What's unethical about only allowing people into the country that we think will benefit us as a whole?
I'm actually surprised that you have to ask, even though you are an American. I thought you people were supposed to believe that "All men are born equal under God". Maybe it's all like "All upper-class white American males are equal, above all others". Or what? What are you trying to say? That people who can't immediately contribute to profit making are dirt and don't deserve a fair go? What I wish on you is that you get to experience life on the 'other side'. It's only fair...
You'll find that that's frequently a matter of shooting back. It's not just day laborers sneaking across the border.
What, like boogey men? I just don't see the situation you're describing. I see a bunch of selfish, paranoid Yanks, treating the rest of the world like shit. Business as usual, really.
Gates is right to criticize US immigration policy, which causes a great deal of hardship for people who are fleeing desparate situations ( which, I might add, the US is not exactly an innocent bystander in ). But Gates is wrong to use economic arguments as the basis for his attacks... the main argument is that it ( immigration policy ) is unethical. The reason why this is important comes to light when you ask the question, "What about unskilled migrants. Of course Gates, Dubya, and the rest of the establishment is fine to let them rot on the borders ( or be shot by redneck, self-appointed border police ), because there's no guarantee they'll contribute to profit-making in the short term. But skilled migrants who can contribute to profit-making immediately... hell... let them in, so they can increase the labour pool and decrease wages, quick!
I get tired of adding this reference to where I showed you wrong
There is a difference between lying to support your claim that I am wrong, and actually 'showing' that I am wrong. You denied, for example, that Israel killed a family on a Palestinian beach, which triggered the latest round of attrocities against Palestine, as well as the Lebanon war. You proudly claim that you have 'shown me to be wrong', but the evidence is against you here:
I suppose you have 'shown' that all these sources are lying, right? The mere fact that they report this news demonstrates that they are part of an antisemitic conspiracy to assist the dogs of Palestine drive the innocent Jews into the sea, right? I know how it goes.
Sounds like you can't handle reality. You still haven't responded to any of my points, instead using the typical Zionist defense: "Help! Help! I'm being lied to by a racist!"
As I said before, I really only have time to respond to people who have a serious point to make. If you have one, then make it. Otherwise go stand in a mall that a suicide bomber is about to hit.
Well. No you've really just repeated the same lies. You've denied the Palestinian Holocaust, putting yourself on the level of the Nazis. And you've failed to respond to the 4 examples I gave you of your people killing hundreds of Palestinians at a time, other than discarding them as 'lies, all LIES!'. Your utter contempt for other people, Palestinians in particular, makes your accusation of ME being racist a bit shallow. Being a busy social activist who campaigns for an end to racism and war, I find it peculiar that someone who supports Israel can come to this conclusion.
You claim that Palestinians have killed Israelis. Sure they have. I don't deny that. But you refuse to accept the reason why this is happening. You refuse to admit reality, and without this, there really is no forum for discussion.
It is heartening, however, to read that just recently, a group of Jewish scholars in the UK released a statement calling on Jews to allow other, non-fundamentalist views to be expressed in their community... in particular, to allow for critical analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and others. A week or so after this, the same situation was mirrored here in Australia. These are the Jewish views you should be listening to - those with the courage to stand up against a horror that is equal to that inflicted upon Jews by the Nazis, and is the height of hypocracy.
Didn't I respond when I pointed out that the countries Israel are in conflict with are factors of ten worse in most any human rights parameter -- so you probably made a world record(!) in size of double standards when you claimed that Israel was worth a thousand times more criticism than e.g. Sudan?
If I remember correctly, you responded by claiming that Israel was the model of democracy and peace. That's hardly a well thought through response. It might cut it inside Israel where there is really only one opinion that gets voiced, but for people outside the propaganda machine, it doesn't cut it... not by a long shot. You see, you can't defend Israel by pointing at other countries and saying "But THEY'RE getting away with such-and-such". The fact is that problems in other countries are bad, but pale in comparison to the 50-year incredibly one-sided campaign of terror and genocide that you have subjected the Palestinians to. The other key difference is that problems in Sudan etc are INTERNAL problems. Maybe they cross country borders, but only because those countries have artificial borders. The Israeli problem is a truly international one, where Jews from all around the world have taken a country by force ( backed all the way by Western powers ), and inflicted 50 years of terrorism and suffering on the indigenous population. The scale is without precedent. This is why the peace movement internationally is in 100% agreement that the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is the most important conflict for us to concentrate on, and in fact all other conflicts would at least partly dissolve when a just solution is achieved.
When I showed that you were wrong about your claims about the Jews being mass murderers at the Nakba
You didn't show anything. You lied, claiming that the event didn't happen as it did. See my above comments re: Holocaust deniers.
You made wrong claims about Jenin
Holocaust denier.
I didn't respond when I disagreed and showed your antisemite lies to be wrong yet again?
Not antisemitic, no. Anti-Israeli. One of my best friends is a Jew, and a founding member of 'Jews against the occupation'.
In my last post, didn't I respond when I pointed out how extremely bad style it is in the western world to do racist attacks?
Oh come on. Israel is the most racist state on the planet. People who criticise aren't automatically racist or antisemitic.
Yuck. That's even worse. And it's also ironic that you feel the need to refer to people with an understanding of current environmental issues as 'tree-huggers' when trees are pretty much the only thing you and your users could hug without getting slapped.
How long before some fugly guy having a mid-life crisis puts a link to an online dating site in his signature, and gets marked as a troll in his first post?
Belief is thought. Thought is fluid, and based on past experiences. It's not based on genetic makeup. The same, horribly unscientific argument has been used to suggest that crime and antisocial behaviour is genetic, and that particular races are inferior on a genetic basis. It's total bullshit. People's thoughts are strongly correlated with their past experiences, and complex beliefs such as religious beliefs come from society and from experience, not from our genes. This article just demonstrates how little supposed scientists know about DNA.
I wrote that Hezbollah committed acts of war -- your claim that Hezbollah's motivation isn't relevant, idiot.
No, you stupid lying little idiot. I merely said that Hezbollah were responding to Israeli atrocities.
And give refs to your claim about Hezbollah's motivation -- I haven't seen they claim that.
No. Instead, why don't you go fuck yourself? You think you can continually call me a liar and demand I back up everything I say, yet you refuse to discuss the problems with you fucking idiot fundamentalist Jews. It's plain for anyone with half a brain what Hezbolla's motivation was. If you can't see it, then you clearly have less than half a brain.
Also, I don't know how that family died since someone seems to be lying about that
WHAT? You stupid fucking retarded Jew! It was an international incident! How do you like it when people deny the Holocaust? You think you're the only humans, and the only ones who deserve to have your people mourned? But this attitude means that the opposite happens - people mourn all other deaths apart from fuckwits like you and your retarded friends in Israel.
