/lit/ - Literature

Wow, i didn't realize the US had liberated so many countries. The entire world is truly indebted to America for the freedom and democracy it brought.

>Had to click three burgers to post this
>they were called 'sandwiches'

>>6749041
> Implying the US didn't inherit its model for world hegemony from the British Empire
> Implying that effective geopolitics and morality can ever coincide
> Implying that any other superpower or hegemon in world history has been more 'moral' by any metric than the US is now

>>6749057
>Implying the US didn't inherit its model for world hegemony from the British Empire
They didn't. The Brits ruled the world by physically invading and capturing a country to control its trade routes. America controls the world by using the US dollar as the global currency for trade, and just bombs little countries for fun. The two are nothing alike.

>>6749057

this, pretty much any superpower or empire played by realpolitik. the US is no different, but it's definitely not an "evil empire" compared to other world powers.

>>6749063

I think the difference is that colonialism used to be violent and direct, and now it's much more subtle.

Every hegemon is like this
Brits and Ruskies are just jealous that we won/inherited the world

>>6749041
why would you want to read biased bullshit like that?

Just read mostly neutral history books and books on world events and make your own decisions.

>>6749082

>we

m8

>>6749072
No it isn't, it's just as blatant. We just don't call it colonialism and we don't send white people to live with brown people. Instead we get brown people to live with us.

>>6749088
I'm American, faggot. 'We' as in 'America.' Fuck off.

>>6749097

I am too, faggot. You and me didn't win shit, unless you are someone more important that I happen to be unaware of.

More book suggestions less justification for gross violations of human rights and dignity.

>>6749097

>2015
>Identifying yourself as part of a country when you're not a part of it's ruling class

top kek

>>6749089
How is changing the ethnic and cultural makeup of your country to that of the supposedly "oppressed" countries part of an imperialist strategy?

>>6749041
>no one giving suggestions to OP instead discussing the USA dindu nuffin
Here you go nig.
Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America's World Role
Theodore Roosevelt: Confident Imperialist
America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century

Now those books explain why the USA did all of that. If you want statistics then just check the national archives and read books about central-american wars in a detailed way (not the books I posted) and also about the Middle East conflict.
I haven't read a book specifically about the Middle East and the USA but I'm sure someone else can help you.

Note: Those books are pretty neutral. If you want extremely biased go check those jihadist websites and south american socialist groups (I'm not joking, they do have valid source since they check the national archives)

>>6749097
>I'm American, faggot. 'We' as in 'America.' Fuck off.
>>6749105
>I am too, faggot. You and me didn't win shit, unless you are someone more important that I happen to be unaware of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4

>>6749105
Fuck off. Referring to one's own country in the first person plural is always acceptable noatter what one's position in that country. Our country, we, won the first Cold War.

>>6749109
How do you know he isn't? Besides, if we're to judge by the standards of the modern American "left", he belongs to the ruling class simply by being white and male, and I'm sure he's both of those things.

Killing Hope by William Blum
>every overt and covert military and intelligence operation since WW2. A chapter for each and there are 50 chapters

The Politics of Heroin by Alfred W. McCoy
>CIA narco-trafficking from the French Connection after WW2 to fund mob/nazi strike breakers to the Golden Triangle to fund Hmong guerrillas, to the Nugan Hand Bank that laundered the Golden Triangle money, to Contra Cocaine and Afghan Heroin, and the War on Drugs at home

>
Dirty Wars
>The Drone Strike and SOCOM/Private Military Contractor dirty war the USA is conducting across countless countries since 9/11

You asked for this /lit/

>>6749119
You could have stopped this

>>6749119
>muh constitution

Why are Americans so obsessed with this piece of 250-year-old paper?

>>6749123
Its happening

>>6749125

Because it is supposed to keep the rights of Americans intact.

>>6749115

>How do you know he isn't?

Mere asumption. It's 1% probability that he is part of the ruling class, but I doubt it.

>he belongs to the ruling class simply by being white and male

We're not talking about heteropatriarchy (hope I don't trigger you by using that word) and even if we were talking about it, that is just part of the ideological super-structure. The economical substructure is what determines whether you're part of the ruling or the working class.

>>6749125
It's like the bible but slightly less embarrassingly obsolete and is useful for stifling improvements with muh appeal to tradition

>>6749131

>>6749143

>>6749145

>>6749111
>>no one giving suggestions to OP instead discussing the USA dindu nuffin

That's always what happens in these kinds of threads. But to be fair, that's what the OPs are after: starting a political thread but tacking on a request for book recommendations to pretend it's /lit/ related.

>>6749149

>>6749150
Naomi Klein is a dhimmi idiot who 'argues' that for Muslim women the veil is 'empowering'. Her and her dullard husband (who works for Al-Jazeera) are part of the problem...

>>6749125
Because a country without a constitution isn't a country at all.

>>6749155
Why do you assume the veil isn't empowering for any Muslim women?

>>6749154

>>6749041
>my third world country is targeted

what the hell did we do?

>>6749155
>>6749150
>Naomi Klein was born in Montreal, Quebec, and brought up in a Jewish family

What a surprise :^)

>>6749160
>>6749155
why should we care what women in another country wear when the USA is shit at home and blowing people up in said country and supporting said countries family dictatorship

>>6749155
Unless you can offer a counter argument which is more than knee-jerk racism & puerile name calling, you will remain as you are - irrelevant.

>>6749159
>you have to hide your body in the public sphere because your mere sight will turn men into animals
>empowering

>>6749167

>>6749175

>>6749171
You haven't answered the question. Do you think, or better yet do uou have evidence, that there are no Muslim women who feel empowered by the veil? I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just saying you should provide evidence that Klein is wrong before laughing off her claims because you don't like your image of Islam.
>your mere sight will turn men into animals
Sounds like power to me.

>>6749166
Yeah, jews are famous for tolerance towards muslims.

>>6749178

>>6749183

>>6749184

>>6749179
>feel empowered
Feeling empowered is quite different from being empowered, you know.
>Sounds like power to me.
It is. The purpose of the veil is to take that power away. The purpose is literally a complete patriarchal control of the public sphere.

>>6749180
The American ones are.

