 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (4)dariusgriffin big belb recycle ...and 275 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614248 Today 17 Topics 127550 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jonesy: Uhm, that's typical Marxist way of thinking (and I'm not trying to put you down or anything, mate). Actually, production is just one part of the culture, only the western capitalist theoreticians (Marx included) think that means of production define everything. You won't find that opinion in other cultures. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Culture will not provide you with a home, food, transport, a health service etc. It is the human needs that determine production and the drive for profits and increased capital that determines how we organise the production of what we need. Culture comes out of this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Obviously you haven't heard of the way Aztec culture was organised. Quite the opposite. George Battailes (if my spelling is correct) did a splendid job of analysing these economical topics in his "Damned part", a book written in '48 I think and unbeleivably right about the next half of the century. We think that having to produce fresh value is what it's all about, Aztecs thought that having to spend fresh value is what it's all about. My english seems to be failing me so I don't know how clear this will be to you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh, yes, you seem to think "culture" means just going to museums and reading national poetry. It is in fact a myriad of relations within the community (economical, social ,spiritual...) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you don't produce it first, how can you spend/consume it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Right, right, right, but whereas our culture puts empohasis on means of production, theirs put it on means of spending. They considered they had it all in such abundance they had to come up with ways of consuming/ destroying/ spending. Just a different mindset, but it takes a while to get used to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I really have to look at what you're talking about in more depth. While doing my degree I avoided postmodernism like the plague. All the bits I did get seemed utter rubbish or totally incomprehensible. My lecturer said that each new generation of social scientists has to come up with a new theory to make a name for themselves. That's what I think of when I think of Baudrillard, Derrida, Lyotard and the rest. Wasn't the Matrix based on some of Baudrillard's writings? Apparently one of his books is in the film. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jonesy: Yes, what your lecturers told you was probably mostly right. I've seen a lot of postmodernist wanking, but Lyotard, derrida, Deleuze/ Guatari and Baudrillard seem serious and reasonable enough to me to stand up to Cant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzche, Stirner and a lot of Greeks. But as postmodernism kind of erases the border between high and low culture (and art for that matter) it has this effect of having people disoriented, and, what is worse, everyone thinks its cool just to namedrop and wank around with terms and topics that have baombastic effect, but really need developing. Matrix is a classic example of that. I nearly puked when I saw Baudrillard's "Simulations and Simulacra" less than five minutes in. I mean that's just smart arsed namedropping. But he's such a pop icon that it's inevitable to have him namechecked by everyoune and their brother. A bit like Nietzche being adopted and simplified as hell by Nazis. Oh, you're welsh? Now I like you even more (though I don't know why, I seem to consider welsh people somehow mystical). But I have to leave now and will be coming back to my office hopefully, so see you later. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What you say makes sense. I approach everything as a Marxist but would like to think I'm not dogmatic. I like to approach everything with an open mind. I just hate the pretentious arseholes you were talking about; namedroppers and the like. I'm glad you have a warm feeling towards the Welsh. I wouldn't say we're mystical but we do have character. Later |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It looks like they're going to start bombing Iraq pretty soon. Some British MPs are threatening to resign if they start bombing. I think this is really going to blow up. Fuck the war. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, not good |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, we were all expecting it soon enough and now it looks like its approaching. The complete arrogance of the Bush administration and their distortion of the truth would make me laugh if they weren't so dangerous. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bush is wonderful blair is wonderful sadam is wonderful they are all wonderful |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think war is necessary, and if it takes another Gulf War to sort out Sadam then so be it. Do you really think that these people who sign up to the airforces are simply training to give 'pleasure' flights...I don't think so. Fernz, why are you joining the RAF? Monsters like Sadam Hussain cannot get away with things anymore!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He poses no threat to us and our government armed him in the war against Iran. He has offered to let UN weapons inspectors in but the US says that's no good. I mean, WTF?! Bush is just gearing up to go on in no matter what. The biggest danger in the world is not Saddam but the US. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think its that simple |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw, i don't know if anyone mentioned it before, but today is the anniversary of hiroshima bombing. over 200.000 people died because of that bombing, so thats something bush should think about |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No...no...no....Sadam needs to be removed from power....you cannot have tyrants like him threatening everyone else with biological warfare. On another matter I do think that the British government should be abolished, and a United States of Europe should be formed.. ..we could claim Iraq as part of the British empire or let the US have it as another one of its states......whoever get to kill him...it could be the prize! HEhehe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*signs official warrant to have AT-ATs deployed to the sands of Baghdad* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well there's a good example. The US is the only country in the world to have dropped the atomic bomb and yet they talk about the Evil Saddam. Also, the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all the bombs dropped during BOTH world wars by BOTH sides. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
say no more you'll get cia and fbi on your back hehe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You have to fight fire with fire Jonesy, you cannot pander around these situations...all nicey nicey. Diplomacy does not work....with lunatics like Sadam. A bomb is just a means of elimating the threat. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
us keep finding lunatics like that all over world |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lunatics like Saddam need to be eradicated. The world will be a better place then, and much more safer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well tell me EXACTLY what kind of threat Saddam poses that would justify killing yet more Iraqi civilians? What weapons has he got? And what of the REAL nuclear threat between India and Pakistan, countries we've sold weapons to and who we STILL sell weapons to. Because the media defines Saddam as a threat with "weapons of mass destruction" you accept this definition without question. Where is the evidence that Parliament was supposed to release in April? The fact is that it will show up the situation for what it is; a fallacy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Kill him and you make him a martyr and many more will turn up to 'honour his name'!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Casualties of war Jonesy, its just how it is unfortunately. A small price to pay for the safety of the majority. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But what about my questions? What threat does he pose? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nahh......if we do a proper job they won't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry flim flam disagree. most of his people want him gone but don't have the means because he is a dictator. the west should have finished the job in the first place |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Absolutely...... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
