America in the Middle-East

[ThetaOrionis01]

Well, since we are off topic anyway....

 

 

Yes, we're successful. Sorry for not wanting to be "equal" by lowering ourselves to the rest of the world.

 

At the expense of others. The point I was making.

 

And you're a hypocrite in this. How can you lecture me on living at the expense of the 3rd world, when you do exactly the same? Why not act on your principles instead of just talking about them? You don't need internet access to survive. Stop paying for it, sell your computer, sell your house and buy a smaller one, sell your car, etc. Then give the money to those poor people you say I'm living at the expense of.

 

But I doubt you'll do it. It's always easier to talk about having principles than to actually follow them.

 

I had expected that tired old argument, actually - because it is the same one that is trotted out over and over again by those who are not prepared to make even a small sacrifice in their standard of their living. Whether it's about recycling or reduction in car usage, the technique is the same. So making a small contribution makes you a hypocrite, while those who sit back and do nothing at all can bask in their moral superiority?

Nice logic there, Peregrine. Actually, I'm rather surprised you didn't tell me to go kill myself, so as to stop breathing out CO2.

 

 

But it's meaningless anti-America ranting if you object to our actions, but completely forgive and/or ignore the problems of pollution elsewhere. And that's what I see, both here and elsewhere. Everyone focuses on the US and completely ignores the future problem developing countries will become. Therefore they are infinitely more concerned with protesting the US than with actually getting results.

 

See above, my reply to draighox.

What makes you think I am not aware of pollution elsewhere? The fact remains, though, that the US is the largest per capita consumer of resources in the world.

 

Why has the US not signed the Kyoto protocol?

 

It's a lot easier and cheaper to make the kind of dramatic changes people like Darnoc love to demand when you're still in the process of building your industry.

 

Pollution control costs money - money that most of those developing nations don't have.

 

 

However. This thread was about the actions of the US in the Middle-east, not about the evils of capitalism and its associated environmental impact.

 

So can US action in Iraq be seen as a capitalist venture? After all, war is good for the economy. Especially when you get to control vast oil reserves as a result.

[Malchik]

I think perhaps its time to regroup here. We've had religion, capitalism v communism and most countries of the world pulled in. In no case is it entirely off topic but as Theta points out the thread was started about the US in the Middle East. As I said before the majority of intelligent Americans know that the invasion was prompted by economic reasons. That can no longer be in any doubt. It is the same for the UK too. Some Americans think it was right for the US to act as they did, as do some members of the UK. Some think it was wrong. I suspect more Europeans are against because the brainwashing using blatantly nationalistic jingoism is beloved by US media but less popular in Europe. (How far before it turns US capitalism into fascism one wonders - time to get rid of all those useless eaters, what?)

 

Whether or not we think it right or wrong, it happened. So what should be done now? The US can pull out but then Iraq would be at a high risk of collapse and the US would lose control over the oil fields again. The US and the UK might try to get the UN to play a bigger role but why should it? To bale out the US who treats it with contempt?

 

It is in a Catch 22 situation that could AND SHOULD have been foreseen. Of course it's easy to have 20-20 vision in hindsight but anyone with an ounce of intelligence could have seen the inevitable. And indeed I can't believe that they didn't. It means the governments went ahead with the invasion knowing there would be heavy and continuing loss of life on both sides for pure greed. I hope at some point the US and UK families of those who have lost members will take their governments to court for wilfully endangering human life and lying about it. I am damn certain that is what they did.

 

I haven't a solution to offer. I wish I did. Let us hope in time a way forward becomes clearer. But by then the world power with the most clout may not be the US.

[draighox]

To White Wolf

 

I never take anything said in a debate personally.  :grin:

Good for you. :smiley:

 

Stalin had NOTHING to do with convincing Hitler to start WW2. Hitler always planned to invade both Europe AND the USSR. The only thing that Stalin persuaded Hitler on is to invade Europe first by signing the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939. When Hitler broke this pact himself by invading the USSR, Stalin fought against Hitler. The only notable thing about it was that Stalin was caught by surprise as he expected Hitler to finish with Europe first.