Your lack of integrity in repeating known bad facts is incredible.
Oh sure. *I* lack integrity. That's a good one. Well, the people who know me know how far from the truth this is. I put it to you that YOU lack integrity, and you are a petty little liar who denies everything that challenges your backwards thinking. What have you got to say about that? Nothing, I bet, because you are incapable of responding to anything I say, apart from crying like a baby about lies.
The only mass murder mentioned was done on Jews, as usual.
Where is your proof? I don't see you linking to anything proving any mass murder. I've linked 4 documents that prove that Israel is responsible for mass murder. Since you have nothing constructive to say about it, and no proof otherwise, I can only conclude that I've won the argument by default.
I will now only respond to further correspondence if you actually make an attempt to address the multitude of issues I've raised, instead of just denying the Palestinian Holocaust ( and I know how much you Jews hate Holocaust deniers ). So either come up with some serious discussion, or don't bother. I have a strong, well educated mind, and I'm not about to be swayed by some snotty little arsewipe who's best arguement is crying "LIAR!". That's no argument, and to prove my point, I will once again call you a liar.
I don't have the energy to handle the rest of your lies (Israel doesn't generally start wars -- Hezbollah started acts of wars this summer by kidnapping, for instance.)
Oh that's a good one. MY lies? I think you'll find that Israel was the cause of this conflict. Hezbollah were responding to Israeli attacks that killed a number of Palestinians from the same family on a beach. And don't pretend you don't know that Israel has been constantly bombing Lebanese 'military targets' since the previous war you started with them.
Like when you claimed that Israel killed hundreds at a time -- which you first couldn't support
Actually I did. I gave an example of Jenin. If you want more examples, try googling for Nakba. Fundamentalist Jews murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of Palestinians in the killing frenzy that was to become the norm for Israel. You keep claiming that I'm lying and can't back up my claims, but in reality it is YOU who are a liar, and can't respond to the truth when it is staring you in the face.
Since you're a little dim and seem to want proof, proof and more proof, even though fundamentalist violence is a way of life for your kind, I will provide more links for you to ponder ( I assume you'll call them all LIES ):
Things were invented long before patents were around. Frankly, if companies can't compete on a level playing field, they can take their bat and ball and fuck off. Companies who can compete will pop up. That's the secret of supply and demand. The excuse "oh but how can we possibly compete if people steal our innovations" is a crock of shit. I could argue that it is THEY who are steal inventions from society. They were raised, educated, supported etc by society. Their job, their invention, everything about them, exists only inside society. They can't take advantage of everything that society offers, and when they discover something useful to people, say, "Right. I'm going to extract every last dollar from society for this, no matter what the cost". That's pathological. If you have a look at the history of capitalism in the US, you'll find that they had absolutely non respect for patents while their own industry was developing. It was common knowledge that patents dampened innovation and economic growth, hence they were ignored. It was only after US industry had taken and incorporated everyone else's patented ideas and then actually started to invent something themselves that they did a 180-degree turnaround and started demanding that everyone else respect their patent law. So you see, patents aren't necessary for innovation. They're necessary for profit maximisation. But profit maximisation is not an ideal situation for anyone other than the capitalists who own the patents. Their competition, and the rest of society, pay dearly.
Now, the above answer fits inside a capitalist model, and still assumes that you actually WANT competing capitalists. It also DEFENDS smaller capitalists from big ones, preventing the onset of the ( admittedly inevitable ) monopoly. But there is of course another model of organisation, where there are no capitalists, and society has agreed to move forward together, as opposed to pushing others into the dirt in the attempt to enrich yourself. As Marx said so long ago, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". So to return to your question, "Who would now invent in such a world?", the answer is simple. Society would decide democratically what proportion of money they wanted to allocate to R&D in various areas, and it would happen. And when new discoveries appeared, they wouldn't be monopolised by patent-holders so only the rich can benefit. They would be available to all, which flows naturally from the fact that the research was commissioned by society. Nay-sayers argue that this would slow the rate of progress, but as I've shown in my initial response, it's patents that slow innovation. In a socialist society, the only thing limiting the rate of scientific development is society's wishes.
There really is nothing worse than a little brat who can't face up to reality, and instead claims that the rest of the world must be 'lying'. I don't lie. I don't need to. It's people who support murderous, racist, fundamentalist states such as Israel who have to do overtime lying.
Now one of the things you love to lie about is Israel's supposed democracy. But it's a joke, even by bourgeois-democratic standards. Even in bourgeois democracies, they have universal suffrage. But Israel doesn't. Only Jews can vote. If you're a Palestinian refugee, you can't even get back into your own country. How the fuck is that democratic? Really, tell me. And try to keep the lies and bullshit to a minimum.
You then have the audacity to complain about other people starting wars. Again, you need to look a bit closer to home if you're concerned about war. Israel is the biggest threat and obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This is not just my opinion. This is accepted as fact worldwide. Deal with it. Roses do not protude from the anuses of every Jew in Israel. Far from it.
Now instead of listing your bullet points once more, and using your trusty "Oh my God! You're Lying! It's all LIES!" approach, try engaging your little-used brain and addressing some of the many issues I have raised with your fine fundamentalist cesspool.
What a bunch of liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-success crap.
Anti-success? It depends how you judge success. If you're only interested in the money value, and you're only looking at it from an individual capitalist point of view, then yes, patents are very successful. But for everybody else, they do things like prevent medication from getting to those who need it, prevent innovation by scaring / suing everyone else out of existence, prevent others from achieving the same discovery independently again, and generally retard things.
Patents protect the innovations you could never think up yourself
Who says I couldn't think it up myself? The fact that someone else has patented a technology before me doesn't mean that no-one else could think it up themselves. And anyway, why should they even have to? Why shouldn't they be able to leverage that discovery, and figure out something else, and add to collective knowledge? That's the best way to deliver rapid technological progress, not by patenting things. That slows things down.
and you're just envious of the people that do
Oh please. If anyone is envious of 'the people that do', it's envy of the fact that they live in a completely different world, where everything that they want and need are plentifully available to them... at everyone else's expense. Compared to the way 'the people that do' live, most of the Earth's people's lives suck big time.
Well, simply claiming that everything that a critic of Israel say is lies, doesn't make it so. You are far too content to jump up and down about the fact that there are other countries that don't live up to your standards, and yet you refuse to adhere to those standards yourself. I maintain that Israel is a thousand times worse than the countries you listed. As a so-called democracy, the Israeli people have to accept responsibility for the terrorist actions of their democratically elected government. People living in countries that don't even claim to be democratic obviously can't have the finger pointed at them for the actions of their rulers. You need to stop worrying about how bad Syria etc are and concentrate on your own backyard... if it could be called that, though I still maintain that Israel is really Palestine under illegitimate military occupation. Try responding to that, instead of bitching and moaning about everything else you think is wrong with the world. And if you must keep pointing the finger at others, try looking at the effect the US and other Western powers have had in the area with regard to the lack of democracy, fundamentalism, etc. You are very keen to quote Human Rights Watch when they criticize other countries. Try reading up on what they say about your favourite country.
OK. So you didn't come up with any excuses. Instead, you refused to discuss Israeli atrocities at all. Either way. Head in sand.
I showed that your claims were totally mindbogglingly wrong according to your own reference
Wrong again. You claimed this. But your claim is patently false. I gave the example of Jenin, which you refuse to accept as this is somehow outside the realm of normal Israeli terrorist activity, so we're not allowed to talk about it. Try addressing some of the issues I raised, do some research beyond the extreme right-wing, pro-Zionist trash you're mindwashed by, and return with a serious response when you are able.
Well, I'm not in the business of doing research for you. As I stated, I did a very quick google search, and then linked the 1st 3 articles that came up. They all talked about hundreds of deaths, so I figured I'd link them and get on with the rest of my response. I see you haven't commented on the rest of my response, while coming up with excuses for Jenin.
Wait, you're talking about the US hedging its bet while the whole WW2 was due to Europe desperatly trying to avoid was by giving into Hitler's every demand? I mean are you complaining about the US or human nature?
No. I'm saying that the US hedged it's bets, and tried to choose the winning side in the conflict, regardless of the ethical consequences. In particular, there were key merchant bankers who were in daily contact with the Nazis. Duby'a grandfather was convicted of money laundering millions for the Nazis. The consensus was that Hitler was the one to back, but this was politically very dangerous. Perl Harbour forced their hand.
Huh? wtf are you smoking, the US gained maybe 2 pieces of land after WW2 that weren't returned or made self-governing within a decade.
It's not all about gaining land. It's well known that the US emerged as the only real superpower after WWII, and this, combined with the fact that they entered the war so late and therefore didn't have their country & economy in ruins, pushed them to their current dominant position today. They forged deep alliances which remain to this day. They have the UN by the balls, with veto power in the security council. They did incredibly well for themselves out of WWII, especially considering they hardly did any fighting compared to everyone else.
Well then please provide the references ( referring to supporting Hitler )
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/... and this isn't the exception. Many leading members of the ruling class are implicated as the Bush dynasty.
In the real world those who don't compromise, lie and backstab their way are usually found dead in a gutter when someone who does gets annoyed at them. There is no such thing as a "good" nation or, with rare exceptions, a "good person" so in the end it's all about choosing the lesser of many evils.
I agree that history proves you right here, but the point is that one person or one country can't make a difference on their own. You need international solidarity, to break the cycle of violence, corruption and tyranny.
So why did the US enter WW2 at all
The UK was applying a LOT of pressure on the US already. After Perl Harbour, they didn't really have much choice but to get involved, and it was politically out of the question to support Hitler after Perl Harbour. So they got involved. Finally.
Pearl Harbor could have been easily avoided had the US not embargoed Japan
Pressure from the UK on this one.
Likewise the result was millions of dead Americans so your logic appears to be fault.
My logic only appears at fault if you assume that the US ruling class care about their own civilians. They don't. I don't have a particular example from that time handy, but if you look at how they viewed other country's civilians ( Japanese for example... how many millions did they kill / irradiate ) you'll get an idea. Or for a current example, look at how they handled New Orleans. Instead of sending in lots of soldiers to actually do something about evacuating people, they sent in lots of soldiers with 'shoot to kill' orders, to protect private property. It goes without saying that if people had been evacuated, they wouldn't be around to loot... and also they wouldn't have had the *need* to loot.
Can you give good references to any of your claims? At all?!
I have given the 1st 3 from a google search, though I suspect your head will remain firmly buried in the sand.
What a nitwit you are!
Oh shit. What can I say? Takes on to know one.
First you claimed that a democracy (Israel) is worth a thousand times more criticism than most any country (not other democracy) on the planet!
Israel is hardly a good example of a properly functioning democracy. You can't claim to have a democracy simply because there are elections. Take Iraq, for example. No-one in their right minds call this a democracy. Likewise, I reject the idea that the US or my home country, Australia, are democracies. You see, for democracy to work you need a couple of important requirements met:
- freedom of speech In Israel, I believe anyone who criticises the Zionist agenda finds themselves in a very difficult situation indeed Also, freedom of speech doesn't just mean the freedom to stand on the corner and say what I think... it means equal access to the media. So if I have a political viewpoint that doesn't get covered in the media, and in fact only gets criticised, then that's hardly democratic, as people's opinions are very much shaped by the media. And in Israel, the media is very, very right-wing.
- independent country In Israel's case, it doesn't really matter what political parties want to do, because they are 100% dependent on the US for aid... in fact Israel is the biggest recipient of aid in the world. They also receive unbelievable gifts of weapons and ammunition from the US. So they are a US client state, not a democracy.
Then you make idiotic claims re Syria, one of the worst dictatorships in the world!
Look. What Syria does inside it's own borders is up to the Syrians. I don't by any means like what's going on there, but on the other hand I understand that the best people for changing Syria are Syrians... not the US or UN or whatever. Now what Syria does outside it's borders is dwarfed incredibly by what Israel does outside it's own borders. In fact I say that Israel shouldn't have any borders at all... it shouldn't exist. But keep in mind that when people are asked about the biggest threat to world peace, no-one says "Syria". Everyone says either the US or Israel. Syria doesn't even register.
Now you specifically claim that despite your insane claims about genocide etc done by democracies that you're not a useful idiot for the dictators?
Ah... no I made no such claim. In fact I'm having trouble making that sentence make sense. If there is a point in there, try making it again.
Syria is one of the world's worst breakers of human rights and police states is worse than any democracy?
Well, as I said, what goes on inside Syria is really up to Syrians to fix. They are the only people that can liberate themselves from their own ruling class. But Israel's humans rights abuses against
I mean why would an American citizen want to die for a conflict that is thousands of miles away and in no way directly affecting them?
Oh, there are reasons. They are collectively called Imperialism. In the end that's why the US did get involved. Take the occupation of Iraq for a current example.
Note that Hitler's atrocities were not known about at the time.
Exactly. It wasn't a secret to the ruling class, but they hadn't as yet decided which side to join, so Hitler's atrocities were being kept out of the mainstream media, to leave the US' options open.
Nonetheless the US government was providing assistance to the allies (essentially free weapons and supplies) despite the continual problems this caused for relations with the axis
Sure. But they did exactly the same for Hitler. The US has a long history of providing weapons and other support to both sides in a conflict.
IF you even think the US has a smidge of the soviet propaganda level then I'm not going to bother replying anymore as you're just another crazy delusional person on whom rational argument is a waste.
You need to reconsider this stance. Propaganda is at an all-time high in the US. It's a different kind to the old-world style. It's a lot more subtle, and yet more powerful at the same time. Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a detailed analysis of the use of propaganda and one-sidedness western societies. It's very interesting.
Yes, as you only mention him during WW2 your argument only applies if he didn't exist after the war due to how different things were during and after the war. Again if you can't understand why things are very different during a continent wide war and after it then there isn't much more I can say
I see. That's the problem then. People like you are willing to compromise their position and support people who they 'claim' to be 'bad people' simply because they need help from these bad people, and then when things are going better, they think they can turn around and show their true colours. It doesn't work like that. Sure, it's done all the time, and yes I understand exactly why. All I'm saying is that it's not a defensible position, and that I despise people - and countries - who act like this.
If being officially friendly to someone means that a million more of your own people don't have to die then its downright evil to not do so.
Oh bullshit. There was nothing altruistic about the US' involvement in the 2nd world war. As I've already pointed out, the US hedged their bets until the last minute, and when they finally decided ( incorrectly, according to their own goals at the time ) which side to join, they turned on the propaganda machine and let people know how bad Hitler was. And sure Hitler was bad. But don't try to argue that that's the reason why the US decided to enter the war or fight against Germany. And don't tell me that the US ruling class gives a damn about millions of dead people, whether they're dead Germans, Americans or Iraqis. The only difference is that dead Americans create political problems at home, so should be avoided if possible.
Also hindsight is 20/20
Oh, the "We didn't know" defense. It's OK for civilians to throw this one out occasionally, but not the ruling class. They knew. They spent a LOT of money making sure they knew.
Syria is a neighbor of Israel and part of the conflict. Check HRW.org. It is one of the worst breakers of human rights, breaks war laws, when Syria had an uprising they killed indiscriminately (not even trying to avoid civilians, like Israel), in the list of worst police states on the planet, assassinates politicians in other countries... etc. The point is, it can easily be argued that in most any parameter -- Syria is worse than Israel by multiple factors of ten
Israel does all these things, but on a larger scale than Syria.
Sudan has organized mass murders, mass rapes and... ah, what the Hell. They kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands. In Palestine, Israel (mostly) tries to target people killing civilians..
Same for Israel. Keep in mind how the state was actually formed as well... it was genocide.
The dead from Israeli fire are at most hundreds a year
There are millions of Palestinian refugees who have had their homes bombed or bulldozed. Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians at a time, NOT in a year.
US complained a lot about China when other countries (which also had business there) kept their mouths shut.
That's international diplomacy for you. The Chinese government knew exactly what it meant when on the one hand, they were chided for the massacre, and on the other hand experienced a massive flood of capital entering the country from the US, along with huge manufacturing deals ( setting up sweat shops ).
And the US aren't a dictatorship
It's all relative. They're a hell of a lot closer to a dictatorship than they are to democracy, particularly with this 'Commander in Chief' bullshit that apparently never ends.
so that means you support the worst dictators on the planet against democracies
That's a simpleton analysis. Opposing one side doesn't mean supporting another side. There are more than 2 sides.
I didn't understand that you believed that your conspiracy theories re natural resources was a relevant answer to my argument
It's this sort of drivel that let to my insults in my past post, and the reason is that I know that you know you're wrong here, but push the point anyway because it suits your agenda. It doesn't take a genius to figure that oil is a central issue in Iraq. The Bush dynasty is founded in oil. Cheney is an oil dealer. The whole administration has quite an unnatural fixation with oil, as well as being personally incredibly enriched by it. I don't need to offer you references. If you can't see the truth already, no amount of 'proof' will shock you out of your fairytale world where the US is some big happy benevolent power seeking to free the world, and Israel is their friendly peace-making sidekick.
Now I'll go do stuff in my life. Please try to get one too, troll.
Oh dear. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't automatically make them a troll. If it did, then you'd be the biggest troll on the planet at the moment. But I don't call you a troll, just deluded.
About Cambodja, either you are lying, or you need to study more... North Vietnam and China supported Pol Pot, not the US, sir.
Actually, you're the one full of bullshit here. The US not only suspected that their bombing of Cambodia would push Pol Pot to the top, but they actually expressed a desire for this in intelligence documents. The UN was falling over itself to accommodate him. Even decades later, they still hold a soft spot for the Khmer Rouge, so that activists such as John Pilger can say:
I watched Khmer Rouge officials welcomed back to Phnom Penh by U.N. officials who went to astonishing lengths not to offend them. Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot's henchman who once said that the only mistake the Khmer Rouge had made was not killing enough people, took the salute of U.S. and other U.N. troops as a guest of honor on United Nations Day in Phnom Penh.
After Vietnam fell, all of Indochina fell together to communism. Living standards dropped as usual, millions were executed.
Well, firstly, Indochina didn't fall to communism. Parts of it fell to state capitalism. And yes, under this system, living standards drop 'as usual'. The state is far better at oppressing workers than individual capitalists.
And today, southeast asian states who didn' become communist have orders of magnitude better living standards than those who choose the route to communism.
Well, as I already pointed out, they didn't turn to communism, but state capitalism. If they looked like they were evolving to communism, they would get the US up their arse as fast as Russia did in 1918, or Vietnam did many years later.
Funny thing is that the anti-protesters at that time, always failed to condemn the soviet and chinese support of the north Vietnamese,
That's because the biggest villain was the US. Sure, there were lesser villains, but you have to concentrate on the biggest one, to ease the suffering of the innocent people who were under attack from both the US, and their own governments. But the US was always leading the way in attacks on innocent people, so that's what people rallied around.
just like you today pretend that IRAN is not behind the terrorist attacks in Iraq.
Don't be fucking absurd! It was the US who launched the terrorist attacks on Iraq, NOT Iran. Iran has always SUPPORTED Iraq in this war.
but the Iraq people could be a lot better, and the US troops could have been gone home for a long time, if it weren't for the direct participation of Iran and Siria national in the insurgency
What Iran and others do have nothing to do with the length of the occupation, just as they had nothing to do with the invasion. The US and their coalition of the killing intend to stay in Iraq as long as politically and economically possible - no shorter. This was always their plan, and they are executing it perfectly.
