Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 02:53:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Bill Cosby blasts Black Community 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bill Cosby blasts Black Community  (Read 8182 times)
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


Reply #35 on: July 04, 2004, 09:10:47 AM

Quote from: Snowspinner
I'm sorry, Big Gulp, did you just basically say we needed to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html">take up the white man's burden?


I'm saying that whether or not it's done consciously, the task is going to fall to someone.  Whomever the big dog is is going to do what they can to further their goals.  Consider it fortunate that the goals of the US are largely benign, because I'll guarantee you that the goals of Communists and Islamic fundamentalists aren't to give everyone a pony and sing kumbaya with a group of multiculturally balanced children.

And as I said, the side effects of there not being a global cop aren't good to think about, and no, the UN does not provide that role, considering that they're already been coopted by third world dictatorships and socialists.
Snowspinner
Terracotta Army
Posts: 206


Reply #36 on: July 04, 2004, 09:23:46 AM

And here you've captured exactly why "they" (Whatever you want "they" to mean today) hate us. Because we're so absurdly egotistical as to think that anyone other than us would think or should think we're improving their life. I mean, even if I granted that the goals of the US are largely benign, the methods we've been trying to use are not benign.

I dunno. I just find it desperately ironic that we're increasingly giving the world freedom whether they want it or not.

Or that you're celebrating the British Empire on July 4th.

I will bellow like the thunder drum, invoke the storm of war
A twisting pillar spun of dust and blood up from the prairie floor
I will sweep the foe before me like a gale out on the snow
And the wind will long recount the story, reverence and glory, when I go
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


Reply #37 on: July 04, 2004, 09:46:10 AM

Quote from: Snowspinner
I mean, even if I granted that the goals of the US are largely benign, the methods we've been trying to use are not benign.

When is bombing people and occupying territory ever a benign experience?  Yet, they're often necessary.  The left doesn't like to think of things like the 40 days and nights bombing of Serbia as a war, but I'll fucking guarantee you that the Serbs saw it that way.  How else does one stop things like genocide?  By bombing the shit out of people, killing the troublemakers, and slapping martial law down on the populace.

What's the greater evil, letting the Hutus slaughter the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Arab Muslims slaughter black Christians in Sudan or bombing the ever-loving shit out of the slaughterers to get them to stop?  From a moral viewpoint, I know which one I side with.


Quote
I dunno. I just find it desperately ironic that we're increasingly giving the world freedom whether they want it or not.

It's in our national security to do so, because the fact is that these oppressive regimes are making trouble far beyond the scope of their nations.  When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and started his sabre rattling towards Saudi Arabia he was directly threatening the world economy.  This entire world exists only through the flow of oil.  We use it for transport, power, plastics, etc.  Letting one guy take such a huge chunk of the world's oil supply is a direct threat to the American and indeed the global way of life, and economy.

We're now in a situation where fascist dictatorships and theocracies are directly threatening us through their support of and ties to terrorism.  Are the methods used to oust Hussein or take the war to terrorist groups and their host nations benign?  Nope, but they're necessary.

Quote
Or that you're celebrating the British Empire on July 4th.

Sorry, 200 years after the revolution, and after 100 years of staunch friendship I just don't have too much venom towards the Brits.  You might not like what they did historically, but it's my firm belief that the British Empire was nowhere near the great evil many people would have us believe.  We're really the only "empire" (and no, I don't think we're an empire in the classical definition, if anything we could be considered a capitalist/commercial empire) who has been more benign than the Brits, and I'd argue that many of their former colonies are now better off for having had Britain nursemaid them than if they'd just been left to their own devices.
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #38 on: July 04, 2004, 09:59:30 AM

Quote from: SirBruce
and  Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas)...

Thurgood Marshall.  Just a nit pick.
Snowspinner
Terracotta Army
Posts: 206


Reply #39 on: July 04, 2004, 10:14:11 AM

Quote from: Big Gulp

When is bombing people and occupying territory ever a benign experience?  Yet, they're often necessary.  The left doesn't like to think of things like the 40 days and nights bombing of Serbia as a war, but I'll fucking guarantee you that the Serbs saw it that way.  How else does one stop things like genocide?  By bombing the shit out of people, killing the troublemakers, and slapping martial law down on the populace.