>>6749187

>>6749117
>>6749111
>>6749158
All solid stuff. Already charging the kindle. I know a coupe of S. American socialists and might drop them a line for those sources. I don't want any jihadi sources or anything of the like. I'm looking for sensible work emphasizing on intellectual honesty but b authors who acknowledge and elaborate on the evil the US has done. I would not hesitate to extoll all the good that has been done by Americans but that's not what I'm particularly interested in at the moment. Are any of these books recent enough to encompass all or some of the data released by Wikileaks and other organizations/people of the like?

>>6749119
Will look into it m8 but I'd rather have a good deal of text coupled to a good amount of citations at the end of each chapter. Downloading them now regardless. Looks promising.

>>6749153
I'm sorry you feel that way but it is quite simply not the case at all. It's advisable and indeed commendable that any person is driven to read about the ills done by the power that has deep reaching influence on all other nations and how various political tensions and upheavals have had credible connections to US intelligence agencies or other US organizations. It would put into better focus the world of politics and might even exonerate the US in large parts. I'm here to request material in order to read and learn.

>>6749191

>even /lit/ is falling for the progressive "oppressive fundamentalist practices are okay if they're Muslim" meme

There is no quicker way to prove that you lack critical thought and simply toe a party line.

>>6749041
what many people don't get is that U.S. won WWII but concerning ethics and economic model it was really the Nazis. This strong tie between military-digital-industrial complex and pentagon and the development of strong oligopoles is obviously a development that they inherited from nazi germany.
regardless of all those "huur durr muh free market" rants that are obviously fake as fuck

>>6749111
>America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century
you cant be serious

>>6749111
>Now those books explain why the USA did all of that.
for money and power
everyone says they have noble intentions
>those books are netural
>their titles are about the USA fighting for democracy

>>6749188
Why do you assume that Islam isn't the one true faith? What would you say to a Muslim woman who didn't care about being empowered, preferring her faith to yours?

>ITT: Masterrace and their slave cucks bitching and moaning

>>6749194

>>6749198
>hurr muslims
if you want to stop terrorism the first thing you need to do is stop practicing terrorism

>>6749111
>America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century
>Note: Those books are pretty neutral

>>6749208

>>6749213

>>6749204
The roosvelt book wasn't too "I'm a real american". It explains a lot of the shit the USA did in Central America.
>>6749192
>Are any of these books recent enough to encompass all or some of the data released by Wikileaks and other organizations/people of the like?
I haven't read books that incorporate wikileaks information since many of those documents were revelead in less than 10 years. Wait for 5 years and you will have books that incorporate those leaked documents. Also, most of those documents doesn't really add more fire to the wood, they just confirm the shit the USA did and does.

>>6749215

>>6749206
>Why do you assume that Islam isn't the one true faith?
Because that's a retarded notion. If there's a god, he doesn't rejoice in slaughter.
>What would you say to a Muslim woman who didn't care about being empowered, preferring her faith to yours?
Your choice (this already defeats her, as it makes the thing he considers more important than empowerment, a matter of preference), but don't push that shit on others.

>>6749198
>if I call anything resembling tradition and premodernism 'fundamentalist' it loses all the potential positives associated with it
>I'm stupid enough to believe that progress exists on a grand historical scale and not only within the lives of individual civilizations
They're also fine if they're Christian.

They're always better than legalizing gay marriage.

>>6749192
Blum keeps Killing Hope updated regularly, but it is already exhaustively documented
Politics of Heroin has been published in 3 editions: 1975, 1992, 2003. Each time with new events and documentation
Dirty Wars was published only a few years ago and uses everything available about drone strikes, JSOC, and first hand interviews with operators and victims

>>6749221
>Because that's a retarded notion.
You're a very closed-minded person. You tell yourself the opposite but it's a lie.
Your post really says:
>I know nothing about non-liberal ways of life

>>6749198
>>6749198
Sure, as if the Western Christianity isn't the #1 exporter of "oppressive fundamentalist practices".

But please, keep pretending you haven't your own paper thin agenda by pointing your greasy little sausage finger at everyone else. I'm sure some chick in a niqab is as liberated by your opnions as much as she is empowered by deference to her cultural standards.

>>6749220

>>6749221
not the person you're arguing with, but something about your post makes you look dumb asf m8

>If there's a god, he doesn't rejoice in slaughter.

Why do you assume to understand the desires of a divine entity? On what evidence do you draw such conclusions?

>>6749229

>>6749231

>>6749227
>Your post really says:
>>I know nothing about non-liberal ways of life
I know enough to reject them
>>6749230
If there's a god, he is a being that embodies love and reason. Anything else would not deserve the name.
What do YOU mean by divine, if it doesn't include this?

>>6749232

>>6749237

>>6749238

>>6749234
Knowing enough to reject them != knowing the first thing about them or the phenomenological experience of these traditions and ways of life. You're a fool. You're either a Christian, in which case we're on the same page about more things than I thought, or someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God trying to claim His predicates for your own argument. If you aren't willing to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and as the Pure Reason which governs the universe, you have no cause to insist that the divine must loving and rational, nor do you have any reason to assume that Muslims cannot conceive of Allah as a loving and rational being.

>>6749041
>Australia highlighted
>Tasmania left blank
Left out again. :l

>>6749041
Does anyone know who the US has assassinated in Paris. That's pretty hardcore.

>>6749239

>>6749241
50% adult illiteracy will do that

>>6749242
1) French Connection funding mobsters/ss goons like Klaus Barbie to break up unions in the South of France after WW2
2) Operation Gladio
3) CIA was tight with the Secret Army Organization, rightwing officers that opposed pulling out of Africa and tried to overthrow and assassinate De Gaulle

>>6749110
You're fookin retarded mate. "Lebensraum" wasn't the birth of imperialism.

>>6749234
It's absurd to assume to understand the reason any kind of entity would have for designing this universe, as humans have discovered 0 evidence on the matter.

It is just as plausible that a divine entity created the universe under a pretense of love and reason as it is plausible that a divine entity created a universe to watch people kill each other for fun. Assuming you know the reasoning behind it's design is asinine. What is your reasoning for understanding divine purpose?

