5 ms·

I was talking about the one that's been going on since 2003, but take your pick. I don't need to have been to Iraq before that to know that a very large fractio

by pluto9 8y ago

I was talking about the one that's been going on since 2003, but take your pick. I don't need to have been to Iraq before that to know that a very large fraction of Iraqis live in mud houses with no air conditioning, running water, or sewer systems, and always have. The reason those things are missing is not because American troops stole your air conditioners. It's because the average Iraqi doesn't have a standard of living adequate to afford them.

posterboy 8y ago
> the average Iraqi doesn't have a standard of living adequate to afford [such a standard of living] Impecable logic, technically not even wrong, but ... you are saying the wars didn't cause colataral damage to a significant degree because ... you cannot live without air conditioning?
- pluto9 8y ago
  Your remark about air conditioning makes no sense at all, but I'll reply to the rest of your comment by clarifying what I mean. GP was implying that Iraq would be nice if it weren't for American interventions. You appear to be making the same point, given your reference to collateral damage. I'm saying that's highly unlikely considering that Iraq has always been quite poor compared to the U.S., even before any of these wars. I see this whiny argument repeated over and over ad nauseam--"Iraq would be an oasis of civilization if only it weren't for those mean imperialist Americans coming in and breaking our toys". Utter nonsense. Iraq was a mess long before the Americans showed up. But that's all beside the point anyway. This discussion is about relative GDPs of various countries and U.S. states, not an analysis of whose fault it is that the ones at the bottom are at the bottom.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    I mean, whatever you need to tell yourself to rationalize away what the United States did. Does that boot taste good, though?
    - pluto9 8y ago
      I'm not rationalizing anything. Did I say I was in favor of American policies regarding Iraq? No, I didn't. I'm merely saying that invasion or not, Iraq would be underdeveloped, just as it has been for a very long time. You cannot blame every national failure and misfortune in Iraqi history on America. Are you capable of staying on topic? Do you actually have an argument? Or are you just going to fling childish insults in lieu of one?
      - danharaj 8y ago
        Economic development during the 1970's and in the run up to the iran-iraq war was promising by the numbers and by considering the nascent industrial centers in places like Baghdad. If you look at those numbers and say "nah, doesn't matter" when considering how American policy destroyed that picture then it's not worth arguing about. Especially the embargo which killed hundreds of thousands (or will you say 'nuh-uh'?). Your dismissive, aggressive tone doesn't exactly invite conversation, does it? Frankly, I don't think you know shit enough about economics to act as authoritatively as you do. What-if historical arguments are always fluffy, but we have examples of similar sorts of states experiencing similar initial growth that weren't crushed by an empire's geopolitical interests. Where are they today? Edit: In any case, the point I was going to make is that the reason why it is the way you observed is because the economies in Oklahoma and Iraq serve different purposes within the context of global capital, Iraq being a client state to the United States and primarily serving as a vehicle of resource extraction and exploitation, while in Oklahoma at least some of that economic activity is going towards the well-being of the people there. Now, the upshot is that the relative wealth of normal schmoes in the United States and other nations of similar economic development shows the discrepancy that it does because of the same sort of forces in a less extreme way. Americans are more exploited per capita by the capitalist class than they are in, say, the EU. Other people in these threads have described how, e.g. deregulated healthcare is a manifestation of that exploitation. But to be honest, after your reply I wanted to yank your chain :^)
        pluto9 8y ago
        Because calling people "bootlicker" invites conversation, right? Ah, the 1970's--the decade that ended with Iraq opportunistically invading Iran and promptly getting its ass kicked. If you want to make the case that America's imperialism is the reason for Iraq's troubles, that's probably not the example you want to go with.

by pluto9 8y ago

posterboy 8y ago

> the average Iraqi doesn't have a standard of living adequate to afford [such a standard of living] Impecable logic, technically not even wrong, but ... you are saying the wars didn't cause colataral damage to a significant degree because ... you cannot live without air conditioning?

pluto9 8y ago
Your remark about air conditioning makes no sense at all, but I'll reply to the rest of your comment by clarifying what I mean. GP was implying that Iraq would be nice if it weren't for American interventions. You appear to be making the same point, given your reference to collateral damage. I'm saying that's highly unlikely considering that Iraq has always been quite poor compared to the U.S., even before any of these wars. I see this whiny argument repeated over and over ad nauseam--"Iraq would be an oasis of civilization if only it weren't for those mean imperialist Americans coming in and breaking our toys". Utter nonsense. Iraq was a mess long before the Americans showed up. But that's all beside the point anyway. This discussion is about relative GDPs of various countries and U.S. states, not an analysis of whose fault it is that the ones at the bottom are at the bottom.
- danharaj 8y ago
  I mean, whatever you need to tell yourself to rationalize away what the United States did. Does that boot taste good, though?
  - pluto9 8y ago
    I'm not rationalizing anything. Did I say I was in favor of American policies regarding Iraq? No, I didn't. I'm merely saying that invasion or not, Iraq would be underdeveloped, just as it has been for a very long time. You cannot blame every national failure and misfortune in Iraqi history on America. Are you capable of staying on topic? Do you actually have an argument? Or are you just going to fling childish insults in lieu of one?
    - danharaj 8y ago
      Economic development during the 1970's and in the run up to the iran-iraq war was promising by the numbers and by considering the nascent industrial centers in places like Baghdad. If you look at those numbers and say "nah, doesn't matter" when considering how American policy destroyed that picture then it's not worth arguing about. Especially the embargo which killed hundreds of thousands (or will you say 'nuh-uh'?). Your dismissive, aggressive tone doesn't exactly invite conversation, does it? Frankly, I don't think you know shit enough about economics to act as authoritatively as you do. What-if historical arguments are always fluffy, but we have examples of similar sorts of states experiencing similar initial growth that weren't crushed by an empire's geopolitical interests. Where are they today? Edit: In any case, the point I was going to make is that the reason why it is the way you observed is because the economies in Oklahoma and Iraq serve different purposes within the context of global capital, Iraq being a client state to the United States and primarily serving as a vehicle of resource extraction and exploitation, while in Oklahoma at least some of that economic activity is going towards the well-being of the people there. Now, the upshot is that the relative wealth of normal schmoes in the United States and other nations of similar economic development shows the discrepancy that it does because of the same sort of forces in a less extreme way. Americans are more exploited per capita by the capitalist class than they are in, say, the EU. Other people in these threads have described how, e.g. deregulated healthcare is a manifestation of that exploitation. But to be honest, after your reply I wanted to yank your chain :^)
      - pluto9 8y ago
        Because calling people "bootlicker" invites conversation, right? Ah, the 1970's--the decade that ended with Iraq opportunistically invading Iran and promptly getting its ass kicked. If you want to make the case that America's imperialism is the reason for Iraq's troubles, that's probably not the example you want to go with.