What's the greater evil, letting the Hutus slaughter the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Arab Muslims slaughter black Christians in Sudan or bombing the ever-loving shit out of the slaughterers to get them to stop?  From a moral viewpoint, I know which one I side with.


I wasn't even talking about the bombing. I was talking about, say, ritual abuse of prisoners.

Quote

It's in our national security to do so, because the fact is that these oppressive regimes are making trouble far beyond the scope of their nations.  When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and started his sabre rattling towards Saudi Arabia he was directly threatening the world economy.  This entire world exists only through the flow of oil.  We use it for transport, power, plastics, etc.  Letting one guy take such a huge chunk of the world's oil supply is a direct threat to the American and indeed the global way of life, and economy.

We're now in a situation where fascist dictatorships and theocracies are directly threatening us through their support of and ties to terrorism.  Are the methods used to oust Hussein or take the war to terrorist groups and their host nations benign?  Nope, but they're necessary.


I suppose it would just spoil your day to point out that there wasn't actually any pressing national security issue requiring the invasion of Iraq?

Quote

Sorry, 200 years after the revolution, and after 100 years of staunch friendship I just don't have too much venom towards the Brits.  You might not like what they did historically, but it's my firm belief that the British Empire was nowhere near the great evil many people would have us believe.  We're really the only "empire" (and no, I don't think we're an empire in the classical definition, if anything we could be considered a capitalist/commercial empire) who has been more benign than the Brits, and I'd argue that many of their former colonies are now better off for having had Britain nursemaid them than if they'd just been left to their own devices.


The British Empire was founded on the belief that European people - not European civilization, but the people themselves - were better than everybody else. As for the idea that the colonies are better off... I think you'd get some sharp disagreement on that from the colonies themselves. Who, it seems, would be in some position to know.

I will bellow like the thunder drum, invoke the storm of war
A twisting pillar spun of dust and blood up from the prairie floor
I will sweep the foe before me like a gale out on the snow
And the wind will long recount the story, reverence and glory, when I go
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


Reply #40 on: July 04, 2004, 10:25:30 AM

Quote from: Snowspinner

I wasn't even talking about the bombing. I was talking about, say, ritual abuse of prisoners.

A tempest in a teacup.  There's just no comparison between a naked human pyramid, scaring people with dogs, or putting a sandbag on someone's head and cutting someone's head off in a sick little piece of terrorist theatre.

Let's compare and contrast Gitmo with N. Korea's lovely set up of reeducation camps, or the Soviet Union's gulag, shall we?

Quote
I suppose it would just spoil your day to point out that there wasn't actually any pressing national security issue requiring the invasion of Iraq?

That's your opinion, I think you're foolish and naive, but that's your prerogative.

Quote
I think you'd get some sharp disagreement on that from the colonies themselves. Who, it seems, would be in some position to know.

Funny, I can point to any number of Indian historians who'll agree that their country is currently more modern, and better capable of global economic competition because of British colonization.  Where else would they have gotten their communications systems, railroad infrastructure, and educational system?  Hell, the British were instrumental in discrediting the caste system.

They did some nasty things in the process of the their colonization, but I'd say that in the long run the empire was probably beneficial for those colonized nations.
Snowspinner
Terracotta Army
Posts: 206


Reply #41 on: July 04, 2004, 10:46:37 AM

Quote from: Big Gulp
Quote from: Snowspinner

I wasn't even talking about the bombing. I was talking about, say, ritual abuse of prisoners.

A tempest in a teacup.  There's just no comparison between a naked human pyramid, scaring people with dogs, or putting a sandbag on someone's head and cutting someone's head off in a sick little piece of terrorist theatre.


Scale? The fact that Abu Ghraib was covered up by the US government at large, institutionalized, and done to far, far more people? Whereas the terrorist beheadings, while also horrifying, appear to be an isolated group of fanatics, and not the government itself?

I will bellow like the thunder drum, invoke the storm of war
A twisting pillar spun of dust and blood up from the prairie floor
I will sweep the foe before me like a gale out on the snow
And the wind will long recount the story, reverence and glory, when I go
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


Reply #42 on: July 04, 2004, 11:30:43 AM

Quote from: Snowspinner

Scale? The fact that Abu Ghraib was covered up by the US government at large, institutionalized, and done to far, far more people?


