Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Safir

The Random Thread

Recommended Posts

Re: The Random Thread

Lost 50 euros on Texas this weekend :mad: I'm pretty sure the dealer cheated though!

If you're playing low satkes poker' date=' here's a good tip, mate:

Don't bluff a lot. Many of the players in those levels are idiots and call with almost every hand. Even if you bet strongly, they'll still call you with bottom pair or even a flush or straight draw (sometimes inside straight draw :P).

BjwiAaFCAAAuTwp.jpg

So true. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

BjwiAaFCAAAuTwp.jpg

I'm not so sure if true...it's a pretty popular opinion but factually really inaccurate (unfortunately).

This is a topic of international politics and I wouldn't wanna start arguing about it in the random thread. But mostly Iraq happened because of neoconservative extreme idealism and their perception that the war could be won quickly and easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

omggg wuttttttttttttttt me got liek 1st in math olympics even though im not good at math and my math teacher forced me thereé......lol wuttt

Congratulations' date=' buddy! :)

I wonder what would happen if you were good at math... :P

I'm not so sure if true...it's a pretty popular opinion but factually really inaccurate (unfortunately).

This is a topic of international politics and I wouldn't wanna start arguing about it in the random thread. But mostly Iraq happened because of neoconservative extreme idealism and their perception that the war could be won quickly and easily.

Do you really think Bush, Blair, Aznar and that corrupt sellout, Durão Barroso, cared about Irak's freedom?

Irak war had a reason behind it and 3 letters are enough to spell it: OIL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

Do you really think Bush' date=' Blair, Aznar and that corrupt sellout, Durão Barroso, cared about Irak's freedom?

Irak war had a reason behind it and 3 letters are enough to spell it: OIL.[/quote']

They cared about it for selfish reasons. Your mistake here is thinking freedom and oil are the only explanations. Unfortunately, complex problems tend to have complex answers, and in the case of GW Bush, the Bush Doctrine sheds quite a bit of light to his actions. So here we go: :P

The Bush Doctrine briefly:

1. Democracy and liberalism

"I'm Bush the God and I bring freedom and free markets to places where there were none"

2. Threat and preventative war

"Terrorism is the greatest threat of our times and if I don't act on it now, future generations will see me like Chamberlain in Munich".

3. Unilateralism

"We'll do it alone if needed. Everyone else is misguided."

4. American hegemony

"We are the strongest and can execute whatever policies we've decided on."

Then there's Rumsfield's pitch for a fast, high-tech, light-manned war. It's a sexy proposition but every political scientist knew it wasn't possible to carry out. Knowing even a bit about the history of the region or the difficulties of carrying out the democracy-island concept would've gone a long way to preventing such a misguided war. But as we all know, Bush was never a very good student at school...

And so, Rumsfield won the internal bureaucratic politics, beating out people like Kissinger along the way, and so his policy was implemented.

Monsieur Rumsfield has long since then resigned.

CA: As for the oil argument, while it's an appealing one, unfortunately it's a false idol. A quick look at the numbers shows immediately that any potential income from the oil is absolutely miniscule compared to the military spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

They cared about it for selfish reasons. Your mistake here is thinking freedom and oil are the only explanations. Unfortunately' date=' complex problems tend to have complex answers, and in the case of GW Bush, the Bush Doctrine sheds quite a bit of light to his actions. So here we go: :P

The Bush Doctrine briefly:

1. Democracy and ultra-liberalism

"I'm Bush the God and I bring freedom and free (unregulated) market to places where there were none"

2. Threat and preventative war - total bull.

"Terrorism is the greatest threat of our times and if I don't act on it now, future generations will see me like Chamberlain in Munich".

The number of terrorist related deaths, regarding American people, is incomparably lower than gun related deaths. Isn't that a serious issue?

And what about the growing gap between rich and poor?

And the financial sector scumbags, who caused the most recent market crash, getting away with it? And FYI they're at it again and in a bigger proportion.

3. Unilateralism

"We'll do it alone if needed. Everyone else is misguided."

4. American hegemony

"We are the strongest and can execute whatever policies we've decided on."

