quote:

---

Originally posted by infoterror:
In argument, you refer to negative effects as "disadvantages," and concern yourself only with whether or not the plan fulfills its goal.

The plan takes two stages. First, its objectives; second, its methods. These are usually debated separately, for good reason, as any objective has multiple methods of achieving it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
Not really. Overpopulation is a symptom, not the problem itself.

---

Of course, but as in any patient care, one deals with the life-threatening symptoms immediately and then begins long-term care.

I hear a lot of pretense in most arguments against population cutbacks. There are no solid arguments against it. The worst part is that, in order to limit future population, we need to stop those who would breed now.

It's that kind of thinking of course that leads us to the point where we cannot make a decision, and it is made for us, by a rather brutal die-off. Such is the price of ignorance.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by infoterror:
Of course, but as in any patient care, one deals with the life-threatening symptoms immediately and then begins long-term care.

I hear a lot of pretense in most arguments against population cutbacks. There are no solid arguments against it. The worst part is that, in order to limit future population, we need to stop those who would breed now.

It's that kind of thinking of course that leads us to the point where we cannot make a decision, and it is made for us, by a rather brutal die-off. Such is the price of ignorance.

---

Your assignment:
Describe YOUR idea of 3 possible "population cutback" scenarios.
The more detail, the better.

--------------------

"You have the option to drill additional holes in the label,
causing the record to rotate off the side of the turntable"

--------------------

quote:

---

Geeezzz...lync..You can't expect someone not to make fun when you use a phrase like "multifaceted approach". Lighten up dude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by warcorpse:
I have a population cutback idea. Flush hundreds of thousands of copies of the Koran down the toilet, 17 dead per flush. Sell "Allah is a woman" SUV magnets. Then, for good measure, nuke Mecca.

Want to cause more riots? Tell Muslims that Allah is a fraud, an imaginary superhero. Go to Muslim countries, teach them about Darwinism. Tell them they evolved from apes. Show them pictures of apes.

---

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
Newsflash - papers don't often "make up" stories. What they do is report on things without properly checking a source. Shows how powerful the media really is, though, doesn't it?

---

But, it raises the issue that anti-US sentiment must be coming as a result of a variety of things. It's too easy to classify it as "childish", "ignorant" or "idiotic". There are reasons, and we have to try and understand them. Otherwise we repeat the mistakes of the old colonialists in shrugging off the grievances of the subjugated peoples as petty and idiotic.

You're multifaceted approach isn't very multifaceted. That's two - not very "multi".

I agree that the dictators need to be removed. But external action is no more a solution than sitting around is - look at Afghanistan. Sure, we removed the Taliban, and instituted a nominally democratic government. Problem - ever since Iraq, we've tended to ignore Afghanistan. Most people are still governed now by the distinctly undemocratic warlords of the Northern Alliance. Living conditions haven't improved tremendously, and rushing off to Iraq has made the people feel betrayed at the lack of attention their country is apparently receiving.

Think of that, THEN factor in religious fundamentalism, THEN factor in poverty and general resentment, and then a frankly ludicrous story in a newspaper as a catalyst, and you can see why people rioted. It's easier to lie to a desperate, angry man than it is to a happy one.

On dictators and "sitting around" - any plans to remove the dictators of Libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, etc etc. any time soon? Or, how about the government of Sudan, which is currently murdering Christians and other "undesirables" by the truckload. Why aren't paratroopers securing airports as I type?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
But, it raises the issue that anti-US sentiment must be coming as a result of a variety of things.

---

Maybe the threat of cultural, military and political dominance by the world's one remaining superpower?

--------------------

Let's take France. Firstly, "France is anti-American" is a big, big generalisation, and not one which is supported by evidence or common sense in many cases. Now, what "anti-Americanism" there is, stems from a few things. Let's take Iraq. French opposition to the Iraq war was based on several points - firstly, the bit they tried to keep quiet, which was that they had a big business interest in maintaining the status quo. Also, however, their opposition was based on the fact that the war went against the letter of international law - that part which outlawed pre-emptive war and invasion. Also, on the sidelines, there's the anti-war left, the anti-war right, media influence etc. etc. But it's nowhere near as simple as "lies and propaganda", and it never has been.

