Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought the money was controlled by the UN so that the oil funds wouldn't end up in the personal accounts of a dictator and his cronies. But if western technologies are used to extract and process the oil, shouldn't said companies be compensated? A similar situation has been happening in West Africa. Western companies find oil reserves and give money to the host government to drill. What the government does with the money is another story. With the amount of wealth available there should not be as many poor, underfed, uneducated, people in the world. The greed in their own governments is much to blame.
Not saying that is how it should be -- Just saying that is the how and why.
At the risk of being misinterpreted, I find the incompleteness of your post quite telling.
Law of scarcity within a capital monopoly socioeconomic architecture (The US in this case)... i.e. Someone has to be a pawn in order for someone else not to be. American media spins off, scoffs, minimizes and negates (at your request mind you, the consumer) the idea that classism exists in our societal construct. Those of us who are brave enough to focus our eyesight beyond the tip of our nose can easily see that classism IS the societal construct of our country, much like other developed and underdeveloped Nations. In that regard you are absolutely correct.
The question becomes why is there an inherent cowardice within our society to accept your factual observation as the end solution? (Your aforementioned " 'it is what it is' but I will never personally attempt to engage that") The answer is because opposing or otherwise messing with the state of that observation can be to your detriment. This is to say, if we accept such scarcity at face value, then to affect who and why dies for whom, you might all of the sudden find yourself in the wrong end of the deal. Assuming you're currently not a pawn, you want to keep it that way. Which is why you're more than content in highlighting the observation and never doing anything about it until it threatens you personally. I don't mean this as a personal front to you, just wish to extrapolate the sentiment you espoused as representative of the "have/have nots" social construct of our country, and frankly the only reason the current monetary system hasn't collapsed sooner.
Most people pay public respect to an 18 yo M-16 draggin'kid in uniform at the airport as a gesture of common courtesy and more importantly, a social effort to not highlight yourself (preservation). Privately, most people recognize the concept of 'economic drafting' and once again privately relish on the fact they were able, by a combination of timing, luck and a nominal dose of personal choices sprinkled here and there, to avoid the economic necessity of putting themselves or their offspring in the position of having to receive compensation for the opportunity cost of dying a painful death at a young age, particularly one whose motivations they also privately consider not to their self-benefit. Enter your "thence, why they are pawns" observation.
My point is this. Being personally/politically half as engaged as the median income earner in the US is towards fantasy football and college sports would directly yield one less 18 year old economic draftee having to come back home with no legs, if at all. But that means more skin in the game for you, and we can't have that now can we?
Just because one is not legally responsible for the demise of someone doesn't mean we aren't still responsible for it, it's called sin by omission.
I will give you some credit though, the common response of "oh, well,exercise the right to vote if you don't like it" is as useful as the runway behind you. In that respect the average buffalo wild wing eating, college football idolizing 'pawn/chump' has really no recourse.
it is odd that it seems more patriotic to be pro war when the reality is that really americans should only risk our children's lives when our own soil is directly threatened, and then we would all be fighting the
"good fight" together. it is a lot easier to forget about the sacrifice made when the rest of us are thousands of miles away from the action. seeing how frightened that young boy looked being held by the taliban and imaging how frightened his family must be for him brought it home to me personally.
At the risk of being misinterpreted, I find the incompleteness of your post quite telling.
Law of scarcity within a capital monopoly socioeconomic architecture (The US in this case)... i.e. Someone has to be a pawn in order for someone else not to be. American media spins off, scoffs, minimizes and negates (at your request mind you, the consumer) the idea that classism exists in our societal construct. Those of us who are brave enough to focus our eyesight beyond the tip of our nose can easily see that classism IS the societal construct of our country, much like other developed and underdeveloped Nations. In that regard you are absolutely correct.