Then there's Rumsfield's pitch for a fast, high-tech, light-manned war. It's a sexy proposition but every political scientist knew it wasn't possible to carry out. Knowing even a bit about the history of the region or the difficulties on carrying out the democracy-island concept would've gone a long way to preventing such a misguided war. But as we all know, Bush was never a very good student at school...

And so, Rumsfield won the internal bureaucratic politics, beating out people like Kissinger along the way, and so his policy was implemented.

Monsieur Rumsfield has long since then resigned.

CA: As for the oil argument, while it's an appealing one (and, like it or not, it's one of the reasons behind the Irak war) unfortunately it's a false idol. A quick look at the numbers (what numbers and who provided them? Many institutions pass as honest and they're payed to do "not very honest things". Are you saying the Irak war had no economic motivations behind it, whatsoever?) shows immediately that any potential income from the oil is absolutely miniscule compared to the military spending.

That is irrelevant, because that cost is supported by the American tax payers. The economic rewards of the war don't go to the tax payers. They go to the multinational companies / tycoons, who supported Bush and financed his campaign.

In bold: I didn't think that, mate.

Okay, I added what I think about Bush's doctrine and I included some modern days' topics.

What I wrote is not against you, because I think you're too inteligent to agree with Bush's doctrine. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

They cared about it for selfish reasons. Your mistake here is thinking freedom and oil are the only explanations. Unfortunately, complex problems tend to have complex answers, and in the case of GW Bush, the Bush Doctrine sheds quite a bit of light to his actions. So here we go:

The Bush Doctrine briefly:

1. Democracy and ultra-liberalism

"I'm Bush the God and I bring freedom and free (unregulated) market to places where there were none"

Ultra-liberalized markets are advocated by most people coming out of economics. I don't agree with them but they're quite prominent in government. Consequently their views are quite well-established in the upper echelons of the US gov. It also helps that 50% of the country seems to believe in it since the benefits of neoliberal idealism are constantly being spouted in the media by the Republican party...

2. Threat and preventative war - total bull.

"Terrorism is the greatest threat of our times and if I don't act on it now, future generations will see me like Chamberlain in Munich".

The number of terrorist related deaths, regarding American people, is incomparably lower than gun related deaths. Isn't that a serious issue?

And what about the growing gap between rich and poor?

And the financial sector scumbags, who caused the most recent market crash, getting away with it? And FYI they're at it again and in a bigger proportion.

Bush would say that's all irrelevant. 1) "I want to be remembered for my foreign policy successes, not this other mumbo-jumbo." 2) Americans really like their guns. 3) Inequality isn't always thought as a bad thing by rich people it turns out...shocking, right ;) 4) But their friends are in the financial sector!... 5)

Really, everything presidents do boils down to what kind of policies they want to carry out and what they want to be remembered for. So Clinton had his NAFTA, education, and healthcare, and Obama his health industry reform. And so, Bush had his Bush Doctrine...

There actually are people who'd like to stop the financial sector from creating all these negative externalities but they're not very close to being elected...

3. Unilateralism

"We'll do it alone if needed. Everyone else is misguided."

4. American hegemony

"We are the strongest and can execute whatever policies we've decided on."

Then there's Rumsfield's pitch for a fast, high-tech, light-manned war. It's a sexy proposition but every political scientist knew it wasn't possible to carry out. Knowing even a bit about the history of the region or the difficulties on carrying out the democracy-island concept would've gone a long way to preventing such a misguided war. But as we all know, Bush was never a very good student at school...

And so, Rumsfield won the internal bureaucratic politics, beating out people like Kissinger along the way, and so his policy was implemented.

Monsieur Rumsfield has long since then resigned.

CA: As for the oil argument, while it's an appealing one (and, like it or not, it's one of the reasons behind the Irak war) unfortunately it's a false idol. A quick look at the numbers (what numbers, and who provided them? Many institutions pass as honest and they're payed to do "not very honest things". Are you saying the Irak war had no economic motivations behind it, whatsoever?) shows immediately that any potential income from the oil is absolutely miniscule compared to the military spending.

That is irrelevant, because that cost is supported by the American tax payers. The economic rewards of the war don't go to the tax payers. They go to the multinational companies / tycoons, who supported Bush and financed his campaign.

