World War III

[ST Dragon]

Doesn`t make it okay. You know what`s more abhorrent and disgusting than being a neo-Nazi/fascist/nationalist? - Being okay with others around you subscribing to these ideologies and taking a "not my problem" approach to it.

So what should be done about all those disgusting Nazi/fascist/nationalists? What solution do you propose?

I’m no nazi.

Everything you posted in this thread suggests otherwise. You`ve got all the traits of a neo-Nazi down to the violence fetish.

Seriously What is your problem? I have no violence fetishes. Unlike you who repeatedly insulted and swore at me and even threatened me indirectly that some communist / anarchist militants would trash me or worse! Publically too!

I don't understand why you're trying to bully & threaten someone from not posting his views simply because you don't agree with them.
Isn't that fascistic & undemocratic actually?!

[system11]

Here`s a few select gems:

pathetic "Greek" of Egyptian origin

pathetic slavs

slave-like slavic

a bunch of disoriented lying Slavs

very nasty warmonger neighbors like the turks

a backward islamic turkish state

a true European nation

criminal immigrant trash

gay politicians

While most of those didn't exist possibly through editing, and some are just opinions anyway, some did. Sorry, but I don't have time to read every single post on the forum, as I say - you need to report some of these. They need to be reported when they happen.

Time is out on round 1 and St Dragon is banned for a while.

How much uglier would it have to get for you to notice? Siren was banned for less and his single N-bomb was more of an asinine way to get a reaction rather than a real expression of his political views(which doesn`t make it acceptable, of course). Is it okay to invoke nationality, ethnicity and sexual orientation to be used as slurs on this forum?

I have more tolerance for idiots than intelligent people out to cause trouble. At least with this all the fighting has been kept in one place. Do you know how many times we've had complaints about SD? I can't recall any aside from one as a result of this thread. About Siren? Every damn fortnight.

Doesn`t make it okay. You know what`s more abhorrent and disgusting than being a neo-Nazi/fascist/nationalist? - Being okay with others around you subscribing to these ideologies and taking a "not my problem" approach to it.

They're entitled to their opinion. If the Greeks do manage to elect the Golden Dawn, that's their decision. And again you roll nazi and nationalist together, intentionally implying that all nationalism is extreme. It's really quite a revolting habit. A certain amount of nationalist pride can be a good thing (try telling anyone in the armed forces regardless of race that it isn't and see how far you get), deciding that ethnic cleansing is good is not.

[Skykid]

I was always amazed by the Japanese military prowess in WWII and supported them.

Yowch!

I understand what you're getting at, just be careful who you choose to say that around. That sort of statement would call for a good old fashioned lynching round these parts.

As for the atomic bombing, of course, it's an indefensible war crime. Some of your factual stuff is a bit wrong though - the Japanese didn't run out of resources naturally, their supply line was from the US, who cut it off to prompt the Pearl Harbour attack and give them a reason to enter WWII. Bombing them was simply a neat method to get them out of the picture so attention could be directed toward Europe. That's where the big bucks were.

So the bottom line is that I still remain convinced that your statement is reckless and attempts to camouflage the real goings-on by pretending that the balance of forces occurs at some other point and for other reasons than it really does, with the apparent goal of obscuring the relative parity of needs between the superpowers, and the outsize needs of the small players in the region - and this leads to pretending that honoring friendship and freedom is ultimately a vice and not a virtue. So far, China and the U.S. have maintained amicable distance from the North Korean rhetoric and are continually refining their messages so that the prospect of war is reduced, rather than increased. Of course, even if North Korea is removed from the map as a threat, there is a further story to be told about how all the powers - the superpowers and the marginalized players - come to coexist peacefully. But I do not see how it helps to confuse the issue in a way that makes it appear only one of the players has a justifiable position. This is a petty, and again I must say - asinine - type of tactic, and totally unproductive towards the goal of peace. Of course, this does not make you an asinine or backwards person, but you should revisit these opinions which are.

Hm, very tough for me to tackle your post Ed. Quite often I feel like we're in agreement (since I can't find any specific issue with your statements) but that we have separate beliefs that are perfectly capable of existing in parallel. You believe that the US's positioning in Asia is honouring their alliances, in the name of keeping the peace; I believe that's the pretence and their are larger agendas at work.
It all comes down to one real point of debate: is NK really a threat? I can see you feel that they are, although they've done very little to prove it except shoot a few duds over the water - tests that have been going on for decades and have only recently been invested with deadly significance by the news media.

All posts

It might be because we're both miserable English gits that I can't find much fault in system11's rationale here. I do think ST Dragon overstepped the mark and has clearly allowed his domestic situation to fuel some kind of hatred, and that's a shame - but at the same time, I'm not in his situation.

We had similar issues arise here when UK residents bring up the issue of increasing multiculturalism and its social affects. I always have to remind folk that unless they're actually in the UK and sitting in the pub, their views may not be understood or appreciated by outsiders.

[Ed Oscuro]

Skykid, alright, we're getting somewhere now. A basic difference in how we're approaching this is that you seem to be looking at it from the standpoint of force equivalency, which is a polite fiction at best, whereas I (and any military, properly funded or not) will look at a necessity requiring the ability to use overwhelming force to neutralize an enemy before it can react. There is no guarantee you can "shoot the gun out of their hands" or "scare them into backing off" in the case a war starts unpredictably. This applies to conventional forces as much as to nuclear ones. Every nation views the lives of its soldiers and its own territorial integrity jealously, first of all, and it is widely understood that once two countries go to war they will escalate towards the most powerful weapons in their arsenals. As a result there is no such thing as "just enough" capability. Any attempt to squeak by with the allocation of forces may lead to forces being outstretched and large numbers of personnel being stranded or killed in an act of war, or the war effort being unable to get the job done (one of the major complaints against Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq War plan was that it relied too much on technological capabilities that were no use in securing and holding territory, which is important because enemies can run away and fight when they want).

At the same time there is also a keen understanding by all parties, certainly including North Korea, that an outright war is costly. North Korea appears to understand not only that they can extort goods from other countries through belligerent posturing instead of capturing territory for goods, but they also appear to understand a war would cause the extinction of their regime. They become discontent when other nations do not pay them ransom. North Korea is the "wild card" here only because they have found a way to appear relevant with relatively little actual strategic or conventional power (although the huge number of soldiers in the North Korean army should not be underestimated, or the decades North Korea has had to fortify their chosen battlefield; even if they do not plan to use this capability, they have to build some real potential to be enough of a problem to force other nations to accede to their demands). Given their lack of concern for fine points like respecting human rights and not carelessly murdering people just to bolster Dear Leader's popularity, it is quite clear that any sign of faltering will on the part of South Korea and its allies will be mercilessly exploited, and this has already proven actually deadly.

Right now, people in the Pentagon are worried that a war might be provoked if we assert force too much, so we are backing off somewhat in order to prevent any shows of force from being interpreted as the opening of an actual attack. However, I think it needs to be made deadly clear to the North Korean leadership that if they do something murderous that it will trigger a war - and I also believe that is exactly what they have seen. If not, we need to make it clear. If they shell another city or destroy another vessel, the South will have to exact a toll from the North Korean forces - at least this is the explicit message the South Koreans have sent to the North. In the past, the North has kidnapped groups of people and even murdered with effective impunity - I think South Korea, holding the final decision, rightly decided that they cannot keep sacrificing unlucky people to the jealous idol. The North Koreans are really pushing it this time, supposedly because the current South Korean President is from a party that has traditionally been against a soft touch on North Korean policy, at a time when it is now almost universally recognized that acceding to their demands does not really stop the provocations, and does not advance South Korean interests or secure peace for the future.

I think that the more important reason, which some people apparently missed, the North Koreans are pushing so vocally is because they realize this might be their last chance before the game is shut down for good. They may have already given up on using shows of deadly force to show their resolve, because they have been informed that any attack on South Korea like those in the past will be met, and this will almost certainly cause an escalation in tensions. I believe that the North Koreans understand the only real option available to them right now is to be especially vocal and provocative to keep everybody guessing, as they have been doing. I think the right course of action is to keep the pressure up and box the North Koreans into increasingly irrelevant actions. Ultimately, they are the only group that gives the appearance of willingness to take a step provoking a war, however, so any miscalculation or feeling of inability to reduce tensions will be deadly also. The troublesome bits are whether they will be able to accept being boxed into irrelevant actions, and whether South Korea and its allies decide not to allow development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. That last part is a decision that the United States will have to make, ultimately, independently of South Korean wishes. North Korea knows that if we decide their weapon delivery system tests will pass a redline, we will have warned them in advance what that redline is, and we will also have to strike if they do pass it (unless we will invite them to deduce that redlines and promises of retaliation are empty, leading them back to the path of feeling invincible). So far, we haven't made any redline, but sooner or later we will have to warn them that the next launch gets shot down, and they will have to stew over that. This will have to be done or else they are going to reach a point where they can use a nuclear force to try to extort the whole world, James Bond villain-style. And that will constitute the probable endgame for the brinksmanship game, and hopefully the turning of a new page in North Korean relations with the outside world. I don't see that as impossible either; there is some hope that even their military would rather accept a somewhat declining prestige than to actually get flattened completely in a war.

Besides nuclear weapons, what do they have? Of course a lot of this is based on the possibility something could happen, rather than the probability, and part of the consideration is indeed whether we have the willingness to accept some deadly provocations without retaliating, or if they can accept a retaliation without escalating into a war (they might surprise us on that count). In any case, the North Korean military poses a real threat to the people of Seoul, at the very least, and probably a threat to others in the region if any of their fighting spills over, or if their chemical weapons get out of hand. But these are the kinds of threats that seem manageable with the threat of conventional warfare - and in the rubric of conventional warfare. When we talk about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, however, we see the evolution of an asymmetric capability potentially enduring from regime to regime. If we allow them a nuclear capability they might never use it - but who knows who they'll trade with for money, or who will inherit or steal bits of that capability? And we also shouldn't forget that nuclear weapons are not the only deadly capability they have which puts anybody at risk. The South Korean leadership has been targeted for assassination by the North Koreans before. It's amazing anybody puts up with any of the uncertainty, to be frank.

So, back to the regional power game. You seem to remember that countries like China and Russia act very swiftly to condemn things which they see balancing out their own power in the region, like the Russian insistence that the United States not site an ABM shield in a nearby country, even when the ABM capability is meant to counter a country like Iran or North Korea. From their standpoint, this would potentially nullify their ability to stomp out any threat as they see fit, even if it is against a nation with which they currently hold normal relationships, like a European country or the United States, and with which every effort should be made to normalize relationships.

I do think that having massive armies and insisting (as in that example) that no counterbalancing forces be used is a mistake, because large forces can be difficult to keep in check and mistakes could be deadly to the survival of all nations. But at the moment it's a bit like a game of chicken, and many people say that if the liberal republican states swerve first, they will only validate the perception that liberal republics are weak (for example). And certainly, if you have to miscalculate, traditionally the presumption is that you should err on the side of being able to correct that mistake with forceful retaliation, rather than error which leads to being overwhelmed militarily.

[trap15]

Can I have that in post form? Essays aren't my dig.

[neorichieb1971]

It's no accident that Japan defeated them and took over their shores in WWII even though they lacked in man-power, because they were simply technologically more advanced than them.

Vastly more technologically advanced: that's why they attacked them. The country was in a state of disrepair with in-fighting on all fronts and no government. Easy pickings. The rape and butchery was a bit uncalled for though. You'll nary meet a Chinese or Korean that laments the flight of the Enola Gay.

I don't personally see why the world needs a "China" in its current day form. The mechanism is raping the West of its money. Its one of those mechanisms which works on "balance". If the tide swings too much towards China in productivity the West will lose its ability to compete. In a recent youtube I watched about submarines the UK is only building a few more to facilitate "apprentiships" so that the skills are not lost for eternity. The teachers/builders were well into their late 40's, early 50's. I also saw a documentary about vacuum cleaners, where the Dyson guy said he has to build abroad because you cannot even get a UK plug in its homeland. You have to buy it from China. WW3 is happening, on a "capitalist" front where share holders are mostly to blame.

Lol, Richie, you're behind the times a bit aren't you? You're talking like this stuff hasn't already come to pass: the Chinese have hardly been helping to solve the world's recent economic crisis, rather they're profiting from it. You realise unemployment rates in UK, Europe and US have been exacerbated by Western companies relocating their businesses, factories and infrastructure to the Chinese mainland?

If the tide swings too much towards China in productivity the West will lose its ability to compete.

That's really already happened in countless facets of industry.

WW3 is happening, on a "capitalist" front where share holders are mostly to blame.

Yes, and who invented this modern system? A flawed idealistic pursuit of profit that eventually sees you lose the fat of your land to a competitor? This is global capitalism's gaping plot hole. It's a system that encourages free enterprise even to the point of allowing domestic corporations to leave domestic territory. I can't fathom why the USA didn't create a caveat regarding this in the 1950's, but by the time it was even a "what if?" I assume the corporations already had too much power in govt. to allow their growth to ever be restricted.

On a separate note, on a recent visit to China it is plain to see where all their money is going. It seems to me that Macau is now the "Las Vegas" of the East where wealth is just oozing out of the pavement. In Jackie Chans hotel there, their are golden 24 carat bricks in the floor surrounding the lobby/reception area under bullet proof glass. That was 2010. I will post a pic when I get back home lol.

Er, Macau is not the best indication of newfound wealth. Certainly not a representation of the country by a long chalk. Macau is an arm of Hong Kong and enjoyed similar sovereign liberties outside of mainland control. It's been rich for decades, and always been known as the east's Las Vegas. It's not really Chinese tbh:

"The Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, Macau's constitution promulgated by China's National People's Congress in 1993, specify that Macau's social and economic system, lifestyle, rights, and freedoms are to remain unchanged for at least 50 years after the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1999.[9] Under the principle of "one country, two systems", Macau enjoys a high degree of autonomy in all areas except in defence and foreign affairs.[9] Macau officials, rather than PRC officials, run Macau through the exercise of separate executive, legislative, and judicial powers, as well as the right to final adjudication.[44] Macau maintains its own separate currency, customs territory, immigration and border controls, and police force.[45][46]"

China has broken capitalism and nobody is taking any notice.

Broken capitalism? When was it ever reliable? On the contrary, the Chinese are playing the system and all its corrupt loopholes beautifully, like an Olympic gold medal performance.

One thing I don't get is your concern about 'balance'. There's no balance in the war of commerce, it's a battlefield. As much as the US is trying to impose trading sanctions on China to keep it more favourable toward their own interests, it's not a fight they're winning. This is the way the world restructures, it's a semi-natural phenomenon, no point in fighting it.

Hi Skykid,

I don't keep up with the news as much as some of you. I only write about what I see. I maybe behind on my knowledge but I am seeing the rift affect many peoples lives. You say things like there is no turning back, likes its a futile situation. If capitalism is your throat and China already has a tight grip around it, how long is it before you can't breathe? Maybe someone needs to invent an airhole in your ass so that we can breathe from another place. With most big companies being share holding companies, its obvious to me that within 10 years or so it will be China holding the shares, since they can afford to buy them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are too many people in the world. There are also (dare I say it) is that there are too many goods on the market as well. There is too much waste as well. For every man that needs 3 phones, for every woman that needs 25 pairs of shoes, WTF man! All that shit is being imported.

I've personally boycotted Nike and Gap. What they are doing to Indonesia is a crime. I'm not paying £60 for a pair of trainers that the makers get something like 20p a day. Thats not right and I won't support that. It stated in the youtube I watched that Tiger Woods makes more money from Nike than probably the whole Nike Indonesian work force. What kind of shit is that?

Its these fuckers that say "God Bless America" and have this religious church going ethic. Makes me sick. They are more evil than the devil himself. In Contrast, China has beautifully minded people. They just don't care that their empire is being built whilst ours is crumbling. Why should they care, we don't!!!!!

[Ed Oscuro]

Can I have that in post form? Essays aren't my dig.

The high points: Right now there appears to be more pressure on North Korea and less flexibility for them to provoke concessions by acting out, because South Koreans tire of constant terrorism and extortion. Likewise, North Korea faces a future critical point where the United States or any other country may unilaterally decide that its nuclear weapons and delivery program represents an inadmissible risk. It seems preferable to keep pressure on North Korea relatively high so they do not return to the tactic of deadly provocations and murders in order to appear dangerous. However, quite separate from this game of brinksmanship is the question of whether nations facing North Korea can afford to take any assurance in "how the game is played" - any mistake could cause a deadly confrontation and this would quickly spiral out of control into a war enveloping the Korean peninsula.

As with the case of nuclear weapons, where the risk presented by even an accident is unacceptable, a standoff with conventional weapons can also present an unacceptable risk: At some point the decision could be taken that failure to respond to deadly provocations was not acceptable, either because it was unsustainable (i.e. too deadly - not likely), was not leading to the eventual de-escalation of the conflict (most likely), or simply not acceptable to the people making the decisions (for whatever reasons, i.e. moral or political reasons).

You may take different lessons from the same set of principles, based on what facts emerge. Some might prefer leniency, others prefer increasing pressure in order to narrow the North Korean ability to return to deadly policies.

The history and unique circumstances of North Korean provocation also means that I do not think Skykid's attempt to explain the buildup around North Korea in terms of China-US competition is very useful or even very honest, especially if one takes into account that history did not prove the U.S. wrong to side with South Korea. I do not pass judgment here on China, as it happened under different leadership entirely. However the North Korean state cannot be considered a great accomplishment of the Chinese (and, although this is hindsight, the American decision to push the North Koreans nearly into China).

Its these fuckers that say "God Bless America" and have this religious church going ethic. Makes me sick. They are more evil than the devil himself. In Contrast, China has beautifully minded people. They just don't care that their empire is being built whilst ours is crumbling. Why should they care, we don't!!!!!

Dear Sir,

This passage cannot be much better than what ST Dragon got in trouble for. (I'm not going to report it though, because I still think that maybe we can have some decent discussion.)

But let me put it to you: Is it saying "God Bless America," going to church, and having a work ethic that is bad? Or is it something else? If you're going to try to slam my country, at least find something to complain about that makes sense. Like the stuff in your preceding sentences, which I understand.

[O. Van Bruce]

I don't think he was refering to the whole american people. Anyway, you can't help to hate the same people (and I'm refering to the fat cats) that have imposed to the world an economical system that ultimately only benefit then. And those guys are famous for their hipocrisy and for being uber religious.

[DEL]

Jonathan Ingram wrote:

Doesn`t make it okay. You know what`s more abhorrent and disgusting than being a neo-Nazi/fascist/nationalist? - Being okay with others around you subscribing to these ideologies and taking a "not my problem" approach to it.

System 11 wrote;

They're entitled to their opinion. If the Greeks do manage to elect the Golden Dawn, that's their decision. And again you roll nazi and nationalist together, intentionally implying that all nationalism is extreme. It's really quite a revolting habit. A certain amount of nationalist pride can be a good thing (try telling anyone in the armed forces regardless of race that it isn't and see how far you get), deciding that ethnic cleansing is good is not.

I'm with System 11 here. The cabal that runs the West are pushing hard against nationalism. Removing all presidents who are running their countries as traditional nations. Hugo Chavez is a prime example of this. He was running his own country and his people were doing well because of it. Next nationalist country fo the chop is North Korea. They will take Kim down and install one of their club-member puppets as the new President.
As I've mentioned before, never trust a single word in the 100% controlled mainstream media. The aggression won't be from North Korea. It is from the above-mentioned cabal.
By the way, I have never agreed with a single post by Jonathan Ingram in the last 6 years.

[Ed Oscuro]

And those guys are famous for their hipocrisy and for being uber religious.

Steve Jobs?

@ DEL:

Surely installing a puppet (even though this wouldn't happen: A reunified Korea would run with the current President as the chief figure) would still be better than the Stalinist ultra-paradise of free unprovoked killings and rape being run inside the country? Not to mention we wouldn't have to worry so much about the primitive North Korean nuclear tests spreading radioactive material across a good part of the Sea of China.

For clarity, you should edit the part of your post where you write "Removing all presidents who are running their countries as traditional nations" to "In a state of contentious detente with all fake presidents who run their countries as their personal fiefs." I am not on the side of the budget-balancing sky-is-falling lot, but what Chavez was doing wasn't just unsustainable, it was pitting the classes against each other, splitting the country apart. But he died, without assistance from the U.S. at that. Fidel still lives, too. Ahmadinejad? He is danger of falling in it for entirely domestic Iranian reasons, and he doesn't hold real powers anyway. There isn't much evidence for this myth that the U.S. runs around and harasses these guys. If anything the harassment is very one-sided and we mostly try to ignore it.

As I've mentioned before, never trust a single word in the 100% controlled mainstream media. [...]
By the way, I have never agreed with a single post by Jonathan Ingram in the last 6 years.

LOL. You have no idea what you're saying, at all. Jon has also got a bone to pick with the mainstream media (especially when it comes to "revisionism concerning Stalin.")

Sorry DEL...but here's what you look like: Just another weak mind who loves to spout off generalities and absolute statements without any clue what he's actually saying, that he's contradicting himself, and without any respect for the process of revealing the truth by careful studies and statements. And really, it shouldn't be hard to find clues contradicting the prevailing (correct) reporting if there was some truth to it; you're just being contemptibly lazy in believing whatever you want without having to go through the trouble of bothering to find out if it's true.

[neorichieb1971]

neorichieb1971 wrote:
Its these fuckers that say "God Bless America" and have this religious church going ethic. Makes me sick. They are more evil than the devil himself. In Contrast, China has beautifully minded people. They just don't care that their empire is being built whilst ours is crumbling. Why should they care, we don't!!!!!

Dear Sir,

This passage cannot be much better than what ST Dragon got in trouble for. (I'm not going to report it though, because I still think that maybe we can have some decent discussion.)

But let me put it to you: Is it saying "God Bless America," going to church, and having a work ethic that is bad? Or is it something else? If you're going to try to slam my country, at least find something to complain about that makes sense. Like the stuff in your preceding sentences, which I understand.

I would slam my own country for living it up at the expense of others lack of choice to work for peanuts whilst the profits get poured into everything except where the profits came from. I am sure the UK has examples. The fact is the Americans act like they are not guilty of sin and that God was created only for them. For the record, I am not talking about Americans in general, just the ones that count. Especially your politicians who when voted in, say the magic words "God Bless you, and God Bless America". They say those words perfectly well knowing the world is a cruel place.

You know when you grow up as a kid with your siblings. Your mother would dish out dinner and offer equal portions. When pocket money was given, it was given in equal portions. No favoritism. At what point does a business man say "99% for me, and 1% for you". Where does a man or woman go from that family upbringing to the mentality of screwing other people into the ground just so they can live in a big house? With exotic cars? Sexy playmates?

The real world is nothing like we experienced as children. Everything we were taught was a lie or totally obsolete. The only thing you need to learn at school and from your parents is "get big, shit on the small guy and live in ignorant bliss". If you get a head start on that game, your set for life with a few strategic and rewarding decisions.

Oh yeah, then when you learnt all that. Go to church on a Sunday to meet people that do the same. Whatever country your from.

[Ed Oscuro]

Good to hear that there aren't any good Americans "that count."

I get right pissed over this imbecility because instead of focusing on things that are actually in our power to change, DEL says either that there aren't even phantoms to chase after so we probably shouldn't care anyway, or (even worse) that the truth is out there, but not worth going for; you're saying that the test of a bad American is if they have money. Well, I'll tell you what - in the area where I live we've got some wealthy people buying cars, and others donating their time and energy to help troubled young people learn life skills. We've got some poor people trying to get their lives sorted, but we've also got some sawing off carburetors or wrenching $1000 copper wiring installations for school lighting for the few dollars in scrap value.

If I went to one local church, in fact, I would run into some of those same people who are running a program that is helping young people. I don't know if the people who are running the program are actually religious; the church has still let them use the facilities and given them a lot of support. It is making a difference in people's lives, unlike your rather unimpressive story.

It is a shame that these simplistic and hateful narratives you guys are trying to spread do the very thing you set out to revolt against - they take away the personality of the individual and replace them with a stereotype based on a warped narrative version of the world. The only difference, as far as I can see, is that this animated some people to do great justice, and it animates you fellow to be mentally complacent.

And then I have to deal with the people on the right.

*goes to watch the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" music video for 12 hours straight*

[Obiwanshinobi]

Can't say I'm following the thread at this point (first I was out of internet for a couple of days, then couldn't be bothered reading through a number of rather long posts).
Just saying that people who believe peaceful nationalism is the future could use some studies on Israel (XXI-st century and counting).
As for North Korea, "slave labourers" wasn't just a figure of speech. If there are North Korean diplomatic outposts where you live, you can hire North Korean workers no problem. See, revolutionary for a day, in dearth of foreign currency for a lifetime (XXI-st century and counting).

[O. Van Bruce]

Ed please, you are taking things too far. I haven't thought for a moment that your usual guy on the street isn't generous or active to help their comunity... in fact, I think people from the USA are amongst the more concerned about their comunity.

But unfortunately, the ones that run the USA aren't like that and nowadays they are the ones that are driving our planet to a place in which the only valuable trait will be how much money you have. Let me remind you that the international financial crisis we have now was triggered by how those "investors" from your country inflated the market and deceived millions of USA citizens. And when the USA stumbles, the rest of the world do so almost inmediatly.

And those guys are famous for their hipocrisy and for being uber religious.

Steve Jobs?

Steve jobs isn't an example of the people I was refering too. He was the CEO of one of the most innovative and influential companies of our era. They produce most of their Ipad, Ipod and Macs in China but at least they are a productive and creative force in the world.

What I was refering to is the speculators and people that trade with money (specially other people's money) to make huge benefits from nothing. Returning to Greece, did you know how the greek debt became that huge? I can't explain it as well as how it was explained to me (mainly because I'm no economist and second, it was explained to me in spanish) but the big highlights were:

- You take a little country everyone is starting to panic like Greece

- You acumulate bonds of that country in a secretive way.

- You use your friends in the rating agencies to decrease the rating of their debt.

- the market opens in the morning, you exacerbate the panic by selling lots and lots of bonds. The small investors follow you because they panic thinking that "if that giant is selling then it must exist a reason".

- As a result not only the value of the bonds decay, but also the country that emits those bonds have it more difficult to finance himself and sell bonds. In this case, Greece had to sell their bonds at a higher interest.

- At the end of the day, you recover the bonds you sold using satelite buyers. Now, every bond is 70% or even more cheaper. You have made a huge benefit.

- You make even more benefit buying bonds at a higher interest from the attacked country.


--- Repeat more times... and you know what is the best? that Greece won't fall to bakruptucy because the EU will not let that happen = your "investment" is completely secure... even at the cost of the Greek welfare state and millions of unemployed... you'll get your money back with full benefits.

[Jonathan Ingram]

Seriously What is your problem? I have no violence fetishes.

Playing stupid now? You are the one who posted the disturbing up close shots of beat up and bloodied people on page 6 of this thread. With smilies, no less.

And again you roll nazi and nationalist together, intentionally implying that all nationalism is extreme. It's really quite a revolting habit.

Many of the far-right groups, parties and organizations prefer to identify as nationalist instead of fascist or Nazi due to the stigma associated with the latter two, hence my inclusion of the term. Members of the Hungarian extreme-right Jobbik party organize Roma hunts, firebomb their housings and kill the residents, but choose to portray themselves as nationalists or patriots rather than Nazis. Golden Dawn is the same way - talk and act like a Nazi, but reject the allegations of being one. Admittedly, there are more moderate nationalists out there like Le Pen`s National Front and True Finns, but I was specifically talking about the more extreme cases.

Jon has also got a bone to pick with the mainstream media (especially when it comes to "revisionism concerning Stalin.")

A straight up lie if there ever was one. I don`t recall mentioning Stalin much here at all(especially in the context of revisionism and anti-revisionism), let alone putting a positive spin on his actions. Some quotes would be appreciated.

Hugo Chavez is a prime example of this. He was running his own country and his people were doing well because of it.

Where`s the consistency? In that one "documentary" that you posted it was made clear that socialism is an Illuminati project and that Hegel, Marx and Lenin were all Freemasons and Illuminati agents. You seem to uphold that view. So I ask, why the exception for Chavez?

[DEL]

Jonathan Ingram wrote;

You seem to uphold that view. So I ask, why is the exception for Chavez?

Well I'm sure I can learn from you on this one. Was Chavez a club member towing the Globalist line?

[Jonathan Ingram]

For the entirety of his three terms Chavez presided over a state that was as much a part of the global capitalist system as any other country, allowed for the presence of both national and foreign private capital and traded with other capitalist nations(including the US). A Latin Olaf Palme in military gear.

I`m paging the Illuminati HQ to check if they still have his old membership card around. I`m thinking yes.

[Skykid]

I've been putting off replying to this thread all day.

Ed, it's just too much to try to digest. What I managed to get is the same thing I always do, and that's that you're extremely well read in current events, but you seem to have the utmost faith in various news agencies to provide a clear and honest picture of the intentions and reactions of world leaders. I don't.
I've trawled Youtube for 40 minutes looking for the program discussing North Korea's actual threat level versus the media version: it was a very interesting news article/interview that would help to fill in the gaps where my few paragraphs have failed, if I could remember where I saw the blasted thing.

No biggie.

I maybe behind on my knowledge but I am seeing the rift affect many peoples lives. You say things like there is no turning back, likes its a futile situation.

I'm perplexed by your notion that there's anything that can be done to affect the axis of economic power short of full scale war.

Look, when the US was economic top dog, you couldn't move them for love nor money. It takes a few serious idiot presidents, a corrupt bank/corporate owned congress, and a worldwide financial crisis to even create a serious wobble. Just because the US's power has financially propped up much of the west, including the UK, you're suddenly in fear that economic power is moving to Asia? I don't see why, really - everyone has their day in the sun. Britain had it's empire, lost it, the US had theirs, losing it, now China will take control for a while, and then lose it to someone else. I don't think you should be afraid of Chinese economic power though, they're (at least for now) far less war-mongering than the previous chart topper. If it stays that way (fingers crossed) that's good news for arab people, indigenous tribes and banana republics everywhere.

I've personally boycotted Nike and Gap. What they are doing to Indonesia is a crime. I'm not paying £60 for a pair of trainers that the makers get something like 20p a day. Thats not right and I won't support that. It stated in the youtube I watched that Tiger Woods makes more money from Nike than probably the whole Nike Indonesian work force. What kind of shit is that?

You kind of illustrate the answer to your own question. Your anecdote is capitalism in its purest, corrupt and flawed form. It's never been perfect, and never will be. Who has the highest status in the global economy is almost irrelevant. The UK economy isn't about to tank as a result of Chinese power, you'll just see more industrial ties being made to increase employment.

In Contrast, China has beautifully minded people. They just don't care that their empire is being built whilst ours is crumbling. Why should they care, we don't!!!!!

Lol, they really don't care, but it's not in their interest to see foreign markets destroyed, you realise that right? If the UK goes bankrupt, for example, they're going to lose a vast proportion of export trade. There's a balance to keep.

Your idea of China being like Macau is way out of line though, I can't stress that enough. It's still a developing country - you need to ignore all the economic success and keep that in perspective. One of the largest land masses and one of the largest populations to bring out of a chronic mire. It's an incredibly difficult job, and being tackled impressively quickly considering the complexity involved. The RMB's strength blows my mind: there are things here that cost more than in the UK, and people have more cash to burn than I do. My GF's dad told me when I got here, don't be fooled by people's appearances, they might not look rich, but they're rolling in it: there are probably more rich people in the city than in the UK. At first I really took it with a pinch of salt. Now I've learned to discern a lot more about the culture, I can only say it was a wholly (unbelievably) accurate statement.

Of course with capitalism being a horribly flawed system, not everyone gets a slice of the pie, since it needs someone to be punished for others to succeed. I look right, I might see a guy eating out of a dustbin and a kid with no arms busking with his feet on the street corner; I look left and there are guys driving around in Chevrolets, Buicks and Jeeps with almost limitless cash flow.

Sometimes if you stop in the middle of the street and squint just a little, you can really see the future - but there's a long way to go.

[DEL]

Jonathan Ingram wrote;

For the entirety of his three terms Chavez presided over a state that was as much a part of the global capitalist system as any other country, allowed for the presence of both national and foreign private capital and traded with other capitalist nations(including the US). A Latin Olaf Palme in military gear.

I`m paging the Illuminati HQ to check if they still have his old membership card around. I`m thinking yes.

Ok
I'm just noticing a pattern. The very obvious pattern of nations with independant leaders being taken down. Yes mostly dictators, but running their own countries nevertheless. I'm certainly not defending Dictators and from what I know of Chavez, I am not including him as one.
To name a few:
Hosni Mubarak
Muammar Gaddafi
Bashar al-Assad (ongoing)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (to follow)
King Hamad - Bahrain (ongoing)
Hugo Chávez
Kim Jong-un (starting)

Now couple this with the Kabbalah video : http://tv.kabbalah.info/video/20-ideas/ ... 9t-all-bad
Especially at 1:18 and what it says (in no uncertain terms) below the vid: "Any country that does not follow the law of nature and adopt a common set of economic rules respecting interdependency will fall."

Put these things together and you get a clear picture of who is making these national leaders fall.

Now what I'm saying is that the ultimate aim of the cabal is a Global Dictatorship that will make the Regimes in some of the countries above seem pleasant

[Moniker]

Now what I'm saying is that the ultimate aim of the cabal is a Global Dictatorship that will make the Regimes in some of the countries above seem pleasant

[trap15]

Now what I'm saying is that the ultimate aim of the cabal is a Global Dictatorship that will make the Regimes in some of the countries above seem pleasant

This sucks!

[Moniker]

Now what I'm saying is that the ultimate aim of the cabal is a Global Dictatorship that will make the Regimes in some of the countries above seem pleasant

This sucks!

Uhh... he just said "dick-tater"... heheheh

[Ed Oscuro]

but you seem to have the utmost faith in various news agencies to provide a clear and honest picture of the intentions and reactions of world leaders.

lol no

Also, I summarized my post for trap15, and it might help you understand my issue with your post too, although I wrote a bit less about why I think you're wrong to confuse the Korean situation with the larger competition between the US and China, and why it's also wrong to allege that the US is the villain in this. I'm not asking anybody to be trusting of any one particular thing, or even one type of thing.

It's as simple as this: You see something once. Then you see something again. And again. And again and again...the laws of probability means that when you see a story supported in many different ways, and remain coherent without obvious gaps, it's reasonable to assume that it's probably true. I don't see any evidence you guys use this type of justification for what you are saying. Either it's "I only read things that agree with me, so of course I'm right" or, even worse, "my name is DEL and I didn't read anything to begin with, but I know what I think!" Do the laws of probability guarantee something? No, but applying my own reason to evidence I collect has proven a lot more useful than just taking what lazy or stupid people on the Internet say as gospel truth, simply because they are very agitated and seem very certain.

Take conspiracies...I think Jon Ingram agrees with me that using simplistic conspiracy theories in place of a real theory of what is happening is trying to get too much mileage from a story that doesn't have the horsepower to really explain things. The law of probabilities is at work here: While nobody can rule out that there exists a conspiracy (for example) that is so good at what it does that there are no leaks in its story, we have good reasons not to believe such a theory. In many cases, it's merely an accident of history that a conspiracy theory has caught on. DEL talks about "the cabal," but what about aliens? An ancient Mayan civilization hidden from the world? Atlantis? Hypnotic dolphins? Does the first thing you read or hear, or what people near you tend to say / write, have more credibility than something you didn't bother looking up?

All I'm seeing from you guys is idle speculation, with no sources to back it up - not even disreputable sources, so far. There is a lot of room to improve this.

The flip side is that I have stressed repeatedly that I don't think my country can do no wrong, but people keep saying things that make it seem as if there are only heroes and villains in the world, instead of people who can be judged in many different ways according to many different criteria. I do care that people have the "right" perspective about things, but I care more that people actually try to find the facts so that they can judge things. You can't even begin to judge somebody if you accuse them of things that aren't remotely true.

[Ed Oscuro]

Jon has also got a bone to pick with the mainstream media (especially when it comes to "revisionism concerning Stalin.")

A straight up lie if there ever was one. I don`t recall mentioning Stalin much here at all(especially in the context of revisionism and anti-revisionism), let alone putting a positive spin on his actions. Some quotes would be appreciated.

Yeah, that's the spirit, everything is a malicious lie! You idiot.

I should change "Stalin" to "Mao" there, that should fix my mistake - and what I said to DEL will remain true. Mischaracterizing what you have written about Stalin is, of course, a personal affront and I didn't mean it. However, what I said isn't totally baseless or unreasonable to have remembered:

It is especially nauseating that you would choose to glorify Stalin of all people - that takes some real crust...

Didn`t happen in this thread and couldn`t happen. The Marxist tendency I subscribe to is critical of the man. But I might just start upholding even him in a conversation with a reactionary like yourself. I do, after all, have infinitely less contempt for him than for people of your political beliefs(it pains me to admit that about 12 years ago my views were no different from yours, but traveling around the world, seeing how people live and talking with them thankfully changed my views to diametrically opposite and made me embrace the system based on common good and cooperation as opposed to the one based on upholding private property, the individual rights tied to it and the neverending pursuit of profits at the expense of everything else).

But really, nothing you can do from here on out will begin to dig yourself out of this pit of Stalin (or, I should say, sralin) worship

Point me to where I said anything positive about him let alone worshiped him or just kindly shut up. And even those on the left who do uphold the man are not necessarily worshipers. They may be mistaken in their positive assessment of his theoretical contributions and his role in socialist construction, but worshipers they are not(at least certainly not as much as those who talk about "Western democracies" whenever they can and believe in the holy tenets of the laissez faire capitalism).

i.e., even a monster aiming for the ends of communism is a preferable model to "those (unspecified) who talk about" democracy (with the rather useless specification it is "Western democracy," instead of republican self-government, or something along that end, as if there are no fans of democracy who have issues with implementation, economic tenets, or other issues; of course this just shows you willing to afford shades of grey to your own party but not offer the same generosity of spirit to people you don't like, which is a dishonest tactic).

Even more straightforwardly:

I didn't say that. I'm sure somebody will say the same with regard to Stalin, of course. It doesn't excuse the severe disinterest in the people's well-being the regime showed.

No doubt about it. I`m sure you`ll make up excuses for "Western democracies" and the abominable system they represent any day of the week while pointing fingers at Mao and Stalin who are but petty crooks compared to the real monsters.

It's no secret that I'm going senile and tend to forget things, but don't intend to do so maliciously and I will face the truth.

Meanwhile, there is that little matter of your accusing (assuming, more like) me of being a lassiez-faire capitalist, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever (because you won't find me uttering such sentiments, including in relation to socialism).

Anyway, this was an unfortunate mistake on my part and a diversion from the main story, which is that DEL made an assertion that cannot possibly be true. I just picked your name out because it seemed convenient.

[O. Van Bruce]

man, why do I have to be on the PSP right now?

Ed, we live inside the system and it has perfected itself to the point that it doesn't need to use the same methods as Stalin or Mao. furthermore, the real cruelty of capitalism can only be seen in the 3rd world countries.

DEL, there is no real conspiracy, just a set of values that have developed throughout the years and people that have noticed that those values are convinient.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed, we live inside the system and it has perfected itself to the point that it doesn't need to use the same methods as Stalin or Mao. furthermore, the real cruelty of capitalism can only be seen in the 3rd world countries.

Reasonable enough, except we don't need to believe that the system dooms other countries to poor living standards. There are some reforms we could (and arguably should) be looking at.

[Moniker]

Ed, we live inside the system and it has perfected itself to the point that it doesn't need to use the same methods as Stalin or Mao. furthermore, the real cruelty of capitalism can only be seen in the 3rd world countries.

Reasonable enough, except we don't need to believe that the system dooms other countries to poor living standards. There are some reforms we could (and arguably should) be looking at.

Yup. Such reforms may include:

• Protection of private property, particularly from the government
  Universal suffrage, transparent elections, competitive politics
  Industrialization
  Transparent banking, anti-trust regulation
  Minimum wage, workplace safety, and age-restricted labor
  Free education, secular public sphere
  Reasonable social safety net

That'd be a good start.

[Skykid]

Ed, we live inside the system and it has perfected itself to the point that it doesn't need to use the same methods as Stalin or Mao. furthermore, the real cruelty of capitalism can only be seen in the 3rd world countries.

Reasonable enough, except we don't need to believe that the system dooms other countries to poor living standards.

Huh? Pretty sure it's doomed quite a few countries to poor living standards, especially when a deal is made with the govt. (by force or arranged coup) so that the Corporations can move in, claim their resources and privatise the water supplies of people who can't even afford shoes.

It's as simple as this: You see something once. Then you see something again. And again. And again and again...the laws of probability means that when you see a story supported in many different ways, and remain coherent without obvious gaps, it's reasonable to assume that it's probably true.

Not always - this is probably the clincher in our inability to agree and instead be forced to meet halfway. I don't really consider, for example, the continued presence of NK in the news media of late to guarantee they're an imminent threat, in the same way every time Dubya and Blare came on TV to talk to me about Wepponz of Mazz Destruction in Iraq, it was because there were, in-fact, none present. Didn't stop them from bombing everyone, weedling the leader out for a lynching, and reducing the population's living standards to rubble and corpses in the process.

Just a quick question: do you believe Julian Assange is a rapist or the victim of a smear campaign designed to have him extradited and incarcerated for spearheading leaks of US government documentation?

[MJR]

Sorry, but I don't have time to read every single post on the forum, as I say - you need to report some of these. They need to be reported when they happen.

And for this reason, I'll forgive you. For a while I thought that you were aware of them but chose to ignore it, because you had already participated in the thread. That's why I was so angry. And as for our differences with opinion - you are not as bad as st.dragon was so I can live with that.

I'm not completely turning my back on this forum because I got highscores to maintain, I'd rather avoid these conversations. Was going to, but this all was bit too much.

[Jonathan Ingram]

i.e., even a monster aiming for the ends of communism is a preferable model to "those (unspecified) who talk about" democracy (with the rather useless specification it is "Western democracy," instead of republican self-government, or something along that end, as if there are no fans of democracy who have issues with implementation, economic tenets, or other issues; of course this just shows you willing to afford shades of grey to your own party but not offer the same generosity of spirit to people you don't like, which is a dishonest tactic).

Another giant mischaracterization haphazardly strung together and extrapolated from different parts of the original post.

with the rather useless specification it is "Western democracy"

Western democracy, liberal democracy or, to use a different lingo, a dictatorship of the bourgeois. If I had simply typed democracy, it would`ve given the wrong idea that I`m opposed to any democracy on principle which is not the case. I`m only against liberal democracy which I consider undemocratic by design. It needed to be specified.

as if there are no fans of democracy who have issues with implementation, economic tenets, or other issues

There`s the key and most divisive issue to consider - the issue of property. If there`s no agreement on that, then there`s no common ground to stand on with other "fans of democracy".

Even more straightforwardly:

So?

An unfortunate, but objective excess of the degradation of the revolutionary process in Russia on one hand - Stalin, or a country that did its best to stifle and destroy any socially progressive movements in the world for the better part of the 20th century, organized countless coups, installed a variety of nasty right-wing regimes around the world, dropped a nuke on two Japanese cities, spilled an ocean of Napalm and Agent Orange on Vietnam, carpet bombed Korea and Cambodia and backed the horrific anti-PKI massacre in Indonesia on the other - the US.

See, it`s all relative. You`re probably aware of the relation between Marxism and morality anyway(or not, considering how it irked you that someone had a different view of Maoist China than you), so I`m not sure why you had to bring that up again.

And again, about that pesky Stalin. He(and Mao) may be a monster to you, a middle class citizen of a first-world country, but a folklore hero of sorts and a shining beacon of hope to millions of the oppressed somewhere in Nepal, Bangladesh and India(unlike, say, your personal favorite imperialist Churchill who you go quoting around like he`s some sort of champion of human rights and democracy). To me, he is neither.

To illustrate my point:

I just picked your name out because it seemed convenient.

Would be swell if you stopped doing that in the future.