Hitler intended to atack Poland, he was just afraid of the world's reaction. Stalin convinced him that no one was going to stop him.

Stalin had begun secret mobilisation long time before Hitler atacked Poland. The mobilisation grew and reached the point where country has to choose: whether to atack or to collapse economicaly. Stalin INTENDED to start WW2, he just managed to make everything look like the main villain was Hitler.

Half of Poland wasn't enaugh for Stalin. He wanted to atack Hitler. All USSR armies were moved to the USSR - Germany border. Unfortunately, Hitler did the same. He atacked USSR before they could atack Germany.

 

No, the fact you knocked a guy out purely because he was in your way makes you an turkey. The fact you saved me in the process is purely incidental.

If he hadn't been mugging you, I would have just walked around. But I saw that he's mugging you. I killed two birds with one stone - helped you and knocked him out of my way.

 

To Peregrine

 

Let me help you here. This is what you meant to say:

 

Yes, communism is evil, partly because violent revolution is a necessary part of it. Unlike in abstract philosophy, communism in the real world can not be put into place without destroying the previous system. The violent revolutions that inevitably are a part of real-world communism are evil acts. Therefore communism shares that evil, because it demands evil acts be done.

Exactly. Thanks for the help. :grin:

 

To Theta Orionis

 

Actually, that award has to go to your collected rantings in this thread.

Point a few. I'm curious.

[Zmid]

Stalin had NOTHING to do with convincing Hitler to start WW2. Hitler always planned to invade both Europe AND the USSR. The only thing that Stalin persuaded Hitler on is to invade Europe first by signing the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939. When Hitler broke this pact himself by invading the USSR, Stalin fought against Hitler. The only notable thing about it was that Stalin was caught by surprise as he expected Hitler to finish with Europe first.

Hitler intended to atack Poland, he was just afraid of the world's reaction. Stalin convinced him that no one was going to stop him.

 

Hitler believed in racial purity. He thought the 'Aryan race' (which, in fact, never existed) was the superior race of humanity. His aim was to impose the Aryan race over ALL HUMANITY. Therefore, not only did he intend to invade Europe and the USSR, but, ultimately, once that was done and dusted, the USA as well. Using propaganda, he managed to mobilise the German people behind him by basically blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems. His aim was the total elimination of all Jews everywhere and placing the 'Aryan race' as the ruling elite of all of humanity.

 

Stalin had begun secret mobilisation long time before Hitler atacked Poland. The mobilisation grew and reached the point where country has to choose: whether to atack or to collapse economicaly.

 

Wrong. The USSR was basically in a state of perpetual pseudo-revolution. Every time the 'goal' of this revolution was met (or claimed to have been met), as was the case with Stalin's '5 year plans' another one was set. Stalin did, indeed, want to expand his own power, so it is conceivable that, at some point, there would be a confrontation between the USSR and the western nations, but this was not likely to happen any time soon after 1939.

 

Stalin INTENDED to start WW2, he just managed to make everything look like the main villain was Hitler.

 

Wrong. Stalin knew fine and well that Hitler was fully intending to invade the USSR. By signing the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, he simply bought himself some time to build up his armies to such an extent that he could utterly crush the Germans when that time came (or so he thought).

 

Half of Poland wasn't enaugh for Stalin. He wanted to atack Hitler. All USSR armies were moved to the USSR - Germany border. Unfortunately, Hitler did the same. He atacked USSR before they could atack Germany.

 

Do you know anything of WW2? Germany invaded the USSR earlier than Stalin expected, so Stalin was totally unprepared fo it. They managed to advance quite some distance into the USSR, right up to the outskirts of Moscow itself, and if Stalin's war machine hadn't managed to go into overdrive, the outcome of WW2 might have been very different.

 

No, the fact you knocked a guy out purely because he was in your way makes you an turkey. The fact you saved me in the process is purely incidental.

If he hadn't been mugging you, I would have just walked around. But I saw that he's mugging you. I killed two birds with one stone - helped you and knocked him out of my way.

 

Are you just deliberately not registering my point? The whole analogy is that you knocked the guy unconcious purely and totally because he was in your way. The fact he was mugging me did not even matter to you. The fact you stopped this mugging was therefore purely incidental.

