United States of America forever!

Quite the contrary. Comunism doesn't takes individual responsabilities, it gives a whole lot more. Without state what rules the society ? The own society, in other words the individuals. You at first has resposability over yourself only (or close friends, parents, etc if you like) and ends up with responsability to and over the whole society.
Noted I didn't mentioned socialism here ? I didn't because socialism is only a step to comunism. It's a transition regime, where the state (a strong one inicially) would prepare the path to comunism and then slowly lose importance until finish existing (the transition to stateless regime in a abrut way is called anarchism). You may argue that never people in power will give up their power easily like that. You right for now, today there isn't really room for that, that's why comunism can't happen today, but as society grows it's mechanisms of self-regulation it might be possible, and I belive it's.

 

They are not argentinians adopting british citizenship. And argentinians are not alowed to stablish there. Read your post again.

 

True, I don't think I'll see that day, neither my children or their children (althought world does change surprisinly fast), but I think it may happen someday, no one ever showed me an argument strong enought to convince me of the contrary.

 

I see your point here about evolving of mankind. I cannot argue that mankind has restricted itself more towards "humanity" than it did during, say, the stone-age. But my point is that those natural instincts are STILL WITHIN, they are restricted and led, yes. The whole point of mine is that capitalism leads them best.
See: You try to imagine communism to work out. But a communist regime will still require a ruling power, i.e. policy makers, i.e. politicians. I cannot see a state based on anarchy that still actually works in any decent manner. There must be a state power. Anarchy would exactly mean stone-age again. So, in my reasoning, you would still have a state power. And the problem with communism is that the individual gives up responsibility for itself towards this state power to take care of it. I do not believe this is a wise way to go. You would make yourself far more restrictable, surpressable and dependent on that state-power than in a capitalist society. Why? Because the state got your money and it's his business to act "fairly" with it, give you "fair and free healthcare", "easy chances of getting a job" etc. What if it doesn't? It actually never had or was truely capable of when you look at history. There is a reason for it. I think it truely all comes down to the point of the individual taking responsibility for itself, thereby also having greater freedom living under a regime, than an individual being far more dependent on the "good-will" of a communist government, which you say you're envisioning because mankind is evolving. I cannot see this happening. I'd rather have state taking care only of foreign-policy defense of my borders, administrative issues and inner-policy security but leave me alone on my own account and business than a state who claims to be able to cope with everything and in the end has me as hostage, ripped of my freedoms.

Well, I see it like that: Sometimes I do get, sometimes I don't. But again, this is actually my point: The communist/socialist idea is about ENSURING that you do get what you sweat for by means of a "fair and state-controlled" mechanism, while I would rather trust myself to take care of that, cause then I'm the one to decide whether I'm treated fair or not. And it will be my own money I make I can calculate with, not the money I gave to the state that I might or might not see returning.
I believe in a free market, because I think most hurting is a system that tries to combine the two ideas: You sweat your ass off, having to take care of your own, but in the end might end up being ripped off by state measures. I think this has happened somewhat to Germany.

On your point of chances: This is a very important point of mine, too. My idea of a capitalist system can only work "in a fair way" when everyone has equal chances. It is absolutely crucial that there are equal chances to every citizen. This is why I believe education should be a point the state should engage in (i.e. spending taxes on instead of on a socialist welfare network that might or might not work out), making it basicly free, affordable and accessible for everyone. So, connecting this to my upper reasoning: The state should take care of administrative actions, such as providing security, law and law-enforcement, and supporting the individual education/developement, thus providing the individual with the most freedom to develope itself, but without much interference on other issues.

Socialism, or "social-market economy" as we have in Germany vs. free-market economy, tries to do all of that (i.e. being a welfare state), and from what I've seen it usually ends up in a cost-overun.

"I've seen way too many people that have worked hard all life to get almost nothing and some people that did almost no work, if any, with way too much."

I actually see this as a typical characteristic of socialist-oriented mechanism. Neither of those two examples got back what they put in. One can work his ass off, spending lots of the money he earned by this on the state, which will then give it to the lazy and failed ones in an effort to run a welfare-state, with the hard-working guy ending up the same as those...how fair is that.

Regards
heartc

 

A major flaw in socialism is that the very system that is intended to serve its citizens is a drain upon itself.

Why heat the entirety of your home when it is only the people inside who need heat?

Indeed, it is more cost effective and efficient for the individual to provide life's needs rather than the government.

