America in the Middle-East

[Zmid]

To White Wolf

 

I'll tell you very simply - it had nothing to do with why the war was fought.

Who cares? Saddam was removed - that's all that matters.

 

I seem to remember posting this elsewhere on these forums, but I'll repost it here:

 

Imagine this situation. A psychopath is on the loose, running sround shooting people at random. A guy sees him, pulls out a gun of his own and shoots him dead. He is hailed as a hero. It is then discovered that this guy didn't shoot the psycopath in order to protect people, he is, in fact a psycopath himself, and he shot the first psycopath because he didn't like his hairstyle. Does this mean the guy is still a hero? I certainly don't think so.

 

As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

Which proves that UN would have done nothing.

 

Obviously you didn't read my whole post before saying this.

 

So if a situation arises where a dictator is killing 100,000 people per day, and somebody decides to go to war and, in this war, the civilian casualties are 80,000 per day, it would be perfectly OK for them to go to war?

Yes, if there were no other way which would reduce casualties to 60,000 per day or more. I don't think I get your logic...

 

Maybe that's why you support the war, then.

 

As I said before, If US & allies had invaded Germany when Hitler took it over, or Russa when Lenin caused the communism revolution, many millions of people would have been saved. But no. That gives that single country way too much power, so let's just watch people being killed. (sarcasm)

The reason 'our' side in WW2 is referred to as 'the Allies' is because there was quite a few countries in it, not just one.

So?

 

So 'the Allies' are NOT a single country. How is this giving too much power to a single country?

 

On the contrary, I rather think that if the US and UK hadn't been so stubborn about saying Iraq had WMD when they so obviously didn't, they might have won support in the UN, instead of more or less making an enemy of them. If that had happened, they might have gotten the UN to back a war over a legitimate reason, for example, Saddam's blatent disregard for his own people's Human Rights.

...

As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

Logic?

 

Let's see. How's about the war would be for a LEGITIMATE reason, rather than the pile of bull that WMD was?

 

Read Darnoc's post again. There have never been any truly communist countries in the world, ever. There have been socialist countries, and dictatorships which have claimed to be communist countries, but that's as close as we have ever got.

And the fourth time - every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

 

So how can you judge communism to be evil when true communism has never existed?

 

Yes. It should have been the main objective of the war. It wasn't. The given reason for the war was entirely false. The fact Saddam was removed is a by-product of the war, nothing more.

OK. So if my main objective was to get some milk from the shop, and on the way there I saw you being beaten up, it wouldn't be right if I helped you, because the shop has run out of milk?

 

Incorrect analogy. What would be closer is:

 

You wanted to go to the shops for milk. On the way, you knocked a guy unconcious because he wouldn't get out of your way. This guy happened to be trying to mug me at the time, so, when you realised it would look bad if it became known you knocked a guy out simply because he was in your way, you then claimed you knocked him out because he was mugging me.

 

Let's see, they were in a pretty bad situation. They were ruled by a despotic dictator who ordered the arrest of anyone who offended him in any way, and, in prison, they were tortured and sometimes eventually killed. They are now in a bombed-out shell of a country and could find themselves arrested, taken to a prison and tortured. Not only that, said country is infested by all sorts of terrorists who are blowing people/places/themselves up almost at random.

 

I don't see a huge difference.

Many areas are quite peacefull. Nobody is being tortured (except those few in Abu Ghraib.) People now have freedom and even free election.

 

Yeah. They have the freedom to get shot. They have the freedom to get blown up. They have the freedom to get arrested on the slightest excuse. They have the freedom to get tortured and abused in prison. They also have the freedom to vote for people who, for fear of being killed, have to conduct their election campaigns from several hundred miles away, surrounded by so many bodyguards it is practically their own personal army.

 

That is what is claimed. However, the guard in charge of Abu Ghraib claimed she had evidence of such orders coming from 'the very top' of the chain of command, and it is known that the tortures committed by British forces were due to an order to 'work them hard'. The man who gave that order, who was in charge of the camp where, Major Dan Taylor, claimed he had informed his superiors of his plans before he gave that order and was not told not to. So how high up the chain of command does this go?

And why on earth 'the very top' of the chain of command would want prisoners being tortured?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why would the guards at the prison want to torture them? Even if they are all sadistic vulkers who just want to do this because they gained some kind of sick pleasure from it (which is highly doubtful), if such an order didn't come down from their superiors, they would know that as soon as their actions got discovered, they'd be in deep poo.

[Darnoc]

First of all, to something I did not reply before, since I thought this to be a personal matter. But in light of your recent posts, I don't have another choice.

 

This money is given to people who don't work. Companies are forced to pay huge taxes and therefore they cannot employ many people or raise wages. Idler gets your earned money.

 

I am a reasonable person. So I try to put this as mildy as possible. To be honest, I wanted to rip your head off verbaly when I read it. I didn't, since I don't want to receive a strike.

 

I am one of those persons, you are reffering to. I am unemployed right now and since more than half a year. What you said is a slap into my face.

 

How dare you speak of a group of persons you have no idea, I repeat no idea, in such a manner? I did not choose to be unemployed. I do want to work. I am able to work. It is just that I don't find a job, because there are none available or the ones available are taken away in front of my nose by other people. I even had to endure the shame that a person less qualified (since he had a lower standard of education; speaking of being overqualified :rolleyes: ) than I am received a job I tried to get. And I don't speak of a McDonald's-job. I speak of a job as documentary-assistant in a public library.