saddamm now poses the biggest threat to the world. he is the only person to use chemical weapons of any kind. he also has a massive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and is currently developing nuclear or dirty bombs. he needs to be stopped before it's too late |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Where do you get all this from? So the US have NEVER used chemical weapons? Duhhhh. Have you heard of Vietnam son? Agent orange? Napalm? Babies are still being born with deformities now in Vietnam. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You make him sound like a baddy in a Marvel Comics book. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If someone pays..... Buy me a Dragonuv sniper rifle and a Stakeout Shotgun....+ a plane ticket. I'll kill the fucker!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He is a 'baddy' which ever way you look at him... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
anybody who thinks that he doesn't affect us is seriously misguided, he lives in the oil capital of the world and if he gets too powerful, he could hold the world to ransom by taking control of the oil. then we are bloody screwed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jonesy, its people like you, with your kind of thinking, that prevents the 'west' from sorting madmen like Saddam in the first place. Wake up to reality! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy you are great dude..you said just about everything I wanted to in this thread... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bush is insane,and needs to be irradicated,and saddam did invite inspectors |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Saddam was only gonna show them what he wanted to show them....to get the west off his back. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
um..Chris Saddam is not the only oppertunist here US election cycle big factor in timing of attack on Iraq 02.08.2002 By RUPERT CORNWELL and REUTERS WASHINGTON - The United States Senate yesterday opened the first serious public debate over the merits and consequences of a US military attack on Iraq, amid strong signs that if one does come in President George W. Bush's first term, it will be in the early part of next year or not at all. Stressing his belief that the White House had made no decision on a military operation, Senator Joseph Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which is holding the hearings, suggested that the Bush Administration had told key Congressional leaders and close allies such as Britain that there would be no "October Surprise" over Iraq. That means there will be no attack just before the US mid-term elections on November 7. If so, then the generally accepted window for a military move has now shrunk to the first three or four months of next year - exactly the same point in the presidential election cycle for this George Bush as when his father launched Operation Desert Storm in January 1991. Thereafter, the hot Iraq summer rules out any large-scale ground operation until late autumn or winter of 2003/2004. But by then the presidential election primary season would be in full swing, making it politically difficult for Bush to move. The Washington Post reports that civilian leaders and military planners within the Bush Administration are at odds over how to go about toppling President Saddam Hussein. The civilian leadership is pushing for innovative plans that would use smaller numbers of troops; military planners counter with more cautious approaches that would employ far larger forces. Citing sources involved in the discussions, the newspaper said Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld favour aggressively confronting Saddam. They argue that he presents a serious threat and that time is not on the side of |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"the west" is rapidly becoming what it fears most: a real danger to the world |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
saddam is insane and needs to be irradicated,the british government is insane and needs to be irradicated,the royal family is insane and should be put up against a wall and shot:) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the US. But much of the senior uniformed military opposes going to war any time soon. People involved in the planning said the reason so many different plans and variations have surfaced is that wildly different assumptions are being made about the nature of the war, such as which nations would support it and what the consequences in the region would be. Some planners believe the President has been so clear about his determination to remove Saddam from power that he cannot back down. Officials said the Administration was still early in the process of discussing approaches to attacking Iraq and that no formal plan had been put before the President. The White House says it will send top Administration officials to testify to Biden's committee only after the summer Congressional recess, which starts this weekend. Yesterday's session was reserved for expert witnesses, led by Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, who warned again that Saddam could once more be close to developing a nuclear device. What Biden calls the start of a "national dialogue" on Iraq is part of the dawning realisation here that a campaign to topple Saddam may have far-reaching and uncomfortable consequences. Writing in the New York Times yesterday, Biden and Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the committee, drew the comparison with Afghanistan where, they said, the US had not followed up its successful war with an adequate commitment to security and reconstruction. "Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos," they wrote. Those misgivings are shared by many on Capitol Hill, Republicans as well as Democrats - not to mention US allies in the region and beyond, who believe that resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a higher priority. - INDEPENDENT, REUTERS |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Little known fact: before the first Gulf War kicked off Saddam offered to pull out of Kuwait. However, the US administration at the time wanted to reign in Saddam and re-assert their hegemony in the region. So they ignored his offer and went ahead and invaded. That war cost untold deaths of Iraqi civilians. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the US is quickly becoming a controlled Police State with zero human rights, civil rights and Privacy..exactly what it accused the Iron Curtain and then Muslim countries of being... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
C'mon Chris, surely your not naive enough to believe that the US and Britain are a force for good in the world? The leagacy of the British Empire and colonialism have undereveloped much of the world and lead to more deaths than the murders of the Nazis and Stalin. US imperialism has now taken up the mantle that Britain dropped at the end of the WWII. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here, here. Camp X-ray is a perfect example of this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well known fact before the US attacked afghanistan Taliban offered to handover Bin Laden to a neutral country several times... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