I find it interesting how many people call the patriots in America "brainwashed." Those who think American patriots are brainwashed have yet to comprehend fully the difference between an arrogant supporter and a true patriot. They also can not distinguish between a reason and an excuse, or discipline and coercion.

It is possible to love your country without hating other countries, but it is not possible to love your country without hating its enemies.

The most logical manner in which to determine where the guilt lies in a trial is to learn who uses the Law Code as an excuse, and who uses it as a reason. There is a difference. The one who states that the Law Code is a reason for his/her actions in his/her defense is undoubtedly correct.

As far as government is concerned, one can draw much wisdom from Aristotle. Aristotle labeled humans as "political animals." In the wild, animals are free to exercise their will. The beauty about evolution is that because of it, the nature we see is the most efficient system that is possible on Earth. Those species which are less efficient are never present in nature because they quickly get eliminated. Additionally, the evolution found in nature allows for a very rapid adjustment to changes in conditions, something communism has few provisions for. The same applies to human beings. The general human tendency, when left unchecked, wants us to act as animals do. However, as Aristotle so ably pointed out, we are political animals. Therefore we are primitive and advanced at the same time: humans are primates with order.
This brings me to the core of my point. If humans had first appeared as communists, we would have quickly been wiped out. The system that the USA is most parallel to is that of nature. And nature, being nature, is the most efficient system to model government off of. True efficient human government is politics pursued with the ambition of an animal. Animals do not have entirely undeveloped minds, which is why the Latin root for "animal" means "mind" or "soul." So doesn't it stand to reason that the most efficient system is the most efficient system?

In other words, you can do much better if the animals in your country have more freedom than you do.

 

There are few things that have appeared in this debate i"d like to react to

it existed... there are countless examples in history - tho mostly this concerns just smaller societies (like israeli kibuces) than the states (that!s logical as this "regime" is very unpopular with many and requires all the ppl living under it to cooperate)
anyway there were states running well with this philosophy
1st half 15th century - ever heard of hussites? - that was very _pure communism
1937-38 - ever heard of Catalunia? this one was anarchistic attemp, very interesting - read Orwell!s "Homage to Catalonia" if you interested about what was happening there
1968 - ever heard of Socialism with Human Face? (in west it is known as Prague!s Spring i think)

If I would be following your logic, heartc, I would start shouting -- and it all failed because of _fucking germans (involved in first 2), _barbaric russians (involved in last 2) and the _dreaded americans (gee, thx for support in 68).
Luckily I don!t use such logic-- cos it seems bit illogical to me .

Moreover ppl here tend to recognize communism as the regime that was there in USSR. There are 2 things to add to this.
1st is that still it was great leap forward for Russia - if you compare it with the situation before 1917. The same goes nowadays for example for Cuba. Yes.. there were Americans before Castro won the revolution there. And it doesn!t seem like Cubans were enjoying them much...

The 2nd thing is that there were other forms of socialistic regimes than the soviet model. Some were following it (like DDR) but some created their own (like already mentioned Czechoslovakia in 1966-68). Or ask somebody from former Yugoslavia about Tito. Or better -- study bit this topic. Mb then the problem will not be so cristal clear to you anymore .

What I!m saying is certainly not "oh.. commies are so cool". I!m trying to bring bit of relativism. If you don!t understand it like this.. well read and think more about Boroda!s posts in this thread. If even that would not help to understand.. read Biles disclaimer.

We have free health care and education in czech republic...
about banning cars -- well that would be nice idea, why not to build railways instead of highways; i think what they did in Switzerland is the best answer for this... you know what they did there, dont you?

 

I think this is the crucial point.You don't believe in a stateless organized society. Manoce pointed out a few. I won't talk about them since I don't have any deeper knoledge involving them (other than the israeli kibuces). The whole thing is that indeed today we can't have such society in a larger scale, simply because mankind isn't ready for it. For this to work we need a quite big amount of education and social awareness spread among all citzens. The govermnt regime you described above can't be really called comunism, at most socialism in it's first stages (before the begin of state withdraw towards comunism). You talked about borders. There is no such thing in comunism, at least not after it's trully developed. You can't really defend a border without any state, that's why comunism is international. You also talked about being a hostage of the state, you can't be so with there is no state.

Again, comunism isn't about that, it's about society regulating itself in a way where everyone is equal. And why is that ? Because it's the only scenario where society is stable without having a strong hand (militar, economical, cultural, you name it) rulling it.

