[kode]

that is market economics, ffs! the middle road between capitalism and monopoly.

socialism (by my means of defenition) is the first step after revolution towards real communism.

[Stryke 9]

Nope. Read your Marx. That's the dictatorship stage- communism as applied today. After that (eventually) comes what's better described as an "anarchy".

[heretic]

Originally posted by StrykeIX


That's the official bull**** line. Doesn't explain why a military target couldn't have been chosen, or some place highly visible but unpopulated. And since all available evidence suggests that, counter to what US politicians said at the time, Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew it, I don't buy it.

Unpopulated? in Japan? :tard:

Every hear of..****, I believe it's Bikini island- they fired off several hundred, in the Pacific rim. they DID do it in a highly visible place.

The first part of this is so silly I don't even feel the need to respond to it. It's what the government is doing as this post is typed.

it's silly they invaded another country? were you not old enough to remember Kuwait? :tard:

As for the "terroristic threats", I suppose that depends on the definition of "terroristic". We DO make a ****load of demands from a good many countries, with the threat of invasion implied in many cases.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Since when have we threatened to invade a country other than Iraq when the UN Security Council has no deemed it? please, give me one.

...Except that the UN is basically a USA fanclub, where the members have to do more or less as we say. Only this year has the UN not gone along with EVERYTHING the US wants, and it's a mild protest now, at that. I think, in light of that, a little pocket change is only fair.

A little pocket change? ~1 Trillion is hardly pocket change... and then you type this:

Besides which, if we took the time to rein in our corporations or helped most of the poorer nations in genuinely useful ways, instead of just giving empty monetary gestures, we could keep those millions. Which, as I said, on a national scale are pocket change. It takes a million dollars for a politician to take a ****, practically.

You first say that giving all this aid is "pocket change" then say we should devote all money to internal issues?? pick a side then get back to me

kthxbye!

Sign of the efficacy of our aid program, don't you think? We prop the governments up and let them slaighter civilians until we decide we need to go invadin', then, all of a sudden, they're terrorist rogue nations who torture their populace. Policing the world, indeed.

 

sorry, didn't see this part. Repeat what you said here, then think of Iraq. We're doing what you just said- being proactive. Saddam has had plenty of time to cooperate with UN resolutions and has spat in their face. The Inspectors were kicked out in the 90's which right then was cause for war, but the US blew it off and didn't give a damn. Now we're holding him accountable for his actions.

I can't debate this with you, because you're so full of contradictions and going back on yourself it's pathetic.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by StrykeIX


That's the official bull**** line. Doesn't explain why a military target couldn't have been chosen, or some place highly visible but unpopulated. And since all available evidence suggests that, counter to what US politicians said at the time, Japan was on the verge of surrender and we knew it, I don't buy it.

[/B]

We didn't know that at the time, and all the evidence pointed to the Japanese fighting to the last man when the decision was made.  Look at Iwo Jima, for instance; the Japanese there committed suicide (troops and civilians) when they couldn't fight any longer rather than being captured.  How does that evidence suggest that Japan was on the verge of surrender?  Remember that we weren't flying high-altitude survalence missions 24/7 and we had no satelites to monitor Japan's capabilities.  For all we knew, they had issued assault rifles to every citizen of their country and were preparing to go out in a bang.  That was sixty years ago, after all.  Also, a military target large enough to warrent a weapon equivalent to 500 tons of TNT simply wasn't present in Japan, only a medium-sized city would justify that much force to destroy.  It was an attack to tell Japan to surrender or else, and to demonstrate that the United States would win no matter what Japan did.  Giving the order to deploy the bomb was the hardest call Truman ever had to make.

StratComm: True. There wasn't much of a way TO know, at that point. But it was still kinda low, and after we found out the government coulda at least felt bad...

That's just it, the government did try to make amends.  We had troops in there in a matter of days after the surrender to try to help the survivors.  And in all honesty, it went over pretty well with Japan.  After all, next to South Korea, thay are one of our closest allies in the Far East.

[kode]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Nope. Read your Marx. That's the dictatorship stage- communism as applied today. After that (eventually) comes what's better described as an "anarchy".

anarchism. not anarchy. big friggin difference.

[kode]

Originally posted by heretic

Every hear of..****, I believe it's Bikini island- they fired off several hundred, in the Pacific rim. they DID do it in a highly visible place.

 

oh yes...  but wasn't those nuclear tests made in the 50's? along with those several hundreds in nevada?

[Stryke 9]

kode: No. But I don't really care to split hairs anymore. Suffice it to say, no communist theorist has EVER called it that, to my knowledge, and in fact I seriously doubt that word exists beyond misspellings and your own personal dictionary. No offence, I could be wrong, but anarchy is what it is, plain and simple- no government, no regulations, just the people ruling themselves.


StratComm: Why would you need to "justify" a target though? The explosions would be as big and impressive no matter where they were.


Heretic: You're not even talking rationally, you're spouting crap without reading and insulting me. Ignore list.


Ass.

[Stryke 9]

Hey, that "ignore list" thing is actually pretty cool. I was wondering if it just blocked PMs, or made messages invisible, or what...

[heretic]

Concerning Ignore lists:

Guide to the INTERWEB chapter 3, paragraph 2.1: you know you lost an argument when you put your hands over your ears and hum loudly.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
StratComm: Why would you need to "justify" a target though? The explosions would be as big and impressive no matter where they were.

The targets of the nuclear drops in WWII were chosen specifically because they hadn't been bombed before (I'd imagine most bases had) because the US did want to send a message to the Japanese.  We had these things, and we chose a target to demonstrate their destructive capability.  The explosion itself wasn't that important (after all, the only film made of those bombs going off was taken from American planes) since no one close to the Emporer would have necessarily seen it, it was the destruction that it left behind that had to convince them.

[Stryke 9]

(by that rule, the most effective debaters and smartest people in the world are just the ones who are so ****ing annoying nobody cares what they think they have to say)

StratComm: Fine. But I still don't think there's much justification for wiping out a whole city of people, much less two. Isn't that the sort of thing that's regularly featured in action movie bad guys?

Oh, wait, they're freelancers. That IS evil.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by heretic
Unpopulated? in Japan? :tard:

it's silly they invaded another country? were you not old enough to remember Kuwait? :tard:
 

[color=66ff00]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm not 100% sure what :tard: means so please explain it to me. I sincerely hope it isn't some childish way of saying 'retard', that would make your argument a little petulant sounding.
[/color]

[kode]

actually, anarchism is a form of socialism.
socialism is an ideology that mainly can be divided into libertarian socialism (anarchism and syndicalism, for example), and authoritarian socialism (maoism, marxism, leninism, etc)

or, for that matter, into libertarian anarchosyndicalism, revolutionary communism, and reformarian socialism.

oh, here's some link that basically says the same thing that the lines above that I translated from swedish for your ignorant american mind: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[vyper]

*quietly takes over world while everyone else is arguing*

[Stryke 9]

Non-commies sure like to label Communism, don't they?

Sorry, I jsut wasn't familiar with those terms. I learned my communism from the Communists, who never used them. Either way's legitimate, since the Commies aren't the most objective observers, generally, but I just like to find out the how and the why from people "on the inside", as it were.

[kode]

Originally posted by heretic
Concerning Ignore lists:

Guide to the INTERWEB chapter 3, paragraph 2.1: you know you lost an argument when you put your hands over your ears and hum loudly.

[/B]

heh... besides the fact that I'm having an argument with him and still oppose your opinion somewhat, that is funnay.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Maeglamor


[color=66ff00]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm not 100% sure what :tard: means so please explain it to me. I sincerely hope it isn't some childish way of saying 'retard', that would make your argument a little petulant sounding.
[/color]

If you don't know what :tard: means, then you're on the wrong forum.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by heretic


If you don't know what :tard: means, then you're on the wrong forum.

[color=33ff00]I'll take that as a yes.
[/color]

[kode]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Non-commies sure like to label Communism, don't they?

Sorry, I jsut wasn't familiar with those terms. I learned my communism from the Communists, who never used them. Either way's legitimate, since the Commies aren't the most objective observers, generally, but I just like to find out the how and the why from people "on the inside", as it were.

oh... I learned these terms from my friends in the leninist-marxist communist party (revolutionarys), KPLM(R), the biggest communist party in sweden... but I guess they know dick about communism then, do they?

pardon me for saying so, but you don't really sound like you know what you're talking about. dying aint funnay, and death never changes anything, whether it was done for "a good cause" or not.

[Shrike]

Hmm, coming in after this was closed, I must say I'm dissapointed I missed it.

Anyhow, one point I wish to make, directed at Thunder.

Originally posted by Thunder
Correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't America sell weapons to Iraq when they were figihting Iran?

This point is not particularly relevant..... I suppose you're trying to imply that the rockets were supplied at some point in the past by US, or the technology to build them was supplied by the US.  Incorrect.

122mm is not a US (or even to my knowledge NATO) caliber, it is in fact of Russian origin.  As you may know, Russians have long supplied ME countries with weapons, rockets (which really are quite simple to build) would have been supplied to Iraq and then almost certainly built (at least ammo for them) domestically.

Anyhow, this serves no other purpose.