Propaganda cultivates and cements an idea or impression which already exists, it doesn't create ideas. Do you think Goebbels' anti-Jew posters were the first to ever use the famous cartoon impression of "The Jew" in Europe?

Poverty - poverty can be caused by, and is definitely exacerbated by corrupt governments and despicable dictators, but there are many other causes as well. Relics of old colonialism, flagrant exploitation by the developed world, etc. I mean, not all poor countries descend into dictatorship or rampant corruption. Canada has an incredibly corrupt Liberal government at the moment, are they a poor nation?

the following is from media mattter {a lib website that pulls apart rightwing media...} read the first paragraph:

"Following reports that a retracted May 9 Newsweek item contributed to violent protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, several news accounts simply echoed the White House's claim that Newsweek was responsible for the deadly violence while omitting evidence undermining that claim. The CBS Evening News, CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, and The Washington Post all failed to note that top military officials have contradicted White House claims about what caused the recent violence. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers stated on May 12 that the violence was "not at all tied to the article in the magazine," which alleged that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, "flushed a Quran down a toilet."

On the May 16 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Bob Schieffer stated that the Newsweek story "led to a week of violent anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan in which at least 15 people were killed." On the May 16 edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports, CNN correspondent Barbara Starr reported that the article "touched off riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving at least 15 dead," while host Wolf Blitzer declared: "Unfortunately, there are dead people out there as a result of that report."

On that evening's edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume stated that "The story triggered protests in which 17 died," and Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron similarly reported: "The story sparked violent anti-American protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories. Seventeen people were killed." On the May 17 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep noted that the Newsweek story "led to violent demonstrations in the Islamic world," while arts reporter Neda Ulaby reported that "reaction to the story was almost immediate: Riots exploded, and scores of people were injured. Fifteen people died." And Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz stated in a May 17 article: "The May 1 item triggered violent protests last week in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries, in which at least 16 people were killed."

In fact, top U.S. military officials contended that other factors led to the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Myers noted in a May 12 Department of Defense news briefing, according to Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, the violence "was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Quran" but was "more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President [Hamid] Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan." Myers directly noted Eikenberry's belief that the violence "was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

Not all news reports ignored other elements that apparently contributed to the violent protests. For example, in his report on the Newsweek controversy on the May 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC News correspondent David Shuster aired Myers's remarks that Newsweek was not to blame. Shuster added that "the reputation of American interrogators has been awful for more than a year. Last spring, there were the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and since then, there have been stories about Guantánamo Bay."

Moreover, NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams's report on the May 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News documented an assessment by Barnett Rubin, director of studies at New York University's Center for International Cooperation, that Karzai's openness to "a long-term military relationship with the United States" may have also contributed to the violent protests:

WILLIAMS: While the debate wages over Newsweek's journalism, some experts on the region say last week's protests have long been simmering and involve more than just the Quran story.

RUBIN: From the very beginning, the demonstrators also said that they didn't want any permanent U.S. bases on Afghanistan, which was a reaction to some statements by President Karzai that he would discuss a long-term military relationship with the United States."

im all with you guys on toppling dictators and exposing bullshit propaganda.

ever noticed that people have been trying to "fix" Islam for over a thousand years? ever noticed how Islam gets stronger and spreads to every country in the world? even 100 nukes couldnt "fix" Islam, now.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by warcorpse:
Wait, I thought that extremists were not real Muslims?

---

i thought that "real muslims" were all brainwashed by "extremists"? and needed our super-special western propaganda to get them back on track?

and im still kinda lost on this being Bush's fault anyways...if our interrogators pull a stupid stunt, does that mean its Bushs fault? what if this had happened on Clintons watch? the really funny part is even conservatives just assume its Bushs fault, too. did i mention funny?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyckantropen:
Afghanistan - I think that's a bad attitude to have. If we have a "moral obligation" to rebuild Iraq, then why don't we feel the same way about Afghanistan? Why don't we feel obliged to put more effort into rebuilding as opposed to viewing any progress as "a nice bonus"?

---

one day we will wake up and there will be a 'new york city 2' in downtown Kabul...

It's not.

Islam has plenty of good reasons to resist the West, including its own continued internal moral and spiritual failure.

Al-Qaeda and the Iraq revolutionaries have popular support for this reason. And America continues to lose, as do all who approve of her insane "neoconservative" crusade.

--------------------