrupted by wealth and only answers to the sick desires of the wealthy.

We are just apes, nothing more.

And today the greedy self-centered immoral apes rule.

It does not have to be like this.

Yes, you're right. It could be so much better if America adopted communism, or even Marxism, anything but a capitalist democracy, right!

You have the black and white mentality of an uneducated child.

I assure you there is more than these two authoritarian systems.

I support moving from a dictatorial economic system where dictatorial control in the workplace is accepted to a democratic economic system where control is democratic.

But that would take making the political system democratic first.

Kind of a catch 22 since the dictators of wealth, the CEO's and boards of companies and corporations, control the government presently.

Money has corrupted the political system because we allow an authoritarian dictatorial economic system to exist.

Moving from this dictatorial monstrosity to greater freedom will be difficult just as moving from monarchy was difficult.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, you're right. It could be so much better if America adopted communism, or even Marxism, anything but a capitalist democracy, right!

You have the black and white mentality of an uneducated child.

That's pretty rich coming from you, Mr "everybody I don't like is a dictator"

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you're right. It could be so much better if America adopted communism, or even Marxism, anything but a capitalist democracy, right!

You have the black and white mentality of an uneducated child.

That's pretty rich coming from you, Mr "everybody I don't like is a dictator"

That is hilarious.

I call people with dictatorial power dictators. You seem to associate dictator with harshness. It is a power structure nothing else. The dictator can be harsh or kind, reasonable or unreasonable. It is entirely up to the dictator. That is the problem.

But what you hear is that twisted nonsense you invented. And I believe you when you say you THINK that is my position.

You never know what some mind will twist your ideas into.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's pretty rich coming from you, Mr "everybody I don't like is a dictator"

That is hilarious.

I call people with dictatorial power dictators. You seem to associate dictator with harshness. It is a power structure nothing else. The dictator can be harsh or kind, reasonable or unreasonable. It is entirely up to the dictator. That is the problem.

But what you hear is that twisted nonsense you invented. And I believe you when you say you THINK that is my position.

You never know what some mind will twist your ideas into.

I think your way of viewing the world is about as black and white as Angelo's. You don't have to agree. But that's my opinion.