Who covered it up, again?  The entire affair was brought about due to a DoD investigation, conducted by Gen. Takuba.  As to it being institutionalized, that's a matter of debate.  Personally, yeah, I have no problem with us turning the screws on these people (to a certain extent) for information.  In my opinion, Abu Ghraib does not constitute torture, and furthermore, people we grab who are not uniformed combatants for a foreign sovereignty do not get to have the Geneva conventions applied to them.  Now was the Abu Ghraib situation ordered from the top down?  I doubt it, or at least it wasn't spelled out explicitly.  I think military intelligence had marching orders to be aggressive in obtaining information and they ran with it.

I'm not for physical torture, but humiliation, intimidation, and sleep deprivation are all fair game as far as I'm concerned.  Really, the only reason this is as big of a scandal as it is is due to media overreporting.  The New York Times has run 48 front page stories about this.  Do you know how many times they've run a front page story about the UN Oil for Food scam?  Once.
Snowspinner
Terracotta Army
Posts: 206


Reply #43 on: July 04, 2004, 12:40:29 PM

Quote from: Big Gulp

Who covered it up, again?  The entire affair was brought about due to a DoD investigation, conducted by Gen. Takuba.


The entire affair was brought about because the pictures got leaked. the DoD knew what was going on months before the entire affair was brought about, and they fucking sat on it.

Quote
As to it being institutionalized, that's a matter of debate.  Personally, yeah, I have no problem with us turning the screws on these people (to a certain extent) for information.  In my opinion, Abu Ghraib does not constitute torture, and furthermore, people we grab who are not uniformed combatants for a foreign sovereignty do not get to have the Geneva conventions applied to them.  Now was the Abu Ghraib situation ordered from the top down?  I doubt it, or at least it wasn't spelled out explicitly.  I think military intelligence had marching orders to be aggressive in obtaining information and they ran with it.


You know, if it were just torture for information, that would be one thing. I would just shrug my shoulders and, honestly, figure that, hell, if you're going to kill people, why not torture them for good measure. It's the sadistic glee the pictures showed. The smiling soldiers finding the humiliation and, in some cases, deaths of the prisoners to be nothing but fun. That's the part that appalls me. The fact that this clearly went beyond necessity, beyond being a dirty job that someone had to do, and into fun.

Quote

I'm not for physical torture, but humiliation, intimidation, and sleep deprivation are all fair game as far as I'm concerned.  Really, the only reason this is as big of a scandal as it is is due to media overreporting.  The New York Times has run 48 front page stories about this.  Do you know how many times they've run a front page story about the UN Oil for Food scam?  Once.


The prison scandal is far more bizzare, and, let's be honest, visceral. It's the same reason they lept on Monica Lewinsky instead of Whitewater - nice and easy to understand. Also, with Abu Ghraib, you get the wonderful spectacle of the people in some of the soldiers' hometowns defending them, because what they did was "no different than shooting a turkey," and that "they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq."

You didn't get that level of insanity with the Oil for Food scam, sadly.

I will bellow like the thunder drum, invoke the storm of war
A twisting pillar spun of dust and blood up from the prairie floor
I will sweep the foe before me like a gale out on the snow
And the wind will long recount the story, reverence and glory, when I go
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


Reply #44 on: July 04, 2004, 01:25:26 PM

Quote from: Snowspinner

The entire affair was brought about because the pictures got leaked. the DoD knew what was going on months before the entire affair was brought about, and they fucking sat on it.


And how does that equal "OMG!!!1!!1  THEY CUVERED IT UP!!!1!", genius?  They had the report and had done an investigation months before 60 Minutes ran the piece.  Of course they're not going to call up the AP and say, "Hey!  Got some great prisoner abuse photos for ya!" but a cover-up actually implies attempting to stop information from going public through illicit means.  That never happened, the information was out there, it simply wasn't advertised.

Pull your head out of your ass, mongo.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #45 on: July 04, 2004, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: Sky
Quote
Actually, most people who bomb our buildings do so because they were taught to hate Jews, and we support Jews.

I didn't say our arrogance was the only reason some folks hate us. But it's a big one. We think we should be running the world. We think we are the best country in the world. If you aren't living here, I can see how that would get annoying.


