When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
Depends... Do multiple personalities count?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Depends... Do multiple personalities count?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Some already have. They don't get along.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
How does that follow? Spending a lot on guns is what you do to have butter? It sounds good, and all, but it does not make sense.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
How does that follow? Spending a lot on guns is what you do to have butter? It sounds good, and all, but it does not make sense.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Spending a lot on guns makes you have lots of guns. It's clearly an attempt to establish a better position in the world market. And it doesn't give you anything "else" - what do you get from being a super power? Do other countries love you? Hell no. Do you get richer? Sure. Just look at any former super power - at their height they were pretty rich, even the USSR (though clearly their system was broken).
-
Spending a lot on guns makes you have lots of guns. It's clearly an attempt to establish a better position in the world market. And it doesn't give you anything "else" - what do you get from being a super power? Do other countries love you? Hell no. Do you get richer? Sure. Just look at any former super power - at their height they were pretty rich, even the USSR (though clearly their system was broken).
So, us spent bucks on defense. How did all the money we poured into marshal plan and nato get us a better position in the world market? Post wwii, us only invaded korea, vietnam, haiti, panama, iraq, afghanistan. Please explain how adventurism made us so rich. Our richness has not been driven by colonial control, as that of other super powers. I don't see the purpose of other countries loving the us. You do what's right, because it is, not so your neighbors will love you. I don't see that the USSR was ever rich, when they had food shortages all the time. But I'm sure I'm biased. because I don't see north korea as rich. But if you have facts, I'm interested in learning them.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So, us spent bucks on defense. How did all the money we poured into marshal plan and nato get us a better position in the world market? Post wwii, us only invaded korea, vietnam, haiti, panama, iraq, afghanistan. Please explain how adventurism made us so rich. Our richness has not been driven by colonial control, as that of other super powers. I don't see the purpose of other countries loving the us. You do what's right, because it is, not so your neighbors will love you. I don't see that the USSR was ever rich, when they had food shortages all the time. But I'm sure I'm biased. because I don't see north korea as rich. But if you have facts, I'm interested in learning them.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
North Korea and the USSR are weird ones, if you judge them like you would judge a western economy they seem failed, but they operate differently. They don't really need money to be rich, the govt owns everything already. North Korea doesn't even have taxes. They're hardly active on the international market, but they don't have to, they just make their stuff themselves. And as you can see, that's working out pretty well - North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world (and not just in unarmed manpower, they have tons of equipment as well) so they must be doing something right. And North Korea isn't a super power. They just talk a lot. But it's all quite easy to see, just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29[^] The top 17 (not counting the EU) have all been a super power (or part of one) at some point. It would be more than 17 if it weren't for the couple of combo breakers, but then of course most of the countries there are not super powers anymore (haven't been for quite some time) and dropped a bit. The top 3 (including the EU) represent all current super powers, unless they have changed since I last checked. I definitely see a pattern there.
-
North Korea and the USSR are weird ones, if you judge them like you would judge a western economy they seem failed, but they operate differently. They don't really need money to be rich, the govt owns everything already. North Korea doesn't even have taxes. They're hardly active on the international market, but they don't have to, they just make their stuff themselves. And as you can see, that's working out pretty well - North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world (and not just in unarmed manpower, they have tons of equipment as well) so they must be doing something right. And North Korea isn't a super power. They just talk a lot. But it's all quite easy to see, just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29[^] The top 17 (not counting the EU) have all been a super power (or part of one) at some point. It would be more than 17 if it weren't for the couple of combo breakers, but then of course most of the countries there are not super powers anymore (haven't been for quite some time) and dropped a bit. The top 3 (including the EU) represent all current super powers, unless they have changed since I last checked. I definitely see a pattern there.