The massive participation of Iraqis on the last election show that they are relieved of bei
As was the US. They only entered the war on the side of the British after years of hedging their bets and procrastinating.
Also, your argument is worse than pathetic since Stalin didn't somehow cease to exist after WW2
WTF? So my argument only holds up if Stalin disappeared after WWII? Hold off on the drugs a little.
I mean wtf, do you expect congressman to insult an ally who is proving a large help to the war effort?
Well. Firstly, no, I don't expect them to, because I'm far too cynical for that. But secondly, you should take a stand and stick with it. You can't flop this way and that because it suits your purposes. That's called hypocracy.
He could have been eating babies and they'd still have said he was a great man.
Sure. The US political establishment is fucked. No argument from me here.
Hell, his own people thought he was a great man due to the massive amount of propaganda that he used.
Sure. Same as, say, in the US now. Well, not quite the same. No amount of propaganda can turn around public opinion on Dubya now. But sure, they had massive progaganda, as you do.
I can only assume that your "history" books glossed over things like the Berlin Blockade/Airlift or the Korean War.
Are you claiming that Japan's investments in consumer tech will result in many-kwatt lasers?:-)
Not at all. You're the one who wants military lasers, not me.
For instance, consider WW II and the Germans building Goddard's rockets -- how could that have happened in the civilian sector? How many more decades or centuries?
A lot slower, as you point out. The key here is that I don't want weapons research, whereas you seem to think it's necessary. You see, big powerful weapons only kill more people and cause more suffering. Look at Iraq. The Yankees have the biggest weapons around, but are they able to assert their will? No. All they're able to do is kill and injure lots of people. So their fancy weapons give them nothing on the battlefield except for casualties.
Well, give an example of a working system that is nicer for human rights? For instance, complainers like you aren't thrown into jail or worse? Oh, there are none?
Quite wanking yourself stupid for a while and think about your own country, stupid. The US is the worst human rights abuser in the developed world. How about Guantanimo Bay and all those secret torture camps. You think this the 'nicest' system possible. You are deluded.
Also, since most experiments fail with tens of millions of dead, it needs be well tested.
What?
USA seemed to handle Tiananmen square and latter democracy issues better than e.g. Sweden, which is even more dependent on China for economic reasons.
Good example, dickhead. Right after Tianamen Square, the US invested billions in China. I'm sure that sent them the right message about your stance on human rights. Are you thinking about your position at all? Maybe you've got a couple of personalities in there, all trying to get at different, contradictory points?
My point -- which you never discussed -- was that it is in our (as in "the west's") interest to work for democracy.
Er... yes I did. Re-read my comment. I don't have the time or inclination to make the point again if you can't be bothered to read it the first time. Or maybe a different personality read it, and is hiding it from 'you'?
You feel good agreeing with the worst dictators on the planet?
No. I very rarely agree with the US on anything. What gives you the idea that I agree with them? You're a real job, aren't you?
The UN (and extremists like you) complain literally thousands of times more about Israel, which can't compare.
Extremists! Oh Jesus you are a piece of work. And yes, Israel deserves to be complained about thousands of times more than pretty much every other country.
Enough of this garbage, I have better things to do than argue with religious nuts.
I'd hardly call your mindless drivel an 'argument'. And I'm not religious. I was born into a Christian family, and have since renounced my religion. Clearly you haven't evolved emotionally and intellectually to this point yet. I've read some pretty stupid stuff on the old Slashdot over the past day or so, but you really take the cake. If you're pretending, you're doing a damned fine job. Otherwise, you need to get some help.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm actually surprised that you have to ask, even though you are an American. I thought you people were supposed to believe that "All men are born equal under God". Maybe it's all like "All upper-class white American males are equal, above all others". Or what? What are you trying to say? That people who can't immediately contribute to profit making are dirt and don't deserve a fair go? What I wish on you is that you get to experience life on the 'other side'. It's only fair
What, like boogey men? I just don't see the situation you're describing. I see a bunch of selfish, paranoid Yanks, treating the rest of the world like shit. Business as usual, really.
That's the most insightful anonymous post I've ever seen. Well said, comrade :)
Gates is right to criticize US immigration policy, which causes a great deal of hardship for people who are fleeing desparate situations ( which, I might add, the US is not exactly an innocent bystander in ). But Gates is wrong to use economic arguments as the basis for his attacks ... the main argument is that it ( immigration policy ) is unethical. The reason why this is important comes to light when you ask the question, "What about unskilled migrants. Of course Gates, Dubya, and the rest of the establishment is fine to let them rot on the borders ( or be shot by redneck, self-appointed border police ), because there's no guarantee they'll contribute to profit-making in the short term. But skilled migrants who can contribute to profit-making immediately ... hell ... let them in, so they can increase the labour pool and decrease wages, quick!
There is a difference between lying to support your claim that I am wrong, and actually 'showing' that I am wrong. You denied, for example, that Israel killed a family on a Palestinian beach, which triggered the latest round of attrocities against Palestine, as well as the Lebanon war. You proudly claim that you have 'shown me to be wrong', but the evidence is against you here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1796861
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1794
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/13/isrlpa1354
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595
http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/hamasinpower/
I suppose you have 'shown' that all these sources are lying, right? The mere fact that they report this news demonstrates that they are part of an antisemitic conspiracy to assist the dogs of Palestine drive the innocent Jews into the sea, right? I know how it goes.
Sounds like you can't handle reality. You still haven't responded to any of my points, instead using the typical Zionist defense: "Help! Help! I'm being lied to by a racist!"
As I said before, I really only have time to respond to people who have a serious point to make. If you have one, then make it. Otherwise go stand in a mall that a suicide bomber is about to hit.
You claim that Palestinians have killed Israelis. Sure they have. I don't deny that. But you refuse to accept the reason why this is happening. You refuse to admit reality, and without this, there really is no forum for discussion.
It is heartening, however, to read that just recently, a group of Jewish scholars in the UK released a statement calling on Jews to allow other, non-fundamentalist views to be expressed in their community
If I remember correctly, you responded by claiming that Israel was the model of democracy and peace. That's hardly a well thought through response. It might cut it inside Israel where there is really only one opinion that gets voiced, but for people outside the propaganda machine, it doesn't cut it ... not by a long shot. You see, you can't defend Israel by pointing at other countries and saying "But THEY'RE getting away with such-and-such". The fact is that problems in other countries are bad, but pale in comparison to the 50-year incredibly one-sided campaign of terror and genocide that you have subjected the Palestinians to. The other key difference is that problems in Sudan etc are INTERNAL problems. Maybe they cross country borders, but only because those countries have artificial borders. The Israeli problem is a truly international one, where Jews from all around the world have taken a country by force ( backed all the way by Western powers ), and inflicted 50 years of terrorism and suffering on the indigenous population. The scale is without precedent. This is why the peace movement internationally is in 100% agreement that the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is the most important conflict for us to concentrate on, and in fact all other conflicts would at least partly dissolve when a just solution is achieved.
You didn't show anything. You lied, claiming that the event didn't happen as it did. See my above comments re: Holocaust deniers.
Holocaust denier.
Not antisemitic, no. Anti- Israeli . One of my best friends is a Jew, and a founding member of 'Jews against the occupation'.
Oh come on. Israel is the most racist state on the planet. People who criticise aren't automatically racist or antisemitic.
Yuck. That's even worse. And it's also ironic that you feel the need to refer to people with an understanding of current environmental issues as 'tree-huggers' when trees are pretty much the only thing you and your users could hug without getting slapped.
How long before some fugly guy having a mid-life crisis puts a link to an online dating site in his signature, and gets marked as a troll in his first post?
Belief is thought. Thought is fluid, and based on past experiences. It's not based on genetic makeup. The same, horribly unscientific argument has been used to suggest that crime and antisocial behaviour is genetic, and that particular races are inferior on a genetic basis. It's total bullshit. People's thoughts are strongly correlated with their past experiences, and complex beliefs such as religious beliefs come from society and from experience, not from our genes. This article just demonstrates how little supposed scientists know about DNA.
Sorry but you won't get any further responses to your comments unless you respond to mine. You failed to do that at all in your last post.
No, you stupid lying little idiot. I merely said that Hezbollah were responding to Israeli atrocities.
No. Instead, why don't you go fuck yourself? You think you can continually call me a liar and demand I back up everything I say, yet you refuse to discuss the problems with you fucking idiot fundamentalist Jews. It's plain for anyone with half a brain what Hezbolla's motivation was. If you can't see it, then you clearly have less than half a brain.
WHAT? You stupid fucking retarded Jew! It was an international incident! How do you like it when people deny the Holocaust? You think you're the only humans, and the only ones who deserve to have your people mourned? But this attitude means that the opposite happens - people mourn all other deaths apart from fuckwits like you and your retarded friends in Israel.
Oh sure. *I* lack integrity. That's a good one. Well, the people who know me know how far from the truth this is. I put it to you that YOU lack integrity, and you are a petty little liar who denies everything that challenges your backwards thinking. What have you got to say about that? Nothing, I bet, because you are incapable of responding to anything I say, apart from crying like a baby about lies.
Where is your proof? I don't see you linking to anything proving any mass murder. I've linked 4 documents that prove that Israel is responsible for mass murder. Since you have nothing constructive to say about it, and no proof otherwise, I can only conclude that I've won the argument by default.
I will now only respond to further correspondence if you actually make an attempt to address the multitude of issues I've raised, instead of just denying the Palestinian Holocaust ( and I know how much you Jews hate Holocaust deniers ). So either come up with some serious discussion, or don't bother. I have a strong, well educated mind, and I'm not about to be swayed by some snotty little arsewipe who's best arguement is crying "LIAR!". That's no argument, and to prove my point, I will once again call you a liar.
Oh that's a good one. MY lies? I think you'll find that Israel was the cause of this conflict. Hezbollah were responding to Israeli attacks that killed a number of Palestinians from the same family on a beach. And don't pretend you don't know that Israel has been constantly bombing Lebanese 'military targets' since the previous war you started with them.
Actually I did. I gave an example of Jenin. If you want more examples, try googling for Nakba. Fundamentalist Jews murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of Palestinians in the killing frenzy that was to become the norm for Israel. You keep claiming that I'm lying and can't back up my claims, but in reality it is YOU who are a liar, and can't respond to the truth when it is staring you in the face.
Since you're a little dim and seem to want proof, proof and more proof, even though fundamentalist violence is a way of life for your kind, I will provide more links for you to ponder ( I assume you'll call them all LIES ):
'100s' killed in Jenin
117 Palestinians killed, hundreds injured during media's "relative calm"
'100s' killed in current military campaign
100s of children killed
So why don't you shut the fuck up about my supposed lies, and start apologising for your error? Come on. I'm waiting. Idiot.
Things were invented long before patents were around. Frankly, if companies can't compete on a level playing field, they can take their bat and ball and fuck off. Companies who can compete will pop up. That's the secret of supply and demand. The excuse "oh but how can we possibly compete if people steal our innovations" is a crock of shit. I could argue that it is THEY who are steal inventions from society. They were raised, educated, supported etc by society. Their job, their invention, everything about them, exists only inside society. They can't take advantage of everything that society offers, and when they discover something useful to people, say, "Right. I'm going to extract every last dollar from society for this, no matter what the cost". That's pathological. If you have a look at the history of capitalism in the US, you'll find that they had absolutely non respect for patents while their own industry was developing. It was common knowledge that patents dampened innovation and economic growth, hence they were ignored. It was only after US industry had taken and incorporated everyone else's patented ideas and then actually started to invent something themselves that they did a 180-degree turnaround and started demanding that everyone else respect their patent law. So you see, patents aren't necessary for innovation. They're necessary for profit maximisation. But profit maximisation is not an ideal situation for anyone other than the capitalists who own the patents. Their competition, and the rest of society, pay dearly.
Now, the above answer fits inside a capitalist model, and still assumes that you actually WANT competing capitalists. It also DEFENDS smaller capitalists from big ones, preventing the onset of the ( admittedly inevitable ) monopoly. But there is of course another model of organisation, where there are no capitalists, and society has agreed to move forward together, as opposed to pushing others into the dirt in the attempt to enrich yourself. As Marx said so long ago, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". So to return to your question, "Who would now invent in such a world?", the answer is simple. Society would decide democratically what proportion of money they wanted to allocate to R&D in various areas, and it would happen. And when new discoveries appeared, they wouldn't be monopolised by patent-holders so only the rich can benefit. They would be available to all, which flows naturally from the fact that the research was commissioned by society. Nay-sayers argue that this would slow the rate of progress, but as I've shown in my initial response, it's patents that slow innovation. In a socialist society, the only thing limiting the rate of scientific development is society's wishes.
There really is nothing worse than a little brat who can't face up to reality, and instead claims that the rest of the world must be 'lying'. I don't lie. I don't need to. It's people who support murderous, racist, fundamentalist states such as Israel who have to do overtime lying.
Now one of the things you love to lie about is Israel's supposed democracy. But it's a joke, even by bourgeois-democratic standards. Even in bourgeois democracies, they have universal suffrage. But Israel doesn't. Only Jews can vote. If you're a Palestinian refugee, you can't even get back into your own country. How the fuck is that democratic? Really, tell me. And try to keep the lies and bullshit to a minimum.
You then have the audacity to complain about other people starting wars. Again, you need to look a bit closer to home if you're concerned about war. Israel is the biggest threat and obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This is not just my opinion. This is accepted as fact worldwide . Deal with it. Roses do not protude from the anuses of every Jew in Israel. Far from it.
Now instead of listing your bullet points once more, and using your trusty "Oh my God! You're Lying! It's all LIES!" approach, try engaging your little-used brain and addressing some of the many issues I have raised with your fine fundamentalist cesspool.
Anti-success? It depends how you judge success. If you're only interested in the money value, and you're only looking at it from an individual capitalist point of view, then yes, patents are very successful. But for everybody else, they do things like prevent medication from getting to those who need it, prevent innovation by scaring / suing everyone else out of existence, prevent others from achieving the same discovery independently again, and generally retard things.
Who says I couldn't think it up myself? The fact that someone else has patented a technology before me doesn't mean that no-one else could think it up themselves. And anyway, why should they even have to ? Why shouldn't they be able to leverage that discovery, and figure out something else , and add to collective knowledge? That's the best way to deliver rapid technological progress, not by patenting things. That slows things down.
Oh please. If anyone is envious of 'the people that do', it's envy of the fact that they live in a completely different world, where everything that they want and need are plentifully available to them
Well, simply claiming that everything that a critic of Israel say is lies, doesn't make it so. ... if it could be called that, though I still maintain that Israel is really Palestine under illegitimate military occupation. Try responding to that, instead of bitching and moaning about everything else you think is wrong with the world. And if you must keep pointing the finger at others, try looking at the effect the US and other Western powers have had in the area with regard to the lack of democracy, fundamentalism, etc. You are very keen to quote Human Rights Watch when they criticize other countries. Try reading up on what they say about your favourite country.
You are far too content to jump up and down about the fact that there are other countries that don't live up to your standards, and yet you refuse to adhere to those standards yourself. I maintain that Israel is a thousand times worse than the countries you listed. As a so-called democracy, the Israeli people have to accept responsibility for the terrorist actions of their democratically elected government. People living in countries that don't even claim to be democratic obviously can't have the finger pointed at them for the actions of their rulers. You need to stop worrying about how bad Syria etc are and concentrate on your own backyard
OK. So you didn't come up with any excuses. Instead, you refused to discuss Israeli atrocities at all. Either way. Head in sand.
Wrong again. You claimed this. But your claim is patently false. I gave the example of Jenin, which you refuse to accept as this is somehow outside the realm of normal Israeli terrorist activity, so we're not allowed to talk about it.
Try addressing some of the issues I raised, do some research beyond the extreme right-wing, pro-Zionist trash you're mindwashed by, and return with a serious response when you are able.
Well, I'm not in the business of doing research for you. As I stated, I did a very quick google search, and then linked the 1st 3 articles that came up. They all talked about hundreds of deaths, so I figured I'd link them and get on with the rest of my response. I see you haven't commented on the rest of my response, while coming up with excuses for Jenin.
No. I'm saying that the US hedged it's bets, and tried to choose the winning side in the conflict, regardless of the ethical consequences. In particular, there were key merchant bankers who were in daily contact with the Nazis. Duby'a grandfather was convicted of money laundering millions for the Nazis. The consensus was that Hitler was the one to back, but this was politically very dangerous. Perl Harbour forced their hand.
It's not all about gaining land. It's well known that the US emerged as the only real superpower after WWII, and this, combined with the fact that they entered the war so late and therefore didn't have their country & economy in ruins, pushed them to their current dominant position today. They forged deep alliances which remain to this day. They have the UN by the balls, with veto power in the security council. They did incredibly well for themselves out of WWII, especially considering they hardly did any fighting compared to everyone else.
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/
I agree that history proves you right here, but the point is that one person or one country can't make a difference on their own. You need international solidarity, to break the cycle of violence, corruption and tyranny.
The UK was applying a LOT of pressure on the US already. After Perl Harbour, they didn't really have much choice but to get involved, and it was politically out of the question to support Hitler after Perl Harbour. So they got involved. Finally.
Pressure from the UK on this one.
My logic only appears at fault if you assume that the US ruling class care about their own civilians. They don't. I don't have a particular example from that time handy, but if you look at how they viewed other country's civilians ( Japanese for example
Fine. The 1st 3 items that came up in a Google search. I suppose you find this even 'stranger' than when I didn't provide links:
http://english.people.com.cn/200204/12/eng20020412 _93947.shtml
http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/125-killed-hundred s-wounded-by.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
I suppose you have an excuse for each of these?
I have given the 1st 3 from a google search, though I suspect your head will remain firmly buried in the sand.
Oh shit. What can I say? Takes on to know one.
Israel is hardly a good example of a properly functioning democracy. You can't claim to have a democracy simply because there are elections. Take Iraq, for example. No-one in their right minds call this a democracy. Likewise, I reject the idea that the US or my home country, Australia, are democracies. You see, for democracy to work you need a couple of important requirements met:
... it means equal access to the media. So if I have a political viewpoint that doesn't get covered in the media, and in fact only gets criticised, then that's hardly democratic, as people's opinions are very much shaped by the media. And in Israel, the media is very, very right-wing.
... in fact Israel is the biggest recipient of aid in the world. They also receive unbelievable gifts of weapons and ammunition from the US. So they are a US client state, not a democracy.
- freedom of speech
In Israel, I believe anyone who criticises the Zionist agenda finds themselves in a very difficult situation indeed
Also, freedom of speech doesn't just mean the freedom to stand on the corner and say what I think
- independent country
In Israel's case, it doesn't really matter what political parties want to do, because they are 100% dependent on the US for aid
Look. What Syria does inside it's own borders is up to the Syrians. I don't by any means like what's going on there, but on the other hand I understand that the best people for changing Syria are Syrians ... not the US or UN or whatever. Now what Syria does outside it's borders is dwarfed incredibly by what Israel does outside it's own borders. In fact I say that Israel shouldn't have any borders at all ... it shouldn't exist. But keep in mind that when people are asked about the biggest threat to world peace, no-one says "Syria". Everyone says either the US or Israel. Syria doesn't even register.
Ah ... no I made no such claim. In fact I'm having trouble making that sentence make sense. If there is a point in there, try making it again.
Well, as I said, what goes on inside Syria is really up to Syrians to fix. They are the only people that can liberate themselves from their own ruling class. But Israel's humans rights abuses against
Oh, there are reasons. They are collectively called Imperialism. In the end that's why the US did get involved. Take the occupation of Iraq for a current example.
