[bhamlaxy]

The problem is, there really is no good system. It's cliche, but you're really talking about which is the lesser evil. The best you can do is a mixed economy, free enterprise with limited central control focused on rights and safety for both workers and consumers.

I think in the end we can permute our arguments and agree that a more mixed economy would be better, that is, if we can agree that adding more socialist aspects to current notions of capitalism, like used in the US, to help fix uneven class distribution and the impact of profit on morality, would be a good thing. I always try and find a good closing to each debate where we can agree on a compromise, to prevent the debate from dragging on forever and getting repetitive.

I'll answer some of the little mini-debates that we started.

Although not germaine to the argument per se, I'd argue this. In Vietnam, we thought the same thing, and we also thought Iraq would be a cake walk. Invading countries is a bad idea, they know a lot more about their land than we do, and, regardless of the reason for us invading, we usually end up pissing as many people off as we make happy.

The point, though, was that people would not want a military intervention, that's why they'd cry for intervention, but complain about how it's done.

Proposed intervention in Sudan would be nothing like the "regime change" of Iraq or vietnam. Literally a couple troops per village is all that is necessary.

Russia is already in a position to dictate its demands to Europe, due to the high price of oil. Remember, production isn't always the determining factor. If Russia undercuts OPEC oil by a half-dollar a barrel, it's got Europe at its beck and call. Russia has made several audacious military moves in the past couple of decades, and the EU and US haven't made a stink about it. I'm guessing there's a reason, and that reason is that Russia will become the next Asia Minor, supplying us oil that we really should be weaning ourselves off of.

OPEC could easily undercut the price more than Russia, or just lower production levels to raise prices. And Norway is still the biggest supplier of oil to the EU, so they have much more control over oil.

The de-dev point of view is very depressing. What's wrong with investing in a Space Elevator, collecting materials from asteroids, and getting our asses off this rock? The Earth isn't the only place to live, you know. We can even start making Dyson Spheres, and bypass the whole pesky "finding-a-habitable-planet" business.
Humanity already thinks too small, that's our problem. We won't solve it by getting a narrower viewpoint.

Yea it's depressing, but it is viewed as inevitable. And the whole finding a new planet thing is hopeful, but capitalism will definitely play a big part in choosing who gets to go and who doesn't. It will be a long time before we have the capability to transport everyone to a new planet. Until then, you can leave if you have the money to pay.

Could the US be doing more? Yes. It's still a lot of money going into foriegn aid though.

It's not a lot of money when you look at how much we actually have. Money is nothing unless you have something to compare it to, and when you compare the amount we give to the amount we have, it is much lower than most industrialized countries.

Could you give an example where the US sold weapons to both sides during a conflict? The US sells weapons to US allies. If we didnt' care who we sold stuff to, dont' you think we'd be selling Iran parts for their f-14 fleet now? I'm sure they'd love to get some.

We don't sell weapons to Iran right now because it is illegal. I'm sure if there wasn't an embargo some US arms companies would be selling them weapons if the price was right.

As I stated before the US sold arms to 8 of 9 groups involved in the wars in the Congo. We have supplied both India and Pakistan with weapons, which, although not at war, have had tensions brewing in the past. Other examples include Greece and Turkey, sales to both Iran and Iraq during their war, and other examples in Africa.

And what could China do about it? You said yourself they dont' have to power projection to send troops over there. We've got the oil, and if they play nice we might make sure they still get some. If they make any trouble, well more for us.

It would absolutely shatter US-China relations to all hell. They wouldn't even speak to us over key issues like North Korea, economic relations, or anything else. Come on, you seriously think the US would go in and take over their oil industry, and dangle it in front of China's face as an incentive to be nice? They would be extremely pissed off, and there would be severe backlash, maybe dump a nice bundle of our bonds to show us who is boss.

Which would require billions to build the infrastructure to drill for the oil, refine it, and ship it. Why do that when you can just take over existing infrastructure? What's China going to do about it?
Send troops? You yourself said that was impossible.
Protest to the UN? Well, they would have to explain why there were giving money to people commiting genocide.
Economic sanctions against the US? Oh wait, we have their oil.
Invade Taiwan? Oh wait we have more ships, more planes, and their oil.
Accept it and negoiate a treaty where they keep access to some of the oil supplies and maybe get reimbursed a bit for the seized assets? That seems the safest route.

Cut all diplomatic relations on issues across the board, and economic sanctions would be almost a guarantee. The fact that we would have their oil wouldn't mean shit because it isn't all of their oil, just a portion of it, but not enough to hold them in a death grip. If you seriously think China would just whine and cry if we invaded and took over their infrastructure in another country, you are dead wrong. It is almost a guarantee that they would use their economic "nuclear option" of dropping US bonds, and quickly realize that the US might start screwing with international interests and develop long range military capabilities.