>>6749243

>>6749063
>>6749067
>>6749082
>>6749097
>>6749113
>>6749155
>>6749207

>>6749244
>this tired old meme
It's funny that this statistic came from a poorly read report. Next you'll tell me: "Tasmanian aboriginals couldn't use fire!!"

>>6749252

>>6749253
amen. you mad?

cuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuckcuck

>>6749254
there is also 50% innumeracy

>>6749132
Yeah most countries have constitutions you know, but are slightly less afraid of updating it as the centuries roll by.

>>6749240
>the phenomenological experience of these traditions and ways of life
Ok, maybe it feels absolutely great to be delusional and oppressed, I wouldn't know. All I know is tthat such oppression destroys the things I value about humanity.
>blabla you have to believe this or that
no I don't. All I have to do is think about what the concept of the divine implies. And my result is that it doesn't imply hanging gays & apostates, or demonizing the female body.
>nor do you have any reason to assume that Muslims cannot conceive of Allah as a loving and rational being.
For the reasons just named, if they do, they have a messed-up concept of reason and love. Or more to the point, none at all.

>>6749257

>>6749267
You chose this
>This is not a dream

>>6749266
>All I have to do is think about what the concept of the divine implies. And my result is that it doesn't imply hanging gays & apostates, or demonizing the female body.
Why not? You still haven't explained this.
>Or more to the point, none at all
Are you saying Muslims are incapable of love? Some of the best love poetry was written by Muslims.

>>6749273
I've already mentioned the three best books here
Another two about more specific events are

>Out of Control by Leslie Cockburn
This was written as the Reagan era shit was going down. Dirty Wars. Rex 84. Iran Contra. Etc. It was rushed into publication I think as there is no footnotes, end notes, sources, or even bibliography

>Crimes of Patriots by Jonathan Kwitney is an in-depth look at the Nugan Hand Bank that goes beyond the couple pages it gets in Killing Hope and Politics of Heroin

>PBS Frontline: Guns, Drugs, and the CIA
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/archive/gunsdrugscia.html

>Bill Moyers: The Secret Government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28K2CO-khdY

>Jello Biafra and DOA perform Full Metal Jackoff a musical adaptation of all this shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXALSRxazZA

>>6749266
"they have a messed-up concept of reason and love"
>implying love and reason aren't subjective abstract concepts invented by humans

srsly m8 you just look more and more retarded the more you talk.

I want to ask you a question.

Climate change is rapidly putting the human race in danger of extinction, and it's already causing the extinction of many non-human species. It's recently been proven that we are entering a period of mass-extinction. It's also been proven that human activity is a significant driving force behind climate change.

Greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributing factor that we are aware of to climate change, and a third of these emissions are attributed to factors involving feeding 7 billion people. Almost all emissions are directly tied to the world population in terms of severity. This is an indisputable fact supported by undeniable observation.

Now, knowing this, and knowing that our actions are leading to the suffering if not extinction of the human race in the future, would 90% of the human race being killed at the moment actually be a morally superior decision than allowing us to continue to destroy the world due to supporting our swollen, overgrown population?

>ctrl-f: 'chomsky'
>0 results
Why?

>>6749286
I got one result for 'chomsky' when I looked

dunno what's wrong with your searching abilities.

>>6749287
Oh hey now I got two hits

>>6749286
he generates a pavlovian reaction that shuts down critical thought amongst those on the right

Read The Prince and stop daydreaming about communism.

>>6749283
>Greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributing factor that we are aware of to climate change, and a third of these emissions are attributed to factors involving feeding 7 billion people. Almost all emissions are directly tied to the world population in terms of severity. This is an indisputable fact supported by undeniable observation.
most of the worlds population lives in poverty
feeding them isn't producing GHC
its feeding the first world and their massive lust for meet and ultra refined foods

>>6749280
>Why not? You still haven't explained this
I don't think I have to. It's a matter of faith.
>Are you saying Muslims are incapable of love?
No, I'm saying Islam, both as theology and as practice, is, in its mainstream, more hostile to love and reason than any other religion's mainstream currents. Of course muslims are capable of love, it's not like any religion can be that successful.

>>6749296
can you take you poleological debate elsewhere?

>>6749296
>it's a matter of faith
At least describe your conception of the divine, then, instead of making us all try to figure out which of Allah's and Christ's predicates you have problems with.
>No, I'm saying Islam, both as theology and as practice, is, in its mainstream, more hostile to love and reason than any other religion's mainstream currents
How much do you actually know about Islamic theology, though?

>>6749283
>>implying love and reason aren't subjective abstract concepts invented by humans
The same holds true of any account of god, idepently of wether or not he exists.
>would 90% of the human race being killed at the moment actually be a morally superior decision than allowing us to continue to destroy the world due to supporting our swollen, overgrown population?
Neither is morally acceptable, but what's the point of that question?

>>6749305
see >>6749300

>>6749307
No, this thread is effectively off topic anyway. People arguing about theopolitics is standard /lit/ fare. Get over it.

>>6749282
>>6749253

like I said, there's no denying realpolitik. power projection usually involved violence. I understand criticizing the US (especially in cases like Cuba). but compared to other great powers like the british and french empires, the Soviets, the Ottomans, etc., we've been much more reasonable.

>>6749306
>The same holds true of any account of god, idepently of wether or not he exists.
defeating your own argument

>Neither is morally acceptable
If a decision has to be made though, what's the superior decision morally? "Neither"?

One involves 90% of humans that exist being killed. The other potentially makes the existence of >99.9% of all humans in the future possible. You're saying neither one is a superior option morally?

Your moral construct isn't very built-up then. Looks to me like you believe in god and have a random smattering of ideas of good and evil you regard as factual, and are too scared to make a decision on a moral dilemma. =

>>6749316

also that was a pretty good comic, though it was alot to take in.

>>6749300
I didn't start it, fuck off. Also, this isn't ven political.
>>6749305
>At least describe your conception of the divine
I tend to be careful and minimalistic when it comes to that, and I've already said it, no human concept of perfection makes sense if it doesn't adhere to humanity's highest ideals, love and reaon.
>How much do you actually know about Islamic theology, though?
You can certainly quote some shit from the quran that says, don't subjugate women, and don't murder fags and apostates (actually, I don't think you can), but that changes fuck all about how contemporary mainstream islam views such things.