Here we agree, the only way to make capitalism work in the long run (althought I think it wouldn't be propelly capitalism anymore) is giving equal chances to the population, mostly with good education.
About welfare state. I've many many europeans arguing about how much the states takes from them and don't give in return. I can't talk much about it, since I don't live there and any deeper argument would be blocked by my own ignorance of the subject. But it seems to me that you don't really see the amount of benefits you get with a welfare state. You should try living in third world countries, actually anyone outside EU and US, that state takes much and gives hardly nothing. If you want I can come up with some number about Brasil as an example. Anyway, we go back to this topic in a few months, once I have moved to Lyon, France, and lived that for a while.

Social awareness and the own society regulation would take care of that. The point is that wouldn't be such diferences in amout of work, everyone is aware of it's role in society and the responsability that he has over others.

 

Sorry been away a few days, just like to make some points;

Saddam's bodycount was over a much longer period than the time the Allies have invaded Iraq. Also, alot of the Kurds 'killed' by Saddam were actually killed by Iranian gas. The Kurdish area was right in the middle of the battlegrgound between Iraq and Iran. The UN tested alot of the Kurdish victims and, as I said above, found it was the gas used by the Iranians which had killed the Kurds.

And please dont bring in to the argument about the Kurds killed after the 1st Gulf War. It was the US who led those unfortunate people to their death with empty promises of assistance in toppling Saddam.

Huh?! Why not invade, let's say, Denmark for that act of terrorism. Since it had as much to do with them as it did with Iraq. It's been proved time and again, and recently admitted by the US, that Saddam Hussein had no links whatsoever with Al Qaeda.

Oh, and what about the many many terrorists that the US supports?! Chechen and Cuban, plus Irish at one time. Dont those terrorists count?! Is there 'good' and 'bad' terrorists? Any reasonable person would say no, but the US obviously thinks there is.

Eh, I believe it was the US who became a self-declared enemy of Iraq, not the other way around. I do believe it was the US who attacked Iraq in 1991. Maybe I missed it, but did Iraq declare war on the US at some point?

Yeah, pretty fucked up. Although they didnt actually finance the terrorism itself, unlike the US

There is a ton of proof that the planes regularly breached airspace it was not allowed to, thereby being the aggressor.

Well, first you have to wonder wtf the US was doing attacking Iraq in the first place. The war was between Iraq and Kuwait, and the Iraqis had in their mind a justifiable reason for going to war (over-production by the Kuwaitis was flattening the oil price and killing the Iraqi economy - a proven fact).

But that is a different matter altogether.

Well, if an aggressor like the US was hawking around intent on removing the leader of that country and taking control of their biggest asset, is it so surprising?

As I said above...

The Iraqis do not view the Kurds as their countrymen. And besides, as I pointed out above, the Kurds were in the middle of a battleground, and alot of the deaths were actually caused by the Iranians.

Sorry but your completely wrong. The US knew for a fact that Iraq had no WMD. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both admitted this publicly prior to Sept 11. The sanctions had stopped Saddam from developing WMDs completely. He was absolutely no threat whatsoever to the US itself, only their oil interests.

 

Well, I start to understand the reasons for invading Iraq...

Bush = US oil business.

Oil business benefits from high oil prices.

It's obvious that in current state of affairs oil production in Iraq in pre-1990 quantities is impossible as long as occupational force is there.

It means oil prices will stay high.

Russia benefits from high oil-prices.

That's why comrade Putin supported Bush.

Opposing war in Iraq was nessesary to calm down public here in Russia that suddenly understood in 1999 that what Soviet propaganda said about agressive American militarism was true. It also gave us some political support from Europe (mostly imaginary), support from Arabic world (traditional) and distracted Moslim terrorism from Chechnya (not completely).

conclusion: I do support Putin's foreign policy.

 

Go to get some treatment. Please.
You are scary.

 

<S> Heartc, Nice to see a Nice post once in awhile . but ofcoarse i knew it would turn into the rest of the world release valve as usual. Anyhow this Yank and My U.S.A. appreciates the kind words and thoughts <S>

bull

 

It's not thread that bothers me. It's not even that Iraq-thingie. It's not the heartcs overwhelming sympathy to america and americans. I think everyone is entitled to have an own opinion.

What bothers me is heartcs total lack of criticism.

