Kenya in Crisis - Page 3

classicman · 01-05-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.

And you think I'm joking...

But seriously, we have fucked up many countries.

Blum is an ass with an axe to grind, but thats fine - blame it all on America. Its fine, really. Just stop and think REALISTICALLY where the world would be without all we've done as a country and world leader - good and bad.

Urbane Guerrilla · 01-04-2008, 04:12 PM

Shall I compare tw trying to analyze politics to a thalidomide case trying to play the bagpipes...?

I can keep that up.

Aliantha · 01-04-2008, 04:40 PM

speaking of thalidomide, I saw on tv that they're going to use some form of the drug for something else. I'll have to look it up and see what it is.

Here it is. Cancer. You can read the rest of the article if you like.

Quote:

Thalidomide, famous in the 60's because of limb deformities in babies born to women who had taken it for morning sickness, was withdrawn in 1961. Now doctors say it could be used as a treatment for cancer.
The drug has been seen to slow down weight loss in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer; severe weight loss is the direct cause of death in one in five patients with advanced cancer, according to doctors from Southampton University Hospital.

Patients who took 200mg of thalidomide daily during tests did not live longer than those who did not, but their increased weight was matched by increased physical capacity.

Undertoad · 01-05-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

but I'm afraid to say it out loud for fear of getting a ton of agro from those who are more "in the know" than I am. What's your opinion?

Thanks for asking, I think you're a moron.

Gov't-related deaths in the 20th C, including wars:

piercehawkeye45 · 01-05-2008, 05:27 PM

UT, your graph is skewed, keeping it to government related deaths take out a lot of them. And deaths have nothing to do with Aretha's question.

Classicman, I know Blum's stance and I don't take him to heart but he does put out some good solid stats. And stop being stupid and saying "blame it ALL on America". I have never ONCE done that and I explained that in a different thread yesterday. The US has done a lot of shit to other countries so we do have to take some responsibility for it. We exploit other countries and we do not do what is "good", but what protects our own interests, there is more than enough evidence to back those statements up.

Africa for example, I have a friend that went there to help out and he says all the Western corporations are in control, who sell their resources for extremely cheap prices and then sell back products to them for a bloated price. They also get screwed over by the WTO with behind the counter offers. If you don't think shit like this has anything to do with the welfare of foreign countries, I don't know what to tell you.

For your question, it would be stupid to guess because we are dealing with chaos theory (butterfly effect). If one thing was changed in the 1940's in a particular country, we will have no idea of what big changes would have happened in the 1960s or 1980s. It could be much better than it is today, or it could be much worse.

But we can have some insight in some situations. Iran, for example, why did operation Ajax happen in 1953? What would have happened if we didn't support a coup and replaced a socialist-leaning leader with the Shah? Why did the Iranians vote in Mohammed Mosadeeq? What did he do that turned the British and United States against him? What would have happened if we would have let them go?

I'll throw a guess out. The situation in Iran is very similar to what happened in Venezuela in 1999. A country exploited by Western oil companies decided to kick the corporations out. What is happening in Venezuela today (this is ignoring all the propaganda bullshit from both sides)? What has their GDP changed? How about their poverty rate? Are they better off before or after Chavez came in?

I will go back to my Africa example. What would happen if we stopped exploiting Africa? I will give you my guess. First, local rulers will get very rich and powerful from their resources and our prices will probably go up for various materials. Then because of the new rich and powerful leaders, militarism will be on the rise and we will see many wars and genocides with a scene most likely similar to Europe in the 700s to WWII. Political lines will change and empires will rise and fall. After a while, like Europe, will will finally see some stability in that area. Is that better than worse than what we have now? I don't know but hey, at least they are have more control than now.

We have also helped many other countries out so I can't ignore that. But once again, that gets into chaos theory. Bottom line, I have no idea what the world would be like and anything that claims too, is most likely dead wrong.

I am also tired of the idea that the world would be lost without US's help? We didn't need the British to get to where we are now and I have real doubts that many other countries need us either.

Ibby · 01-05-2008, 07:51 PM

UT, that graph is definitely wrong.

at least five million, if not over ten or fifteen million, chinese died as a result of Mao's policies. That isnt shown at all.

Undertoad · 01-05-2008, 09:07 PM

Sure it is. The high points on the graph are number killed per year and Mao was at it 40 years. Look at the yellow area.

Ibby · 01-06-2008, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Sure it is. The high points on the graph are number killed per year and Mao was at it 40 years. Look at the yellow area.

Still not enough - I'm not even including general drought and starvation caused by Mao in those numbers - one of his five-year-plans alone killed (roughly) six million people. That woulda certainly caused a bigger spike than shown there.

piercehawkeye45 · 01-06-2008, 12:49 AM

What?

ZenGum · 01-06-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum

But ... but ... you were there! You and Radar both!

Or were you just overwhelmed by the stupid futility of it all for 23 & 1/2 minutes per week?

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What?

You mean you didn't serve with Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 4077?

piercehawkeye45 · 01-06-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum

You mean you didn't serve with Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 4077?

Oh, haha, that flew over my head.

Clodfobble · 01-06-2008, 01:09 AM

I don't follow your math, Ibram: 6 million over five years is a little more than a million a year. The graph shows that for about 1947-1953, 1958-1963, and 1966-1970. And the years in between aren't that far below a million a year, either.

richlevy · 01-06-2008, 09:36 AM

Well, the graph starts in the 20th century, so it does not show deaths in the 19th century to the American Indians, deaths from government-condoned slavery, and, if war is included, the Civil War and War of 1812.