>>6749316
>muh realpolitik
always used by the perp to justify their crime
>we've been much more reasonable
>muh moral relativism
How many dead in Central and South America?
Indochina?
Middle East and Central Asia?
How many killed by the drugs used to fund dirty wars?

>>6749319
>defeating your own argument
Actually, no. If god, love, and reason are human ideas, consistency is preferable to inconsistency.
>You're saying neither one is a superior option morally?
Yup, that is exactly what I'm saying. Both are absolutely forbidden. And I still don't get what this would have to do with religion.
>Looks to me like you believe in god
I don't, not really.
>and are too scared to make a decision on a moral dilemma.
That's why they're called dilemmas, because all answers are wrong.

>>6749322
>Ask for objective information about how bad the US is
>Be told, correctly, that the most objective komd of information is actually about what the US has done, not how bad it is
>'HOW DARE YOU DEFEND HE GR8 CRIMINAL'
Fucking leftists.

>>6749334
so the solution is inaction?

That effectively makes the decision to do nothing and let the population continue to swell. That's essentially choosing option 2.

>>6749322

being a world power involves difficult decisions and necessary evils. I'm not denying anything you're saying. I'm saying that while the US has been involved in corruption, propping up dictators, etc., you should also consider stuff like pogroms, the opium trade, colonialism, etc. in spite of the blood and dirt, the US has still had a better track record than other major powers.

all this begs the question of how benevolent a superpower can possibly be.

>>6749336
>How many dead in Central and South America?
>Indochina?
>Middle East and Central Asia?
>How many killed by the drugs used to fund dirty wars?

>Fucking leftists

>>6749321
>no human concept of perfection makes sense if it doesn't adhere to humanity's highest ideals, love and reaon.
That's divinity? Perfection, love, and reason? I don't know if those are really humanity's highest ideals, you're the one emphasizing them for no actual reason. I think goodness, beauty, and unity should be up there, too, personally. If you disagree I'd like to know why you hate beauty and the Good, and how you think anything can exist without unity.
>You can certainly quote some shit from the quran that says, don't subjugate women, and don't murder fags and apostates (actually, I don't think you can), but that changes fuck all about how contemporary mainstream islam views such things.
So the answer is that you know nothing at all about Islamic theology. You choose to let radical Islam serve as your only model of the religion. Your choice; enjoy being ignorant.

>>6749341
Yes, fucking leftists. I'm calling you an idiot, not saying that those were good things.

>>6749339
>how benevolent a superpower can possibly be.
Being a superpower pretty much negates any kind of benevolence.

>>6749337
No, I said option 2 is equally forbidden. The only acceptable course of action is to try everything short of murder to prevent it.
If that is not an option, a religious person still has the option to pray, and a nonreligious person has the option of killing themselves.

But what the hell does this have to do with Islam? Explain this shit to me, what is your point in asking this?

>>6749346
How so?

>>6749345
>I'm calling you an idiot for pointing out things I don't like to see.

>>6749344
I think beauty, the good, and unity are very much consistent with reason and love. A god that demands murder isn't.
>You choose to let radical Islam serve as your only model of the religion.
There is no moderate islam, so that is absolutely appropriate.

>>6749339
>necessary evils
The only "necessary evil" here is the voluntary injustice the upper class engages in in order to maintain and expand its power.

Try

>Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden

It focuses on Afghanistan, but starts long before Bin Laden showed up with the Soviet involvement

>>6749350
Do I really have to tell you? It's pretty fucking obvious.

>>6749273
Do you have the whole thing uploaded and if so can I have it?

>>6749352
I'm very critical of American foreign policy, hell, I even agree with most of what you're saying. But I'm also critical of idiots who think that being critical of something means not listening to anyone who reminds you that that something can have good qualities. You're probably a Russian shill, anyway.

>>6749354
>I think beauty, the good, and unity are very much consistent with reason and love. A god that demands murder isn't.
Allah has all those predicates.
>There is no moderate islam
Have you actually learned about any of the concepts in the religion, though? You really don't seem to care about its content at all. I'm just curious as to why you're championing reason while demonizing something you don't understand.

>>6749363
>You're probably a Russian shill, anyway.
lol

The US have done some good things because they need to justify all the evil ones. It still doesn't pay off. The US isn't exactly UNICEF.

>>6749361
Yeah, outline it, please. If you want to start
>implying moral considerations have an important place in objective analyses of states of affairs and actions taken in international politics
>implying no action can have both positive and negative effects
>implying domestic benefits are totally negated by any kind of conflict
Then I'm going to know you're an idiot.

>>6749375
I'm not saying they are. I'm saying you're asking for biased information while insisting that this bias is objective. A truly unbiased source will acknowledge the good and the bad while judging neither any more than the author has to.

>>6749230
what if hes jewish?

>>6749346

(the person who asked how so was another anon)

this brings up more questions. if power projection negates benevolence, can superpowers be prevented? or are economic/political imbalances always going to lead to certain nations/polities becoming dominant world powers? what about less powerful countries being tyrannical, are the excesses of superpowers justified to prevent this?

it's kind of hard to solve everything. it seems to be that there are too many forces in the world to keep things in a benevolent balance.

>>6749378
>implications

We were talking about benevolence, that's a moral concept, retard. Of course global superpowers don't give a fuck about moral, that's what I'm saying. Actions having negative and positive outcomes doesn't really have shit to do with being benevolent, aiding muslim radicals isn't something you do out of benevolence. And I don't even think what you said about domestic benefits has anything to do with this. It's like you can't read or something.

>>6749369
>Allah has all those predicates
Then Allah is inconsistent, leaving no reason to believe in him, unless you're particularly fond of murder.
>Have you actually learned about any of the concepts in the religion, though?
Of course, concepts like jihad, umma, shahid, taquiya, they explain quite an awful lot of things going on right now.

>>6749383
I'm not even the guy you were talking to, btw. I only got into the conversation to laugh at you.