And I didn't say you said it was the only reason... we're talking about "most" people who ...

Quote

It's more than the Jews, though. Jihad is called against infidels, which includes some mulsims, as well.


Yes, but the Israeli issue is the prime motivator.  I've never seen a suicide bomber who said they did it because America wants everyone to learn English.  They may have multiple reasons, bu Israel is usually at the top of the list.

Quote

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger is a disturbing book, but I think everyone should read it (also the Bob Woodward books). It's like the new Moore movie without the sensationalism, just the facts (Moore contributes a lot of his movie to the book).


The facts aren't disturbing at all... at least not to me.  It's the innuendo people draw from it that disturbs them, but they are predisposed to believing such things anyway.

Bruce
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #46 on: July 04, 2004, 01:31:24 PM

Quote from: daveNYC
Quote from: SirBruce
and  Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas)...

Thurgood Marshall.  Just a nit pick.


Good catch.  Not sure what I was thinking.

Bruce
Snowspinner
Terracotta Army
Posts: 206


Reply #47 on: July 04, 2004, 02:24:52 PM

Quote from: Big Gulp
Quote from: Snowspinner

The entire affair was brought about because the pictures got leaked. the DoD knew what was going on months before the entire affair was brought about, and they fucking sat on it.


And how does that equal "OMG!!!1!!1  THEY CUVERED IT UP!!!1!", genius?  They had the report and had done an investigation months before 60 Minutes ran the piece.  Of course they're not going to call up the AP and say, "Hey!  Got some great prisoner abuse photos for ya!" but a cover-up actually implies attempting to stop information from going public through illicit means.  That never happened, the information was out there, it simply wasn't advertised.

Pull your head out of your ass, mongo.


OK, fine, I'll back down from "cover up" to "Deliberately kept the information quiet instead of displaying the slightest amount of openness in government." Which is still pretty fucking shady.

I will bellow like the thunder drum, invoke the storm of war
A twisting pillar spun of dust and blood up from the prairie floor
I will sweep the foe before me like a gale out on the snow
And the wind will long recount the story, reverence and glory, when I go
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #48 on: July 05, 2004, 12:04:52 AM

Quote from: Big Gulp

There has to be a nation that can ensure the smooth flow of the global economy,and can put out fires around the world.

No there hasn't. Thats the core fault in your thinking. Its true that the global economy has to be flowing (but not necessarily the most convenient way for one particular economic system) and fires around the word are put out (but again, not one country should decide for itself what a fire is). It doesn't get more easy than one country doing that, but is it a prerequisitve for anything? No. Thats the unilaterismus that gets you hated. Because nobody trusts the motives of others over their own motives. Everybody wants to control things themself, and if that is not possible, doesn't want other people to control things. Thats why international gremiums are necessary. They take the control away from identifyable "specific people we don't trust". Thats an advantage for everyone, except the people who trust those specific people.

And only idiots trust governments they don't have direct control over.

Quote

We're living in a period of Pax Americana, much like Pax Britannia and Pax Romana.  

Pax Britannia and Pax Romana fell to their own hubris and inflated images of self worth. Two examples you don't really want to emulate.

Quote

Trust me, the west would be well advised to suck it up and make the best of things, because whomever else eventually takes up the role of global guardian is going to be a hell of lot less lenient than we've been.  

Indeed, one gobal guardian is always a bad thing, just like dicatorship is a bad thing for a country. Even if there ARE benevolent dictatorships which work just great for a country, there might be benevolent global guardians. The system is still rotten at the core, though.
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #49 on: July 05, 2004, 03:32:50 AM

One global guardian is the logical way to run a planet and the safest for the majority of it's population.  If Europe rises to challenge the power of America (unlikey in my view) then we will risk going back to the bad old days of 1962.

As someone who speaks English which therefore puts me at an advantage in such a world, I have to say it wouldn't really bother me if the U.S.A. just came out into the open and declared themselves world rulers.

The danger in the long term to all of us is allowing more power factions to obtain nukes, eventually someone somewhere is going to start letting them off.

The reason America is unliked by a lot is a mixture of envy, religion, language and morality.  I think they could learn a lot from the British Empire of old on how to deal with other cultures.