 

Were you ever unemployed? Judging from your words, you never were. So don't dare to speak such words about a subject you don't understand.

 

I would never, ever support liberals or neo-conservatives. They want to make the lives of many innocently unemployed people miserable. If they had their will, we would be living on the street, trying to scratch a living out of a bin.

 

You do not know what it is like not to be able to work. I do not mean physical or psychical inability. I mean the forced inability by simply not finding a job. It kills your psyche, slowly. After some time you notice you are getting more and more apathic and even depressed. Some time later you don't even notice that anymore. Some people end by commiting suicide.

 

In my oppinion, having a job should be a human right.

 

Why are people moving from Europe to USA and not vice versa?

 

Because of legend which is in fact a huge lie. It is called the American Dream. Perhaps we should give it a new title: American nightmare.

 

I will happily repeat this as many times as needed. Most historians have agreed that every ideology is judged IN UNISON with measures of its realisation. Since the measures of communism realisation have killed 100 millions of people, it is obvious that communism IS evil.

I've made the math. According to your statistics, Stalin has killed about 13% of the population (though I think it must be more), and Pinotchet has killed about 0.002% of the population.

 

First of all define evil. Evil is not as easy to define as you might notice. There are lot of different opinions on what evil is.

 

Second, if you abuse a hammer to kill a person, does this make the hammer evil? No, it doesn't. It makes the person a criminal who used the hammer.

 

Communism is a good ideology. Far better than capitalism, which only feeds the human ego.

 

Only because someone abused the words of Karl Marx, it doesn't make communism evil.

 

Only because the catholic church is responsible for inquisition and the crusades, it doesn't make the teachings of Jesus Christ evil.

 

In fact, the teachings of Christ and communism agree on several subjects, while I am not aware they do on the teachings of capitalism.

 

I can't argue back on this because I don't know anything about USA politics in Angola. I can only tell you that even USA makes mistakes (eg. supporting Israel), but these mistakes do not outweight their good accomplishments.

 

Well, let's make a little list. I try to put the good things against the bad things. Let's start with the good news:

 

- USA intervened in WW2 and defeated imperialistic Japan and the Third Reich together with the other allies.

 

- USA helped Europe rebuilding with the Marshall-plan.

 

- USA pushed back the north-corean invaders of South-Corea.

 

- USA stopped the late-imperialistic adventure of Great Britain, France and Israel during the Suez Crisis 1956.

 

- The constitution of the USA is the basis of many other similar documents around the globe.

 

- USA was the first modern democracy.

 

- USA pushed back the Iraqi invaders of Kuwait 1991.

 

- USA successfully destroyed the Taliban regime in most parts of Afghanistan after 9/11.

 

 

 

Well, here's the bad news:

 

- Even tough the constitution states freedom and equality of all men, the afro-americans and also the native americans were not included for a long time.

 

- USA almost exterminated the population of native americans; at the beginning of the 20th century only about 500'000 native americans still lived, where there once were several millions. While Germany is blamed until this day for their jewish genocide, the world is united in silence when it comes to the "indian genocide" commited by the USA.

 

- Afro-Americans were mostly slaves until the civil war. After that they were denied their civil rights, some say even until today in some parts of the USA, even if it is very subtle.

 

- Under dubious arguments USA sided with Great Britain and France during WW1.

 

- USA entered the war in Vietnam under dubious arguments.

 

- During the second half of 20th century and the first years of the 21st century, USA intervened in the internal affairs of several souvereign nations, even tough those nations never possed a threat towards the USA or their allies: Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Vietnam. Some others are possible, even tough I don't remember or don't know.

 

- The decisions in the security council of the UNO, if the genocide of Rwanda was really a genocide, was vetoed down by the USA. The genocide of Rwanda is considered the most horrible genocide in the 20th century after the holocaust. Between 500'000 and 1 Million people were massacred. If the USA wouldn't have vetoed the decision down, the UNO could have intervened before the situation fully escaleted.

 

- The USA almost bombed Serbia back to Stone Age after dubious "evidence" of genocide (later on it was revealed that the Albanians killed aproximatly the same amount of Serbians as the Serbians killed Albanians; hell of a genocide, really; guerilla warfare would be a more accurate description; I personally know Albanians from the Kosovo who confirmed this).

 

- The USA attacked and conquered Iraq 2003 under false arguments with absolutely no real reason.

 

- During the Iraq-Iran-war (Iraq being the aggressor), the USA gave Saddam Hussein access to chemical weapons which he not only used on the Iranian soldiers but also on rebelling Kurds.

 

- There is strong evidence that the USA is in possession of not only chemical, but also biological weapons which are forbidden by international law. More than that, there is other evidence that the USA is still researching on such weapons and that the USA is in posession of biological warheads, cabable of being launched with common long-range missiles.

 

- USA is producing about 25% of of global environmental pollution and therefore posing a major threat towards the whole world.

[Malchik]

I want to write something because I cannot believe draighox can be so naive. On the other hand I can't add much to what others have said.

 

True communist ideology is the form of government that conforms most closely to Christianity.

