terrroism as in Recent Research Results

The Real McCoy? Taken literally, Global Terrorism would involve the deliberate killing of civilians -- from anywhere on the globe, indiscriminately -- for some political purpose.

If you want to say that such and such an environmental policy is figuratively or metaphorically the moral equivalent of terrorism, that's one thing. But there's a difference between debating the facts, and debating the most appropriate (or polemically desirable) metaphor.

There is too much of a difference between benign neglect, callous indifference, and premediated malevolence, especially in terms of the response appropriate to each. Out of curiousity, were you just venting and not seriously considering the language you used, or do you seriously feel the term 'terrorism' is appropriate? (I did a text search and the linked article doesn't seem to use the term).

Bellham

Well this specific pentagon report on Global warming, brought up other aspects of security issues that is to be reckoned with in the future. And the report deems those Global induced indirect geopolitcal effects caused by the greenhouse effect, as serious or even more serious than Global Terrorism.


Terroism is to be sure; the use of violence to implicate a political agenda by aggressive actions. that is the one real politican defintion you can´t escape. It´s not reserved for "pore mans warfare" even pwerful states uses it but then it´s plastered with selfrighteousnes.

i sometimes wonder if They purposely lace the world with cancer inducing poisons, and encourage over eating and the rest to ensure that there aren't going to be too many of us getting old. they want us while we're young enough and earning enough to buy buy buy but there's those sacs of mycotoxin lurking.

and the health care costs fit into it nicely. major spending in the last year/s of your life. the cost may be born by the state in some countries, but the big corps don't mind fleecing the govt.

im a kook. but a friendly one.

The point of the report was to advise the pentagon on actions in a worst case, global warming situation. The guardian changed the "Not likely but plausible" scenario into inevitable and intentional. So the real story here isn't that the bush administration is cooking up ways to sink those hippies in Seattle, it's how wildly the european press will distort news to make america look bad. Well done.

I ascend

The Guardian is hardly 'the European Press'. Most major, European newspapers and TV-stations are always very positive towards the US. Although Bush is a mouthful to swallow, even for the most pro-US ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty:

and the health care costs fit into it nicely. major spending in the last year/s of your life. the cost may be born by the state in some countries, but the big corps don't mind fleecing the govt.

---

That would be true if the US healthcare system wasn't on the verge of collapse. I attended the ASHP (American Society of Health System Pharmacists) conference in New Orleans. The opening keynote speech was a shock, both in its content, and the fact it was made at all.

The US healthcare system and pensionable age is based on calculations about life expectancy made in 1870 (as is it is in most of the world). At that time, 95% of people died before they reached the age of 65, and of those who did make it to 65, 95% of those were dead before they reached the age of 68. This was fine for Bismarck, who wanted to determine a pensionable age for his officers.

Unfortunately, when the US came to creating a welfare state in the 1930's their demographers made a few serious mistakes - they average the life expectancy over 30 years, and they neglected to account for the first world war and the great flu that followed it. This was further compounded in the 1960s when they again took the age of 65 as an age to allow benefits.

Today they would have to set the retirement age at 92 in order to fund the current levels of medical care. Countries like the UK are already looking at raising the pensionable age of women from 60 to 65 to be equal with men, and further extending the pensionable age for all to 70.

Meanwhile, health insurance is crippling American business. The biggest cost of a new Ford car is not metal, labour or electronics. The biggest cost is health insurance. But it's not the health insurance of the workers, that only comes to about $20 per car, it's the health insurance of the Ford pensioners that comes to another ~$480. Businesses in other parts of the world don't have this overhead.

.

quote:

---

Businesses in other parts of the world don't have this overhead.

---

NO, healthcare and social spendings (or the lack thereof) is immensly dwarfed compared to the subsidies that the pentagon system is engulfing.


this have brought the statist reactionary politcal effects, of not producing thing that´s actually is useful for those in need, and deeply restricate their oppurtunites and chance for a decent life.

The development of hightech weapon system doesn´t "bare the burden" of democratic effects and this i exactly the reason behind skyrocketing military spendings from the bussinessgovernment symbiosis. Don´t make me spell out the greatest militarybudget in the history world for you, a great priority WAY before a decent healthcare system.


This is a part the well known formula of socilizing the cost but not the profits.

Um. yeah. It's the pentagon. Right.

You know that money comes back into the system, right? That when the military pays $200 billion dollars for a plane, that pays factory workers and middle management and so forth. And no, I don't think military spending should increase, and I do think it's a little out of hand, but we can't just disband the military. Do you know what base closings do the communities around them? Do you know what happens when factories close?

Right. I'm off the subject. I just hate pat answers like that. Above all else, and don't you dare underestimate this, superior technology keeps our soldiers safe.

As far as healthcare goes, yeah, it's broken. The initial calculations were wrong, and the numbers keep getting worse and worse. I think that's a worthy topic for discussion. Shall we continue here, or step into a new topic?

I ascend

Used to have conversations about that with my roommate who happens to have a lot of family in it.