>>6749394
>benevolence
Why would you judge a political entity by that standard, especially in international politics?

>>6749389
>can superpowers be prevented?
Probably not. At least the way things have been going lately. We would have to practically destroy our civilization.
>or are economic/political imbalances always going to lead to certain nations/polities becoming dominant world powers?
Well, nowadays it is the contrary: imbalances are the result of strategies to gasin/keep global hegemony.
>what about less powerful countries being tyrannical, are the excesses of superpowers justified to prevent this?
This "superhero" view on politics is absurd. Countries only interfere in other countries' affairs because they want to gain something. Not to mention most (probaly ALL) of the current tyrannies in the world exist thanks to the help of some superpower.

>>6749398
None of those concepts have to do with Allah himself. You're throwing around buzzwords. I suggest doing actual research.
Judaism is worse than Islam and secular Judaism is the worst thing ever to come out of Abrahamism.

>>6749417
I don't know. I don't. I just stated this >>6749346 responding to >>6749339

>>6749169

>>6749417

I brought up that word in response to all the accusations of the US being immoral and corrupt. Im saying, if we're that bad, could we possibly be good?

>>6749423
1. I'm inclined to agree. especially because of world systems theory, which describes how industries concentrate in core economies while peripherals provide raw materials. I don't see an easy way of changing the uneven distribution of resources in the world.

2. the US rose up because of its cultural/scientific heritage from england and europe, combined with its vast natural resources. but you're right, once nations secure hegemony, they don't want to give it up, and will keep up inequalities etc. to maintain status quo.

3. solid points. still, I could bring up the British Empire's anti slavery movement as an example of how power projection can be helpful.

>>6749041
Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide : U.S. intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace

>>6749424
>Judaism is worse than Islam and secular Judaism is the worst thing ever to come out of Abrahamism.
Oh, the islam fanboy is also an anti-semite, huge fucking surprise. Last time I looked, secular jews weren't shooting any cartoonists or uploading beheading videos or hanging people for being gay or stoning adulterers. See pic related? No one wanted to ill anyone because of that. Should tell you something.

>>6749286
It's a bit too obvious for most of /lit/ and a bit too upsetting for most of /pol/.

>>6749466
Why shoot when you can bomb?

>>6749424
>>6749466
Also,
>None of those concepts have to do with Allah himself.
Then how does he have them as predicates? God cannot have unneccessary properties.

>>6749466

I want a trunkjob from a hindu god too.

>>6749466
Israel is a terror state
Christianity is the one true faith
Islam is evil
Get over yourself

>>6749457
Yes, we could possibly be good.

>>6749493
They don't bomb people for caricatures, either. You don't have to support Zionism in order to see which religion is more violent.

>>6749041
jej at venezuela not being highlighted in op's pic, the right wing there are entirely cia puppets

>>6749515
>Islam is evil
that's what I'm saying.
>Get over yourself
No u

>>6749113
I find it always makes one sound like an idiot tbh

>>6749521
its an old picture

>>6749540
not the guy you're responding to, but the only reason you would bring up things like this is if your argument is weak and you have nothing to bring up other than irrelevant facts about your opponent.

Saying their argument is weak because they use the word "we" as a US citizen instead of "The US" is fallacious. Form a proper argument or look like a dumb shit that can't defend your ideas.

I have no idea what the discussion is about, I'm not taking sides. I just see a case of non-logic and I'm pointing it out.

>Guis srsly dont look in the mirror! Look at Islam! scary! OOOoooOOO!
>lolwut think about your own countries actions? Thats moral relativism!

Tales of an Economic Hitman

You're welcome.

>>6749551
O I've no idea what they're talking about either, I just saw something about how people think they don't sound like idiots when they do and I pointed it out

>>6749160
Comics are truly the lowest form of art (including video games)

>>6749517
If you seriously think it's just a matter of religion then you have no idea about what the Cold War was. Religion has always been used as an excuse. That's all.

>>6749515
>Israel is a terror state
Yes.
>Christianity is the one true faith
I'd say Judaism is: God told them they were the chosen people and, well, they mostly run this whole shit.
>Islam is evil
Bullshit. Even if "evil" wasn't bullshit itself, this belief would still be bullshit.

>>6749781
Do you even know why jews crucified jesus? Jesus told them they were not gods chosen people but rsther, everybody was.

>>6749777
If you seriously think it's just a matter of it being used as an excuse, that's all, then you have no idea about what anything ever was.
Yeah, look at that, it cuts both ways.

>>6749879
That's one of the dullest cuts I've ever seen.

>>6749112
#based

>>6749041
Seeing the US damage to the world made me interested in politics and reading as a whole.

Noam Chomsky has 10s of books about US aggression.

My favourites are : How the world works (a collection of 4 books) and interventions.

>>6749201
10/10 this. He may aswell read the crisis of democracy and say that that's legit not bias.

>>6749817
Looks like Jesus was full of shit.

>>6749354
>There is no moderate islam, so that is absolutely appropriate.

I guess that's why there are 30 million terrorist attacks in the world every year.

Oh wait...

>>6749286
THIS. Chomsky is the main man when it comes to US violations of international (and even their own: Leigh law) laws. He's one of the most cited men in history, being in the top 10 (most of whom are dead, such as jesus, Marx).

This is the thread that sums up mostly what I read and there's been no credible suggestions yet besides him imo.

>>6749084
>neutral history books
oh i am laffin

>>6749565
havent read it but i've heard of it and it sounds amazing.

>>6749817
Actually the Romans crucified Jesus, but nice try.

>>6749499
>Then how does he have them as predicates?
>Allah has jihad as a predicate

Time to go to bed, Johnny.

>>6749499
>God cannot have unnecessary predicates
LOL
Are you implying our existence isn't predicated upon God's?

>>6749545
they've been cia puppets since puntofijoism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5rVD_TXrjo

>>6749400
Bro you told him LOL your so smart you tell that imperialist pig LMAOOI GET REKT AMERIFATS LOLLLLL XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>6750041
Why are you so butthurt? Chill out, nobody's trying to take away your freedum.

>>6749041
So, can anyone recommend any books?

Like OP I love reading about this. This entire thread has been people arguing about if the US if a force for good or bad.