Bush also doesn't need to go to Iraq to find spoils for his close allies. You can be sure that his closest friends in oil, and every other business, will have their sweetheart deals regardless of Iraq or no Iraq.

Since we started this discussion about oil, and we've established that it wasn't to earn money to USA "the country", we're now just contending on the significance of the potential spoils to Bush's closest supporters and the inner circle. Most experts in the field agree that the answer is, not very.

Mhm, I'm just telling you what he's rationalized for himself.

Political scientists largely knew before Bush went to Iraq that his goals were doomed. Everyone in IR was telling him to not go, but he didn't care. See unilateralism. We were part of the misguided you see ;)

And no offense taken, I think us two will be able to have a constructive, non-confrontational discussion about these topics - we're mentally stable enough to do so ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

Mhm' date=' I'm just telling you what he's rationalized for himself.

Political scientists largely knew before Bush went to Iraq that his goals were doomed. Everyone in IR was telling him to not go, but he didn't care. See unilateralism. We were part of the misguided you see ;)[/color']

And no offense taken, I think us two will be able to have a constructive, non-confrontational discussion about these topics - we're mentally stable enough to do so ;)

In bold: Absolutely! :)

There actually are people who'd like to stop the financial sector from creating all these negative externalities but they're not very close to being elected...

This is what really concerns me. Apart from countries with almost no corruption (like New Zealand, Finland or Denmark), big money has so much influence in politics. :eek:

Since we started this discussion about oil, and we've established that it wasn't to earn money to USA "the country", we're now just contending on the significance of the potential spoils to Bush's closest supporters and the inner circle. Most experts in the field agree that the answer is, not very.

I'm always suspicious when I hear or read the expression "most experts". :o

How impartial are they, actually?

I really find it hard to believe Bush, his "crew" and his campaign sponsors didn't benefit considerably, economically speaking, from the Irak war. :confused:

PS: Are you supposed to write "Irak" or "Iraq"? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

In bold: Absolutely! :)

There actually are people who'd like to stop the financial sector from creating all these negative externalities but they're not very close to being elected...

This is what really concerns me. Apart from countries with almost no corruption (like New Zealand' date=' Finland or Denmark), big money has so much influence in politics. :eek:

Or that's just how America runs ;)

Since we started this discussion about oil, and we've established that it wasn't to earn money to USA "the country", we're now just contending on the significance of the potential spoils to Bush's closest supporters and the inner circle. Most experts in the field agree that the answer is, not very.

I'm always suspicious when I hear or read the expression "some experts". :o

How impartial are they, actually?

I really find it hard to believe Bush, his "crew" and his campaign sponsors didn't benefit considerably, economically speaking, from the Irak war. :confused:

You're correct to be suspicious, but if we look at the numbers, we can find definite proof that Bush's associates do quite fine with or without oil from Iraq ;)

Really what I'm saying is that Bush et al. did not go to Iraq for oil but rather to fulfill their vision of a better world. Had they done their homework, they would've realized that their "fast, high-tech" war was impossible. They did not, and thus here we are...in a world where Russia grabs Crimea and we can do nothing about it. But that's an entirely different topic ;)

Now, Bush will still contend today that his vision and his intentions are what we should still be pursuing, only that his means were unsuccessful. You and I may disagree vehemently with that. Monsieur Bush may find a supporter though in Longnose over the at Politics Thread ;)

PS: Are you supposed to write "Irak" or "Iraq"? :P

I used to write Irak in Finland but apparently they spell Iraq here so that's the habit I've gotten into now...:P

Since we're writing about a more serious topic, I thought I'd lighten the mood by bringing out the usually-ignored magenta. I was trying to find pink -- since that's so commonly associated with matters of military -- but magenta was as close of a color to pink as I could find :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

I used to write Irak in Finland but apparently they spell Iraq here so that's the habit I've gotten into now...:P

"Since we're writing about a more serious topic' date=' I thought I'd lighten the mood by bringing out the usually-ignored magenta. I was trying to find pink -- since that's [i']so commonly[/i] associated with matters of military -- but magenta was as close of a color to pink as I could find

In Portugal, we write "Iraque", but our alphabet doesn't have the letters "K", "W" or "Y". :o

I can spell it Iraq, as well. :P

I'm not sure if the spelling is different in British and American English.