Totally agree with Shadoth there. There's also a thing called the economic draft. It's an extremelly good solution/out for people with no financial means. The army provides them with an education and a living. Those bases are multicultural societies that are some of the most progressive in the states. As an institution it does offer a lot in the U.S. society.

Now if only they didn't have to kill anybody...

Τα παιδεία παίζει.

a reasonable intelligent foreign policy NOT influenced by the profit margin of Halliburton and its foreign (non taxable, govt subsidized)corporate intrests would with out a doubt keep our soldiers safe too.

The United States Military is worlds largest mercenary force that will hire itself out to any Corporate CEO savy enough to have himself or his puppet appointed to the presidency.

sub

the tv was the color of sky, set to the aux-IN channel...

No doubt. But I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of any recent wars. War will happen, one way or another. I support gov't funding of better guns and shiny planes and by god robots because, in the long run, once the bullets do start to fly (as they inevitably will, somewhere) those things will keep american soldiers safer. That's all I'm saying.

I ascend

Hmprh I not of the apperantly ingrained opinon around here; that war "just haPpen" this is ludicrous In fact I think we have to reinvent a new kind of defintion to redeem the decency of the human race as stained buy the idiot brainwarps of huntington´s "clashish of civilization" and the likes, a facist and imperialistic distortion of humanity.

This is the essence of politics and the pursuing of an agenda that is set within a narrow circle, that´s remarkbly distanced non beneficial concerning the vast majoriy of the populace of any society on earth.

"wepon keeps our soldiers safe" Yes indead but the target here should be; Aggression and warmongering policies risk not only our "own" people but a lot of innocent people aswell.

And troughout history there are perfectly good and frekvent examples of the propaganda that surrounds, and which constitutes the context wherein war is justfied by itself and those who is the constant driving force behind it.

Of course that is the case for war industry itself and those who push and target tax money for this purpose.

Hey
Shadoth just for you

http://www.gepflegt-arrogant.com/fwwfront.html

First off, I'm going to assume that english isn't your native language. That's cool, I'm just having trouble parsing most of what you say.

Secondly, you'll note that the guy in the hockey mask came out pretty well.

Finally, war's will just happen. That's part of human nature. They're ugly and dangerous and foul, and should really be avoided at all cost. But they're part of reality. It's ignorant to believe that they can be abolished. Note, please, that I do not support the current occupation of iraq, though I did at one time, and my reasons for changing have more to do with the lack of planning than with any inherent wrongness in the removal of Mr. Hussein. I'm rambling.

I ascend

"they get used for gunboat diplomacy, disproportionately black or brown we see..."
striv: sure it's a job but is it a good one?

and i wonder how safe US military personnel really are, between friendly fire, anthrax and who knows what else jabs, and the rates of sexual assaults. not to mention being pumped with speed (and crystal meth during WW2) and just generally being fucked over.

and shadoth, i get your point, but seriously, of that $200billion dollars spent, how much would you really say is spent on blue collar wages?

when i was talking about the govt picking up the health care tab, i wasn't even considering the US. i tend to forget you have any welfare system.

No war will not "just happen" and it´s not in human nature to plan and excute wars because it´s ingraved within our genes or something.

It is left to our will and purpose of life, to act in a civilised manner towards our fellow human beings, not a deterministic curse of violence towards eachother.

quote:

---

and shadoth, i get your point, but seriously, of that $200billion dollars spent, how much would you really say is spent on blue collar wages?

when i was talking about the govt picking up the health care tab, i wasn't even considering the US. i tend to forget you have any welfare system.

---

Actually, it's more than just blue collar wages. There are towns whose very existence depends on military bases. A considerable portion of the population is military personnel. They spend money on daycare, on food, on services, and they pay taxes and rent hookers like anyone else.

Listen, I don't know most of y'all's demographics, but you need to familiarize yourself with small town economics. Rural areas are filled with tiny towns who have one major source of income. Be it a military base, a factory, or a distribution facility, it's employeeing a dispropotionate number of people in the town. If we start closing these things down, we're crippling the small town. And yes, they could move to the jobs, but honestly now. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Anyway. The military put my father-in-law through college, it helped pay for my wife's education, and it probably saved my brother-in-law from a life of irresponsibility and low wage jobs. Of the dozen or so kids I grew up with, half of them went to college on military money, and half of them are going career, feeding their kids and buying houses on a government check. At least they're working for it.

I ascend

As you know, I am a big numbers buff. So I found that although many other countries spend a bigger portion of their GDP (the USA ranks 43rd) in the Military (Defence is clearly a Newspeak word...), no other country spends as much per individual trooper, 248,000 USD.

So I would agree being an USA soldier is much safer than any other nationality, but that the military expense is not so high as to severely hamper the economy, as happens in many other countries. Another question would be if the USA promote violence somewhere else to promote their weapons exports, although that number is just a 2% of the total military expense, or employs 2% of the workforce (weapon production, plus a 1% directly employed by the military)

Advantages of being rich, I suppose.

I am not too optimistic on the abolition of armies. Humans are very easily driven to violence and hate, so while someone is willing to promote violence we will require defensive armies. And defensive armies will quickly become offensive tools in the hands of certain politicians.

José