You made the broad statement
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
You have said nothing to support it, though you reword it to "rich", and redefine that to whatever it is PDRK has. Let me get this out of the way for your: tl;dr It's kind of funny, whenever I bring up the Marshall plan in threads like this, it is skipped over. The US is such a bad actor, and always has been, right? Remember? The joke used to be, if you economy was faltering, lose a war with the US, they will boot strap your economy. Remember "The Mouse that Roared"? That was the US only caring about material gain, right? My point with North Korea is they spend large on military vs gdp, and are not a superpower. They are also not rich, by any stretch, except the dictators. They are a failure to everyone else. Their military spending has not resulted in material gain. So how well is that military spending working out for the average slave citizen? No taxes? What a paradise! What income to tax? The USSR was a military superpower, but it was not interested in material gain, if you listen to the apologists. Why, their workers, who were the very model of socialist living, were standing in line for basic foodstuffs. The USSR was not rich, or they would not have bankrupted into pseudo free market. Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it? I know it is a matter of divine revelation to you that the US only went into the ME for oil. But you have us be so incompetent that we didn't bother pumping any out while we were there, and I find that offensive.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You made the broad statement
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
You have said nothing to support it, though you reword it to "rich", and redefine that to whatever it is PDRK has. Let me get this out of the way for your: tl;dr It's kind of funny, whenever I bring up the Marshall plan in threads like this, it is skipped over. The US is such a bad actor, and always has been, right? Remember? The joke used to be, if you economy was faltering, lose a war with the US, they will boot strap your economy. Remember "The Mouse that Roared"? That was the US only caring about material gain, right? My point with North Korea is they spend large on military vs gdp, and are not a superpower. They are also not rich, by any stretch, except the dictators. They are a failure to everyone else. Their military spending has not resulted in material gain. So how well is that military spending working out for the average slave citizen? No taxes? What a paradise! What income to tax? The USSR was a military superpower, but it was not interested in material gain, if you listen to the apologists. Why, their workers, who were the very model of socialist living, were standing in line for basic foodstuffs. The USSR was not rich, or they would not have bankrupted into pseudo free market. Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it? I know it is a matter of divine revelation to you that the US only went into the ME for oil. But you have us be so incompetent that we didn't bother pumping any out while we were there, and I find that offensive.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically. Also, the EU is just as guilty of this. It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there? And north korea is neither a super power nor rich and therefore proves no point whatsoever, except perhaps that having a big-ass military doesn't automatically make you a super power (but that was never a point of discussion, so whatever) The USSR not interested in material gain? Maybe officially - yet their Great Plan only focused on material gain. It also worked, they were rich alright, it just didn't work in the long run.
RichardM1 wrote:
Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it?
Yes, a prime example of caring so much about material gain that they're trying to protect it.
-
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically. Also, the EU is just as guilty of this. It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there? And north korea is neither a super power nor rich and therefore proves no point whatsoever, except perhaps that having a big-ass military doesn't automatically make you a super power (but that was never a point of discussion, so whatever) The USSR not interested in material gain? Maybe officially - yet their Great Plan only focused on material gain. It also worked, they were rich alright, it just didn't work in the long run.
RichardM1 wrote:
Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it?
Yes, a prime example of caring so much about material gain that they're trying to protect it.
harold aptroot wrote:
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically.
It makes no sense if you have an inbuilt filter that keeps repeating what you do. You say the sky is cloudy. I say look at the sun. you say you can't see it because the sky is cloudy, But history does not support that as the only reason: Bill Gates never worried about material gain, he worried about kicking butt on the next deal. The byproduct was wealth. My focus is on solving problems and making sure the customer gets what they want. The result is that I am paid well. I don't give the money back, and I wouldn't work for no pay, but a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic. The USSR was never rich, the citizens never had great material wealth, unless you were part of the dictatorial class. The proletariat were never better off then the serfs thy were under the Czars, and were probably worse off.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there?
Don't flatter yourselves. In Western Europe's post WWII state, they were not trading partners. We could have dumped that money anywhere and created trade partners. Why did we do it, then? Western Europe were our friends, & a strong Western Europe could stand as a wall against communist dictatorship coming from the East, protecting itself and drawing the resources of the USSR away from easier targets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically.
It makes no sense if you have an inbuilt filter that keeps repeating what you do. You say the sky is cloudy. I say look at the sun. you say you can't see it because the sky is cloudy, But history does not support that as the only reason: Bill Gates never worried about material gain, he worried about kicking butt on the next deal. The byproduct was wealth. My focus is on solving problems and making sure the customer gets what they want. The result is that I am paid well. I don't give the money back, and I wouldn't work for no pay, but a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic. The USSR was never rich, the citizens never had great material wealth, unless you were part of the dictatorial class. The proletariat were never better off then the serfs thy were under the Czars, and were probably worse off.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there?
