We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Politicsforeign affairs, unchaperoned

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Thomas M. who wrote (247)4/16/2005 2:01:06 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
I see they haven't gotten any smarter on the "Politics for Amateurs" thread.

Message 21219518

Of course, it was the Contras and their allies that were killing nuns. Archbishop Romero was not murdered by the Sandinistas. He was murdered by American-trained right-wing terrorists. The Sandinistas were by far the least violent and repressive government in the area.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (249)4/16/2005 2:04:51 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
<<< Barry Healy on the Dead Pope's opposition to Liberation Theology:

"By assiduously aligning himself with the most reactionary elements of late 21st century power politics, John Paul II left a profound crisis in Catholicism in his wake. Latin America was once overwhelmingly Catholic but the US rulers have used their Protestant fundamentalist sects as weapons against liberationist Catholics there. Now 10% of Brazilians are believed to be talking in tongues!

In the developed capitalist countries, Catholicism continues to bleed membership as believers tire of the ridiculous strictures on their sexuality and democratic rights within the church. As AIDS threatens millions in the crucified impoverished world and wars and indebtedness worsen, the Catholic Church's lame responses are simply making it irrelevant."

The effect of II's horror at Liberation Theology - and for that matter for any kind of freedom outside of Poland - has been to drive the people of Latin America out of the Catholic Church and into the arms of American evangelical fruitcake religions, which are spreading like a plague over Latin America. >>>

And these fruitcake Evangelicals are taken seriously by amateurs like Cobalt, even as they tell obvious lies.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Thomas M.4/16/2005 2:42:59 AM
   of 261
Is Faultline an incompetent moderator or does he have an agenda? I have always tended to the former theory.

Message 20713170
Message 20719129

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (249)4/16/2005 2:54:26 PM
From: marcos
   of 261
This post was in response to the Zapata-goes-marxist [!] part of that exchange - Message 21228922

La Robolución was complex, carranza is quite right in that, however zapatismo was deadly simple - folks wanted their stolen land returned, and Zapata meant to get it back for them, and to such extent as he was able, he did so, and continues to do so

As for FaultLine, he's not around FADG recently, for a long time now ... possible health concerns again, or a recognition of the futility of it all, i think there are far more twisted moderators though, like Evile and Lindy [who banned me, lol] [but who have both lifted the bans since, for whatever reason]

Agreed on the utter uselessness of the self-professed lawyer of ad hominem fame ... on liberation theology versus whacko evangélicos, it's not quite that simple, a pure black and white thing ... from personal experience at the seventeenth parallel, trust me, there are idiots on both sides, and useful principles from both sides being used by the greedy and unscrupulous ... in the specific case in which i was involved, it was a land dispute, a clash of cultures as to the way in which they viewed land tenure, as well as competing claims to the land - and neither side had an exclusive right to the land, imho, as nobody had lived in that valley for a thousand years - until both factions moved in, in the same year[!] ... and both sides lied to me, one more than the other, this is true, but on neither side was there anyone with authority who failed to lie ... there will be other stories elsewhere, of course ... generally, yes it was a retrograde step for Juan Pablo to stomp on the LTs, but hey, this is the catholic church, what do you expect, and anyway, there are scarey whackos in all fanatic movements, and the term 'liberation' abused by many

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (251)4/18/2005 4:52:04 AM
   of 261
A Cursed Day for Washington:

Apr. 18, 2005
India, Pakistan leaders call their peace process "irreversible"

The peace process between India and Pakistan is now "irreversible," leaders of the two longtime rival nations said Monday, announcing a series of agreements to increase trade and cross-border travel in Kashmir and elsewhere.

With Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf standing beside him, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said they had agreed to continue talks on the divided region of Kashmir, the heart of decades of disputes, in "a sincere and purposeful manner" until a settlement was found.

"They determined that the peace process was now irreversible," Singh said, reading from a joint statement the two leaders had just signed.

The two countries agreed to increase the frequency of a cross-Kashmir bus service that started earlier this month and to identify more places along the Kashmir frontier that could be opened to traffic.

They agree to revive a joint commission to boost business ties and to open consulates in the Indian city of Bombay and the Pakistani city of Karachi by the end of the year.

They also vowed not to allow terrorism to thwart the peace process.

Earlier, Musharraf said the talks with the Indian leader were more successful than he had expected, but warned that settling the Kashmir dispute would take a long time.

Musharraf said there had been a change in attitude in Pakistan about Kashmir, which is split between the neighbors but claimed in its entirety by both. The two nuclear armed rivals have fought two wars over it.

"Domestically there is a realization that the military option is not the option any more," he told Indian journalists. "The strategy of a coercive diplomacy is no more an option."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: marcos who wrote (252)4/19/2005 1:58:17 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
Nadine sez:

"Who do i think should have ethnically cleansed this 'government owned' yet arab-inhabited... How exactly did Israel wind up with over a million Arab citizens if they were all so gung-ho to ethnically cleanse the Arabs?"

Message 21152537

Which leads directly to this question: Why are there so many Jews around if the Nazis were really so gung ho about wiping them out?