 

There have never been any true communist governments. I doubt if they are possible given the nature of human beings. In the same way there are very few real Christians since the true Christian ethic is equally alien to human beings.

 

Totalitarian states, whatever their professed ideology, do not permit disagreement in any form. (Remember McCarthy?) Now I could list a great number of totalitarian states in Africa, Asia and even Europe. If the US cared a damn for the torture inflicted on his people by Saddam Hussein they should have invaded a good many other places earlier and a good many more now. DONT BE SO BLINKERED! Look, use your brain and use logic! The ONLY reason the US invaded Iraq was because it was in their self-interest to do so.

 

I know many Americans and they all accept this. Some feel it was wrong, some don't but not one of them is trying to pretend the invasion had anything to do with being humane.

 

Whether or not Iraq is better off without Hussein is a moot point. Media coverage is sensationalist and needs to be treated with caution. An Iraqi friend of mine, living in London but who has family in Iraq, is of the opinion that the current situation is far worse. She will not write off the future until the US has pulled out and the real problems can be assessed but she is not sanguine about the prospect.

 

So draighox, to put it as politely as possible. You are seriously misinformed.

[draighox]

To Theta Orionis

 

Prove it. Prove to me conclusively that the democratically elected Allende government would have killed and tortured more people than the Pinochet dictatorship.

Democratically elected?! It was a socialist revolution with numerous bombings, assassinations and assaults on military installations and the country's infrastructure. Are we talking about the same Allende of Chile? By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on September 6 in 1973, Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." He wasn't a social-democrat. He and his marxists were trying to establish communism in Chile and expand USSR influence. And that certainly isn't a great deed for humanity.

 

Stalin's regime had nothing to do with communism, and everything to do with totalitarianism. Can you really not see the difference? Your claim that communism is evil is therefore invalid, no matter how often you repeat your theory.

Any ideology can be twisted and abused - look at Christianity, and the genocide in South America for example. By your reasoning, Christianity is the most evil ideology on the planet.

Stalin's regime had to do everything with totalitarianism and very much with communism. Lenin started the communist revolution and Stalin continued building communism, supporting communist revolutions all over the world. He tried to make all world communistic - that's one reason why WW2 started.

Christianity doesn't approve killing people. Communism does. As Darnoc said, Marx stated that communism begins with revolution. By the way, Marx himself renounced communism.

 

Tell that to the approximately 100,000 civilians killed as 'collateral damage'. Do you really think they consider themselves better off?

Tell that to the approximately 1,000,000 people killed by Saddam.

 

US foreign policy is not about what's best for everyone else - it's about what's best for US interests.

Well, it happens that what is best for USA interests, is best for the most of the world. What is more important to the Iraqi people: the fact that they tormentor is gone, or the fact that USA companies gained more oil?

 

 

To White Wolf

 

Imagine this situation. A psychopath is on the loose, running sround shooting people at random. A guy sees him, pulls out a gun of his own and shoots him dead. He is hailed as a hero. It is then discovered that this guy didn't shoot the psycopath in order to protect people, he is, in fact a psycopath himself, and he shot the first psycopath because he didn't like his hairstyle. Does this mean the guy is still a hero? I certainly don't think so.

So you are trying to say that USA is a psycopath, shooting people in Iraq for no apparent reason?

 

So 'the Allies' are NOT a single country. How is this giving too much power to a single country?

You care about one country gaining too much power when there are people being killed?

 

On the contrary, I rather think that if the US and UK hadn't been so stubborn about saying Iraq had WMD when they so obviously didn't, they might have won support in the UN, instead of more or less making an enemy of them. If that had happened, they might have gotten the UN to back a war over a legitimate reason, for example, Saddam's blatent disregard for his own people's Human Rights.

...

As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

Logic?

Let's see. How's about the war would be for a LEGITIMATE reason, rather than the pile of bull that WMD was?

First you say that UN could have found another reason and invaded Iraq. Then you say that "if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power." Which means that UN wouldn't have found another reason. Judging from your latest post, it seems that your first statement is correct?

 

So how can you judge communism to be evil when true communism has never existed?

Many communists tried to establish it making revolutions, just as Marx intended. These revolutions, as a part of communism, were evil, which makes whole communism evil.

 

Incorrect analogy. What would be closer is:

 

You wanted to go to the shops for milk. On the way, you knocked a guy unconcious because he wouldn't get out of your way. This guy happened to be trying to mug me at the time, so, when you realised it would look bad if it became known you knocked a guy out simply because he was in your way, you then claimed you knocked him out because he was mugging me.

Yes, because he wouldn't get out of my way AND because he was mugging you. I didn't get milk, but still it was good that I went that way.

 

Yeah. They have the freedom to get shot. They have the freedom to get blown up. They have the freedom to get arrested on the slightest excuse. They have the freedom to get tortured and abused in prison. They also have the freedom to vote for people who, for fear of being killed, have to conduct their election campaigns from several hundred miles away, surrounded by so many bodyguards it is practically their own personal army.

Don't overcolour. All this, but much worse, was when Saddam ruled. You compare a few people, tortured in Abu Ghraib, with hundreds of thousands of people, tortured by Saddam. Not to mention those, who were still alive when chemical weapon ate their lungs.