 

To Peregrine

 

Let me help you here. This is what you meant to say:

 

Yes, communism is evil, partly because violent revolution is a necessary part of it. Unlike in abstract philosophy, communism in the real world can not be put into place without destroying the previous system. The violent revolutions that inevitably are a part of real-world communism are evil acts. Therefore communism shares that evil, because it demands evil acts be done.

Exactly. Thanks for the help. :grin:

 

Name a form of government that has been brought about without a revolution, or war of some description.

[draighox]

Hitler believed in racial purity. He thought the 'Aryan race' (which, in fact, never existed) was the superior race of humanity. His aim was to impose the Aryan race over ALL HUMANITY. Therefore, not only did he intend to invade Europe and the USSR, but, ultimately, once that was done and dusted, the USA as well. Using propaganda, he managed to mobilise the German people behind him by basically blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems. His aim was the total elimination of all Jews everywhere and placing the 'Aryan race' as the ruling elite of all of humanity.

True.

 

Wrong. The USSR was basically in a state of perpetual pseudo-revolution. Every time the 'goal' of this revolution was met (or claimed to have been met), as was the case with Stalin's '5 year plans' another one was set. Stalin did, indeed, want to expand his own power, so it is conceivable that, at some point, there would be a confrontation between the USSR and the western nations, but this was not likely to happen any time soon after 1939.

The only possible expaination for the mobilisation was that Stalin intended to start WW2.

 

Wrong. Stalin knew fine and well that Hitler was fully intending to invade the USSR. By signing the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, he simply bought himself some time to build up his armies to such an extent that he could utterly crush the Germans when that time came (or so he thought).

Yes. Stalin wanted to atack Hitler before he does so.

 

Do you know anything of WW2? Germany invaded the USSR earlier than Stalin expected, so Stalin was totally unprepared fo it. They managed to advance quite some distance into the USSR, right up to the outskirts of Moscow itself, and if Stalin's war machine hadn't managed to go into overdrive, the outcome of WW2 might have been very different.

Stalin was unprepared for defence, but prepared for atack. Why did he move almost all armies and ammunition to the border?

 

Name a form of government that has been brought about without a revolution, or war of some description.

Democracy and feodalism. Why?

[Malchik]

Which democracy, where? In the UK we had a civil war. The US had wars with the native Indians, whom they massacred in their landgrabbing, the UK to get freedom (a revolution against Colonial rule) and a civil war of its own before it could install its oddly undemocratic democracy. There may be a few places that reached democracy without a revolution but I can't think of one offhand. A revolution doesn't have to be bloody, as the orange revolution in Ukraine demonstrated recently, though it could have gone that way. Marx believed the communist revolution could equally be peaceful.

 

You post from Lithuania where the view of the Russians by the non-Russian people is pretty unspeakable (for good reasons). It may influence your opinion unduly. Stalinism was never communism. It was called that but it had as much resemblence to Marxist ideals as to a blueberry pancake. Yes it was an evil regime and deserves to be so called but it was not communism. Hitler's regime was equally evil and that was fascism, theoretically the rightward extension of capitalism. But these concepts of right and left are meaningless when applied to totalitarian governments.

 

I have to repeat that you are misinformed

[Zmid]

Hitler believed in racial purity. He thought the 'Aryan race' (which, in fact, never existed) was the superior race of humanity. His aim was to impose the Aryan race over ALL HUMANITY. Therefore, not only did he intend to invade Europe and the USSR, but, ultimately, once that was done and dusted, the USA as well. Using propaganda, he managed to mobilise the German people behind him by basically blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems. His aim was the total elimination of all Jews everywhere and placing the 'Aryan race' as the ruling elite of all of humanity.

True.

 

So the idea that Stalin persuaded Hitler to start WW2 is a load of nonsense. The above is why Hitler started WW2.

 

Wrong. The USSR was basically in a state of perpetual pseudo-revolution. Every time the 'goal' of this revolution was met (or claimed to have been met), as was the case with Stalin's '5 year plans' another one was set. Stalin did, indeed, want to expand his own power, so it is conceivable that, at some point, there would be a confrontation between the USSR and the western nations, but this was not likely to happen any time soon after 1939.

