Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Iran nuclear deal
Options
Comments
-
-
I saw that Adam Curtis documentary and it is a good insight if not a bit different but it does verge on the 'conspiracy' theory a tad. It is though a very good documentary and well worth a watch to get a different view point.
I cannot say the same about Noam Chomsky's take on the matter as ideologically his beef is always with the West and will use all and any mediums or regimes (Pol Pot anyone?) to get his opinions across. He loves going on about the 'totalitarian west' and its use of 'propaganda' but with no hint on irony he will happily give RT news his full and undivided attention for an interview to get his anti-west message across.
Also, yes violence is still ever present in our world but the stats prove that as a human race and people we are becoming less violent. It doesn't help those caught in the cross fire in Syria of course but we should not make such blanket pronouncements that everything is crap.
Capitalism and free trade have been shown as a way towards peace. It open's up countries to new ideas and enables co-operation with each other. The EU for all its faults is another example of an organisation for peace. The issue with violence in the middle east is largely an issue with those that live there and their morals. If their religious laws for example advocates stoning adulteries to death or hanging homosexuals it is no surprise that in the world today that most of the conflict happens to stem from that region. The west did not invent Islam nor did it invent the Sunni vs Shia rivalry.
I enjoyed your post but I do have some quibbles.
Firstly, Conspiracy Theory has become something of a smear or dismissal in our world. But is there any doubt that small groups of people do get together and secretly make plans, or that some activities are imbued with less than transparent agendas? Even mainstream media has begun to cover the yearly Bilderberg meetings - and yet no one knows what all those hob nobs say to one another. Is it possible they make plans, at least vaguely; that maybe they develop strategies and review strategies. By definition, all these things are conspiracies.
Mostly, however, I believe in predictable behaviour without conscious afore thought on the part of planners (though I admit that I'm often suspicious). As one writer once said (Bertram Gross, author of "Friendly Fascism", 1980), it doesn't take a conspiracy for everyone in a theatre to head for the exits after someone shouts "Fire!" They just all know where their interest lies.
But this can indeed produce some very predictable behaviour, if not in particular, then in style. Abuse of power is never really a surprise. Not really.
I recently had an exchange with a vet about the enforced micro-chipping of all dogs. He used two anecdotes of some extraordinarily vicious dog behaviour to make his case. Without really taking a position, I said that there's a maxim in law that is taught to first year law students - ie, hard cases make bad laws. I discussed that for a bit and then he suggested I was a conspiracy theorist. I said no, I just now how things work. (But then, technical fields are notoriously naive when it comes to politics - hence the massive shift in education emphasis over the last 35-40 years away from humanities and toward technical education. Is that a conspiracy theory?)
I am willing absolutely to agree that the framers of - or even more, the voters for - the Patriot Act had no intention of the law being used for arresting Tamara Jo Freeman aboard an airplane, charging and convicting her of terrorism and removing her children from her care for no more than swatting their unruly asses to get them to behave and telling a stewardess to **** off who stuck her nose in a bit aggressively. I don't think all those congressmen and senators were conspiring. Hell, I'm absolutely certain that if even one of them actually read the 900 page law, he or she was an exception. No, they weren't conspirators, they were just stupid. But the result of the law was and remains quite predictable nonetheless. (Mind you, I also have little doubt that the writers of that law had a very clear vision of where in general such a law would take society - in that respect, I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist.)
Those words never crossed my mind when I watched the Adam Curtis documentary. Other words did, like coincidence or synchronicity. Especially a word or phrase like the dynamic of how things work crossed my mind also.
Mind you, I think his subsequent documentary, made three years later, The Trap, was his best work. I highly recommend it.
To make a long story short (though I'd be glad to pursue it further), I have to disagree about Chomsky, although I can clearly see where you're coming from and why one could think that way.
Firstly, he is usually asked questions from a standpoint in which certain things are assumed and he tends to unravel those assumptions. Those assumptions are usually based in, we are good, they are bad, so naturally in trying to unravel the myth, he focuses more on us. But he's under no illusions about the them in that equation, you can be sure.
Secondly, he tends to focus on his own tribe more, which to him is natural - after all, it's easy to point elsewhere, especially since one can have no influence on the other guy. But one can possibly influence his own family. Unfortunately, such behaviour will seem very unsupportive. But we're not raising children here, we're trying to reign in governments - or should be.
I don't think he favours RT over anyone else, except that he favours any platform that deals in more than just soundbites. I'm sure he's under no illusions of the propaganda tendencies in RT, just as he is about the same tendencies in CNN or the NYTimes or the BBC. He's spoken at length to many people.