As far as I see americans are not super-humans. I don't know if afi is human at all. I don't think american veterans are any more special than any other country s war veterans. I can't see why these kind of threads always end up being fight about superiority.

airfax

 

Yeah I'm definetely not a person with emotions or opinions at all. Right.

But yeah, that comment about Islamic people not loving their families and that we should be united against them is by far the most ignorant thing I've ever, EVER read on this board.

Heartc I would expect more from you than that.

 

Do other countries even have many veterans? If you committed the resources and soldiers to fight your own wars, then the USA would not be forced to intervene to prevent large-scale collapses of society.

You still believe that the USA is always the aggressor?

Cite statistics listing the number of veterans your country, or any other country for that matter, has.

Far left Americans were not the only ones to burn their draft cards during Vietnam, European nations burned their "draft cards" as well. America's initial policy about Vietnam was, "Asian war, should be fought by Asian boys." That seemed to work very well... As it turned out, American boys went instead of European ones, and American soldiers died in place of European ones that would have been in that situation: had they been "drafted."

And what was Vietnam? I will tell you. It all started when the French wanted to gain a monopoly on the opium trade in the region. Who was the real aggressor in Vietnam? The French, of course. But it seems the French have learned their lesson; today they only sell the weapons to third-world and developing countries. No French have to fight in this deal. The terrorists and questionable governments they equip do all the fighting in their place. For example:

"Iraq established its nuclear program in the late 1960s when it acquired its first nuclear facilites. Later, in the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France's nuclear weapons program. In addition to the reactor, Iraq also wanted to purchase the reporcessing plant needed to recover the plutonium produced in the reactor. Even through these requests were denied, France agreed to build a research reactor along with associated laboratories. Iraq built the Osiraq 40 megawatt light-water nuclear reactor at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Center near Baghdad with French assistance. Approximately 27.5 pounds of 93% U-235 was supplied to Iraq by France for use in the Osiraq research reactor.

The reactor was a type of French reactor named after Osiris, the Egyptian God of the dead. The French renamed the one being built in Iraq, "Osiraq" to blend the name Osiris with that of the recipient state, Iraq. French orthography then made it "Osirak." Iraq called the reactor "Tammuz," after the month in the Arabic calendar when the Ba'th party came to power in a 1968 coup.

Iraq began to expand its nuclear sector in the 1970's, but made little progress in the early 1980's, when most of its energy and attention were focused on the war against Iran. In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. On 30 September 1980 a a pair of Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad, also bombed the Osiraq reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated at that time that Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two. Prime Minister Menachem Begin felt military action was the only remedy. Begin feared that his party would lose the next election, and he feared that the opposition party would not preempt prior to the production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb.

The raid would have to occur before its first fuel was to be loaded, before the reactor went "hot" so as not to endanger the surrounding community. The target was distant: 1,100 km from Israel. Preparations included building target mock-ups and flying full scale dress-rehearsal missions. The aircrews were selected from the cream of the IAFs fighter corps. The IDF Chief-of-Staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael (Raful) Eitan, briefed the pilots personally. Displaying unusual emotion, he told them: "The alternative is our destruction".

At 15:55 on 07 June 1981, the first F-15 and F-16's roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. Israeli air force planes flew over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace After a tense but uneventful low-level navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight. Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.

Baghdad reiterated a previous statement that the French atomic reactor was designed for research and for the eventual production of electricity. In a statement issued after the raid, the Israeli government stated that it had discovered from "sources of unquestioned reliability" that Iraq was producing nuclear bombs at the Osiraq plant, and, for this reason, Israel had initiated a preemptive strike."

From http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

Say, that also was in Iraq! It also involved the known production of WMD's (nuclear weapons). What did Israel do? It did just as the USA did. Why do so few know of this case? Because the threat was removed.

This sentence seems to be especially representative of Euro-French diplomacy:

"Approximately 27.5 pounds of 93% U-235 was supplied to Iraq by France for use in the Osiraq research reactor."

When scientists do an experiment, they have one experimental entity, and another to which nothing is done, the control. Iraq and North Korea were both suspicious nations in regard to nuclear activities in the same time period. The USA went into Iraq to stop the Iraqi weapons program, leaving North Korea alone. At the end of this "experiment" Iraq has no nuclear weapons, and North Korea now has some. Clearly, the USA's plan of taking action is much more effective than passively watching current events.

The USA sees it, Israel sees it, most of Canada and Australia see it. Why can't you see it?