But when national pride overtakes me, I always try to remember that the largest uk aircraft carrier can fit into the cargo hold of an American aircraft carrier.
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


Reply #50 on: July 05, 2004, 05:36:13 AM

Quote from: Tebonas

Indeed, one gobal guardian is always a bad thing, just like dicatorship is a bad thing for a country. Even if there ARE benevolent dictatorships which work just great for a country, there might be benevolent global guardians. The system is still rotten at the core, though.


And what's your alternative?  There will always, always, always be one nation that outstrips the others and seeks to influence things their way.  It's just the nature of nationhood, and humanity.  The question isn't whether or not "global guardianship" is a bad thing (I'd agree, that from a purely egalitarian viewpoint, it is), but that it's most likely an inevitable thing.
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #51 on: July 05, 2004, 06:17:23 AM

United Nations, not the clusterfuck that it currently is, but the idea behind it. The idea is a sound one, the actual implemenation sucks in more ways than I can count.

Only possible after much education in many countries.

Of course, until then we need a benevolent world dictator that actually works toward educating the world about democracy with the ultimate goal of replacing himself with a system where he has less control. Snowballs chance in hell that any single entity is that selfless.

So of course the big boss likes it that way, his sidekicks agree, everybody else either grudingly follows or disagrees quietly, until a new big boss replaces the old one and the cycle continues.

And yes, even with the changes in the USA since Bush, I'd rather have you as World Guardian than a Pax Arabica or a Pax Asia. At least in democratic countries there is a chance for changes to the better.
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #52 on: July 05, 2004, 09:42:13 PM

Quote
The goal shouldn't be to have everybody speak American anymore than it should be to have every poor black kid go to Harvard. Those are unmanagable goals, and were they realized, all hell would break loose.


Life is easy as a D.  You wouldn't want to be an A.  It's hard being an A.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #53 on: July 05, 2004, 09:58:51 PM

Quote from: SirBruce
Actually, most people who bomb our buildings do so because they were taught to hate Jews, and we support Jews.


Actually, most people who bomb our buildings do so because they are educated middle eastern men who have found the lack of jobs discouraging, and have become disenfranchised in their homelands due to their governments who are generally regarded as money-grubbing bastards, to include our pals the Saudis.  We should be well aware now from history that educated, disenfranchised young men tend to cause a good deal of trouble, and in this case, they decided that their government sucks.  Unfortunately for us, their government is strongly backed by the US government - and worse, the US government backs the Isralei government, whom they don't much care for.  Since Israel is full of Jews, and the US is viewed as Christian, we make much more tempting targets than Muslem leadership, although they have been targets too.  Hence, people like Bin Ladin have been able to play on religion to give purpose to this youth.  They are disenfranchised no longer - now they are "freedom fighters", or whatever phase they like that fits the same western notion.  Most of their terrorist activities occur in their homelands, and many of their targets are Muslem (it's hard to get a one way ticket to the US for the modern terrorist-minded Muslem) - but now their targets are corrupted by the west, so it makes the whole deal a bit easier to stomach.  

And why do we meddle with these Middle Eastern governments so?  Oil.  That's an easy one - forget the propoganda about peace.  Wars break out all the time, and we don't pay them as much mind as we do in this area of the world.  We do want to prevent warlords from getting too strong, and getting access to too much power elsewhere, but nothing like here.  Why did we back Saddam?  His government was seccular - a stark contrast to the highly conservative Islamic Iran.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #54 on: July 06, 2004, 10:53:13 AM

Quote from: Snowspinner
OK, fine, I'll back down from "cover up" to "Deliberately kept the information quiet instead of displaying the slightest amount of openness in government." Which is still pretty fucking shady.


That's a ridiculous assertion....by not calling public attention to it, they are deliberately keeping it quiet? Give me a break, Snow. If they wanted to keep it quiet, the story never would have been leaked to the press.

They did an investigation, found the problem, and began the internal processes to correct the matter before the thing ever went public. Now you're suggesting the military should have said "HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT HOW OUR BOYS FUCKED UP!! BTW, PLEASE SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" before the press broke the story?

Next time you make a mistake at work, even if you correct it right away, please go around and tell everyone about it. Hey, don't stop there....call up your company's clients and tell them too. Because doing anything less would be shady, right?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Bill Cosby blasts Black Community  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC