Darnoc Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 What is really sad is that people aren't voting for Kerry because of his ideas and policies, they are voting for him just to get rid of Bush. Yes, you bush haters think this is a great thing but I'm really worried about what Kerry is going to do to our country... He is going to turn it closer and closer to socialism... Most European nations have socialist parties. Let us see, how bad is it.... - We got social security affordable for everyone, not just the rich- We got less unemployed than the USA- The difference between the richest and the poorest isn't nearly as great as in the USA- The percentage of the population considered to be poor is a lot smaller than in the USA- Our health system is ways ahead from the one in the USA, because you can acctually afford it. Reason: health insurrances for everyone which cover all the basic needs of the people- If you get unemployed here it isn't nearly as bad as in the USA. Why? Because we got unemployment insurances for everyone! Well, from my point of view, a little socialism wouldn't be too bad for the USA... Considering the wars of the USA: Who gives you the right to jugde which way of life is good and which not? How can you be so bold to just force your way of life and your political system on everyone who doesn't suit your ideas? No one has the right to force anything on anyone. It is ethical incorrect. The USA say that it acts for freedom and democracy, the USA say that they are "good". So start acting like it! Clearly the USA abuses its power in a very unethical way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Socialism is actually a very good system of government. FOr some reason socialism and communism became synonims for eachother and were given a dark and evil meaning. They are not evil though and they are not facsism either. Roosevelt's "New Deal" which pulled us out of the great depression (with help from WWII of course) and gave us things like Unions is very socialistic. You would be hard put to find someone (unless they are a CEO of a big company) who doesn't think that Roosevelt's New Deal was a good thing for our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Socialism and Communism are two completely differnt things. What do you learn in school over there? OK, there are two things you have to distinguish: Socialism and Communism defined by Karl Marx and acctuall Socialism and Communism, as it exists in our world. What did Marx say? History is about class fights. There were different models of society during history, the societies developed during history. The first one was the tribal society with no classes, followed by the slave-master society of the antic times, followed by the Feudal society of the middle ages. In the end we had the capitalistic society with two remaining classes: The Capitalists (those who possess the capital) and the Proletarians, the working class. What is capital? Everything which has a certain value and is in the cycle of economy. This is not only money, but also machines, factories and even the workers. Money isn't always capital. So if you hide your money in a cave it seizes to be capital. Capital is everything inside the economic cicle. In order to gain profit, the capitalist has to increase production. He has to develope cheaper and better methods of production, increasing production while decreasing costs. This is logical. But because he decreases costs, he decreases the working people. Those people no longer can buy the products which leads to less profit. In the end you will have a desaster, economy will collapse. This will be followed by a revolution of the proletarians which will lead to the dictatorship of the prolaterians. This period is called Socialism. In time, the dictatorship of the proletarians will lead to Communism, the society of no classes, where everyone is equal. This is the theory. No follows what acctually happened through history. Lenin had a new theory: Socialism can be achieved by only a minority of the proletarians, the so called "avant-garde". Not only this, he also said, a proletarian revolution can also occur in an underdeveloped society which hasn't reach the height of Capitalism yet. As Russia was when the revolution occured. Interesting to notice is that none of the high-capitalistic nations ever had a proletarian revolution. Then followed what Lenin called "Real socialism". His idea was that this period would be followed by Communism. He was wrong, Stalin came to power and he didn't think of giving up his power, as his successors. What is the difference then between the Real Socialism in Russia and Socialism as it exists in Europe? The european socialist parties don't even think of giving up capitalism. It is their believe that things don't work as Marx thought. Normal socialists think that the government should have more influence in the economy and that the proletarians should have more rights and that they should stand together against the Capitalists. Because socialistic and liberal parties exist at the same time in Europe, european society is better for the population than the US-society. We have more rights, we have better insurrences, we have more unions, we have less unemployment. The European mix between capitalism and socialism works far better than the pure capitalism of the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiade Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Considering the wars of the USA: Who gives you the right to jugde which way of life is good and which not? How can you be so bold to just force your way of life and your political system on everyone who doesn't suit your ideas? No one has the right to force anything on anyone. It is ethical incorrect. The USA say that it acts for freedom and democracy, the USA say that they are "good". So start acting like it! Clearly the USA abuses its power in a very unethical way. Correctness rating: 10 out of 10. We think that it's good to invade other countries and change it so that it fits their idea of a good society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDRud216 Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 no matter what kind of a president kerry will be he cannot be any worse than george w. bush. I live in Oregon and last year bush visited to preech on the subject of forest preservation... last year in my state forest fires devestated the santiam pass area and a major reason they were so destructive was because a huge area around bush's location was made a no fly zone... the planes could not get to the fires because bush was talking about forest preservation... ironic. I had forgotten all about this until I hiked 7 miles through that area, it was very sad and is one of the main reasons that I dislike bush. Was he completely oblivious to the fact that he is a main cause in the severity of oregon forest fires last year or does he just not care? we hiked through miles of destroyed forest, boulders were split from the intense heat, every twig on the ground was curled and every tree was charred and lifeless. Every now and then a toad would apear covered in ash and sit in the remains of a pond, filled with ash and only a small amount of stagnant water even in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Intelligence reports the world over indicated that Saddam had WMDs, and may have been developing the ability to deploy them. Yes, the US and UK acted based on that information.And the people who were actually IN Iraq, looking for these weapons, being fed this information and acting on it were finding NOTHING!!!! Not a damn thing!!!! Does this suggest this so-called 'intelligence' was right or wrong? To me, it suggests, even back then, that the 'intelligence' was wrong. This is further backed up by reports done fairly recently that lambasted the evidence and basically said the intelligence was weak, circumstantial and, in places, just plain wrong. To see a couple of examples, there is another thread where I've posted them here. Anyone who knows the first damn thing about Saddam's 30 year tenure in Iraq, would know that destroying WMDs would be the LAST thing in the world Saddam would ever do. Unless half the world was threatening to *censored* him unless he did. Guess what? Half the world was threatening to *censored* him unless he did. He was a psycho-power monger. How many psycho-power mongers disarm out of free will? Please. Plenty if the alternative was losing their power and quite possibly being killed. That was the situation Saddam was in. If you think Saddam actually destroyed his WMDs, I've got some ocean front property in the Sahara I'd like to sell you. Prove otherwise, then contact some of the former members of UNSCOM and UNIMOVIC for your property deal. They thought he did, they were just unable to ascertain exactly how much he destroyed. Really? Then how do you explain that Bush's ultimatum for war was that Saddam and his government was to leave Iraq within 48 hours, or else war would begin??? Unless Bush actually does have an IQ of 8, far less 80, he knew this ultimatum would never be met. Put yourself in Saddam's shoes: A country is threatening to invade yours unless you abandon power and leave. The UN has refused to sanction war, and, as such, any war this country carries out would be illegal under the UN Charter. Not only that, there is no evidence you have WMD, despite the fact there have been Weapons Inspectors in your country for 12 years, and this country and its ally have been banging on about you having WMD for bloody ages, and this is supposedly the reason behind the threatened war. This means you could very well successfully argue that this war is not only illegal, but based on a false pretext. Would you actually believe the ultimatum? I wouldn't. Even if you did, would you leave? I wouldn't. Secondly, as you yourself said above, Saddam was a 'psycho-power monger'. He would not have left simply because Bush told him to. That fact alone proves that getting Saddam out of power was a PRIMARY objective. If Saddam would have left Iraq when asked, war would have been averted. That sounds like a "primary" objective to me, not merely a "by-product". Well, if that is correct (as I point out above, it's not, but let's say, for arguments sake, it is), then the US government (specifically the Under Secretary of Defense) lied to the Senate about the objectives of the Iraq War. EDIT: I also notice that you are seemingly contradicting yourself. One minute, you're saying it's not Bush's fault because he received faulty intelligence reports which indicated that Iraq had WMD, the next, you are seeming to say that Saddam wouldn't disarm, and therefore he did have WMD. Which is it? Are the intelligence reports wrong, in which case Saddam didn't have WMD, or did Saddam still have WMD, in which case they are right? Obviously, it can't be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postaldudeleo Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Good arguements, but the fact remains........... THE PRESIDENT DOESN"T HAVE THAT MUCH CONTROL OVER the COUNTRY AS YOU WOULD THINK. Really, he can only have his way if congress goes for it. So why is BUSH being blamed for everything? Think about it for a while. When will people stop flaming Bush? Hes not a good president, I agree but agian, he is not to blame. Edited by Malchik to remove intolerence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 postal... your comments about Isreal are uneducated. I would like to start by stating that I am 1/2 jew. My dad is jewish and my mother is catholic (very odd upbringing) however, even given that upbringing I can honestly say that Israel is almost as bad as the US with it's forign policy. Lets be clear here though, we arn't talking about the civilians of Israel or Palistine, we are talking about the governments of each. The view that "palistine is filled with fanatics" is very ignorant. You did say that there are some who arn't but you still portray the country as a swarm of evil maniacs which it is not. When Israel was struggling to become it's own country there were years of bloodshed in which Jewish freedom fighters (read terrorists from the arab view) engaged in bombings and terrorist style attacks on not