 

Why would the guards at the prison want to torture them? Even if they are all sadistic vulkers who just want to do this because they gained some kind of sick pleasure from it (which is highly doubtful), if such an order didn't come down from their superiors, they would know that as soon as their actions got discovered, they'd be in deep poo.

They certainly are sadistic vulkers, and they might have thought that their actions wouldn't get discovered.

 

 

To Darnoc

 

I am really sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I just wanted to say that if companies didn't have to pay huge taxes, they could offer more jobs. Let's finish discussing about liberals and social-democrats. I don't like when discussion gets personal. :sad2:

 

First of all define evil. Evil is not as easy to define as you might notice. There are lot of different opinions on what evil is.

Evil - anything that causes moral or physical pain. An idea which includes killing people, like the Red Plague, is evil.

 

Second, if you abuse a hammer to kill a person, does this make the hammer evil? No, it doesn't. It makes the person a criminal who used the hammer.

But if you kill people to get that hammer, it makes the process of getting the hammer evil.

 

Only because the catholic church is responsible for inquisition and the crusades, it doesn't make the teachings of Jesus Christ evil.

Christ never told to do inquisition or crusades. Marx, however, told that in order to establish communism, a revolution is necessary. And he renounced communism later.

 

In fact, the teachings of Christ and communism agree on several subjects, while I am not aware they do on the teachings of capitalism.

How about "You shall not murder."? Or "You shall not steal."? Or "You shall not covet your neighbor's house."?

 

Well, let's make a little list. I try to put the good things against the bad things. Let's start with the good news:

...

Well, here's the bad news:

Since quoting all the bad news would take too much space, I'll comment them like this:

1. True, but it is the same as number 2 and number 3.

2. True, but that was a long time ago.

3. True, but that was also a long time ago.

4. What's wrong with that?

5. USA defended Southern Vietnam when communists from the North atacked it.

6. Most of these countries would have expanded USSR influence - that's a threat. In the most of these countries communists were making revolutions and killing people.

7. I know nothing about it.

8. Well, I personally know a few russians who claim that Stalin hasn't done nothing wrong. There was indead a genocide in Serbia.

9. There were plenty of good reasons. And USA didn't occupy it, in fact, USA hasn't occupied anything ever.

10. Prove it.

11. If I believed every rumor I heard...

12. So you prefer living without electricity?

 

 

To Malchik

 

Now I could list a great number of totalitarian states in Africa, Asia and even Europe. If the US cared a damn for the torture inflicted on his people by Saddam Hussein they should have invaded a good many other places earlier and a good many more now.

If you are talking about Belarus, its authoritarian. Even USA can't invade every human rights abusing country, so they invaded Iraq, where the most cruel dictator ruled.

[Abramul]

US foreign policy is not about what's best for everyone else - it's about what's best for US interests.

Well, it happens that what is best for USA interests, is best for the most of the world. What is more important to the Iraqi people: the fact that they tormentor is gone, or the fact that USA companies gained more oil?

You have that the wrong way around. What is best for the rest of the world typically is what is best for US interests.

 

On the contrary, I rather think that if the US and UK hadn't been so stubborn about saying Iraq had WMD when they so obviously didn't, they might have won support in the UN, instead of more or less making an enemy of them. If that had happened, they might have gotten the UN to back a war over a legitimate reason, for example, Saddam's blatent disregard for his own people's Human Rights.

...

As I have already said, if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power.

Logic?

Let's see. How's about the war would be for a LEGITIMATE reason, rather than the pile of bull that WMD was?

First you say that UN could have found another reason and invaded Iraq. Then you say that "if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power." Which means that UN wouldn't have found another reason. Judging from your latest post, it seems that your first statement is correct?

I think that the meaning was "If the UN had been convinced that Saddam had to go, they would have assisted"

[Zmid]

To White Wolf

 

Imagine this situation. A psychopath is on the loose, running sround shooting people at random. A guy sees him, pulls out a gun of his own and shoots him dead. He is hailed as a hero. It is then discovered that this guy didn't shoot the psycopath in order to protect people, he is, in fact a psycopath himself, and he shot the first psycopath because he didn't like his hairstyle. Does this mean the guy is still a hero? I certainly don't think so.

So you are trying to say that USA is a psycopath, shooting people in Iraq for no apparent reason?

 

From where I'm standing, it certainly looks that way.

 

So 'the Allies' are NOT a single country. How is this giving too much power to a single country?

You care about one country gaining too much power when there are people being killed?

 

Firstly, since when did you care about people being killed? You seem to think it is perfectly OK for us to kill people, just as long as it's not as many as the other guy.

 

Secondly, you haven't answered the question - how is the Allies invading Germany in WW2 giving power to ONE country when the Allies are SEVERAL countries?

 

First you say that UN could have found another reason and invaded Iraq. Then you say that "if Saddam had somehow conclusively and publicly proved he had no WMD, he would still be in power." Which means that UN wouldn't have found another reason. Judging from your latest post, it seems that your first statement is correct?

 

If Saddam had conclusively proven he had no WMD, because of the insistence of the UK and US that he did, nobody in the UN would trust them. In fact, it is quite possible that, despite Saddam's past record, they would trust Saddam more than the US or UK. Therefore, they would have no hope whatsoever of gaining any support from the UN. If they had admitted they were wrong when it became obvious this was the case (ie after Hans Blix's report), they could very well have gained support in the UN, but they did not do this. Instead, they went totally against the UN, started a war that, according to the UN Charter, is illegal and basically ended up with egg all over their political faces and making an enemy of the UN.

 

So how can you judge communism to be evil when true communism has never existed?

Many communists tried to establish it making revolutions

 

Such as? For a start, forget Stalin. He had no intention of establishing communism. He was quite happy to be the ultimate ruler of Russia during his reign.

 

just as Marx intended. These revolutions, as a part of communism, were evil, which makes whole communism evil.

 

And how are you going to effect these kind of major changes without revolution? Ask everyone nicely?

 

Incorrect analogy. What would be closer is:

 

You wanted to go to the shops for milk. On the way, you knocked a guy unconcious because he wouldn't get out of your way. This guy happened to be trying to mug me at the time, so, when you realised it would look bad if it became known you knocked a guy out simply because he was in your way, you then claimed you knocked him out because he was mugging me.

Yes, because he wouldn't get out of my way AND because he was mugging you. I didn't get milk, but still it was good that I went that way.

 

Only purely as a side-effect. In this analogy, the fact that you knocked a guy unconcious simply because he was in your way makes you an arrogant, violent turkey. The fact you then tried to claim you knocked him unconcious because he was mugging me only makes you a deceitful, arrogant, violent turkey.

 

Yeah. They have the freedom to get shot. They have the freedom to get blown up. They have the freedom to get arrested on the slightest excuse. They have the freedom to get tortured and abused in prison. They also have the freedom to vote for people who, for fear of being killed, have to conduct their election campaigns from several hundred miles away, surrounded by so many bodyguards it is practically their own personal army.

Don't overcolour. All this, but much worse, was when Saddam ruled.

 

Exactly my point. The only difference between the new regime and the old regime is one of scale. Nothing else.

 

You compare a few people, tortured in Abu Ghraib, with hundreds of thousands of people, tortured by Saddam. Not to mention those, who were still alive when chemical weapon ate their lungs.

 

You still don't get it, do you? If the US and UK are to truly to give these people what was promised them, it wouldn't be a case of 'less torturings', it would be a case of 'NO torturings'. Currently, it's a case if 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

 

Why would the guards at the prison want to torture them? Even if they are all sadistic vulkers who just want to do this because they gained some kind of sick pleasure from it (which is highly doubtful), if such an order didn't come down from their superiors, they would know that as soon as their actions got discovered, they'd be in deep poo.

They certainly are sadistic vulkers, and they might have thought that their actions wouldn't get discovered.

 

Which would make them unbelievably stupid. And I mean literally unbelievably stupid.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Democratically elected?! It was a socialist revolution with numerous bombings, assassinations and assaults on military installations and the country's infrastructure. Are we talking about the same Allende of Chile? By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on September 6 in 1973, Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." He wasn't a social-democrat. He and his marxists were trying to establish communism in Chile and expand USSR influence. And that certainly isn't a great deed for humanity.

 

I'm beginning to wonder....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile

 

Well, it happens that what is best for USA interests, is best for the most of the world.

 

You cannot be serious.....

 

With that remark you've just neatly undermined what miniscule degree of credibility you retained in this thread.

 

 

Many communists tried to establish it making revolutions, just as Marx intended. These revolutions, as a part of communism, were evil, which makes whole communism evil.

 

So your argument is that communism is evil because revolution is evil, and revolution is a necessary part of communism?

 

 

In fact, the teachings of Christ and communism agree on several subjects, while I am not aware they do on the teachings of capitalism.

How about "You shall not murder."? Or "You shall not steal."? Or "You shall not covet your neighbor's house."?

 

ROFL - 'thou shalt not steal' and 'thou shalt not covet etc' are not exactly the mantra of 'realistic' capitalism - the opposite, rather. Capitalism is about greed, about making a profit at whatever cost, about coveting thy neighbour's market share.

 

I just wanted to say that if companies didn't have to pay huge taxes, they could offer more jobs.

 

I don't know what fairytale-version of capitalism you seem to worship, but this is not how business in the real world works. Companies aren't in business for altruistic reasons of providing people with gainful employment in fulfilling jobs - they are in business to make money. And frequently, the best way to make money is by employing fewer people. What do you think happens when a company has to pay less tax? Will they rejoice and start employing more people? Aye right. They'll pay their directors and shareholders a greater dividend, and continue replacing staff with automated production processes. They'll continue transferring production to countries where workers are paid a pittance to save on cost and maximise profits.

 

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-066.gif

[Darnoc]

Evil - anything that causes moral or physical pain. An idea which includes killing people, like the Red Plague, is evil.

 

This is the western point of view. Most people living on this world believe, evil is defined as being contrary to their religion. So, taking Islam as example, evil is defined as being contrary towards islamic teachings. The western world, especially the USA, is acting against the religious laws of Islam. Therefore the western world can be considered evil, from an islamic point of view. That is the reason why some muslims refer to the USA as "Sheitan" (devil).

 

But if you kill people to get that hammer, it makes the process of getting the hammer evil.

 

You get the symbology wrong. The hammer stands for the teachings of Marx, the real communistic ideology. The person abusing the hammer is someone like Stalin or Mao. People aren't killed to get the hammer, for the hammer is already there. People get killed, because the hammer is used in a way never to be intended.

 

Christ never told to do inquisition or crusades. Marx, however, told that in order to establish communism, a revolution is necessary. And he renounced communism later.

 

Correct. But one of the reasons, why he did renounce it, was that his work was misunderstood by most people. And he also realized that people are far to egoistic, so communism doesn't work, because people are too evil. Capitalism, on the other hand, supports the egoistic nature of human beings. That is why capitalism could rather be called evil, not communism, because capitalism incourages that you harm people for personal profit.

 

Marx never wanted a bloody revolution. Keep in mind that he was living in Great Britain. In Great Britain, a rather unviolent revolution had taken place during the 17th century. Marx reverred to a power-shift by non-violent means, not to mayhem and bloodshed.

 

How about "You shall not murder."? Or "You shall not steal."? Or "You shall not covet your neighbor's house."?

 

It was not Marx intention that people got killed or things stolen from them. He intended that people realized who egoistic and idiotic they are and that they could finally live in a peaceful society, where everyone was equal and shared with his neighbor.

 

How about "love your neighbour as you love yourself"? The bible clearly states that this is the highest of all laws, more important than anything else. Capitalism states exactly the oposite: "Love your neighbor, as long as he gives you money and increases your profit."

 

Communism is very near in its concept to the core-christian-teaching of general love. Capitalism is far from it. In fact, you could consider pure capitalism to be anti-christian.

 

Since quoting all the bad news would take too much space, I'll comment them like this:

1. True, but it is the same as number 2 and number 3.

2. True, but that was a long time ago.

3. True, but that was also a long time ago.

4. What's wrong with that?

5. USA defended Southern Vietnam when communists from the North atacked it.

6. Most of these countries would have expanded USSR influence - that's a threat. In the most of these countries communists were making revolutions and killing people.

7. I know nothing about it.

8. Well, I personally know a few russians who claim that Stalin hasn't done nothing wrong. There was indead a genocide in Serbia.

9. There were plenty of good reasons. And USA didn't occupy it, in fact, USA hasn't occupied anything ever.

10. Prove it.

11. If I believed every rumor I heard...

12. So you prefer living without electricity?

 

1. I agree.

 

2. and 3. A long time ago? How about between 100-150 years? Historically spoken, that was not so long ago. The holocaust is now over 50 years ago. Not so far away from what the USA had done.

 

4. The USA had nothing to do with the internal affairs of Europe. Simply as that. And unlike the second world war, you couldn't consider the Germans to be evil. It was plain european power-politics, nothing more.

 

5. You do not seem to know anything about the Vietnam-conflict, right? First, the Vietnam-war began way back, just after WW2, when Indochina (now Vietnam) wanted to gain independance from France. France was beaten out by Ho Chi Minh and he won the national elections of the whole of Vietnam. But the USA insisted on a partition. They installed a catholic dictatorship in the south (the majority of Vietnam population is buddhistic). Soon, South-Vietnamesians founded a guerialla-organization called "Vietcong" by the USA. The Vietcong were secretly supported by North-Vietnam, which in its turn was supported by the Sowjetunion. North-Vietnam never invaded South-Vietnam until the USA pulled out in the early seventies.

 

6. Plain bullshit.

 

- Indonesia had a president who was supported by socialists and communist in the parliament, but who was neither communist nor socialist himself. He was only moderate and wanted to have nothing to do with either the USA or the Sowjetunion. Sowjetunion accepted this. USA not.

 

- In Chile a social-democtratic president was elected. USA supports a revolution, a dictator is installed.

 

- Nicaragua is a small, unimportant country with the flaw that it lies in Middle-America and that its government was socialistic. Despite several invasions by the USA, the government withstood. It was finally thrown over by rebels inside the country.

 

- Panama. Ruled by dictator Noriega, the USA marched in, captured the dictator and moved out again. The reason? Supposedly drug business. But had probably more to do with the Panama canal.

 

- Democratic Republic of Congo came free from Belgia 1960. The first prime minister was Patrice Lumumba who was one of the people who had helped in freeing Congo. The Belgian soldiers stationed in Congo tried an overthrow, but were beaten back by Lumumba and president Kasavubu. Lumumba asked for the aid of the UNO. The USA accussed Lumumba wrongly of being a communist. When the province of Katanga made itself independent, Lumumba asked again for help. USA and UNO refused. So he asked the Sowjetunion. They gladly helped. The USA thought that the democracy would change into a dictatorship (this was acctually never Lumumbas intention, he was a strong supporter of a democratic, independent-from-the-west Africa, but also a strong criticer of the USA and the western world in general) and tried to assassinate Lumumba. This failed. So the USA supported Mobutu, a mighty man in the army of Congo. He arrested Lumumba and Kasavubu, both were murdered by his men and then Mobutu declared himself dictator.

 

- Angola I had explained in an above post.

 

- Saddam Hussein was first supported by the USA, when he attacked Iran; later on this additude changed until Saddam was overthrown and Iraq conquered.

 

- The Shah, an unloved dictator, was heavily supported by the USA. The Shah surpressed several attempts to democtratize Iran. These actions led to the Iranian revolution and the continouing hate towards the USA.