The only possible expaination for the mobilisation was that Stalin intended to start WW2.

 

Wrong. The 'mobilisation' was because Stalin was PARANOID. He saw threats everywhere, most of the time from inside the USSR. If he managed to suppress all dissent, nobody could touch him.

 

Wrong. Stalin knew fine and well that Hitler was fully intending to invade the USSR. By signing the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, he simply bought himself some time to build up his armies to such an extent that he could utterly crush the Germans when that time came (or so he thought).

Yes. Stalin wanted to atack Hitler before he does so.

 

Completely wrong. Stalin wanted to DEFEND AGAINST Hitler when he did attack.

 

Do you know anything of WW2? Germany invaded the USSR earlier than Stalin expected, so Stalin was totally unprepared fo it. They managed to advance quite some distance into the USSR, right up to the outskirts of Moscow itself, and if Stalin's war machine hadn't managed to go into overdrive, the outcome of WW2 might have been very different.

Stalin was unprepared for defence, but prepared for atack. Why did he move almost all armies and ammunition to the border?

 

Absolutely all historical references on this subject say the exact opposite - Stalin's forces were set up in a DEFENSIVE manner.

 

Name a form of government that has been brought about without a revolution, or war of some description.

Democracy

 

When? Where? How?

 

feodalism.

 

Now you're really having a laugh. Feudalism? In every single case, that was born of war, was marked by war throughout and ended in war.

[draighox]

First of all, congratulations to Iran for finally getting their claws on nuclear weapon. :angry2:

 

To Malchik

 

Which democracy, where? In the UK we had a civil war. The US had wars with the native Indians, whom they massacred in their landgrabbing, the UK to get freedom

USA did not fight for domocracy. They fought against England for freedom, and against Indians for land.

 

You post from Lithuania where the view of the Russians by the non-Russian people is pretty unspeakable (for good reasons). It may influence your opinion unduly. Stalinism was never communism. It was called that but it had as much resemblence to Marxist ideals as to a blueberry pancake. Yes it was an evil regime and deserves to be so called but it was not communism. Hitler's regime was equally evil and that was fascism, theoretically the rightward extension of capitalism. But these concepts of right and left are meaningless when applied to totalitarian governments.

Well, many people here have quite a good attitude towards Russia (which boggles me.) But yeah, my attitude towards Russia (not Russians, although in most cases that's the same) is negative. And yeah, it does influence my opinion.

But although Stalinism wasn't true communism, it was an earlier stage of it.

Now Hitler's fascism wasn't a real fascism. It also was an earlier stage of it (or maybe not even a stage, maybe something else completely.) Fascism was invented by Mussolini, not Hitler. And it was something like shovinism. But it too was an evil regime, because Mussolini killed people. Still all this about fascism may be blunder, because I don't remember much, so please don't eat me. :smiley:

 

To White Wolf

 

So the idea that Stalin persuaded Hitler to start WW2 is a load of nonsense. The above is why Hitler started WW2.

He WANTED to atack, he was just wavering when to do it.

 

Wrong. The 'mobilisation' was because Stalin was PARANOID. He saw threats everywhere, most of the time from inside the USSR. If he managed to suppress all dissent, nobody could touch him.

He wasn't paranoid, and mobilisation can't defend you from the threats from inside. Even if he was paranoid, he couldn't have started so huge mobilisation. It would have collapsed USSR.

 

Completely wrong. Stalin wanted to DEFEND AGAINST Hitler when he did attack.

If he had wanted to defend, he wouldn't have moved almost ALL of his armies to the border, and certainly not ALL ammunition. He would have placed it in strategic places not at the border.

 

Now you're really having a laugh. Feudalism? In every single case, that was born of war, was marked by war throughout and ended in war.

It formed naturaly. It CAUSED many wars, but it formed naturaly.

[Dark0ne]

USA did not fight for domocracy. They fought against England for freedom, and against Indians for land.

 

Civil war?

[Abramul]

The U.S. is not a democracy, and never has been. It's a Representative Republic. Please, get it right!