I know why. Current European policy involves being a spectator on international politics.

 

Yes, you are right on many issues about vietnam. Gladly by now even france has got rid of it's colonialism.

I don't think it's very representative on anything. (not that i see selling uranium as a crime either, but many here do tho)

Can you tell me some similar examples from finnish politics, no? Maybe swedish, german , dutch? If you know any, im not aware of it. I don't think your sentence resembles european politics in any way.

I disagree. Ie. Scandinavian foreign aid/capita is largest in world. EU is quite much involved in worlds problems. By peaceful means. IE. finland has been very active on EUs education and rebuilding programs in eastern africa. Namibia and Tanzania come into my mind now.
Times of european mperialism are over

Ofcourse there are many bad decisions made in europe too, but it's not as black and white as you try to make it look. Im certainly hopeful about the future.
Especially if bigger EU coutries manage to rationalize their policy and abandon their old ways of dealing with global issues.

 

Sorry, I thought further back than 15 years, my bad.

And this war has been declared many times as "fight against the spreading of communism". I haven't had any problems with communist vietnam. Your point would be? Pls, not the USA saves the world shit...

It may be surprise to you, but you haven't tell me anything that I didn't already know.

As for seeing part,I can't see it because A) US hasn't changed anything. Terrorism still exists, and it will exist until the very reason of terrorism is aided away. With violence you'll achieve only more terrorists. B) So Israel did an pre-emptive strike. Good for them. Did it change anything? No. Because Israel has it own nukes, made from stolen american plutonium. And it'll without a doubt use them if necessary. So only lunatic would use nukes against Israel, especially if Own country is right next to it. C) So french sold them a nuclear reactor. So americans sold (gave) them biological (chemical) weapons. To use against Iran, which was at that time under USSR influence. Pls, don't be hypocritical.

Basically you're saying that f.e. pre-emptive strike is ok, IF there's a reason to believe that something is going on. What do you have, a time machine? How can you tell who, where and when is doing wrong. Nothing is so difficult than predicting, especially predicting future.

airfax

@afi: didn't mean it as an insult. Most of your posts let's me think that they are written by "half man-half animal" kinda creature. And I try not to make very serious insults via internet at all. (exception:Snake-eye )
So my apologies for that remark.

 

THIS POST IS AN PROVOCATION. CIA is gonna record anyone who will argue against the post.

 

In fact in the UK there are plenty of kurds. The other day I was helping 4 of them to push their car. Then at one brittish party an old kurd was my saviour - having some decent alcohol (not beer!).

In fact you did. Couple of times.
It counts for prolly 1/3 of those 80 mln

you start from wrong end thats why it looks awkward. Start from natural resources (the producing people). All the rest is just redistributing that wealth in the huge superstructure.

Capitalism is in fact very beutiful self-regulating system similar to natural ecosystems. (as squirl/Aristotle put out) The reason I dislike it is under it 90% of people have to do shit. They are kept uneducated enough to gladly do shit for money.
I believe if man has to find some purpose of his existence - it is to part to from his animal roots and thus look towards a society of reason rather than nature.

then read the bible (old testament)
its the best food for any horror film

 

Hm, I thought I am a "patriot" (however funny it sounds to use word in my country nowadays - maybe because most people around will think - yeah, he must be brainwashed) but I do not hate any of our enemies.

umm, wait, do we have enemies???
There is always a spring of love when you a meet a turk, and the serbians I enjoy immenselly. Indeed in greece they get quite cold when they understand where I am from, but the problem is theirs.
I cant think of any other enemies...?
I was to Kosovo, and found out albanians - enemies of the brother slavs - may all look like professional murderers but are otherwise fine and among the few still "oldish" people (something I respect very much!) in the region.
Some consider Russia an enemy but personally I have never felt threatened by Mr Putin`s secret plans to rule the world or the Balkans...
On the other hand our governments have greatest fondness of the USA and our troops fight shoulder to shoulder in Kerbala, so it seems they are not an enemy either.

who is my enemy?

 

I fully support banning of private cars!!! I think it is a necessary measure to make peoples life better.
As a protest measure until this happens I will buy a very big Jaguar or maybe a Rolse Royce!

I just moved from a country with few cars (but already too many - 10 times fewer only a decade ago! we even started having traffic jams in the capital since 2 years ago) to a country with many many cars (that is - in Western Europe) and I may tell you - it sucks!

I guess you would find out everyday life is much more boring.