The question becomes why is there an inherent cowardice within our society to accept your factual observation as the end solution? (Your aforementioned " 'it is what it is' but I will never personally attempt to engage that") The answer is because opposing or otherwise messing with the state of that observation can be to your detriment. This is to say, if we accept such scarcity at face value, then to affect who and why dies for whom, you might all of the sudden find yourself in the wrong end of the deal. Assuming you're currently not a pawn, you want to keep it that way. Which is why you're more than content in highlighting the observation and never doing anything about it until it threatens you personally. I don't mean this as a personal front to you, just wish to extrapolate the sentiment you espoused as representative of the "have/have nots" social construct of our country, and frankly the only reason the current monetary system hasn't collapsed sooner.
Most people pay public respect to an 18 yo M-16 draggin'kid in uniform at the airport as a gesture of common courtesy and more importantly, a social effort to not highlight yourself (preservation). Privately, most people recognize the concept of 'economic drafting' and once again privately relish on the fact they were able, by a combination of timing, luck and a nominal dose of personal choices sprinkled here and there, to avoid the economic necessity of putting themselves or their offspring in the position of having to receive compensation for the opportunity cost of dying a painful death at a young age, particularly one whose motivations they also privately consider not to their self-benefit. Enter your "thence, why they are pawns" observation.
My point is this. Being personally/politically half as engaged as the median income earner in the US is towards fantasy football and college sports would directly yield one less 18 year old economic draftee having to come back home with no legs, if at all. But that means more skin in the game for you, and we can't have that now can we?
Just because one is not legally responsible for the demise of someone doesn't mean we aren't still responsible for it, it's called sin by omission.
I will give you some credit though, the common response of "oh, well,exercise the right to vote if you don't like it" is as useful as the runway behind you. In that respect the average buffalo wild wing eating, college football idolizing 'pawn/chump' has really no recourse.
I take it that with that run-on Socio-Economic babble nonsense you are not and have never been a troop?
Just saying most troop-types tend to be a little (meaning a LOT) more direct.
Troops (and Officers) can say no. In fact if they think what they are doing is wrong they are supposed to. Three of my heroes of the Iraqicide did that:
I am saying that most of the rest are chumps and pawns because they support the game of their own demise either directly or tacitly by going with go-along-get-along.
i think people object to the term chumps for the troops.
Yeah, I understand that.
It sort of knocks the pedestal of bs out from under the position we have put it up to.
But were it not true I would not be inclined to say it. Having been a troop and o-type, I am pretty comfortable recognizing things in this regard for what they are.
Real deal troops is troops, not that big of deal, either way. When folks go into the faux hero or economic victim routines it just gets pathetic.
Watched the bs build with the PC marketing phrase "Thank You for Your Service." It was usually the sleazey dirt bags who would get troops killed and maimed for a Corporate Buck that would say that the most.
It sort of knocks the pedestal of bs out from under the position we have put it up to.
But were it not true I would not be inclined to say it. Having been a troop and o-type, I am pretty comfortable recognizing things in this regard for what they are.
Real deal troops is troops, not that big of deal, either way. When folks go into the faux hero or economic victim routines it just gets pathetic.
Watched the bs build with the PC marketing phrase "Thank You for Your Service." It was usually the sleazey dirt bags who would get troops killed and maimed for a Corporate Buck that would say that the most.
it makes no sense to criticize the troops.
for an analogy, if you give money to a charity and the charity misspends the money, that makes them bad, not you. if our troops are trying to help our country, that makes them good. if they are being sent for the wrong reasons, it makes the government bad, not the troops.
it makes no sense to criticize the troops.
for an analogy, if you give money to a charity and the charity misspends the money, that makes them bad, not you. if our troops are trying to help our country, that makes them good. if they are being sent for the wrong reasons, it makes the government bad, not the troops.
Sounds like you may be not correct on a couple layers.
Just because someone does something stupid or foolish does not make them bad.
Second, that part about the contributor to a Charity not being defined as a bad actor . . . . read some of these details. Support of Charity winds up defined as supporting terror.
you are missing the point. the soldiers are neither dolts or fools. they are the group of americans who are WILLING to step up to the plate, and to call them dolts is inexcusable. this country would not have been the economic power that it was without the soldiers and americans would not have had the standard of living they have had without the soldiers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
