Although what you say is true to some degree (some of it is stereotypes though), it doesn't mean much. Under capitalism, what drives jobs is costs. If China can do it cheaply, it will get the jobs--regardless of the differences (with some exceptions).
You say that so-called democracy makes a difference but does it really? Do the capitalists care what government is used? Not really. One just needs to look at Nazi Germany or modern day Singapore. Even modern day China with massive foriegn investment shows that no one cares about the govt. All that matters is cost of products. If someone can do it cheaply, people will invest there.
Things like laws, languages, and so forth can be overcome or fixed. For example, what does language have to do with software development, or installation, or whatever? Pogramming languages are roughly symbolic languages. Anyone can pick them up--or in the worst case, can even create a new language suited for a particular language.
India will feel the impact of China soon (in 2 years or so). So far, China has destroyed everyone in its path. People thought south-east asia (eg. Thailand, Malaysia, etc) would always dominate when it comes to textiles, and stuff like that. People though manufacturing will never leave Korea or Taiwan because they are both low-cost producers. Yet they were all wrong. China has managed to outcompete South-east Asia and will likely outcompete South Asia next. There is no reason China can't do a better job in IT than India. It remains to be seen what happens but my opinion is that the IT sector in India is going to have a big battle in the near future.
I'm hoping teleporters are developed soon because it is better for the workers. Teleporters will allow movement of labour. Right now, the so-called free market is one way: Capital can move but labour cannot.
That's true and that's why it's bizarre. The funniest is when Bush and other necons try to bring liberalism to Iraq (and others). How can conservatives ever bring liberalism to a country? The answer is, they can't.
Speaking as a leftist, I think most people on the left realize the paradox in this. The reason it happens, I think, is because both conservative forces are reactionary. Reactionaries will get rid of anyone--even people close to them. For example, the greatest and worst wars have always been within one religion. More catholics have killed protestants and vice versa; most Sunnis have killed shiites and vice versa.
All of these are reactionaries... the modern day Republican Party definitely is...
I think it's too early to be calling for the computer industry to consolidate. Consolidation generally occurs when companies run out of innovation and they revert to increasing profits by monopolization (or oligopolization) of their industries. The computer industry still has a long way to go. Some sectors may see consolidation (PC manufacturing, semiconductors, etc) but a large portion of it is still in its infancy.
Last time I checked, MS was still over 10,000% since its early days! During the dot-com peak it was something like 50,000% but it dropped since then. Nevertheless, it is still over 10,000% higher so you technically never lost anything unless you invested during the dot-com peak.
In addition, MS didn't go up 10x; it went up 100x to 500x!!! Very few things come close to this. If you invested $5000 in the early 90's, you are looking at $500,000 now!!! Even if you dollar-cost-averaged and invested around $10,000, you are still looking at around $400,000 or so (depends on details).
When you invest, what matters is TOTAL return (dividiends+capital gains). Paying dividends is irrelevant if the stock appreciates on a regular basis. There are many companies that do not pay dividends yet people invest in them.
So the saying that MS is one of the best investments of all time IS correct. You'll find very few companies like that in your lifetime. Actually, the rise of the whole tech-industry during the 90's is a once in a lifetime event--and I'm not talking about the dot-com mania (I'm talking about the legitimate rise due to the expansion of the computer industry). Companies like Dell were also a good investment.
I'm not passing judgement on MS' workplace or its software (although I think some of its software is top-notch eg. Office, SQL Server, Visual Studio, Encarta, etc). All I'm saying is that it is one of the best investments in recent memory. You cannot deny that. Just go to a stock quote website (say finance.yahoo.com) and plot MSFT.
From what I understand, the following all make money:
Windows
Office
MS SQL Server
hardware (mouse, keyboard, etc)
many small software (Encarta, Money, etc)
Things like X-box are break-even now. The major money losers are their research programs (eg. handwriting recognition, speech synthesis, etc), MSN, Visual Studio, and so forth. The thing, though, is that some of these money losing activities are strategically important to the business. For example, Visual Studio is not really a high margin product but it keeps developers locked into their OS. MSN is a joke but it provides exposure and will probably help them launch their search engine stuff, not to mention help Hotmail and Messenger.
We all know what happened to Apple. Without the injection of money by MS, Apple would probably be a footnote by now. Even now Apple is not very solid...
MS does not have the expertise in space. What's the point of MS entering versus someone else entering? I mean, why not ExonMobil? Unless a company is seriously attempting to diversify itself (only happens when the company is struggling or can't grow--MS isn't there), there is little reason to go into this field.
I think the poster picked some bad examples... I mean, IBM, AT&T, and the oil companies are still some of the best companies around. Maybe not as dominant as they were before but they are still pretty good...
Microsoft went up a minimum 10,000% (and around 50,000% during the dot-com peak) during the 90's. It has been one of the best investments in the last few decades (possibly one of the best of all time). So you are wrong; MS made a ton of money for investors. You or I may not have profitted from that but that's beside the point...
As far as govt bonds being better than MS stock... well... let me put it this way... US govt will probably default on its bonds before MS crashes to nothing...
It was more than a test flight; it was to showcase the flight. The difference between the NASA flights and this is that NASA is basically a scientific flight whereas this is a commercial one. That is to say, if someone dies in NASA, it isn't a big deal (yes the public and a bunch of politicians bring it up but it isn't that bad). All scientists know of the risks and are ok with some losses. Although no one would publicly say that, that's the reality.
In contrast, a commericial flight is driven by paying customers. A mishap here or there will basically kill off the industry before it even gets started*. Can you imagine the lawsuits or controvery that something will generate? Sure, people probably sign waivers but I doubt that this will hold in a court of law if a major incident happens (just like how airplane companies are responsible for deaths).
(* Of course, nothing will be killed off in the long term regardless of the tragedies that occur in the short term. However, it WILL impact the short-term and things will be significantly delayed (i.e. instead of things rolling off in 5 to 10 years, they will roll of in 15 to 25 years).
I personally like plants (no, not those plastic ones:( ). I don't know if the cost and maintenance is too much for real plants but I feel that they help the environment.
See... the thing is... some of you conservatives ARE intolerant, racist, and xenophobic. If you hold such views it can be difficult for you to see why you belong in that category. I'm not saying you are one such person; however, sizeable number of conservatives are. For every liberal, I can probably find 10 racist conservatives. Does this mean that these conservatives aren't racist? Of course not.
It's kind of funny for a capitalist, like Ken Brown at AdTI to be claiming something in the name of workers. Ken Brown should just stick with the "investment community" and "corporations". Everything else is kind of meaningless coming from him.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that linux is or is not good for the workers. All I'm saying is that someone from an institution like AdTI shouldn't be commenting on things they don't support.
All you conservative-types who are in favour of stripping liberty at the expense of "security" and "war" on terrorism should re-consider your positions. This latest example is nothing more than the future. As long as you conservatives (and clueless liberals) keep supporting things like this, it is only the beginning.
I guess people who were laughing at others over the concern of things like the Patriot Act hope learned a lesson...
As to the Germany Vs the World, I said that germany could take asia and africa, not the US. There's no land bridge across to american soil, and the atlantic is wide enough to make an invasion very tricky.
Germany was much better on land than sea so you have a point. However, they COULD have attacked USA because the technology was there. It will all come down to how strong the US Navy would be. If Germany can control the seas, invasion of USA is no different than trying to march across Russia. Just like how the allies invaded Germany from sea (France to be more accurate), Germany would invade USA via sea. Land is obviously easier but sea isn't that bad if you can control the seas.
The US was also worried about pushing to hard and bringing china or russia all the way into the war.
USSR and China were supplying Vietnam but I completely disagree that USA actually wasn't trying to "push too hard". USA WAS trying to take over completely, but they just couldn't. Otherwise, why would they be involved in Cambodia and Laos?
The problems the US has in the middle east are the result of 50 years of forein policy, not recent actions. But it doesn't cheer me much to see them still gleefully making it worse now. The american military doesn't even follow the geneva conventions anymore and ignores the UN. I can't see any good reason for them to have started a war with Iraq.
Yeah... the problem IMO is that USA likes allying with the lesser evil. This basically leads to allying with the devil IMO. Classic example obviously is Usama bin Laden, who wouldn't have any of the expertise if CIA didn't train him and his warriors in the 80's. Even more relevant perhaps is Saddam Hussein, who would have been kicked out by the mid 80's at best (due to his loss in Iran-Iraq war) if USA didn't back him.
Unless USA changes its path, it is going to self-destruct, a la Rome--or even worse. Yes, that's kind of a pessimistic view but let's face it, there are so many looming "crises" on the horizon that USA is simply a mess. Examples include the massive debt, which even the capitalists in power admit has the potential to blow up, likely collapse of social programs (pretty much everyone admits that old age programs will collapse within 20 years), ever expanding and totally out of control military (USA has invaded/overthrown/attacked one country every 6 years or so), and so forth. Let's also not forget that if my pessimistic views become true and USA institutes a draft next year then it's going to misallocate resources to war.
The main gyst of my stance against non-interference practiced to an extreme is that it's not always the best tactic.
Agreed. I'm not a pacifist by any means. If a tank is crushing your people, it's time to do something. BUT I AM primarily a non-interventionist. The vast majority of interventions do not lead you anywhere. In the short term it may seem good (because one side is defeated). But this just causes problems in the long term. Even interventions with best intentions lead you nowhere.
You should stop calling people imperialist just because they don't believe in a system of absolute non interference.
Your views weren't clear to me. It seemed to me that you were calling for invasion of Iraq. Obviously I was mistaken. The confusion probably arose from the fact that you were saying stuff like "if X then Y is necessary" without actually saying you were against Y. Believe it or not, there ARE actually people calling for mass invasions and reckless slaughter of people (you might find these people calling for levelling of Fallujah or the invasion of Syria). These people clearly are imperialists. I guess you are not! So I was wrong... sorry about calling you an imperialist when in fact you weren't. Take that as my apology.
I'll keep this brief...since it is a few days old...hope you don't mind...
You never indicated that you were against imperialism so it was my impression that you were an imperialist who supported the actions you mentioned. Most of what you say still makes me think you are an imperialist.
As far as the oil situation is concerned, we can talk about this for ages--it REALLY is that complicated. For starters, USA does not rely on the Middle East for oil consumption. Less than 20% of USA's oil consumption comes from the Middle East. The vast majority of US oil comes from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela.
So the whole oil situation has nothing to do with consumption. Rather, it is all about profits! That is, even if USA's oil consumption drops 90% tomorrow, the plutocrats controlling USA will still want to control the Middle East. What matters is the profits made by a few oil and services companies (eg. ExonnMobil, Halliburton/KBR, etc). The whole war and hegemony is for these companies. Whoever controls oil controls profits. It's all about profits. The rest (like democracy, need, end of the world, etc) are just bogus reasons.
I'm not a capitalist but hardcore capitalists, like the CATO institute (for example), call for free markets as opposed to imperialistic hegemony. The reason is pretty much for the reason above. My impression is still that you are an imperialist who is calling for taking over the Middle East. Nothing you have said is to the contrary.
As far as WWII is concerned, I'm not going to go there because: (i) I'm not too knowledgeable in that area, (ii) I'm not interested in it, (iii) it is way off-topic and we can talk for ages about that, and (iv) it is too complicated to discuss right now. Anyway, I will say the following:
My impression is that USA WAS part of the deal which slapped massive reparations on Germany. Nothing I have read has indicated that USA was against it. If you can find some references to the contrary, that would be helpful.
You say Germany was close to Moscow and only weather prevented them from winning. Well, I say that's part of war. The terrain and weather are all part of it. You cannot excuse the weather...