 

- The USA and France landed with troops during the Lebanese civil war, in order to support the failing president Amin Gemayel. Gemayel was not only attacked by his own people, the Christians, but also by the Druse, the Sunnits and the Shiits. Basically he was running a minority government. The USA paid the price, when a truck full of explosives drove right into the place where their Marines were stationed. This was the invention of the suicide-terrorist. The truck was driven by members of the fundamentalistic shiitish militia Hizbullah.

 

7. Another proof for American ignorance. The second worst genocide in the 20th century and you don't know about it? You also don't know that the Clinton-administration vetoed UN-intervention down, so they are acctually partially guilty of what had happened?

 

8. I am talking about Albanians. Albanians who live in Kosovo right now and before the war too. I talked to them. From what they told, there were shootings and murder on both sides. Why should they lie? They hate the Serbians.

 

9. Plenty of reasons? Maybe, but they weren't used to defend the war. WMD? Bullshit, Saddam never had them. And that I knew before the whole Iraq-war-thing. Ties to Al Quaida? Saddam was one of the greatest enemies of bin Laden. Terrorists? Well, there are plenty of terrorists there right now... But terrorism doesn't flourish under a totalitary regime which controls everything.

 

10. It's a historical fact. Every serious historian will tell you that. The burden of proof is on your side. Proof that the USA didn't sell chemical weapons to Iraq.

 

11. Again, there is plenty of proof around. It is known that the USA and Russia both possess small pocks, laid on ice. It is also known that the USA possesses sample of spanish influenza.

 

Here about the spanish influenza:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4318

 

12. No. I prefer living with electricity produced in a clean way so it doesn't destroy the environment.

[Peregrine]

This is the western point of view. Most people living on this world believe, evil is defined as being contrary to their religion. So, taking Islam as example, evil is defined as being contrary towards islamic teachings. The western world, especially the USA, is acting against the religious laws of Islam. Therefore the western world can be considered evil, from an islamic point of view. That is the reason why some muslims refer to the USA as "Sheitan" (devil).

 

What's your point? Why should we care what the religious fanatics call "evil"? Their definition of "good" is absolutely flawed, and many elements of their "culture" deserve to be erased from existence. Honestly, Darnoc, would you prefer to live under Islamic law? Maybe you should, and discover that evil isn't really so dependent on your point of view.

 

Correct. But one of the reasons, why he did renounce it, was that his work was misunderstood by most people. And he also realized that people are far to egoistic, so communism doesn't work, because people are too evil. Capitalism, on the other hand, supports the egoistic nature of human beings. That is why capitalism could rather be called evil, not communism, because capitalism incourages that you harm people for personal profit.

 

Wrong. Communism is evil, because its entire purpose is to create equality by bringing everyone down to the lowest level. Communism encourages you to harm people because they dare become more successful than you.

 

And that's ignoring the fact that it doesn't work, and trying to make it work only leads to abuses. Supporting communism is the same as supporting those abuses, because they inevitably go together.

 

Marx never wanted a bloody revolution. Keep in mind that he was living in Great Britain. In Great Britain, a rather unviolent revolution had taken place during the 17th century. Marx reverred to a power-shift by non-violent means, not to mayhem and bloodshed.

 

Marx was a hopeless idealist then, and ignorant of human nature. The only way to put communism in place is violent revolution, and the destruciton of the upper classes.

 

It was not Marx intention that people got killed or things stolen from them. He intended that people realized who egoistic and idiotic they are and that they could finally live in a peaceful society, where everyone was equal and shared with his neighbor.

 

Yes, where everyone is "equal" at the absolute lowest level of society. Where nobody works, no progress is made, and society collapses. Yep, that's really a plan people are going to agree to willingly, and give up everything they have peacefully.

 

How about "love your neighbour as you love yourself"? The bible clearly states that this is the highest of all laws, more important than anything else. Capitalism states exactly the oposite: "Love your neighbor, as long as he gives you money and increases your profit."

 

*dies laughing*

 

More like "Love your neighbor, as long as they believe in me and worship me properly". Everyone else of course should be killed and sent to hell. The bible clearly states that it is genocide, not love, that should be given to most of your neighbors.

 

In comparision, capitalism is flawless and perfect!

 

Communism is very near in its concept to the core-christian-teaching of general love. Capitalism is far from it. In fact, you could consider pure capitalism to be anti-christian.

 

Actually, capitalism is very christian-like. Just like God's favored people, capitalism's elites are given massive benefits. Just like God's instructions, capitalism encourages you to crush your opposition (whether economically or literally with a club). Just like christianity, capitalism covers all of this with a thin and transparent layer of propaganda about love.

 

Of course communism is far from christianity. Communism wants you to hate those who are more successful, to work to bring them down to your level. On the other hand, a good christian accepts his place in life and thanks god for it. It is prayer and devotion to god that are important, not the concerns of the physical world. You shouldn't hate those that are better than you, or desire their possessions. Commnuism teaches you that god isn't enough, that you need equality of physical life for life to be good.

 

- USA is producing about 25% of of global environmental pollution and therefore posing a major threat towards the whole world.

12. No. I prefer living with electricity produced in a clean way so it doesn't destroy the environment.

 

Perhaps you should check why that is? Maybe it's because we're a high percentage of the industrialized world, and therefore we produce a matching percentage of pollution?

 

And anyway, what would you like to do about it? Destroy US industry and cripple the economy? Should protecting the environment take priority over keeping a decent standard of living for our citizens?

 

If you're really concerned about pollution, you should be demanding that developing countries build things cleaner. There's where a difference can be made, because it can be done from the beginning. In the near future, the US is going to be a lot smaller percentage, and you'll have the pleasure of knowing you did absolutely nothing to stop its replacements.

[Darnoc]

What's your point? Why should we care what the religious fanatics call "evil"? Their definition of "good" is absolutely flawed, and many elements of their "culture" deserve to be erased from existence. Honestly, Darnoc, would you prefer to live under Islamic law? Maybe you should, and discover that evil isn't really so dependent on your point of view.

 

I do not prefer living in such a country. I only pointed out that most people on this planet have such a point of view. It's not just some religious fanatics. It's most religious people. World population consists to 95% of religious people. Let us now assume that about 25% are open to rationality. This still leaves us with 70% people who believe everyone not following their religious laws is evil.

 

It's a sad, but true fact. I would prefer that human beings would be rational. But that is simply not the case.

 

Wrong. Communism is evil, because its entire purpose is to create equality by bringing everyone down to the lowest level. Communism encourages you to harm people because they dare become more successful than you.

 

And that's ignoring the fact that it doesn't work, and trying to make it work only leads to abuses. Supporting communism is the same as supporting those abuses, because they inevitably go together.

 

Wrong again. The communistic ideology doesn't intend to bring everyone to a low level. The communistic ideology intends to bring everyone to an equal high level.

 

Good intentions, which simply don't work. Human beings are egoistic and there is nothing which can change that. That is why capitalism is such a success.

 

Marx was a hopeless idealist then, and ignorant of human nature. The only way to put communism in place is violent revolution, and the destruciton of the upper classes.

 

As I said, Marx renounced because he realized his ideas would never work the way he wanted them to. Human nature stands in the way, as you said yourself. And as I said, capitalism supports human nature.

 

Yes, where everyone is "equal" at the absolute lowest level of society. Where nobody works, no progress is made, and society collapses. Yep, that's really a plan people are going to agree to willingly, and give up everything they have peacefully.

 

Wrong again. The intention of communism is that everyone works for the better good of society, not the better good of himself. When everyone would do that, so the theory, the situation of everyone would be better. Of course, this doesn't work, because human beings naturally do everything for themselves and not for others.

 

More like "Love your neighbor, as long as they believe in me and worship me properly". Everyone else of course should be killed and sent to hell. The bible clearly states that it is genocide, not love, that should be given to most of your neighbors.

 

Sorry, you didn't read the bible correct. The bible clearly states that you should love everyone, even when someone doesn't share your belief. The fundamentalistic bible-belt guys of the USA are plain idiots who do not deserve the name "Christians". The only group of persons Jesus Christ did renounce where the fundamentalists of his time.

 

In comparision, capitalism is flawless and perfect!

 

You think it flawless, when a belief states that you should do anything in order to gain personal profit? When a belief states that the only thing which counts is yourself? Personally, I am disgusted by capitalism. How can someone believe something like that?

 

Actually, capitalism is very christian-like. Just like God's favored people, capitalism's elites are given massive benefits. Just like God's instructions, capitalism encourages you to crush your opposition (whether economically or literally with a club). Just like christianity, capitalism covers all of this with a thin and transparent layer of propaganda about love.

 

Jesus Christ personally said that his belief includes suffering. He said that you had to leave everything behind you, let go of everything. Reward will come later, after you died, but not in this life. Capitalism states the exact oposite.

 

Perhaps you recall the following verse:

 

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

 

Of course communism is far from christianity. Communism wants you to hate those who are more successful, to work to bring them down to your level. On the other hand, a good christian accepts his place in life and thanks god for it. It is prayer and devotion to god that are important, not the concerns of the physical world. You shouldn't hate those that are better than you, or desire their possessions. Commnuism teaches you that god isn't enough, that you need equality of physical life for life to be good.

 

The ultimate goal of communism is that everyone should have an equally good life, not an equally bad life. The theory states that if everyone helps the others, everyone will benefit. Capitalism states that some will benefit, when everyone tries to look for himself.

 

So, which ideology has better intentions?

 

Both Christianity and communism base on the same principle: when everyone helps everyone else, everyone will benefit.

 

Capitalism bases on the following: everyone tries to make a living for himself and some get better off than others.

 

And anyway, what would you like to do about it? Destroy US industry and cripple the economy? Should protecting the environment take priority over keeping a decent standard of living for our citizens?

 

Yes. Our world lasts for much longer than any society. It must last also for our successors. Societies are short living, they come and go. They are not important. Compared to the whole world, one society is nothing.

 

Call it the "principle of sacrifice". If it takes the destruction of one society (in this case our western society) to save the rest, so be it.

 

If you're really concerned about pollution, you should be demanding that developing countries build things cleaner. There's where a difference can be made, because it can be done from the beginning. In the near future, the US is going to be a lot smaller percentage, and you'll have the pleasure of knowing you did absolutely nothing to stop its replacements.

 

I demand that too. But third world countries aren't as wealthy as we are. We have much more ressources to develop clean energy than the third world. Therefore we are the ones who must change first.