OT: Italy retires troops from Iraq

That statement there has pretty much disqualified you from further discussions on the merits of American presidents.

 

I love our Gerhard Schroeder for tellin Bush "No Germans in Iraq" and i wish to see those Fags had voting GW Bush again, how blind and stupid must a Human be to vote that person again? Is a & Litre car and cheap gas worth to accept all comin with that President-Freak? What a Land where Reagan (Actor) and Schwarzenegger (Austrian) are in Goverment. Watch History what happens if an Austrian goes for President. I guess that Gov there is a resultate of incest and lobby but one das those Bush-Voters will realize that they cant drink cheap gasoline...

 

Its Correct. I must have said: Without MANY military adventures

 

Zem & Squirl - please, shut up about the scientific arguments.
For a start: exactly to the opposite of your statement entropy leads to spatial homogeneity. It is too much work to point all the remaining wrongs. Pseudo-science is not relevant to the topic anyway.

Squirl says Europe is generally to the left (partly social) which is the same as to say that USA is generally to the right (black capitalism). So I fully agree with him. Just check one of those anti-FH threads on american forums to convince yourselves.


The other day on brittish TV was interview of the former religious advisor of the US president, i think about the potato-woman (did she throw the brains, finally?!). The journalist asked something about the separation of religion from politics. He laughed and said "You, Europeans, really dont get it, do you?"
I agree with him too.

No doubt, capitalism is the most efficient system.

But what is the purpose of a human being - to be efficient or to be happy?

I dont want to live in a volcano! (Kutya)

China is not communist anymore. Chinese call it "red capitalism".

What means efficient? Producing what? Buying what? Why?

 

Grobar, I believe that you are referring to "squirl" rather than "spuint." I don't want anybody to receive criticism as a result of confusion with my name.

About thermodynamics: nature does tend toward disorder (homegeneity). Homegeneity, however, is just that: disorder. If energy is added to a homogeneous system, order can be recovered. So, while nature tends toward disorder, one can see how nature struggles to keep order. Nature has classes, a hierarchy. Social systems provide equality for everyone, but in capitalist systems the only thing holding one back is a lack of ambition; the sky is the limit for an ambitious person in a capitalist society.

Which is the best way to reach equality: to collectively gather resources and evenly distribute them, or to ensure everybody gets the same amount of resources by giving every citizen nothing?

Both systems are noble in the sense that they seek to attain some sort of equality.

No person has yet been able to define "the meaning of life" in such a way that everyone accepts it.

 

Erm.. I never said about anything else than that it's unrelated to the subject.

I'm too lazy to check back to make sure, but anyway, I feel science only applies to the more or less predictable things. You can predict a society up until a certain point, beyond that, you're lost. Human beings are so diverse, yet so similar, that there is no way of predicting their choice. Everyone lives by his own measurements eventually, and most human beings will tend to stick to what they believe in, unless someone/something crossed a "line". If that happens, they switch sides, for everyone these "lines" are different though. And that's just one element that sets us apart, there are plenty of other factors to take into accountance.

<Z>

 

sry - squirl, edited.

But in capitalism you dont start from nothing. You start from your parents` fortune and from your environment. This defines your vision, and it in turn defines your ambition. I can give you a plenty of RL examples.

I know people born in the mountains, they have seen mostly people with elementary or secondary education. For them to come to university was a GREAT acheivement, even though they went to a 2nd order university in a provincial town, where they cannot receive the education fit for their brains. Yet, they will not realize this for years to come.

I was born in a family of professors - if I didnt go to the best university in the country and I didnt finish it with excellence - I would be a failure. Yet, I am not very ambitious. Years ago, my sister graduated the Moscow State University.

This is just a most benign example of inequal start.

****

I believe a human being could have "a meaning" beyond achieving economic success. A socialist system would emphasize this, and that is why I like it more. A capitalist system makes majority of people believe making money, "being efficient" is the purpose of life. I believe all of them find their error once they actually acquire unlimited fortune, or simply - when they grow old.

****

Yet, if I was not born in the family I was born in, and I did not get the education I got, and I didnt meet along it the intelligent and learned people that I met, I would probably also think that "improved material life" is God as I see lots of people around me think.

****
Zem,
I was 20 years old the last time (im 23 now) my views changed alot thanks to a new world I came across. I might have never come across it and be more stupid today. I dont know who I will meet tomorrow but I know now I must very careful not to pass by an opportunity. I see most people do it.

 

I believe that humans must always have something to occupy themselves with. Everything a human does is a solution to what he thinks is a problem. It is impossible to have no problems to deal with, because a lack of problems is in itself a problem. It is possible for a rich person to be inferior to a poor person as far as purpose in life. Just look at Patty Hearst who, despite speculation that she was abducted, was probably just a bored rich girl.

So if it is impossible to have a lack of problems, humans can do anything and still have a purpose (the struggle to find a purpose is a purpose in itself). Humans, therefore, should be not be restrained economically (capitalism) so that they can exercise the right to solve their own problems. Otherwise, they lose some of their purpose. Socialism, in my opinion, creates artificial problems that strain humans more than is naturally necessary to remain occupied.

Grobar, we agree with each other on many levels. We both think that money is not the sole answer to people's problems. Where I think we differ is while you state that social systems should create equality, I state that those who are the most fit to handle the new set of problems of increased wealth should be the ones to succeed economically.

 

I have mine.
Economic success..hmm. Im happy as long as i have some food and place to live.

Ofcourse it's easy here. For me life isn't definetely a competition or fight.
I only compete for fun when i will.

 

Wait, wait, wait! I didnt say that!
So you imply that if its not inventing ways to make a living, a human being will be bored and therefore unhappy.