If you have to debate that, then this probably isn't the thread for you. However, the debate is somewhat appreciated whilst the lack of books isn't.

Gimmie dem books to read, fools!

>>6749201
You are the physical embodiment of the stereotypical millennial leftist. The inclusion of "boss" in your jpg filename was a nice touch; it really highlighted your immaturity and shallowness. Kudos.

>>6749084
>neutral history books
:^)

>>6749565
Following my earlier comment, i'm listening to the audiobook now.

Cheers mate! 11/10

>>6750557
You attacked the messenger rather than his content. His message that that book is bias is blatant.

What is your issue?

>>6750846
>What is your issue?
Being a butthurt Americuck.

>>6750557
That's one hell of an ad hominem.

>>6749265

Why the fuck would you want to update?

Said updates in other countries are generally either immediately preceded or followed by violent revolution.

You don't end up a global hegemon by restructuring what are supposed to be your country's timeless ideals and most basic ruleset every time you want to subvert the democratic process to get something done quickly.

>>6750934
>Said updates in other countries are generally either immediately preceded or followed by violent revolution.
Uh, no. That's incorrect.

>>6750944

Sure it does. One of the most recent examples is France. France had 17 different constitutions from 1791 to today. Their current version was codified in 1958, with the military supporting an overthrow of the elected government with De Gaulle's support.

Textbook example of "Lots of change, almost nothing to show for it".

There's a great study of Latin American countries the Kellogg Institute performed analyzing constitutional stability. They found institutions which spread power out and had a flexible constitution tended to have it last a long time and was usually associated with environments of political and social stability in contrast to those where the constitution was in flux. They also found a trend of increasingly rapid change in countries that were changing.

The only reason at this point to fuck with the constitution at this point is when there is a fundamental principle or rule we need to uphold which the legal system literally cannot do. Everything else just makes your country slightly more shitty and unstable.

America's been smart enough to leave the "fuck with the constitution" checkbox unticked, and it's paid dividends. Anyone who wants otherwise is just butthurt about not being able to pass laws as fast as a "banana republic", or wants to see America follow the path of decline of one.

>>6749041
Legacy of ashes, a history of the cia is a great book and I highly recommend it.

>There have to be books of purely intellectual hatred for the US
Open Veins of Latin America. Although it also includes hate for Europe.

>>6749341
>How many dead
Lol, what is this bleeding heart nonsense? Every empire in the world has done evil, why should the US be an exception? The only reason you're reading about the US and not something else is that your slave morality keeps you permanently butthurt

>>6751071
>Every empire in the world has done evil, why should the US be an exception?

Every retard has accepted empires as necessary and just, why are you an exception?

>>6750944
M8, do you not read?

>>6751054
I'd second that one. Basic premise: the CIA is a bunch of amateurish rejects who fuck up every operation.

>>6751110
How is that an argument?

>>6751110
lol

>>6751121
>>6751054
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no3/legacy-of-ashes-the-history-of-cia.html
>inb4 'lol bias,' 'muh CIA'
Not every critical and well-sourced book is correct in its criticism, nor do they all use their sources in an honest fashion.

>>6751039
Sorry, you're right. A mistake on my part, I messed up the number of Amendments added to the U.S. constitution over the years, which probably misled you into thinking I was talking about the replacement of constitutions, rather than the adding and removing of parts in them.

>>6749041

>implying you want China or Soviets in charge

>>6751071
>Every empire in the world has done evil, why should the US be an exception?
>They did it so that means it's fine if I do it too
How is that a justification, don't you think that argument is a little weak or am I missing your point?

>>6751293
>Implying China isn't going to be the one in charge in the near future.
>Implying there isn't any other option to prefer other than the US or some dictatorship.

>>6751490
>he doesn't know about China's economic bubble

If anything the US will gain more global power in the coming decades.

>>6751329
You're obviously missing his point. History and politics aren't moral battlefields unless you subscribe to certain ideologies. If you disregard your assumption that a world where beneficent and impartial superpowers can exist (which you should because it's a juvenile fantasy), you'll probably get his point, which is that you're making moral judgments in a manner that isn't proper for the actors you're judging.

>>6749155
Working for Al-Jazeera isn't an insult.

>>6751557
There's no similarity whatsoever between what he and you wrote. It's also a shit point: the idea that you can or should study history without passing judgment on the actors is wrong, not to mention the implication that moral judgment of people and factions can never lead to anything, when such judgments have shaped most of human history. Hell, before humanity even existed there was culture and factions, and even then they had an impact on the societies they existed in and came into contact with.

>>6751601
It is if you're Jewish, Israeli, or an American conservative

>>6751608
>the idea that you can or should study history without passing judgment on the actors is wrong
Which is why I only object to the manner amd content of the judgments the radical antihegemons are making ITT, not the fact that they're criticizing hegemonic powers. After a certain poi t these critiques lose substance.
>such judgments have shaped most of human history
More than less abstract things like economic and social conditions, changes in legal systems, and war? I admit that moral considerations affect history but I don't think they're a primary driving force.
> before humanity even existed there was culture and factions, and even then they had an impact on the societies they existed in and came into contact with.
Not sure what you're getting at here. All culture and intercommunity interaction consists of moral judgments?

>>6751615
Aren't several of their journalists Jewish?

>>6751656
I don't know, I don't pay much attention to that sort of thing.

>>6751640
I didn't mean they were THE primary driving force, but it's never absent or remotely unimportant in the history of societies. But never mind that, let's look at war: what motivates war?

>>6751640
>Not sure what you're getting at here. All culture and intercommunity interaction consists of moral judgments?
I've actually forgotten, which probably means it was nothing smart. It's too hot for straight thinking.

>>6749465
This is a good book, but while you're reading it it pays to supplement it with other sources.

>>6751712
>but it's never absent or remotely unimportant in the history of societies.
I haven't claimed it is, only that focusing on the moral content of a state's actions and basing impressions of that state off of how many dead bodies it produces among its enemies and assuming it can't possibly do something good in addition to fighting foreign wars is pretty much one-dimensional thinking.
>But never mind that, let's look at war: what motivates war?
Resource shortages, imbalances of power, and greed. What's your point?

