Weed Master Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 First off im american and i love my country, but there are a lot of times were america should have jsut stayed out of other people business. i know we want to spread democracy and make the world a better place, but starting wars against other countries simply because we dont want them to be communist is stupid. yes i know how communist treat there ppl, but this is none of our business. but i believe that the world could not exist without communism. who else thinks america can be a little less nosy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Uhhh... yeah... no ****. There's no other country on Earth that does what we do in terms of "policing" the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 yes i know how communist treat there ppl Another stereotypical view of Communism. Anyone who's read a book on the subject will know that it's just as inherently evil as capitalism. What dictates whether it will be good or not is the ruler. On the topic, I do believe my country is far too nosy. For some strange reason, our government seems to think that everyone loves and wants democracy. And look what our nosiness cost of us... Billions of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I am in agreement, of course, that America under the Neocon Party (formerly known as the Republican Party) is FAR too intrusive. Now they want us to attack Iran. It's insane. Why do they put Israel's interests above those of the U.S.? Another stereotypical view of Communism. Anyone who's read a book on the subject will know that it's just as inherently evil as capitalism. What dictates whether it will be good or not is the ruler. There is no inherent evil behind capitalism. Quite the opposite. It's the most free and prosperous system that exists. The only way that capitalism can be corrupted is when government and the bureaucrats get involved and turn it into crony capitalism. Currently in the U.S. we have a corporatist system where government and business is in bed together (you can thank President Cheney and his cronies for that), which is by no means capitalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 There is no inherent evil behind capitalism. Quite the opposite. Read my post again... I said capitalism was just as inherently evil as Communism, and that whether Communism was evil or not depended on the ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Read my post again... I said capitalism was just as inherently evil as Communism, and that whether Communism was evil or not depended on the ruler. Communism is a failed and impossible system. No matter how good the ruler is, a Communist state is doomed to fail. Human nature determines that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Communism is a failed and impossible system. No matter how good the ruler is, a Communist state is doomed to fail. Human nature determines that. How did the topic of whether Communism could succeed or fail arise? All I was saying was whether it was good or evil. By good I meant ethical, benevolent, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 By good I meant ethical, benevolent, etc. Which Communism is not. It restricts your freedom. It treats you as property of the state. It denies you the right to make your own decisions. But this is off-topic I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Which Communism is not. It restricts your freedom. It treats you as property of the state. It denies you the right to make your own decisions. Extremely debatable. You are right about it being off-topic, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Communism is a failed and impossible system. No matter how good the ruler is, a Communist state is doomed to fail. Human nature determines that. And then you remembered China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 And then you remembered China. I certainly wouldn't want to live in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 yes i know how communist treat there ppl, but this is none of our business. None of our business? Is it the UN's business? Who provides the majority of the troops for the UN? but i believe that the world could not exist without communism. Ah, the world existed without communism for quite some time... who else thinks america can be a little less nosy?Sometimes it should, but I think that it should not be nosy as in 'not force other countries to adopt our legal practices in exchange for trade rights,' etc, not to recognize illegitimate governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 None of our business? Is it the UN's business? Who provides the majority of the troops for the UN? You have a point there, but I get what he's saying. The U.S. shouldn't be acting on its own to change things as it sees fit (see: Iraq). It's a republic, not an empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 It's a republic, not an empire. That doesn't fit the situation. Republics can be just as expansionistic as empires. All it means is that there'd be an emperor rather than a system of checks and balances. The Roman Republic, for example, was very expansionistic and nosy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 That doesn't fit the situation. Republics can be just as expansionistic as empires. All it means is that there'd be an emperor rather than a system of checks and balances. The Roman Republic, for example, was very expansionistic and nosy. Rome turned into an empire, so yeah, that's my point. Better make sure we don't as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Rome turned into an empire, so yeah, that's my point. Their expansionistic foreign policy was not what turned them into en empire, actually, but this is beside the point. Better make sure we don't as well. For once, I actually agree with you, TK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The US provides the majority of the troops for the UN... rrrreeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllyyyyyyy?? I'd be surprised if that was true, and impressed if anyone could cite any evidence of it. How many US troops are going to the Israel/Lebanon border?? As the only superpower in the world the USA is expected by many around the world to be a force for good.. but they forget that the USA is run by US policitians who's main aim isn't to be a force for good, but to be popular with the US electorate. The US electorate is one of the most insular in the world. This doesn't lead to good foreign policy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 The US provides the majority of the troops for the UN... rrrreeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllyyyyyyy?? I'd be surprised if that was true, and impressed if anyone could cite any evidence of it. Actually, you're right. I'm sorry; I had assumed since I knew we contributed a large part of the budget for the UN peacekeeping (26% of it). US troops account for only about .5% of the UN forces, while the EU accounts for about 4.5% - probably simply because there are many seperate nations and they all want to contribute something. Thanks for the correction! Still, we should be concerned for how other nations treat their people on humanitarian grounds if nothing else. Whether other countries slaughter their civilians may not affect us directly, but it certaintly does not reflect on us well to just allow such actions- perhaps why our funding of the peacekeeping operations of the UN is so large, even without a significant military contribution on our part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 It may not affect us directly.. but it does tend to affect us indirectly. On a basic level its just not good for us to have instability in the world.. and a lot of the instability breeds specific anger against us. Anyway, the US has never been shy about getting involved in foreign matters and conflicts.. but it usually does it by giving arms or money or cia "assistance" to those involved. Which is precisely why many of its actions simply ratchet up the dislike of the US. (i'd think it would be better for the US in particular if it carried out as much as possible of its foreign involvement under the banner of the UN.. that way THEY would take the flak, not the US. But then of course US politicians are more interested in how it plays to the domestic market in the short term than how it affects US safety in the long term...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Another stereotypical view of Communism. Anyone who's read a book on the subject will know that it's just as inherently evil as capitalism. What dictates whether it will be good or not is the ruler. Fine, I'll haul out the Nolan Chart so we can take a little look at what communism is. Communism is right down there at Populism, in the same place that Facism sits. Communism is a system built on blatant disregard for human nature, and civil rights. Anyway, the US has never been shy about getting involved in foreign matters and conflicts.. but it usually does it by giving arms or money or cia "assistance" to those involved. Which is precisely why many of its actions simply ratchet up the dislike of the US. Up untill the years after WWII we were pretty isolationist, we normally didn't get involved untill some of our citizens were harmed or some other reason came up (Think Yellow Journalism/Spanish-American War). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Fine, I'll haul out the Nolan Chart so we can take a little look at what communism is. Communism is right down there at Populism, in the same place that Facism sits. Communism is a system built on blatant disregard for human nature, and civil rights. Up untill the years after WWII we were pretty isolationist, we normally didn't get involved untill some of our citizens were harmed or some other reason came up (Think Yellow Journalism/Spanish-American War). Yeah, that's generally how Communism works out when it's used as a form of government. Although, on paper, Communism is an okay form of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Yeah, that's generally how Communism works out when it's used as a form of government. Although, on paper, Communism is an okay form of government. I still hate the redistribution of money, and my life being decided for me. There was a very good alegory for this in Orwell's Animal Farm, Old Major who was supposed to represent Marx dreams up the theory of Animalism. By the end of the Novella, Napoleon who is supposed to represent Stalin, has turned Animalism into a worse form of Government then the aristocracy that existed before the revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Yeah, that's generally how Communism works out when it's used as a form of government. Although, on paper, Communism is an okay form of government. Yes, and on paper, people are all good and do as they're told. That's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Yes, and on paper, people are all good and do as they're told. That's not the case. Yeah... that's the reason I said Communism doesn't turn out like it's "supposed to." *wonders if someone could move all these posts about Communism to a new thread about Communism* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Good idea jmac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.