We do however agree, that striving to get better off is a perfect way to keep a human being occupied [with nonsense].

I imply that there are OTHER things a human being could use his life for and that if it wasnt the power education of consumerist environment in which we live since day 1 then more people would grow up broad-minded enough, sensitive enough and visioned enough to see what is nonsense and what is truly valuable - for themselves and/or for Humanity.
More people would pursue those other things instead. (I cannot say they will be happy though.) I believe every human being is a Universe in itself. It has an enormous potential to reach to the stars during its life - in a myriad of different ways. Why should only 6 000 000 do this, when 600 000 000 could?


TV=Capitalism

We all know people who do nothing more with their passtime than watch idiotic TV programs. In my view they are destroying themselves.
I hope you see the allegory?


I have never particularly defended equality for its own sake. I am looking for a system that would allow maximum number of people to feel free from economic pressure and also from economic desires. The ideal system is the utopic socialism described in East-European Sci-Fi, but it is obviously impossible. Still if choosing between lefty and righty contemporary economics - i think left is slightly better. The soviet communism was much better in that respect but it suffered from other very grave abuses so I wouldnt go for it. (I am happy I had the chance to have my childhood in it though!)
I am certain in one thing though - the world is going exactly the opposite direction i wish it to go. No matter the political system. Consumerism is running wild and fewer and fewer sane people will be born.


Im sry, I have difficulties finding my words, hope you understood what I am trying to say.

 

In the military there is this kind of abuse - you have to dig a 2 meter trap and then fill it back up.

Even just enjoying life and having fun like illo is better IMO. Although I personally start being unhappy after a week like that.

 

I am not going off topic here; I think this will be useful for our discussion.

This is not a trick question or a trap, I just want to ask the following:

"Is there any action that humans do that is not intended to address a problem?"

When I say "problem," I am describing "problem" relative to the individual; i.e. the Nazi's thought that they were solving a problem by killing Jews.

 

@Squirl

About solving my problem...

either:
1. get a girlfriend, or
2. get a hobby (fishing, chess-playing... something that consumes a lot of time), or
3. become an alcoholic, or
4. develop a solid drug addiction...
but stop trying to be smart here... as it is starting to be boring

@grobar
IIRC "socialist" Bulgaria was a bit more gravy a regime than "socialist" Poland was (we even had a joke, saying that our country is the "funniest barrack in the socialist camp"). Even so I see only a few positive aspects of centrally-planned economy. Yes, we can speculate about full-employment (possible in market-driven economy too- as shown by 1955-1976 Germany's economy f.ex.), social security etc. But one thing comes out in front as a counterargument... out of all socialist-block countries in years 1945-1989 only two had positive balance in food trade... one of them was Cuba (which was supported by USSR, which bought it's sugar for quadruple of the market prices), the second one was Poland (which was exploited by USSR, by being forced to sell meat, whear and potatos for less than half of their market prices). Cuba's agriculture was centrally planned... Polish was private (more than 80% of areable land was in private hands, which was unique for the whole "block", most of it's countries having all the land "colletivized").
If nations well-being depends on it productivity...
and productivity depends on the economic system ruling the economy...
I prefer market-driven economy.
(The role of state being not to regulate the production, like in socialism, but to collect taxes and social-insurance in such a way, that will enable to re-distribute the produced GDP more equally among all the people).
Socialism considers it to be sin, to own the means of production.
Liberal, Smithsonian, economy considers a state-intervention a deadly sin.
Social Market Economy (look for Ludwig Erhard's works about it) is a sort of "3rd way" the Europe chooses... enabling the rich to produce and profit... while taking some of those profits to fulfill the needs of poorer ones.
Don't call Europe socialist ever again, please.

 

Frog, you never end to prove interesting points.

Here has what you have proved so far:

-It is impossible to accuse someone of arrogance without being arrogant.
-It is impossible to tell someone to shut up without being loud.
-It is impossible to tell someone to discontinue annoying activity, without being annoying.
-If you are frog it is impossible to tell someone that they are a fool without being a fool.

You are invited to be constructive.

Yes, I am telling you to cease nonconstructive behavior, but I am doing it in the name of continuing with this constructive thread.

 

frog, the use of terms "socialist", "communist" is quite undefined here, possibly haveing different meaning in every post. If I called Europe socialist somewhere, although I cant find it, it probably was in the sense of social democracy.

i do agree that soviet socialism as it happened on this earth was not a great thing. It did have some positive effects in cultural sense though. (although they dont balance at all the negative effects)

I would be very happy for market-state collecting taxes and distributing to people who prefer to do economicly "non-productive" work and this still happens but the trend is to cut this out.


I am surprised that you escaped collectivisation? I thought only Yugoslavia did since they broke off from USSR.

 

You might be concerned with problems that are on a higher level than your own existence. Although probably a psychologist would explain your concern with some emotional dissatisfaction.

 

[OT]
I think that movie does express all squirl's problems
http://www.virtualwarcinema.com/Movies/One%20o%20nineage.wmv

btw- a great flick to watch... especially for those who fly "one side only (with a few exceptions)" here on FH...
... one should marvel how excelent the author comments on plot's development
Quite a download, but worth watchin

 

bak to originall topic

question: if every country of earth will not risk 2.000 soldier in war will any war be made?

answer: no

this is reason for irak war

if usa 'american-ize' irak

und afghanistan

und iran

und syrien

und jordanien

und libanon

usw...

all country in middle east will be corrupt to usa model

...and therefore not want 2.000 of soldier dead in war

mittel east peace!!!!

60 prozent of amis think irak war a mistake

and eu & un dont want peeple of wurld to be like amis?!

 

What does "amis" mean?

 

americanos