>>6751980
>only that focusing on the moral content of a state's actions and basing impressions of that state off of how many dead bodies it produces among its enemies and assuming it can't possibly do something good in addition to fighting foreign wars is pretty much one-dimensional thinking
No-one suggested one ought to do that either.
>Resource shortages, imbalances of power, and greed. What's your point?
Do these things usually motivate the common soldiers as well?

>>6752000
>No-one suggested one ought to do that either
That's literally the historical narrative the OP of this thread is asking for, and there are numerous posts agreeing with his sentiment.
>Do these things usually motivate the common soldiers as well?
Well, the common soldier doesn't declare war, so his motives aren't as important when considering what causes war. This is a different question.

>>6752346
>That's literally the historical narrative the OP of this thread is asking for, and there are numerous posts agreeing with his sentiment.
That in no way implies it's the only narrative he considers valid or important, just that it's the one he's interested in reading right now.
>Well, the common soldier doesn't declare war, so his motives aren't as important when considering what causes war. This is a different question.
His motives aren't important when there'd be no war without his participation?

Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East by Rashid Khalidi

>>6752599
>That in no way implies it's the only narrative he considers valid or important
>It has come to a point where nothing from the US can be taken at face value or good faith.
You're wrong.
>there'd be no war without his participation?
With no soldiers we'd have a bellum omnium contra omnes.

>>6749041
What about books for massive cucks? Seems like those would be more applicable to your life :^)

>>6752658
Thst nothing can be taken at face value doesn't mean everything's bad. It just means he's started to look critically at the nation, which is a must for any kind of analysis.
Less latin please. On my phone and fuck the fiddly shit which is googling latin quotes on a phone.

>>6754206
He said good faith, not face value.
Read fucking Hobbes, you pleb. If you can't figure out what that phrase means I don't feel bad for not filling you in. I don't know what point you're trying to make, either. Are you saying that wars only start because soldiers join armies?

>>6749041
Welcome to 4chan. Its a little different than reddit, you can't get upvoted for shitposting like this, but you can still try.

>>6754756
>He said good faith, not face value.
>>at face value or good faith
Soldiers or warriors are a bit of a necessity in order for there to be a war, aren't they?

>MODs: This is /lit/, not /pol/. If you want to discuss politics get the fuck out of here.
>Anon: No.
>Mods: O-ok...

>>6755159
They're also necessary to defend a country when it gets invaded by another one.

>>6755750
Whenever something gets invaded there are necessarily soldiers/warriors.

The whole problem is the American political system. Look at our ridiculous tax code. Look at the paranoia in Washington that leads the government to continue pushing their police state. Intellectuals and career politicians have destroyed this country. We are so far down the road to socialism I doubt we can ever come back.

>>6755784
Yeah, you guys sure are just about to destroy capitalism.

>>6755743
going to /pol/ to discuss serious politics is like going to going to a pet shop for car problems

>>6755784
>the problem with Americas imperialism and aggression is taxes and socialism
You're completely unable to think at this point
Utterly devoid of the ability to comprehend
You're just repeating Fox News talking points on auto pilot

>>6755771
What's your point?

>>6755813

I'm not talking about imperialism you fucking autist. I'm talking about the decline of domestic life in the United States. That's the real tragedy here, that America has made life within its own borders progressively worse and worse.

Yes, go- uh, I mean citizen, we need to keep waging these wars to maintain the stability of America! It's all realpolitik! Don't forget to support Israel!

>>6755881
>Hey guys, Hamas is great!
>I sure do love everyone but the Jews!
>I <3 Hamas

>>6755885
>>6755881
>>>/pol/

>>6755804
What the fuck does that have to do with /lit/?

Is this meme about America being evil still popular? I remember when I was in high school I was pretty into it too. Yes America isn't afraid to overthrow a government if it doesn't suit her interests, but you don't become the world's largest economy without breaking a few eggs. American imperialism is a net positive for the world, really. This is how the personal computer, television, and the internet get developed, this is how we land on the moon, this is how we can afford to station military all over the globe and prevent World War III from happening.

Don't like it? Well too bad, there's pretty much nothing you can do about it. Sit back and enjoy your incredibly cheap clothes and other convenient consumer items, your secure borders, and your unfailing supply of food and open media. America may be an empire but she is kind to her subjects. Most have benefited from her rule and will continue to do so. Would you prefer it if China were in charge? Or maybe you want to be annexed by Russia?

>but m-muh communist revolution!
Will never happen
>but m-muh hypocrisy
Who cares
>but m-muh Chomsky!
Yeah he's fun to read but let's get real; Chomsky is just as much of a hypocrite as America is, except his hypocrisy provides you with nothing but smug leftists and sanctimonious undergraduate essays.

>>6755838
That the post I was responding to was stupid.

>>6755963
>meme
>Implying the whole world didn't already know America was evil decades before you were even born.

>>6756804
You didn't prove it. Why is that post stupid? Your position appears to be that a world without soldiers is possible, which is pretty stupid.

>>6756816
Your logic skills to conceive possible worlds are very disappointing.

>>6756992
Is there any evidence that there could be a possible world in which humans behave like they do in this one, with all the same material needs and limitations on resources and time, without conflict? You've yet to demonstrste that such a world is possible. You've yet to even state your position adequately.

>>6749169

>>6757006
So you believe this is the only remotely possible outcome for evolution given the fuckload of random events that ended up making of this world what it is now? Seriously?
My position is irrelevant to the conversation. I just find it silly (and I mistakenly thought it was for obvious reasons) to point out that soldiers are needed to defend a country when someone has said soldiers are a necessity for war to be possible. Myabe some people are just narrowminded.

>>6749041
>No argentina
all of latin america was pretty controlled in the 70's with the national security doctrine, all of our military was occupied with ruling our countries and hunting imaginary communists.

>>6757065
The countries that America intervened in look a lot better right now than the ones they didn't touch

>>6757079
That's pretty much what happens when you happened to depend on the bully that lost the fight.

