3 ms·

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 b

by 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

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.