I remember once a friend wouldn't even let me make a point about Stalin. He kept interjecting that Stalin murdered 60 million people. Ok, his numbers were wrong, but his theme was certainly correct. But from my standpoint, I was raised to see Stalin as a murderer. So I took that as a given. What I was not taught was that the USSR had turned from an impoverished agricultural giant into a world class industrial power in the space of ten years. I had had no idea, believe it or not, so when I discovered a few things, I thought it was a point worth making. You know, the Romans didn't ONLY murder people; they also gave the world aqueducts.
I think Chomsky's view is essentially that a major problem in this world is the double standard, the existence of two different filters. I see this at play every time I go to a doctor. It's been studied at length and in one way, at least, described as Confirmation Bias. (That's a fascinating concept, btw.) I think Chomsky is battling those things that keep us in the dark ages, that's all. But sure, he's not perfect. Need that even be said?
I don't have much faith in stats. And certainly not in those stats that tell us that the world is becoming less violent. I'm familiar with those studies and reports also. But it's much too large a subject to mix into an already long post.
I disagree vehemently about capitalism being shown as a way toward peace. I think the Pope's comments about runaway capitalism are dead on and only a hundred or more years late in coming. Without hashing over the subject too too much right now, I'll just say that Vietnam was worth 80 billion dollars to arms manufacturers - and back then, that was a lot of money. But otherwise, what on earth did five million Vietnamese have to die for? And, btw, they are still dying from the residual effects of that war (agent orange).
You said, It open's up countries to new ideas and enables co-operation with each other.
Not so. Countries and cultures have always had ways to open up, willingly or not, to new ideas and cooperation with each other. AND competition with each other. Long before capitalism was developed. It's a mistake to conflate capitalism with trade and markets. Bacteria (and corporations) can develop to be incredibly strong and they are simultaneously cooperative and competitive within themselves.
Capitalism arguably served a purpose, some good, though some would argue even that. Regardless of the outcome of that particular argument, it's a dying and out of date tool that has become incredibly destructive. It's time for it to be permitted to die. IMO, of course.
I can't disagree with the medieval nature of Islam. It must be remembered that they have been under siege for some time now and as a result, the most extreme elements have either taken charge or at least have presented the loudest voice. For me it raises serious questions, to which I have no answers.
It seems that the most extreme and violent of any movement seem to end up ruling the day. There were many shades of communism in Russia in the 1910's, but the most ruthless won out. There were many shades of Zionism as well, at the turn of the 19th-20th century and for the first few decades, but the most ruthless and bigoted version won out. The same thing with Islam, it seems, in the movements that grew over the last half century or longer, which I think Curtis covered pretty well. The same thing with British conservatives, it seems, who were a very different kettle of fish in the 1960's than post Thatcher (though some might justifiably argue that the differences were all dressing). And it appears that the same is true among supposed liberals in the USA, who today are arguably neo-liberal fascists, indistinguishable from neo-cons, many of whom did indeed start out as liberals.
I don't know what to make of that cloudy picture. Someone with a much more in depth broad perspective and a solid historical foundation might be able to make sense of that much better than I can or, alternatively, show me that I'm missing the boat entirely. As I said at the start of this idea, it seems.... And as Hamlet said, I know not 'seems'.0 -
It's all about the gas.IrishTrajan wrote: »http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33518524
One can only hope Congress doesn't crap the bed and blow the deal out of the water as soon as they can.
So what do you think, a historic moment, or just some breathing space until the sanctions are ramped up by Congress again?
The annexation of Crimea and the consequent threats of gas supply cuts by Russia have been a reminder of an inconvenient truth: when it comes to politics, Europe will always be influenced by its dependency on Russian gas. According to the European Parliament, in 2013 Russia provided 43.2% of the European Union’s gas imports, 31.38% of its oil imports, and 26.7% of its coal imports. But the dependency runs both ways. As oil and gas exports to Europe account for almost 52% of Russia’s federal budget income (US$515 billion), the EU acts not only as crucial trade partner for Russia but also as vital crutch to its fragile real economy.
https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/04/how-irans-gas-might-change-the-course-of-nuclear-negotiations/
A Russia-EU Free Trade Zone
From Lisbon to Vladivostok': Putin Envisions a Russia-EU Free Trade Zone
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would like to see a free trade agreement between the European Union and Russia. In a Thursday editorial for a German newspaper, he describes his vision of "a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros."
FOLLOW THE MONEY.0 -
Advertisement