As far as Germany having the ability to take over Asia, Africa, etc, I still stick with what I said. Germany couldn't have taken over the world. Germany "easily" took over Europe because of two reasons. Firstly, Europe is a relatively small area with easy terrain (mostly plains and forests). Taking over other parts of the world is far more difficult. Not only do you have to cover greater distances, you also have to battle through terrain (mountains, deserts, jungles, etc), weather (snow--like in Russia, heavy rain, etc), and so on. USA "lost" Vietnam (or at least had difficulties controlling the country) and that was with far superior technology and forces (since USA was just fighting on one front). I really cannot imagine Germany trying to take over Vietnam, let alone Iran or India or Kenya or whatever, during WWII with worse technology.
Second, fascists controlled key areas of Europe--contrary to popular opinion. Fascism was even popular in USA and Britain (you can easily find people praising Hitler in major newspapers at that time--before the breakout of the war). Since fascists basically "controlled" Europe, it was easy for them to win. In contrast, fascism had little support in other parts of the world. It is very difficult to take over a country where you have no ideological support. For example, there were actually quite a few fascists in France, Spain, and others, who basically facilitated and helped the Nazis take over. I am pretty sure the Nazis would not have had locals help them or fight alongside them if they invaded many other parts of the world.
So in summary, I don't think Nazis would have taken over the world. I personally think that only one tribe/race/civilization/country/whatever had the potential to take over all of known earth. And that happens to be the Mong
In any case, everything I say is from a moral/ethical point of view. I never talk about the law because justice does not exist. For instance, USA can do whatever it wants--and it has. Invading Iraq is just as "legal" as invading Panama, or Vietnam. That is to say, "legally" USA does whatever it wants. USA can invade Mexico tomorrow and it will be perfectly "legal"...
Slashdot Mirror
Although what you say is true to some degree (some of it is stereotypes though), it doesn't mean much. Under capitalism, what drives jobs is costs. If China can do it cheaply, it will get the jobs--regardless of the differences (with some exceptions).
You say that so-called democracy makes a difference but does it really? Do the capitalists care what government is used? Not really. One just needs to look at Nazi Germany or modern day Singapore. Even modern day China with massive foriegn investment shows that no one cares about the govt. All that matters is cost of products. If someone can do it cheaply, people will invest there.
Things like laws, languages, and so forth can be overcome or fixed. For example, what does language have to do with software development, or installation, or whatever? Pogramming languages are roughly symbolic languages. Anyone can pick them up--or in the worst case, can even create a new language suited for a particular language.
India will feel the impact of China soon (in 2 years or so). So far, China has destroyed everyone in its path. People thought south-east asia (eg. Thailand, Malaysia, etc) would always dominate when it comes to textiles, and stuff like that. People though manufacturing will never leave Korea or Taiwan because they are both low-cost producers. Yet they were all wrong. China has managed to outcompete South-east Asia and will likely outcompete South Asia next. There is no reason China can't do a better job in IT than India. It remains to be seen what happens but my opinion is that the IT sector in India is going to have a big battle in the near future.
I'm hoping teleporters are developed soon because it is better for the workers. Teleporters will allow movement of labour. Right now, the so-called free market is one way: Capital can move but labour cannot.
That's true and that's why it's bizarre. The funniest is when Bush and other necons try to bring liberalism to Iraq (and others). How can conservatives ever bring liberalism to a country? The answer is, they can't.
Speaking as a leftist, I think most people on the left realize the paradox in this. The reason it happens, I think, is because both conservative forces are reactionary. Reactionaries will get rid of anyone--even people close to them. For example, the greatest and worst wars have always been within one religion. More catholics have killed protestants and vice versa; most Sunnis have killed shiites and vice versa.
All of these are reactionaries... the modern day Republican Party definitely is...
I think it's sort of tongue-in-cheek humour... I don't think he is implying that you have to read at -1 to support the first amendment...
I think it's too early to be calling for the computer industry to consolidate. Consolidation generally occurs when companies run out of innovation and they revert to increasing profits by monopolization (or oligopolization) of their industries. The computer industry still has a long way to go. Some sectors may see consolidation (PC manufacturing, semiconductors, etc) but a large portion of it is still in its infancy.
Last time I checked, MS was still over 10,000% since its early days! During the dot-com peak it was something like 50,000% but it dropped since then. Nevertheless, it is still over 10,000% higher so you technically never lost anything unless you invested during the dot-com peak.
In addition, MS didn't go up 10x; it went up 100x to 500x!!! Very few things come close to this. If you invested $5000 in the early 90's, you are looking at $500,000 now!!! Even if you dollar-cost-averaged and invested around $10,000, you are still looking at around $400,000 or so (depends on details).
When you invest, what matters is TOTAL return (dividiends+capital gains). Paying dividends is irrelevant if the stock appreciates on a regular basis. There are many companies that do not pay dividends yet people invest in them.
So the saying that MS is one of the best investments of all time IS correct. You'll find very few companies like that in your lifetime. Actually, the rise of the whole tech-industry during the 90's is a once in a lifetime event--and I'm not talking about the dot-com mania (I'm talking about the legitimate rise due to the expansion of the computer industry). Companies like Dell were also a good investment.
I'm not passing judgement on MS' workplace or its software (although I think some of its software is top-notch eg. Office, SQL Server, Visual Studio, Encarta, etc). All I'm saying is that it is one of the best investments in recent memory. You cannot deny that. Just go to a stock quote website (say finance.yahoo.com) and plot MSFT.
Sivaram
- Windows
- Office
- MS SQL Server
- hardware (mouse, keyboard, etc)
- many small software (Encarta, Money, etc)
Things like X-box are break-even now. The major money losers are their research programs (eg. handwriting recognition, speech synthesis, etc), MSN, Visual Studio, and so forth. The thing, though, is that some of these money losing activities are strategically important to the business. For example, Visual Studio is not really a high margin product but it keeps developers locked into their OS. MSN is a joke but it provides exposure and will probably help them launch their search engine stuff, not to mention help Hotmail and Messenger.So, has MS built houses and hotels already? Or can it still do it? ;)
We all know what happened to Apple. Without the injection of money by MS, Apple would probably be a footnote by now. Even now Apple is not very solid...
MS does not have the expertise in space. What's the point of MS entering versus someone else entering? I mean, why not ExonMobil? Unless a company is seriously attempting to diversify itself (only happens when the company is struggling or can't grow--MS isn't there), there is little reason to go into this field.
I think the poster picked some bad examples... I mean, IBM, AT&T, and the oil companies are still some of the best companies around. Maybe not as dominant as they were before but they are still pretty good...
Microsoft went up a minimum 10,000% (and around 50,000% during the dot-com peak) during the 90's. It has been one of the best investments in the last few decades (possibly one of the best of all time). So you are wrong; MS made a ton of money for investors. You or I may not have profitted from that but that's beside the point...
As far as govt bonds being better than MS stock... well... let me put it this way... US govt will probably default on its bonds before MS crashes to nothing...
It was more than a test flight; it was to showcase the flight. The difference between the NASA flights and this is that NASA is basically a scientific flight whereas this is a commercial one. That is to say, if someone dies in NASA, it isn't a big deal (yes the public and a bunch of politicians bring it up but it isn't that bad). All scientists know of the risks and are ok with some losses. Although no one would publicly say that, that's the reality.
In contrast, a commericial flight is driven by paying customers. A mishap here or there will basically kill off the industry before it even gets started*. Can you imagine the lawsuits or controvery that something will generate? Sure, people probably sign waivers but I doubt that this will hold in a court of law if a major incident happens (just like how airplane companies are responsible for deaths).
(* Of course, nothing will be killed off in the long term regardless of the tragedies that occur in the short term. However, it WILL impact the short-term and things will be significantly delayed (i.e. instead of things rolling off in 5 to 10 years, they will roll of in 15 to 25 years).
I personally like plants (no, not those plastic ones :( ). I don't know if the cost and maintenance is too much for real plants but I feel that they help the environment.
Congratulations to the SpaceshipOne team. Hopefully they'll figure out the problem they encountered and further their goals.
See... the thing is... some of you conservatives ARE intolerant, racist, and xenophobic. If you hold such views it can be difficult for you to see why you belong in that category. I'm not saying you are one such person; however, sizeable number of conservatives are. For every liberal, I can probably find 10 racist conservatives. Does this mean that these conservatives aren't racist? Of course not.
It's kind of funny for a capitalist, like Ken Brown at AdTI to be claiming something in the name of workers. Ken Brown should just stick with the "investment community" and "corporations". Everything else is kind of meaningless coming from him.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that linux is or is not good for the workers. All I'm saying is that someone from an institution like AdTI shouldn't be commenting on things they don't support.
All you conservative-types who are in favour of stripping liberty at the expense of "security" and "war" on terrorism should re-consider your positions. This latest example is nothing more than the future. As long as you conservatives (and clueless liberals) keep supporting things like this, it is only the beginning.
I guess people who were laughing at others over the concern of things like the Patriot Act hope learned a lesson...
What's negative equity? How do you end up with that? I thought equity was always positive??
You missed the joke.. it was kind of funny too. You said, " I have been trying to download Mandrake 10.0 for everyone..." Get it? Everyone? lol hehe :)
As to the Germany Vs the World, I said that germany could take asia and africa, not the US. There's no land bridge across to american soil, and the atlantic is wide enough to make an invasion very tricky.
Germany was much better on land than sea so you have a point. However, they COULD have attacked USA because the technology was there. It will all come down to how strong the US Navy would be. If Germany can control the seas, invasion of USA is no different than trying to march across Russia. Just like how the allies invaded Germany from sea (France to be more accurate), Germany would invade USA via sea. Land is obviously easier but sea isn't that bad if you can control the seas.
The US was also worried about pushing to hard and bringing china or russia all the way into the war.
USSR and China were supplying Vietnam but I completely disagree that USA actually wasn't trying to "push too hard". USA WAS trying to take over completely, but they just couldn't. Otherwise, why would they be involved in Cambodia and Laos?
The problems the US has in the middle east are the result of 50 years of forein policy, not recent actions. But it doesn't cheer me much to see them still gleefully making it worse now. The american military doesn't even follow the geneva conventions anymore and ignores the UN. I can't see any good reason for them to have started a war with Iraq.
Yeah... the problem IMO is that USA likes allying with the lesser evil. This basically leads to allying with the devil IMO. Classic example obviously is Usama bin Laden, who wouldn't have any of the expertise if CIA didn't train him and his warriors in the 80's. Even more relevant perhaps is Saddam Hussein, who would have been kicked out by the mid 80's at best (due to his loss in Iran-Iraq war) if USA didn't back him.
Unless USA changes its path, it is going to self-destruct, a la Rome--or even worse. Yes, that's kind of a pessimistic view but let's face it, there are so many looming "crises" on the horizon that USA is simply a mess. Examples include the massive debt, which even the capitalists in power admit has the potential to blow up, likely collapse of social programs (pretty much everyone admits that old age programs will collapse within 20 years), ever expanding and totally out of control military (USA has invaded/overthrown/attacked one country every 6 years or so), and so forth. Let's also not forget that if my pessimistic views become true and USA institutes a draft next year then it's going to misallocate resources to war.
The main gyst of my stance against non-interference practiced to an extreme is that it's not always the best tactic.
Agreed. I'm not a pacifist by any means. If a tank is crushing your people, it's time to do something. BUT I AM primarily a non-interventionist. The vast majority of interventions do not lead you anywhere. In the short term it may seem good (because one side is defeated). But this just causes problems in the long term. Even interventions with best intentions lead you nowhere.
You should stop calling people imperialist just because they don't believe in a system of absolute non interference.
Your views weren't clear to me. It seemed to me that you were calling for invasion of Iraq. Obviously I was mistaken. The confusion probably arose from the fact that you were saying stuff like "if X then Y is necessary" without actually saying you were against Y. Believe it or not, there ARE actually people calling for mass invasions and reckless slaughter of people (you might find these people calling for levelling of Fallujah or the invasion of Syria). These people clearly are imperialists. I guess you are not! So I was wrong... sorry about calling you an imperialist when in fact you weren't. Take that as my apology.