only military but civilian targets in palestine. In the view of much of the world the Jewish population was a scourge. Again, most of the jews weren't involved with this but the general view was that all jews were terrorists (sound familiar?). It's a touchy subject but can you blame the Palistinians for being angry with Israel for taking land that the Palistinians had lived in for thousands of years? And all of this is just before 1960. Afterwards the roles have been reversed. Israel is now the dominant force in the region and the attrocities being commited by the Israeli army have become progressivly worse. If you think that things are bad in the US when it comes to our terrorist protection (Patriot act for example) you should read about what goes on in Israel. Recently there was a law passed that outlawed Israeli citizens from marrying a palistinian unless they moved to the west bank's desputed zone which is one of the most dangerous areas in Israel today. Even more recently the Israeli army moved into a town in Palestine and leveled every building and house in an attempt to root out susptected militants from the area. Several thousand people were litteraly uprooted and left without a home and as far as I am aware very few militants were actually found. Ariel Sharron is probably the biggest warmongerors (sp?) in the area at this moment and with the US support he has an almost unlimited ammount of power over the area. Israel has been repremanded by the world court countless times for war crimes, attrocites, and terrorist activities against Palestine and other countries and every time that this happens the US vetos the resolutions. They are our lap dogs and we use keep them on a tight leash. There is nothing that Israel does that the US does not have a direct control over. Please note that any time you hear a report saying that "Israeli helocopters did such and such today" make sure you understand that Israel has no helocopters, they are the US's choppers that we have loaned to Israel. I'll go do some quick research on this and come back with a more detailed account of some specific things that Israel has done, and you tell me then that they are a shining beacon of hope for the region. Postaldudeleo you need to educate yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Considering the wars of the USA: Who gives you the right to jugde which way of life is good and which not? How can you be so bold to just force your way of life and your political system on everyone who doesn't suit your ideas? No one has the right to force anything on anyone. It is ethical incorrect. The USA say that it acts for freedom and democracy, the USA say that they are "good". So start acting like it! Clearly the USA abuses its power in a very unethical way. When did I say anything about forcing? ------Name all Capitalist Governments that have fallen apart? Ok, now name all Socialist/Communist that have fallen apart? Now tell me who has the least numbers?------The only big difference from my research is that you vote your leaders in a Socialist and not in a Communist. Removing Upper and Lower classes will never be accepted in the US. The US is too dependent on Capitalism. Nothing can change that. Our government will always need and want money. You don't get that in a Socialist government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiade Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 I'm really worried about what Kerry is going to do to our country... He is going to turn it closer and closer to socialism... Removing Upper and Lower classes will never be accepted in the US. The US is too dependent on Capitalism. Nothing can change that. Our government will always need and want money. You don't get that in a Socialist government. Hmm... So I guess you're not worried about socialism anymore? (I don't mean to sound cynical or sarcastic.) And actually just read Darnoc's posts about socialism in Europe. He emphasizes that the socialist parties over there don't want to get rid of capitalism. Here is something from his previous post: The european socialist parties don't even think of giving up capitalism. It is their believe that things don't work as Marx thought. Normal socialists think that the government should have more influence in the economy and that the proletarians should have more rights and that they should stand together against the Capitalists. Because socialistic and liberal parties exist at the same time in Europe, european society is better for the population than the US-society. We have more rights, we have better insurrences, we have more unions, we have less unemployment. The European mix between capitalism and socialism works far better than the pure capitalism of the USA.- We got social security affordable for everyone, not just the rich- We got less unemployed than the USA- The difference between the richest and the poorest isn't nearly as great as in the USA- The percentage of the population considered to be poor is a lot smaller than in the USA- Our health system is ways ahead from the one in the USA, because you can acctually afford it. Reason: health insurrances for everyone which cover all the basic needs of the people- If you get unemployed here it isn't nearly as bad as in the USA. Why? Because we got unemployment insurances for everyone! So socialism is nothing to be afraid of. I think that the problem is that when most people think about socialism they think about Russia and how poor its people and the country was during the USSR era. Considering the wars of the USA: Who gives you the right to jugde which way of life is good and which not? How can you be so bold to just force your way of life and your political system on everyone who doesn't suit your ideas? No one has the right to force anything on anyone. It is ethical incorrect. The USA say that it acts for freedom and democracy, the USA say that they are "good". So start acting like it! Clearly the USA abuses its power in a very unethical way. When did I say anything about forcing? I don't think you did, but it is a true statement none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.