>>6757048
I'm still not sure what your point is. You're postulating a possiblr world where humans evolved I'm such a way that they don't compete over resources, which is actually impossible.
>My position is irrelevant to the conversation.
Why is that? I'm just trying to get you to clarify what you actually think. So far I get the impression you'd like to see universal peace, but that's all.
>I just find it silly (and I mistakenly thought it was for obvious reasons) to point out that soldiers are needed to defend a country when someone has said soldiers are a necessity for war to be possible.
Still not seeing your point. Maybe if you told me what it is, I'd see it, but you refuse to elaborate on the position from which you're able to argue that there's a possible world where humans evolved without competition and societies exist without conflict or the need to use force.

>>6757150
>You're postulating a possiblr world where humans evolved I'm such a way that they don't compete over resources, which is actually impossible.
Competition over resources isn't the cause of wars. I recommend you Clastre's Archeology of Violence about this. Anyway, war as we know it today is a pretty recent phenomenon. Humans existed before war and it is possible for them to keep existing without it.
>So far I get the impression you'd like to see universal peace
Not really. Humans have created a shitty world because they wanted or were too affraid to change it, both options imply they deserve what they got. The institution of war disgusts me if that's what you asked, but I'm not really a pacifist, I don't think violence is itself unesireable. But my personal opinion is irrelevant, anyway.
>Still not seeing your point.
My original point was that it's stupid to argue that soldiers are needed to protect against invasions as a response to someone saying there's a correlation of necessity between soldiers and war: if there are no soldiers there is no need of protection against soldiers. The rest, my personal opinion, had nothing to do with this (which is a matter of logic) or with the fact that there is in fact a possible world where war isn't there anymore. There is no logical necessity that links humans and war, even though it is hardly possible that war just suddenly stops one day during our lifetime.

tl;dr: I was originally talking about matters of logic and concepts, not about my personal opinion.

>>6757559
More important than the one potential cause of war I mentioned are the reasons you think that
>it is possible for them to keep existing without it.
You haven't made clear why this could be true.
> if there are no soldiers there is no need of protection against soldiers
How would we enter a situation where there is no such need? Postulating alternate worlds where we don't need to come into conflict with each other doesn't do much.
>There is no logical necessity that links humans and war
I'm not so sure about that. War is contingent upon the existence of humans.
Again, you haven't made clear why you think a possible world without war/with universal peace is in fact possible. Simply asserting that it is logically possible doesn't make that the case.
My point has been more practical than logical, anyway. How could a world without war or the need for soldiers exist, practically, and how would we get there from the actual state of affairs that the world is in now?

>>6757606
>You haven't made clear why this could be true.
I didn't make clear why war disappearing wouldn't imply our instant disapparition as a species? Did I need to?
>Postulating alternate worlds where we don't need to come into conflict with each other doesn't do much.
Conflict doesn't necessarily imply soldiers. I don't need an army every time I have an argument with my neighboor.
>War is contingent upon the existence of humans.
Another intelligent species with complex social organization should be able to get into a war. i don't think war isn't such a special thing. But that's far from the topic of the conversation.
>Again, you haven't made clear why you think a possible world without war/with universal peace is in fact possible.
It is logically possible. There is no possible world where a triangle has five sides, but there sure as fuck is one where humans don't fight in wars. In fact, humanity existed before wars (now I can see you taking the concept "war" and making it a synonym of "conflict" or "violence" again and I'm feeling tired just thinking about it).
>Simply asserting that it is logically possible doesn't make that the case.
I think you just don't understand what I mean by "possible world", as I said I'm talking about logic, not ethics, history or politics. There is no contradiction between humanity and the non-existence of war on the same possible world. If there is, it is YOU who should point it out, since it's easy to imagine it without getting some immediate contradictory outcome. it's not like postulating the existence of life on a possible world where the Sun is made of ice.

>>6757087
>lost
Isn't it pretty to think so

>>6757692

>>6757689
>Did I need to?
Yes.
>Conflict doesn't necessarily imply soldiers
Escalation does, and most conflicts escalate.
>(now I can see you taking the concept "war" and making it a synonym of "conflict" or "violence" again and I'm feeling tired just thinking about it)
Soldiers, prison guards, police-they're all part of the violent system holding society together. I assumed you cared about state-backed violence in general as much as you did about war in particular. I may have been wrong.

I define "war" as a condition of conflict between a number greater or lesser than one state. Prior to the birth of the state, there was only war, since there was conflict among every member of our pre-statist species. Rousseau was wrong about human nature, and Hobbes was right. Since the birth of the state, there have only been plural state (that is, a unified state encompassing every member of the human races didn't exist), and there have been warring states at all times since then. This is significant, despite your assertions to the contrary.
>It is logically possible
You keep saying that. You continually fail to demonstrate that it actually is. I'm not convinced that a human society that doesn't fight wars can exist, and I'm certain that there's no evidence that such a society has existed. And as I've said, my points are about concrete conditions in the actual world, not abstractions in a possible world where humans are fundamentally different from humans in the actual world, i.e., they don't ever fight wars or need armies.

>>6757689
>>6757773
You're simply arguing past each other, particularly >>6757773


Stop, it's useless and bothersome.

All of Chomsky's political works
A People's History of the USA

>>6749063
hmmm, if i recall the Brits were more opportunistic in their use of force. India was mostly conquered using indian 'proxy forces', and its eventual subjugation as a british colony was coincidental and only reluctantly approved, even though it became indispensible to the empire after the 1850s.

africa was conquered, also, but natives couldn't really put up a fight against repeating rifles and steampower. however, when the playing field was level, as in the case of the brit counter-insurgency vs. afrikaaners in the boer wars, they suffered humiliating defeats.

south america was HEAVILY dependent on british capital but was never coerced militarily by britain (save for the failed attempt to take buenos aires in the napoleonic wars and the occupation of belize/british honduras).

australia's aborigines were conquered and mostly wiped out, wont argue against that i guess, but i don't think australia was settled with the insight that it would be economically profitable (might be wrong here)

china was most definitely invaded by britain for the security of the opium trade, but it was really no different from america's intervention in south america 1899-1930s and again during the cold war...

>>6749125
It's the most genuine and comprehensive guarantee of political liberties ever enacted by any state. We're the only country with true freedom of speech.