Exactly. It wasn't a secret to the ruling class, but they hadn't as yet decided which side to join, so Hitler's atrocities were being kept out of the mainstream media, to leave the US' options open.
Sure. But they did exactly the same for Hitler. The US has a long history of providing weapons and other support to both sides in a conflict.
You need to reconsider this stance. Propaganda is at an all-time high in the US. It's a different kind to the old-world style. It's a lot more subtle, and yet more powerful at the same time. Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a detailed analysis of the use of propaganda and one-sidedness western societies. It's very interesting.
I see. That's the problem then. People like you are willing to compromise their position and support people who they 'claim' to be 'bad people' simply because they need help from these bad people, and then when things are going better, they think they can turn around and show their true colours. It doesn't work like that. Sure, it's done all the time, and yes I understand exactly why. All I'm saying is that it's not a defensible position, and that I despise people - and countries - who act like this.
Oh bullshit. There was nothing altruistic about the US' involvement in the 2nd world war. As I've already pointed out, the US hedged their bets until the last minute, and when they finally decided ( incorrectly, according to their own goals at the time ) which side to join, they turned on the propaganda machine and let people know how bad Hitler was. And sure Hitler was bad. But don't try to argue that that's the reason why the US decided to enter the war or fight against Germany. And don't tell me that the US ruling class gives a damn about millions of dead people, whether they're dead Germans, Americans or Iraqis. The only difference is that dead Americans create political problems at home, so should be avoided if possible.
Oh, the "We didn't know" defense. It's OK for civilians to throw this one out occasionally, but not the ruling class. They knew. They spent a LOT of money making sure they knew.
Israel does all these things, but on a larger scale than Syria.
Same for Israel. Keep in mind how the state was actually formed as well
There are millions of Palestinian refugees who have had their homes bombed or bulldozed. Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians at a time , NOT in a year.
That's international diplomacy for you. The Chinese government knew exactly what it meant when on the one hand, they were chided for the massacre, and on the other hand experienced a massive flood of capital entering the country from the US, along with huge manufacturing deals ( setting up sweat shops ).
It's all relative. They're a hell of a lot closer to a dictatorship than they are to democracy, particularly with this 'Commander in Chief' bullshit that apparently never ends.
That's a simpleton analysis. Opposing one side doesn't mean supporting another side. There are more than 2 sides.
It's this sort of drivel that let to my insults in my past post, and the reason is that I know that you know you're wrong here, but push the point anyway because it suits your agenda. It doesn't take a genius to figure that oil is a central issue in Iraq. The Bush dynasty is founded in oil. Cheney is an oil dealer. The whole administration has quite an unnatural fixation with oil, as well as being personally incredibly enriched by it. I don't need to offer you references. If you can't see the truth already, no amount of 'proof' will shock you out of your fairytale world where the US is some big happy benevolent power seeking to free the world, and Israel is their friendly peace-making sidekick.
Oh dear. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't automatically make them a troll. If it did, then you'd be the biggest troll on the planet at the moment. But I don't call you a troll, just deluded.
Actually, you're the one full of bullshit here. The US not only suspected that their bombing of Cambodia would push Pol Pot to the top, but they actually expressed a desire for this in intelligence documents. The UN was falling over itself to accommodate him. Even decades later, they still hold a soft spot for the Khmer Rouge, so that activists such as John Pilger can say:
It's true that at certain points, the North Vietnamese also supported Pol Pot. But that in no way means that the US didn't support him. They protected him politically ( the legacy of which we see in the above quote ), and also gave him weapons:
...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US _PolPot.html
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pol potmontclarion0498.html
This is certainly no secret
Well, firstly, Indochina didn't fall to communism. Parts of it fell to state capitalism. And yes, under this system, living standards drop 'as usual'. The state is far better at oppressing workers than individual capitalists.
Well, as I already pointed out, they didn't turn to communism, but state capitalism. If they looked like they were evolving to communism, they would get the US up their arse as fast as Russia did in 1918, or Vietnam did many years later.
That's because the biggest villain was the US. Sure, there were lesser villains, but you have to concentrate on the biggest one, to ease the suffering of the innocent people who were under attack from both the US, and their own governments. But the US was always leading the way in attacks on innocent people, so that's what people rallied around.
Don't be fucking absurd! It was the US who launched the terrorist attacks on Iraq, NOT Iran. Iran has always SUPPORTED Iraq in this war.
What Iran and others do have nothing to do with the length of the occupation, just as they had nothing to do with the invasion. The US and their coalition of the killing intend to stay in Iraq as long as politically and economically possible - no shorter. This was always their plan, and they are executing it perfectly.
As was the US. They only entered the war on the side of the British after years of hedging their bets and procrastinating.
WTF? So my argument only holds up if Stalin disappeared after WWII? Hold off on the drugs a little.
Well. Firstly, no, I don't expect them to, because I'm far too cynical for that. But secondly, you should take a stand and stick with it. You can't flop this way and that because it suits your purposes. That's called hypocracy.
Sure. The US political establishment is fucked. No argument from me here.
Sure. Same as, say, in the US now. Well, not quite the same. No amount of propaganda can turn around public opinion on Dubya now. But sure, they had massive progaganda, as you do.
Why?
Not at all. You're the one who wants military lasers, not me.
A lot slower, as you point out. The key here is that I don't want weapons research, whereas you seem to think it's necessary. You see, big powerful weapons only kill more people and cause more suffering. Look at Iraq. The Yankees have the biggest weapons around, but are they able to assert their will? No. All they're able to do is kill and injure lots of people. So their fancy weapons give them nothing on the battlefield except for casualties.
Quite wanking yourself stupid for a while and think about your own country, stupid. The US is the worst human rights abuser in the developed world. How about Guantanimo Bay and all those secret torture camps. You think this the 'nicest' system possible. You are deluded.
What?
Good example, dickhead. Right after Tianamen Square, the US invested billions in China. I'm sure that sent them the right message about your stance on human rights. Are you thinking about your position at all? Maybe you've got a couple of personalities in there, all trying to get at different, contradictory points?
Er
No. I very rarely agree with the US on anything. What gives you the idea that I agree with them? You're a real job, aren't you?
Extremists! Oh Jesus you are a piece of work. And yes, Israel deserves to be complained about thousands of times more than pretty much every other country.
I'd hardly call your mindless drivel an 'argument'. And I'm not religious. I was born into a Christian family, and have since renounced my religion. Clearly you haven't evolved emotionally and intellectually to this point yet. I've read some pretty stupid stuff on the old Slashdot over the past day or so, but you really take the cake. If you're pretending, you're doing a damned fine job. Otherwise, you need to get some help.