I think I already read the 2 versions, in the English language.

Ah, I see what you mean - the pink / military correlation. :D

It looks pink to me (and I'm not daltonic), but it says "magenta", so who am I to contradict? :P

You're correct to be suspicious, but if we look at the numbers, we can find definite proof that Bush's associates do quite fine with or without oil from Iraq

I'm not sure, but you know how some people are.

They're greedy and even though they don't need more money, they're willing to do what it takes to get it. Some of them may even be considered sociopaths.

There aren't many of them, but it only takes a few to ruin many people's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

[/color]

You're correct to be suspicious' date=' but if we look at the numbers, we can find definite proof that Bush's associates do quite fine with or without oil from Iraq[/color']

I'm not sure, but you know how some people are.

They're greedy and even though they don't need more money, they're willing to do what it takes to get it. Some of them may even be considered sociopaths.

There aren't many of them, but it only takes a few to ruin many people's lives.

They probably are greedy, but there's no reason why they couldn't both get rich and execute foreign policy that lines up with their ideals. And don't forget, GW Bush cares enough about his reputation so as to not let silly business interests meddle with his ability to dictate his legacy. Consequently, only he, and his closest security advisers -- say Rumsfield and Cheney and a few others -- will determine US foreign policy on Iraq.

Once someone becomes a president, their main focus is on fulfilling their vision of a better world. That and the prestige of presidency are probably the main reasons why they ran in the first place. Everything else is far less important, especially money - which I'm sure they can have plenty of with or without presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

They probably are greedy' date=' but there's no reason why they couldn't both get rich and execute foreign policy that lines up with their ideals. And don't forget, GW Bush cares enough about his reputation so as to not let silly business interests meddle with his ability to dictate his legacy. Consequently, only he, and his closest security advisers -- say Rumsfield and Cheney and a few others -- will determine US foreign policy on Iraq.

Once someone becomes a president, their main focus is on fulfilling their vision of a better world. That and the prestige of presidency are probably the main reasons why they ran in the first place. Everything else is far less important, especially money - which I'm sure they can have plenty of with or without presidency.[/color']

Do you honestly believe G. W. Bush knows the meaning of the word "reputation"? :P

Btw you're enjoying writing in magenta, huh? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

Do you honestly believe G. W. Bush knows the meaning of the word "reputation"? :P

Btw you're enjoying writing in magenta' date=' huh? :D[/quote']

Of course. There was a time when he had an exceptionally strong approval rating. See the bump in approval post-9/11 when he made a U-turn in his foreign policy and started advocating a strong military response.

Understand that Republicans enjoy a significantly better reputation in America than in Europe. Unfortunately.

And yes I am ;)

cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Random Thread

Of course. There was a time when he had an exceptionally strong approval rating. See the bump in approval post-9/11 when he made a U-turn in his foreign policy and started advocating a strong military response.

Understand that Republicans enjoy a significantly better reputation in America than in Europe. Unfortunately.

And yes I am ;)

cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif

Why unfortunately?

The American Republican party only protects the rich, the very rich and the ridiculously rich... :confused:

They say they oppose tax increases, yet Reagan (Republican) was the president of the USA, who increased taxes more often.

They only want tax cuts for the wealthy and are willing to take more money from the middle class and the poor to accomplish that.

It's a party that fights aggressively against any form of gun legislation / regulation. It's a party that isn't shocked by all the stunts that Wall Street and the financial sector, in general, pull. However, they accuse poor people and unemployed of being moochers. Why don't they want to increase the minimum wage? They think that some jobs (jobs that don't require a lot of education, to be more precise) shouldn't have a decent pay. That disgusts me. Everyone who works should have a decent pay.

But the Republicans have nothing against tycoons and multinational companies, that use offshores / evade taxes...

They caused the "Shutdown", because of Obamacare (which isn't perfect), but it's a lot better and significantly more socially equal than the solution, they defend.

And all this in a country where the gap, between rich and poor, is the largest in the World.

Unfortunately Portugal is 3rd on that list. :(

But on a lighter note, I'm glad you're enjoying writing in magenta, mate. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...