What's new
By:

Conspiracy Theory of the Day; Cobra Effect applied to Geopolitics.

babe said:
Obama campaigned on promises of "change" and specifically promised to end the wars and the torture camp in Guantanamo, and probably has pretty much done the same thing even Dubya logically would have done in a third term.
Click to expand...

We never should have stayed in Afghanistan.
 
LogGrad98 said:
So we are not allowed to hate one without hating the other? Or is Dubya hate required and Obama hate optional? They are different people who did different things. Can't someone like one and hate the other, and vice versa?
Click to expand...

Their politics are different but their policies nearly identical. The only major difference I can see is that Obama brought hope to the black community.

I don't understand how republicans can support the largest expansion in Medicaid ever under w the get all bent out of shape when Obama does the same.

I also don't understand how democrats can support Obama after they were screaming about the tyranny bush was leading us towards. Not only has Obama continued Bush policies he has expanded them.

Am I really the only one who thinks they are two peas in a pod?
 
We really need to adopt a foreign policy similar to N. Korea.. If not, then similar to Iran where we simply outsource foreign policy to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah.
 
https://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news...ia-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

Just awesome....so glad we learned from our mistakes...Ugh!

Edit: Short version of the Link. Missile strikes on Syria could be as early as Thursday...

Turkey, England, France and Australia side with the US and Iran, North Korea, Russia and China side with Syria.

Iran and Syria have threatened retaliation if Syria is attacked and Israel has threatened retaliation if they are attacked in response to any attack on Syria.
 
Last edited:
The OP 'Cobra Effect' made me think of GI Joe.

Can anyone explain the difference:
CIA_seal.jpg


$(KGrHqQOKjgE6RdHWLSuBOpD3nQskQ~~60_35.JPG
 
heyhey said:
Am I really the only one who thinks they are two peas in a pod?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say, and would add in a few things. The only real differences in the parties are their treatment of marginalized groups and women's health issues.
 
scootsy said:
We really need to adopt a foreign policy similar to N. Korea.. If not, then similar to Iran where we simply outsource foreign policy to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Sometimes a little hard to figure how serious some comments are, mine included I suppose.

One of the more credible models I use in interpreting news drummed up by our corporate warlords is called "The Bowery Wars", or "Flower Wars". It comes from Aztec history in the age before Westerners brought in Machiavelli's methods to the Americas, and is essentially a much more civilized and honest way to do war than Machiavellian methods. . . .

The Aztecs were the super power in their area at the time, and they had a lot of peripheral enemies, some of them pretty sophisticated and even charming folks. Their elites could operate on the same social level as the Aztec elites, and could even be friends with their enemies, and intermarry and stuff like that. But they still needed wars to keep their people in a manageable frame of mind. . . . scared ****less of their enemies and desperately wanting "protection" from their local armies. Of course elites have understood this through the ages, and all great civilizations have had some kind of more or less permanent standing armies and enemies of convenience. . . .

In the Aztec era, the two camps of elites would cooperate and make wars fun. They would build boweries filled with flowers, shade, and booze--- on a good vantage point overlooking the battlefield, and both sets of "leaders" would gather there with their pretty women and have a real "war party". They would watch their armies advance, engage in battle, and cheer for the casualties. It was more or less agreed upon in advance that the wars wouldn't really change anything substantial like territory, and that both sides would come off with fresh captives for their slave labor needs. . . .

It's really great to be a "war lord" or a "military equipment supplier". Not so great to be a soldier, though the myth is expertly maintained amid a plethora of patriotic slogans.

Since the advent of "peace" under the UN world leadership, we have had plenty of meaningless wars and a lot of money spent on military equipment, and our "elites" have pretty well consolidated their power. Of course we will always need some little rogue nations, or some larger scale wars to make the world safe for democracy, or whatever the convenient slogan may call for. . . . bread and milk. . . . just so long as they can get us all worked up to kill one another for some reason. . . . .

the war on terrorism has a definition something to the effect that whatever scares the elites will be called "terrorism", and peasants with pikes huddled under their castle walls being called "terrorists" even though all they are demanding is a few crumbs of bread. . . . .
 
I actually didn't know what the "Cobra Effect" is. . . .

The cobra effect occurs when an attempted solution to a problem actually makes the problem worse.[1][2] This is an instance of unintended consequence(s). The term is used to illustrate the causes of incorrect stimulation in economy and politics.[2] There is also a book with the same title by Horst Siebert (1938–2009), a German economist and professor.[2]
Origin[edit source | editbeta]



The Indian Cobra
The term cobra effect stems from an anecdote set at the time of British rule of colonial India. The British government was concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi.[3] The government therefore offered a bounty for every dead cobra. Initially this was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward. Eventually, however, enterprising persons began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, the reward program was scrapped, causing the cobra breeders to set the worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.[2][4]
A similar incident occurred in Hanoi, Vietnam, under French colonial rule. The colonial regime created a bounty program that paid a reward for each rat killed.[3] To obtain the bounty, people would provide the severed rat tail. Colonial officials, however, began noticing rats in Hanoi with no tails. The Vietnamese rat catchers would capture rats, lop off their tails, and then release them back into the sewers so that they could procreate and produce more rats, thereby increasing the rat catchers' revenue.[5]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
 
I'm saying here guys, if they recruit me to the army because of this stupid Syrian war, I'm not gonna distinguish anyone, US, Iran, Syria, Russian or whatever soldiers, whoever comes at me I will shoot at them until they shoot me dead. I'm not gonna fight their war but will fight against it.

Btw, I'm not blabbing here people, I haven't done my compulsory military service yet and as far as I know, if a state of war occurs here in Turkey, our deferment of service gets cancelled and I would get drafted immediately.

Anyway if a Syria war begins and I no longer post here anymore, know that this is what happened to me. Just make a RIP ECTYA thread and put a freedom song into it for me.
 
The Cobra Effect, if anyone is interested, is a term I am loosely applying to a scenario of government action having the opposite effect of what is intended. Somewhere in India in the past , the British wanted to decrease the population of Cobras, so they paid a bounty for dead cobras. The result was that Cobras became more abundant, as people bred cobras for the bounties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top