Don't flatter yourselves. In Western Europe's post WWII state, they were not trading partners. We could have dumped that money anywhere and created trade partners. Why did we do it, then? Western Europe were our friends, & a strong Western Europe could stand as a wall against communist dictatorship coming from the East, protecting itself and drawing the resources of the USSR away from easier targets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Merely stating things doesn't make them true. I provided evidence, you provide the "you suck because I'm right" argument - as you always do.
RichardM1 wrote:
Why did we do it, then?
Material gain and a nice shield against the commies. Very noble. Now excuse me, but I have better things to do than discuss history with trolls.
-
Merely stating things doesn't make them true. I provided evidence, you provide the "you suck because I'm right" argument - as you always do.
RichardM1 wrote:
Why did we do it, then?
Material gain and a nice shield against the commies. Very noble. Now excuse me, but I have better things to do than discuss history with trolls.
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
That is your quote. You don't provide support for it. You say it is true because everyone who has been a super power has had material wealth (except, or course, the USSR). That shows linkage, but not causality. You believe it. I believe you do. I also don't see that that matters. I don't say you suck, I said you are only willing to look from one viewpoint, even when someone tries to show you another.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
That is your quote. You don't provide support for it. You say it is true because everyone who has been a super power has had material wealth (except, or course, the USSR). That shows linkage, but not causality. You believe it. I believe you do. I also don't see that that matters. I don't say you suck, I said you are only willing to look from one viewpoint, even when someone tries to show you another.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Nice try. It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions". You probably have something better to do than this too, though.
-
And this is compared to whom? To Great Britain’s bunny-hugging foreign politics during the last few hundred years? Or to any other former or present superpower?
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
You're comparing two bad acts to each other and saying one isn't as bad as the other. The degree of bad doesn't matter when addressing the question of when has the US not done something for material gain. You're not answering the question or the point. This is pretty common, but not even saying you don't know anywhere in your post would have at least addressed the point of the thread.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans Americans ever done for us?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I don't think we gave you any of those things. You pretty much did that on your own. We worked together along with other countries in WW1 and WW2 for our very countries existence.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
So if i call someone's mom a whore, it's ok if I don't say that nobody else's mom isn't one? Piss off. you said "When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain" not stripping europe. marshal plan. now, when has fat_boy ever admitted he was wrong?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Piss off.
I'll ignore that and meerly state that when prompted I stated the British, my particular breed of human, went to war to protect their opium market. I am fully aware what makes the world go round. Just dont pretend the US is any different.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Piss off.
I'll ignore that and meerly state that when prompted I stated the British, my particular breed of human, went to war to protect their opium market. I am fully aware what makes the world go round. Just dont pretend the US is any different.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'm not pretending the US is different. You're putting down the US, in particular. You are pretending you're not. Your saying "OK, look, Britain screwed up once, too" as an afterthought that shows how fair you are is BS. You said the US has never done anything for any other reason than greed. You are demonstrably wrong, even by Bush's AIDs aide to Africa. Even Bush shows you wrong. I don't know if you don't understand, are ignorant, or are ignoring the truth. Now you you are no longer ignorant.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I'm not pretending the US is different. You're putting down the US, in particular. You are pretending you're not. Your saying "OK, look, Britain screwed up once, too" as an afterthought that shows how fair you are is BS. You said the US has never done anything for any other reason than greed. You are demonstrably wrong, even by Bush's AIDs aide to Africa. Even Bush shows you wrong. I don't know if you don't understand, are ignorant, or are ignoring the truth. Now you you are no longer ignorant.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
OK, Rhodes, Mr famous English guy, conquered vast chunks of Africa, even gave his name to a country, Rhodesia, was had up before all this for running a protection racket in the UK. SO there is plenty of meat in the UKs past which I am aware of and demonstrates exactly the same kind of behaviour as the US. As for aid, its a bit of PR isnt it. After all, if you are going to fuck the world over, its a good idea to make some gestures here and there.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription