|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:39 pm
 |
|
|
 |
LimeIzMyFaveColor yes i know war has helped us before but what i'm saying is we could solve problems with such violence. war can cause bitterness and then may cause people to thirst for revenge Suppose if Country A defeat Country B and Country C is friends with Country B so Country C gets mad and crushes Country A. Well Country D is friends with Country C so they go and fight them. And this never ends. I'm sorry. I'm more of a "peace" kind of guy
What were Country A's reasons for attacking Country B? Of course, in this scenario, with no probable cause for the attack, all the other countries would get mad at country A, and they could either surrender or be defeated. The point is, other countries will ALWAYS be at war. It's absolutely unavoidable. I'm saying, if there must be war, America should stand on the side of the opressed. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:20 pm
|
|
|
|
The Singular Enigma LimeIzMyFaveColor yes i know war has helped us before but what i'm saying is we could solve problems with such violence. war can cause bitterness and then may cause people to thirst for revenge Suppose if Country A defeat Country B and Country C is friends with Country B so Country C gets mad and crushes Country A. Well Country D is friends with Country C so they go and fight them. And this never ends. I'm sorry. I'm more of a "peace" kind of guy What were Country A's reasons for attacking Country B? Of course, in this scenario, with no probable cause for the attack, all the other countries would get mad at country A, and they could either surrender or be defeated. The point is, other countries will ALWAYS be at war. It's absolutely unavoidable. I'm saying, if there must be war, America should stand on the side of the opressed.
It's kind of like that old economics exercise... You are a fisherman. Do you A) Fish the lake reasonably, hoping others will do the same, B) grossly underfish; you don't make much profit, but at least it doesn't matter how much the other guy fishes to you, or C) Overfish, hoping the other guy underfishes, or just agreeing to screw over everyone and the lake down the road.
Obviously, the best answer for all involved is A. But the fact is that not everyone is going to chose A.
Peace works only if others agree our problems can be solved without war. If there is that asshat that doesn't follow that, though, then the whole system blows. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:23 pm
|
|
|
|
The Singular Enigma LimeIzMyFaveColor yes i know war has helped us before but what i'm saying is we could solve problems with such violence. war can cause bitterness and then may cause people to thirst for revenge Suppose if Country A defeat Country B and Country C is friends with Country B so Country C gets mad and crushes Country A. Well Country D is friends with Country C so they go and fight them. And this never ends. I'm sorry. I'm more of a "peace" kind of guy What were Country A's reasons for attacking Country B? Of course, in this scenario, with no probable cause for the attack, all the other countries would get mad at country A, and they could either surrender or be defeated. The point is, other countries will ALWAYS be at war. It's absolutely unavoidable. I'm saying, if there must be war, America should stand on the side of the opressed.
There's many factors/reasons of why a country would go to war with another: for land/resource, religions, etc.
I do believe that we should have an army for defense and ready if war does strike.
Quote: Peace works only if others agree our problems can be solved without war. If there is that asshat that doesn't follow that, though, then the whole system blows.
It's just an idealistic dream that I have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:46 pm
|
|
|
|
The Singular Enigma LimeIzMyFaveColor yes i know war has helped us before but what i'm saying is we could solve problems with such violence. war can cause bitterness and then may cause people to thirst for revenge Suppose if Country A defeat Country B and Country C is friends with Country B so Country C gets mad and crushes Country A. Well Country D is friends with Country C so they go and fight them. And this never ends. I'm sorry. I'm more of a "peace" kind of guy What were Country A's reasons for attacking Country B? Of course, in this scenario, with no probable cause for the attack, all the other countries would get mad at country A, and they could either surrender or be defeated. The point is, other countries will ALWAYS be at war. It's absolutely unavoidable. I'm saying, if there must be war, America should stand on the side of the opressed.
Excuse me, but how is America supposed to judge which side's opressed?
I think instead of history class teachers should watch Hetalia with kids, then maybe they could start liking other countries more wink
War is always bad. And I find no excuse for it. Sadly, it is unavoidable... as long as people will let it go on like this. However it's also impossible to force peace.
"War, peace, revolution - three steps of an endless waltz" emo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:59 pm
|
|
|
|
alteregoivy Louis-Auguste Robespierre I call for the forcible eradication of all the major parties in most countries and an international democratically planned economy to develop the worlds economy on an even and efficient basis. As one could guess from the above and my sig... I am communist. I also don't live in the USA. Aw, man, you and I disagree on so many other things... but somehow we agree on this. gonk Weird. I just wish that plan could really work in real life. sweatdrop
It can work in real life. It is just that certain people want it to not work. Think, for example, how hard it is to create an egalitarian society when in one of the most backward countries on the planet which is surrounded by hostile countries that will try to undermine your efforts through military and economic intervention.
Just maintaining the existence of the society is going to take up so much that there is little left to expand the economy, especially when that economy is limited to a sharply defined geographical area. Unfortunately, defeatist elements will be able to increase their influence and even the benefits they derive from that society.
So yeah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:13 pm
|
|
|
|
Raticiel alteregoivy Louis-Auguste Robespierre I call for the forcible eradication of all the major parties in most countries and an international democratically planned economy to develop the worlds economy on an even and efficient basis. As one could guess from the above and my sig... I am communist. I also don't live in the USA. Aw, man, you and I disagree on so many other things... but somehow we agree on this. gonk Weird. I just wish that plan could really work in real life. sweatdrop I'm afraid it may never work. I do like some ideas of socialism but Rousseau's heart Social Contract is something waaaay different from, for example, situation in my country (Poland) before 1989. Trust me. And it's consequences are still making life pretty harsh here. The interesting part is that just the whole movement that started fighting with communism was pretty revolutional itself wink I don't believe in left/right at all. Politicians in my country are all corrupted and it doesn't matter which side they take. Nobody likes politicians in Poland smile And about atheism... I'm pretty sure that atheism is rather left, but I know of many conservative people that doubt religion... I think it depends on how much a person connects religious views and political views... Some people simply put those aside.
"Its consequences"?
You mean the massive increase in unemployment after the collapse of Stalinism? You mean the massive step backwards with regards to women's oppression? You mean the massive collapse of industry and widespread poverty?
All those things were consequences of the collapse of the planned economy. Even when run by Stalinists, it served the Polish people way more than capitalism has. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:15 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:29 am
|
|
|
|
Louis-Auguste Robespierre "Its consequences"? You mean the massive increase in unemployment after the collapse of Stalinism? You mean the massive step backwards with regards to women's oppression? You mean the massive collapse of industry and widespread poverty? All those things were consequences of the collapse of the planned economy. Even when run by Stalinists, it served the Polish people way more than capitalism has.
Exactly. But not only that. For example: in times of communism people, of course, were working. I'd even say: very hard working. But so what if there was no food in the shops? You couldn't even complain. Life was full of absurd. If you'd like to know how it really looked like, watch some polish comedies from that time period, Bareja's films for example.
I don't remember those times that well, I was a child, but even now I can tell from stories and from the way we are so far behind capitalistic countries. And it's not like there's no job here now, but gaining 1000zl (about 250 euro) per month is not that great, eh? The problem is that just after 89 too many big concerns started sucking blood from us. I am not an economical specialist but I see what I see. In one house lives a very rich family which own their small business and people living next door have to collect garbage in order to let their kids go to school. It's not actually poverty that spreaded out, it's lack of equality between people. And come to think of it... it was like that even before capitalism. One word: corruption. It doesn't matter if it's communism, capitalism or anything else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:49 am
|
|
|
|
Raticiel Louis-Auguste Robespierre "Its consequences"? You mean the massive increase in unemployment after the collapse of Stalinism? You mean the massive step backwards with regards to women's oppression? You mean the massive collapse of industry and widespread poverty? All those things were consequences of the collapse of the planned economy. Even when run by Stalinists, it served the Polish people way more than capitalism has. Exactly. But not only that. For example: in times of communism people, of course, were working. I'd even say: very hard working. But so what if there was no food in the shops? You couldn't even complain. Life was full of absurd. If you'd like to know how it really looked like, watch some polish comedies from that time period, Bareja's films for example. I don't remember those times that well, I was a child, but even now I can tell from stories and from the way we are so far behind capitalistic countries. And it's not like there's no job here now, but gaining 1000zl (about 250 euro) per month is not that great, eh? The problem is that just after 89 too many big concerns started sucking blood from us. I am not an economical specialist but I see what I see. In one house lives a very rich family which own their small business and people living next door have to collect garbage in order to let their kids go to school. It's not actually poverty that spreaded out, it's lack of equality between people. And come to think of it... it was like that even before capitalism. One word: corruption. It doesn't matter if it's communism, capitalism or anything else.
While there was a serious lack in consumer products (a feature of Stalinism generally) and little variation in available food, it was available.
A big problem with food, however, was the peasantry. Because there was no collectivisation (it wasn't forced like in Russia, nor did they offer incentives and try to bribe the peasants into collective farming) the peasantry horded produce, depriving the urban population of that food.
So the policies of the Stalinists did hurt heaps, but at the same time, for the mass of the population, especially women, things were way better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:34 am
|
|
|
|
Louis-Auguste Robespierre While there was a serious lack in consumer products (a feature of Stalinism generally) and little variation in available food, it was available.
Yeah, like, there were potatoes. At least people could make vodka at home. (always look at the bright side of life) Oh, and vinegar, yeah, there was vinegar. No bread, no eggs, but vinegar. And imagine what was happening when they put meat on the shelves. Queues were infinite... And you had to be friends with the seller of course.
Louis-Auguste Robespierre So the policies of the Stalinists did hurt heaps, but at the same time, for the mass of the population, especially women, things were way better.
And situation of women... well, it was a part of propaganda, to make women feel like free. But it's just an illusion, actually women had to work very hard and benefits were... um... having cheering up children? Oh please. Many women stereotypes come from those times and they're very insulting sometimes. Sorry, but practically it always looks different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:35 am
|
|
|
|
MissDemeter I am not a democrat at all. First of all, I'm Canadian, and we don't have a democratic party, we have the Liberal party, which is the same. Second, I'm definitely a socialist. Socialism all the way, bebeh! Not communism! Not communism! Communism is good in theory, but it can really only be successful in small countries. Socialism is just a middleground between communist and capitalist. The capitalists are the greedy ******** and the communists are the poor ********. I'm joking, of course. Those are both huge generalizations. But if there were a socialist party in Canada, I'd vote for them. (There are socialist independants, but... meh.) The closest I can get it NDP or Green party. I'd probs vote for the Green Party, because they want to legalize marijuana, something I'm very much for, (but I've never actually gotten high... I'm a good girl!) and also because Jack Layton (the NDP candidate) is a bit of a tool. Wow, Canadian politics in an american politics thread. WOOPS.
THe liberals are centrist, the Tories are fail and Layton is a HUGE tool no doubt about it, also the Green Party doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell and legalisation of marijuana is wrong
/political science student in a Canadian university
ALso, for the thread: I'm a radical leftist. I'm a Communist, and I score as farther left than a lot of other Commies do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:32 pm
|
|
|
|
alteregoivy Herobane ...and legalisation of marijuana is wrong Why? Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, both of which are far and away more destructive than marijuana, and at least marijuana has very good medical uses in reducing nausea and increasing appetite. Certainly, it should be regulated and restricted, like cigarettes and alcohol, but I fail to see where it is worse than either one.
I absolutely agree! The legalisation could also help to make quality better, so there wouldn't be any side effects from using it.
Let's start the mental revolution mrgreen heart |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:40 pm
|
|
|
|
Raticiel alteregoivy Herobane ...and legalisation of marijuana is wrong Why? Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, both of which are far and away more destructive than marijuana, and at least marijuana has very good medical uses in reducing nausea and increasing appetite. Certainly, it should be regulated and restricted, like cigarettes and alcohol, but I fail to see where it is worse than either one. I absolutely agree! The legalisation could also help to make quality better, so there wouldn't be any side effects from using it. Let's start the mental revolution mrgreen heart
...um... let's not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