Firefox loads up much faster than Mozilla. The difference is very large so I'm not sure what your problem is.
hmm... or do you mean to say... that firefox AND thunderbird take longer (together)? I don't know about that case since I don't use thunderbird.
That's pretty neat... but I hope you have it backed up too. I can imagine losing it easily, just like how people lose keychains.
I'll keep this brief...since it is a few days old...hope you don't mind...
You never indicated that you were against imperialism so it was my impression that you were an imperialist who supported the actions you mentioned. Most of what you say still makes me think you are an imperialist.
As far as the oil situation is concerned, we can talk about this for ages--it REALLY is that complicated. For starters, USA does not rely on the Middle East for oil consumption. Less than 20% of USA's oil consumption comes from the Middle East. The vast majority of US oil comes from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela.
So the whole oil situation has nothing to do with consumption. Rather, it is all about profits! That is, even if USA's oil consumption drops 90% tomorrow, the plutocrats controlling USA will still want to control the Middle East. What matters is the profits made by a few oil and services companies (eg. ExonnMobil, Halliburton/KBR, etc). The whole war and hegemony is for these companies. Whoever controls oil controls profits. It's all about profits. The rest (like democracy, need, end of the world, etc) are just bogus reasons.
I'm not a capitalist but hardcore capitalists, like the CATO institute (for example), call for free markets as opposed to imperialistic hegemony. The reason is pretty much for the reason above. My impression is still that you are an imperialist who is calling for taking over the Middle East. Nothing you have said is to the contrary.
As far as WWII is concerned, I'm not going to go there because: (i) I'm not too knowledgeable in that area, (ii) I'm not interested in it, (iii) it is way off-topic and we can talk for ages about that, and (iv) it is too complicated to discuss right now. Anyway, I will say the following:
My impression is that USA WAS part of the deal which slapped massive reparations on Germany. Nothing I have read has indicated that USA was against it. If you can find some references to the contrary, that would be helpful.
You say Germany was close to Moscow and only weather prevented them from winning. Well, I say that's part of war. The terrain and weather are all part of it. You cannot excuse the weather...
As far as Germany having the ability to take over Asia, Africa, etc, I still stick with what I said. Germany couldn't have taken over the world. Germany "easily" took over Europe because of two reasons. Firstly, Europe is a relatively small area with easy terrain (mostly plains and forests). Taking over other parts of the world is far more difficult. Not only do you have to cover greater distances, you also have to battle through terrain (mountains, deserts, jungles, etc), weather (snow--like in Russia, heavy rain, etc), and so on. USA "lost" Vietnam (or at least had difficulties controlling the country) and that was with far superior technology and forces (since USA was just fighting on one front). I really cannot imagine Germany trying to take over Vietnam, let alone Iran or India or Kenya or whatever, during WWII with worse technology.
Second, fascists controlled key areas of Europe--contrary to popular opinion. Fascism was even popular in USA and Britain (you can easily find people praising Hitler in major newspapers at that time--before the breakout of the war). Since fascists basically "controlled" Europe, it was easy for them to win. In contrast, fascism had little support in other parts of the world. It is very difficult to take over a country where you have no ideological support. For example, there were actually quite a few fascists in France, Spain, and others, who basically facilitated and helped the Nazis take over. I am pretty sure the Nazis would not have had locals help them or fight alongside them if they invaded many other parts of the world.
So in summary, I don't think Nazis would have taken over the world. I personally think that only one tribe/race/civilization/country/whatever had the potential to take over all of known earth. And that happens to be the Mong
China doesn't back North Korea.
In any case, everything I say is from a moral/ethical point of view. I never talk about the law because justice does not exist. For instance, USA can do whatever it wants--and it has. Invading Iraq is just as "legal" as invading Panama, or Vietnam. That is to say, "legally" USA does whatever it wants. USA can invade Mexico tomorrow and it will be perfectly "legal"...