Nadine's question would be wholeheartedly approved of by FL and the mainstream media. My question would rightly be scorned (and probably evoke instant permanent banning) by FL and the media.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (254)4/19/2005 2:42:26 PM
From: marcos
   of 261
Well, your question will get scorned by me too, it is a stupid question, tempts the respondent to give a stupid answer ... yes i realise that you intend it as response to Nadine's stupid question, but think about it, how does that advance the sum of human understanding, how many hearts and minds do you capture

The correct answer to your question is, The nazis didn't have enough time and resources, due to my nation and yours and a whole lot of other nations halting their efforts

The correct answer to Nadine's question is, The zionists calculated, quite rightly, that they did not have the political capital to completely ethnically cleanse the captured land, that the most they could do at that point was to dominate demographically, and loot the possessions of those indigenous who had fled from the hostilities ... recall that they were considered oppressed underdogs in 1948, not much time had passed since the russians had found the camps, that story was still coming out, and being used in the 'land without a people' project ... they were sufficiently shrewd with their political capital that they still had some left to spend when they invaded Egypt in 1956, even beyond, in some quarters, through the nuclear weapons and other chess moves

Imho that answer will stand more chance of winning hearts and minds than yours will ... at least it might stimulate one reader somewhere to look at the actual history ... the reason i didn't answer Nadine's stupid question at the time, was that i didn't have time, and she throws out so many you can't even keep track ... she must think it an effective tactic, maybe it is to some, not to me though ... and neither is yours

But hey, check it out today, i discovered what mike9 really really likes, 'you people' ... applied it by accident to stockman scott and any ilk he felt he might have collected, and michael figured it applied to some unspecified group he's in ... lol ... it is good that people have the capacity for arousal, it would be better if they could at the same time smarten tfu

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: marcos who wrote (255)4/21/2005 8:33:11 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
yes i realise that you intend it as response to Nadine's stupid question but think about it, how does that advance the sum of human understanding

It's really not that complicated. Here it is again:

"Nadine's question would be wholeheartedly approved of by FL and the mainstream media. My question would rightly be scorned (and probably evoke instant permanent banning) by FL and the media."

One cannot even begin to analyze American politics until one understands the inherent biases of our political community. On the topic of the Middle East, this example speaks volumes.

Nadine's question is not significant. It is the reaction to her question that informs us.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (256)4/21/2005 1:50:05 PM
From: marcos
   of 261
Yes, gotcha on that, you're probably right to an extent, FL would likely have allowed hers, and disallowed yours ... there is always a cultural slant of some sort, probably, we are human beings, after all ... it is better to get both questions out in print imho, because they get asked all the time, they are not really questions, and should be refuted

Other questions too ... there's a surprising one this morning, about 1956 ... seems odd to see it from the questioner, because her side doesn't come off too well there, it was a clear case of attempted conquest of another people's land ... but, got to go soon ... what a black hole for time it is play internet, eh

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: marcos who wrote (257)5/17/2005 4:24:39 AM
   of 261
The Chinese are coming. Let's greet them.
Jérôme Monod International Herald Tribune

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005

I was in China recently to participate in the Boao Forum on China's "peaceful rise," the country's foreign policy mantra that was announced a year earlier. First as an entrepreneur, then as a politician, and more recently through the Fondation pour l'innovation politique (Foundation for Political Innovation).

Indeed, the question now is not whether China is rising, but whether the rise will be peaceful.

Let's not dream: It will take 20 years for nuclear energy to supply even 4 to 5 percent of China's demands for electricity, while renewable energy will always be marginal.

As a consequence, China will consume energy from traditional sources, especially oil and coal, and it will seek to procure energy by all possible means in Central Asia, Iran, Africa or Latin America.

It will form new alliances, some of which may be in conflict with the West.

Furthermore, China's quest for energy resources and its subsequent involvement in regions with conflicts could create a destabilizing bottleneck effect. This is evident in China's increasing search for energy resources in Central Asia, a political zone already congested with a growing post-9/11 American presence, with a Russian and Indian re-engagement and with Saudi Arabian and Pakistani regional linkages.

Hence the issue goes beyond energy. China will need to convince the international community that its "peaceful rise" is not limited only to areas where its own vital strategic interests are not threatened. In the 19th century, Europeans went to war over raw materials. Times have changed, but the tides may not have.

Then there is the question of the trajectory of China's rise. What does China really want? Do we know? Does China know? Every great civilization brings an idea to the world. What idea would China bring?

The West believes it has a historic destiny. But it is not certain what China aspires to be and what it would choose to portray to the world. China's new alliances with India and Europe, and its distancing from certain other regions, clearly demonstrate a wish not only to exist in the world, but to be at the helm of world affairs.

Choosing to remain contained within itself would have been an excellent alibi for a peaceful rise. But China's defiance of the isolation of the Middle Kingdom poses a challenge to keep the rise peaceful.

We must help China overcome these challenges. Engagement with China will ensure that we ourselves remain in the game. It is not just a single country that is rising; a progressive regional integration will result in the rise of a continent. And we must remember that this is the continent that contains the greatest portion of mankind.

China should not be treated with hostility, lest Thucydides be proved right when he said that when one thinks of the other as an enemy, the other becomes an enemy in reality. Let us look at China as a partner instead of a potential rival.

Our goal must be to help integrate this new emerging pole in a multilateral discourse. It seems to me that Europeans, who hold little potential for conflict with China, have a particularly significant role to play in establishing this dialogue.

Europe's encouragement for China's vision of multilateralism was reflected in the European Union's early call for China to join the World Trade Organization - in which France played an important role - and in the call for an end to the embargo against arms exports to China. Cooperation should be placed above sanctions, and the past must vanish before the future.

But to hold a dialogue, we need to know each other. The people - and above all students, entrepreneurs, cultural figures, academics and politicians - must meet and come to know each other. China would then cease to seem exotic; it would become familiar.

(Jérôme Monod founder and honorary chairman of the Fondation pour l'innovation politique, was chairman and chief executive officer of the supervisory board of Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux from 1980 to 2000.)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10