It also only counts deaths directly attributed to a government. As one of the world's top weapon suppliers and a supporter of numerous repressive regimes and insurgent groups, the US would certainly show up on the map if we accounted for that.

We didn't score the goals but we certainly should be credited for the assists.

The map doesn't even appear to list the Korean and Vietnam Wars, although there is a set in the 1970's for the Cambodian genocide.

By some accounts, the U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs onto Vietnam (and Cambodia), and according to that chart, we didn't hit anything. Either the chart is wrong or someone needs to go back to flight school.

tw · 01-06-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy

By some accounts, the U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs onto Vietnam (and Cambodia), and according to that chart, we didn't hit anything.

According to the other lying administration, we killed everyone in Nam three times over. Therefore the chart must be wrong. Nixon (like George Jr) would not lie.

Undertoad · 01-06-2008, 10:33 AM

It so funny to watch you guys struggle to apply "original sin" to your own country. Here's a hint for you: when we were arming insurgents and supporting regimes the most, we were actually fighting the schools of thought which produced a lot of the biggest areas of color you see on the chart. The numbers that we armed did not produce big areas of color.

01-04-2008, 04:12 PM	#2
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Shall I compare tw trying to analyze politics to a thalidomide case trying to play the bagpipes...? I can keep that up. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

01-05-2008, 07:51 PM	#6
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	UT, that graph is definitely wrong. at least five million, if not over ten or fifteen million, chinese died as a result of Mao's policies. That isnt shown at all. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

01-06-2008, 09:36 AM	#13
richlevy King Of Wishful Thinking Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Philadelphia Suburbs Posts: 6,669	Well, the graph starts in the 20th century, so it does not show deaths in the 19th century to the American Indians, deaths from government-condoned slavery, and, if war is included, the Civil War and War of 1812. It also only counts deaths directly attributed to a government. As one of the world's top weapon suppliers and a supporter of numerous repressive regimes and insurgent groups, the US would certainly show up on the map if we accounted for that. We didn't score the goals but we certainly should be credited for the assists. The map doesn't even appear to list the Korean and Vietnam Wars, although there is a set in the 1970's for the Cambodian genocide. By some accounts, the U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs onto Vietnam (and Cambodia), and according to that chart, we didn't hit anything. Either the chart is wrong or someone needs to go back to flight school. __________________ Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE! I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama

01-05-2008, 05:27 PM	#5
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	UT, your graph is skewed, keeping it to government related deaths take out a lot of them. And deaths have nothing to do with Aretha's question. Classicman, I know Blum's stance and I don't take him to heart but he does put out some good solid stats. And stop being stupid and saying "blame it ALL on America". I have never ONCE done that and I explained that in a different thread yesterday. The US has done a lot of shit to other countries so we do have to take some responsibility for it. We exploit other countries and we do not do what is "good", but what protects our own interests, there is more than enough evidence to back those statements up. Africa for example, I have a friend that went there to help out and he says all the Western corporations are in control, who sell their resources for extremely cheap prices and then sell back products to them for a bloated price. They also get screwed over by the WTO with behind the counter offers. If you don't think shit like this has anything to do with the welfare of foreign countries, I don't know what to tell you. For your question, it would be stupid to guess because we are dealing with chaos theory (butterfly effect). If one thing was changed in the 1940's in a particular country, we will have no idea of what big changes would have happened in the 1960s or 1980s. It could be much better than it is today, or it could be much worse. But we can have some insight in some situations. Iran, for example, why did operation Ajax happen in 1953? What would have happened if we didn't support a coup and replaced a socialist-leaning leader with the Shah? Why did the Iranians vote in Mohammed Mosadeeq? What did he do that turned the British and United States against him? What would have happened if we would have let them go? I'll throw a guess out. The situation in Iran is very similar to what happened in Venezuela in 1999. A country exploited by Western oil companies decided to kick the corporations out. What is happening in Venezuela today (this is ignoring all the propaganda bullshit from both sides)? What has their GDP changed? How about their poverty rate? Are they better off before or after Chavez came in? I will go back to my Africa example. What would happen if we stopped exploiting Africa? I will give you my guess. First, local rulers will get very rich and powerful from their resources and our prices will probably go up for various materials. Then because of the new rich and powerful leaders, militarism will be on the rise and we will see many wars and genocides with a scene most likely similar to Europe in the 700s to WWII. Political lines will change and empires will rise and fall. After a while, like Europe, will will finally see some stability in that area. Is that better than worse than what we have now? I don't know but hey, at least they are have more control than now. We have also helped many other countries out so I can't ignore that. But once again, that gets into chaos theory. Bottom line, I have no idea what the world would be like and anything that claims too, is most likely dead wrong. I am also tired of the idea that the world would be lost without US's help? We didn't need the British to get to where we are now and I have real doubts that many other countries need us either.

01-05-2008, 09:07 PM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Sure it is. The high points on the graph are number killed per year and Mao was at it 40 years. Look at the yellow area.

01-06-2008, 12:49 AM	#9
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	What?

01-06-2008, 01:09 AM	#12
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	I don't follow your math, Ibram: 6 million over five years is a little more than a million a year. The graph shows that for about 1947-1953, 1958-1963, and 1966-1970. And the years in between aren't that far below a million a year, either.

01-06-2008, 10:33 AM	#15
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It so funny to watch you guys struggle to apply "original sin" to your own country. Here's a hint for you: when we were arming insurgents and supporting regimes the most, we were actually fighting the schools of thought which produced a lot of the biggest areas of color you see on the chart. The numbers that we armed did not produce big areas of color.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)